|
1
|
|
|
2
|
- Acquisition and re-integration with the Greater Bolsa Chica ecosystem
- Restoration of the wetlands, functioning as a natural treatment system
- Filtration of urban runoff that would otherwise flow into Huntington
Harbour
|
|
3
|
- Type I -- Offline
- Type II -- Inline
- Type III -- Co-located Within
Detention Basins
|
|
4
|
- Increased traffic problems
- Increased flood threat
- Increased water pollution
- Fire response deficiencies
- Miscellaneous other concerns
|
|
5
|
|
|
6
|
- Graham Street already congested at peak periods
- Congestion will be worsened by:
- Marine View gym (in progress)
- Parkside (proposed)
- Hearthside/Fieldstone (proposed)
- Circulation Alternative B needed to reduce the additional burden on
Graham Street!
|
|
7
|
- The EIR proposes left-turn median striping to mitigate Graham congestion
- But drivers are already using a de-facto left-turn median of their own
creation
- So painting some extra lines in the middle of Graham won’t change
anything!
- How about conditioning for a traffic signal at Graham & Glenstone
instead?
|
|
8
|
- Moderate traffic noise already from cars “punching it” on northbound
Graham to get over the Wintersburg bridge
- A signal at Parkside will cause the same kind of noise for southbound
Graham
- The EIR only discusses CNEL generalities without mentioning this traffic
noise!
- CNEL inaccurate due to stale traffic study
|
|
9
|
- Backups caused by the Parkside signal will create left turn delays when
exiting Kenilworth onto northbound Graham
- Southbound cars waiting at the signal will cause dangerous visibility
problems
- “Keep Intersection Clear” striping won’t solve the visibility problem
|
|
10
|
- Warner Ave data collected in 1994 and 1996
- Graham Street data collected in 1996
- Traffic counts that are 6-8 years stale do not accurately represent
current traffic levels!
- Some projected counts are dubious…
|
|
11
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
20
|
- Pump #5 apparently added illegally
- Bob Righetti insists no permits are needed for the new Shea pumps
- But the County insists that permits are REQUIRED!
- 05/27/98 County letter DEIR comment
- 09/04/02 County letter to Public Works
|
|
21
|
- City insists the original 1964 Slater Pump Station permit covers new
Shea pumps
- Even though conditions have changed greatly in the past 4 decades, no
new permit will be sought from the County
- The County has ultimate authority over the Wintersburg and should be
consulted
|
|
22
|
- County required an automated stilling well throttle-back sensor for the
Shields Pump Station to protect the Wintersburg
- No County permit and no such sensor planned for the Slater Pump Station
- The Slater Pump Station should be held to the same modern safety
standards as the Shields Pump Station!
|
|
23
|
- Parkside adds to runoff in Slater Channel, so the pump station will be
expanded…
- …but the County may require throttle-back limits to protect the
Wintersburg Channel from overflowing
- Therefore if the Wintersburg is full, the new Slater pumps may not
operate, thus increasing the risk of a Slater Channel flood
|
|
24
|
|
|
25
|
- Parkside runoff north of the Wintersburg will be sent south to the
Slater Channel
- Existing Slater neighborhoods will be at risk during El Nino-class
storms at Wintersburg high tide
- Shifting the risk burden to other neighborhoods is bad public policy,
and so are single point of failure designs!
|
|
26
|
|
|
27
|
- Slater Channel is essentially an urban runoff detention basin
- Water evaporation results in concentrated pollution left behind in the
channel
- Parkside will increase the number of pumping days where this
concentrated brew is sent down the Wintersburg
- This scenario NOT mentioned in the EIR!
|
|
28
|
- Shea’s enhanced urban runoff water treatment won’t be finalized until
the grading permit is issued so that the best future technology may be
selected
- No opportunity for public input on this critical matter!
- Today’s “tried & true” can be better than tomorrow’s “bleeding edge”
|
|
29
|
|
|
30
|
- 303(d) pollutant limits will be established in the 2006-2010 timeframe,
according to the Santa Ana RWQCB
- Adding Parkside pollution today will make it harder and more expensive
to meet these limits tomorrow
- HB will be stuck paying the clean-up bill, not Shea!
|
|
31
|
|
|
32
|
- “Station 6 has a consistent response time of 4 mintue 30 seconds to the
intersection of Slater and Graham.” (F.D. Memo 9/4/02)
- Estimates consist of driving under normal conditions + one (1) minute of
firefighter preparation. (per conversation 9/6/02 with Fire Division
Chief Burney)
|
|
33
|
- Response tests conducted from Edwards Station are only “to the
intersection of Slater and Graham.
This intersection is at the northerly boundary of the deficient
area.” (F.D. Memo 9/4/02)
- “Tests conducted by the Fire Department demonstrate that Station #6 is
capable of meeting the 5 minutes emergency response time for the
project.” (Parkside EIR Errata)
|
|
34
|
|
|
35
|
|
|
36
|
- Relocation proposed since the 1970’s.
- Desire for relocation is to better serve the northern, industrial end of
the city.
- Even the EIR Errata still admits, “Additional impacts to current
response times are anticipated with relocation of the fire station.”
|
|
37
|
- Production Station response time to Felson Circle (SE of Graham/Slater)
is about 5 minutes 15 seconds.
- Production Station response time to Bates Circle (SW of Graham/Slater)
is about 5 minutes 25 seconds.
|
|
38
|
- Warner Station does not meet response times.
- Edwards Station is “confident” that it can meet response times, but that
is not yet official—still collecting real response data—and we feel is
questionable based upon our tests.
- When Heil Station relocates, more doubt enters the time response picture
for South Graham/Slater residents.
- EIR hasn’t fully addressed the impact to nearby residents caused by
altering the General Plan.
|
|
39
|
- “concluded that the proposal is acceptable from a fire safety standpoint
as long as a traffic signal is installed at the Graham access (refer to
traffic mitigation) and Mitigation Measure 1 of this section is
implemented. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 1 will reduce impacts
related to the need for adequate response times and additional fire
protection services to a level less than significant.” (Parkside Errata
EIR)
- Why are mitigation measures still necessary if the development
supposedly no longer has a response problem?
|
|
40
|
- There are just too many uncertainties whether response times to the
ENTIRE deficient area are acceptable, either now or once Heil is
relocated.
|
|
41
|
|
|
42
|
|
|
43
|
- Invalid maps at study sessions
- Missing sections from final EIR
- Egregious typos (“4 miles to Marine View”)
- Half-baked fire response testing
- Stale, fantasy traffic data
- Botched staff report distribution
- Staff in denial regarding County permit requirements for Slater Pump
Station
|
|
44
|
- Too many negative impacts on existing neighborhoods
- Too many omitted impacts and non-mitigations in the very deficient EIR
- A failure of vision not in keeping with the forward-looking city that
Huntington Beach ought to be!
|