Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFile 1 of 9 - Bolsa Chica Annexation - Proposed - Bolsa Chic i a BOLSA CHICA STUDY COMMITTEE I . 9 : 00 - Background progress recommendations 9 : 15 - Panel Presentation - Sub-committee Chairmen i III . 9 : 45 - Areas of Agreement (Open Discussion) 1 IV. 1.0 : 45 - Adjourn E I fl I I 1 TO: City Council i DATE : April . 29, 1976 SUBJECT: BOLSA CHICA STUDY COMMITTEE REPORT Ruth Bailey, Vice Chairman of the Bolsa Chica Study Committee will make a five 5 minute speech ( ) p presenting the Final Report to the City Council , Monday, May 3, 1976. it George Stringer, Brian Parkinson and Herb Chatterton and other committee members will be available for questions during the presentation. f Pat Suter, Secretary Bolsa Chica Study Committee BOLSA CHICA STUDY COMMITTEE FINAL REPURT TO HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL MAY 3 , 1976 i Z TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 5ECTIUN I MATERIAL RELATING DIRECTLY TO ANNEXATION SECTION II POSITIONS OR PROPOSALS PRESENTED BY GROUPS REPRESENTED ON THE COMMITTEE SECTION III RELEVANT LEGISLATION 5ECTION IV AREAS OF AGREEMENT ti INTRODUCTION ~ The Bolsa Chica Study Committee dealt primarily with the concerns involved with Annexation or No Annexation of the Bolss Chica property not with the impact of potential develop- ment. However, Annexation, Zoning and Planning were all part of the discussions. The positions and/or proposals presented herein are listed in alphabetical order, not in order of preference. This was done in an effort to fairly represent the diverse points of view existing on the Committee. Please note: The Economic Advisory Commission could not deal with annexation, because of a lack of financial information. The Areas of Agreement are for the most part self- explanatory and represent those areas in which the Committee could reach a consensus. The Boise Chica Study Committee has compiled a considerable amount of relevant material during the months it has been meeting. The Council is welcome at any time to call upon the Committee for any of the information it has accumulated. � W SECTION I MATERIAL RELATING DIRECTLY TO ANNEXATION Matrix - Alternates for Annexation City Revenue Estimates Maps 1 . Ownership 2. Showing areas proposed for acquisition by state. City Attorney - Procedure for Annexation. Sub-Committee Report - Politics Ir i �j BOLSA CHICA STUDY COMMITTEE Matrix Alternates for Annexation TOTAL ANNEXATION PARTIAL ANNEXATION NO ANNEXATION 1 . Bluff Only 2. State & MWD 1. & 2. Acres Acquired 1460 264 336 600 0 Economics Short Term $110.000/yr. $19,000 $6,000 $25.000 No Change (172,000 Revenue (oil declining) less oil and property taxes) Long Term 7 7 7 7 No Change (Revenue-Coate. Nat.2/3 revenue lose services) Growth R-1 16,000 4.000 0 4,000 0 Potential Population (all land developed ' 4 units per acre, 4 people per unit) 32.000 8.000 0 8.000 0 Politics Local Control Some Control 7 Some Control No Local Control Timing 1 . If City annexes total area for potential development it will probably increase value of the land, 2. If City annexes total area, pre-zoned, Holding Zone, it will probably not increase value of land. Annexation with Developable Zoning Mould probably increase value of land depending on zoning. Additional cost information needed. Planning Planning Commission says City plane all. (Around State if acquisition occurs. ) k BOLSA CHICA ANNEXATIONS CITY REVENUE ESTIMATES January 19, 1976 Revised April 23, 1976 Assessed Value Property Tax Oil Barrdl Tax Grand Total Annexation Taxable O�,% ershi s OnIX Revenue Production @ Annual Land Minerals Total 1.6Z/ 100 Brls Da .08/Brl. Revenue Entire Unin- corporated Area $1, 944,050 $2, 426. 250 $4. 370, 300� $70, 799 3, 500 $102, 200 $172, 799 Initial Request (260 acres) plus MWD plus Goodell plus Kendall $1,645. 600 $ 766, 890 $Z, 41Z, 490 $39, 082 Z50 $ 7. 300 $ 46, 38Z State 300 Ac. N.A. Nil Nil Nil 300 $ 8, 760 $ 8, 760 NOTE; The above estimates are based on current assessed (excluding personal property) valuations, with no allowance for changes as a result of annexation. zoning or development. There will be some expense to the City as a result of any of these annexations, but they will probably be minor, except for the one time cost of planning, which is estinasiad to be $100, 000, more or less, for the entire Bolsa Chien area. H } PROPERTY OWNERS ACRES T ® SIWiAL SOLSA COlUMAT1ONN 119b (230 ACS• LEASED TO STATE) WANOALL t'MMOMAINT CDMMNY 41 ® DON CsOAOlLL 4 MUTWFOL[TAN WAWX DISTQLCT 36 CXEANVIILW SCHOOL 014TRICT IS Q STATS OP CALLFORWIA Ile oRA►rCs cowrTY FLMD CONTROL. 20(LEASED) - � i. i*�^ ANIIEIUTION 1 AO AGRn 7Oo i • • • �jr• - • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •••••s • • "• • • • • • .—..��•••••�•�i • • ••••••••• • •••:•� • • ••••••••••••••••••• 4 *69066MON MOCh CAOCW&% UNINCORPORATED BOLSA CIICA i �� - � -} office or CITY ATTORNEY P.o. sox in 14NITONTOM SIMM CALIP001A N" dfN is January 21, 1976 TO: Councilman, Henry H. Duke, Chairman, Bolea Chia Annexation Study Committee FROM: John O'Connor, Deputy City Attorney SUBJECT: Legal Implications of the Bolsa Chica Annexation This memorandum responds to your request for an analysis of the legal implications of annexation of the Bolsa Chica area. The annexation process must include : (a ) Preparation of a general plan of the area; (b ) Implementation of appropriate zoning consistent with the general plan; (c ) Approval of annexation by the Local .Agency Formation Commission; (d ) An environmental analysis ; and (e ) Compliance with the requirements for annexation of uninhabited territory . We will proceed to examine each of these requirements separately. 1 . Preparation of a General Plan. Government Code Sectio:. 65300 provides : "Each planning agency shall prepare and the legislative body of each county and city shall adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and of any land outside its boundaries which in the—Tannin agency's judgment bears relation to its p ann ng. Y 4 TO: Councilman Henry H. Duke FROM: . John O'Connor, Deputy City Attorney SUBJECT: Legal . Implications of the Bolsa Chica Annexation Page 2 Government Code Section . 65301 further states.: "The general plan shall be so prepared that all or individual elements of it may be adopted by the legislative. body, and so that it may be adopted by the legislative body for all or part of the . , territcry of the county or city and such other territory outside its boundaries which in its ,judgment bears relation to its planning." The Bolsa Chica is presently designated as a Planning Reserve under the General Plan Land Use Element . This was an interim designation to meet the State deadline requiring a General Plan on or before December 31, 1973. Monica Florian of the Planning Staff has succinctly stated the General Plan status of the Bolsa Chica as follows : "As adopted by Council, Resolution 110. 3814 on December 19 , 1973, the Land Use Element of the General Plan (required by Government Code Section 65302a ) designates the Bolsa Chica area as Ecological Reserve (that acreage proposed for state use ) and Planning Reserve . As defined in the Land Use Element, '-Planning Reserve is ' a broadly defined interim desig- nation intended for areas where long-term comprehen- sive planning and development is anticipated. ' Uses may include : 1 . ;.and areas in a predevelopment phase that are not yet fully planned or ready for immediate development 2 . :,and in transition to ultimate use that may be designated by a ' holding' zone (such as the ' RA ' District ) ?. Resource production areas including land In use for agriculture or oil extraction purposes. (Oil extraction may be combined with land designated as industrial , residential agricultural, or residential. ) The Element further states that ' the intent of this category is not' to preclude development, but to identify such areas as deserving special attention and planning efforts. ' As an additional. policy for the Bolsa Chica, the Element states: 'Certain problems and questions that are inherent in the development of this area should be addressed and annexed prior to proceeding with � U annexation. ' e TO: Councilman Henry !i. Duke FROM. John O'Connor, Deputy City Attorney SUBJECT: Legal Implications of the Bolsa Chica Annexation Page 3 "The Open Space and Conservation Elements of the General Plan (required by Government Code Section 65536) adopted by Council Resolution No. 3813 on December 19, 1973j designate the Bolsa Chica as a First -Priority Area in the City with greatest potential for. preservation of open space and �destin,�d to serve as the core of. the Open .Space . Program. "The Seismic-Safety Elements of the General Plan (required by Government Code Section 65355) adopted _ by Council Resolution No. 3964, designate portions of the Bolsa. Chica area as IIigh Seismic Risk and Flood Plain areas making seismic safety and flood hazard policies applicable there . " The general plan for the Bolsa Chica must be integrated with the general plan of the City, and consistent with the policy and objectives of other elements of the general plan. 2 . Zoning of the Bolsa Chica in Consistency with the Adopted General an. Government Code Section 65860 requires that City 'zoning ordinances shall e consistent with the general plan. This has been a mandatory requirement imposed upon cities since 1974 . Government Code Section 65859 authorizes a city to prezone un ncorpora a erri- eery adjoining the city . This section reads : "A city may prezone unincorporated territory . adjoining the city for the purpose of determining the zoning that will apply to such property in the event of 'subsequent annexation to the city. The method of accomplishing such prezoning shall be as provided by this chapter for zoning within the city . Such zoning shall become effective at the same time that the annexation becomes effective. " government Code Section 65354 requires that prezoning procedures comply w1th e notice and hearing requirements of the Government Code . Section 65854 (c ) reads : " (c ) In prezoning if the matter is before a city planning commission the notice shall be, Published . at least once in a newspaper of general �' circulation, published and circulated 'in the area cuunc i lman Henry 1{. Duke FROM: John O 'Connor, Deputy City Attorney 9UaJ,L••CT: Legal Inplications of the Bolsa Chica Annexation 1'a`de u to be prezoned, or if there is none, it shall be posted in at least three public places in the area to be prezoned. :n addition to notice by publication, a county j or city may give notice of the hearing in such -other manner as it may deem necessary or desirable . " Further, prezoning is authorized under luntington Beach Ordinance Code Section 9823 which provides : "The City Council recognized that a city's social and economic life is seldom limited to the area within its corporate limits ; that a real need exists to consider zoning and physical planning on the basis of the existing and developing area rather than only the areas currently within the City limits; that State law recognized the existence of the close relationship between a city and the area contiguous thereto. In view of such policy and purpose and the possibility ;. of annexation of adjoining lands the City undertakes to establish an expansion of a consistent land-use pattern that shall prevail if and when areas contained within such expanded plans to annex ' to the City. For that purpose prezoning maps may be developed -and adopted in the same manner prescribed by this Ordinance Code, "Or„the classification or, reclassification of property within the "ity, including procedures for and concurrent j consideration of variances, conditional -use- permits and .;.to plans . " runt ngtvn 13each Code Section 98,23 . 1 provides, in relative part ,- 0 a prezoning map for an area has not been 'adopted '.,.en such area shall , upon annexation, be deemed to be classified R1 " . It is our firm legal conclusion that zoning procedures must comply with provisions of the Government Code and the Huntington reach Ordinance Code . Section7M- 1 of tie-Huntington Beach urdinanc.e Code to the extent that it purports to zone property HJ without the hearing and notice process is invalid. Therefore, we would suggest and recommend that the area be prezoned before aiin. :;ition into the City , or if a substantial amount of Planning ," ' i TO: Councilman henry 11. Duke FROM: John O'Connor, Deputy City Attorney ! . � SUBJLCT: Legal Implications of the Bolsa Chica Annexation Page 5 I Department study is involved for appropriate prezoning, that the area be placed in a moratorium under Government Code Section 65858 until such time as the zoning studies are completed and appropriate j zoning adopted . In addition, it is necessary that the zoning of the Bolsa Chica comply with any local open space plan in effect in the City ., .-Government Code Section 65566 provides : "Any action by a county or city by which open- space land or any interest therein is acquired or disposed of or its use restricted or regulated, ! whether or not pursuant to this part , must be consistent with the local open-space plan." 3. Approval by the Local Agency Formation Commission. Any annexation of the Bolsa Chica, in whole or in' part , must be approved by the Local Agency Formation Commission. Government Code Section -35003 provides : "No, petition seeking the annexation or transfer of territory to 'a city shall be circulated or filed, i nor shall any public officer accept any such petition for filing., nor shall any legislative body initiate proceedings to annex 'or transfer on its own motion, until approval of the local agency formation commission is first obtained pursuant to Chapter 6 .6 (commencing i with Section 54773, Part 1, Division 2,' Title 5 ." The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) was created by estate legislation in 1963, 'to regulate annexation of territory within each county in California. The Commission is given broad powers over annexation of new territory to cities (Government Code Section 54790 ) ; and has authority to adopt standard prose urea for evaluation, incorporation and annexation proposals . LAFCO allows the County to follow a regional approach towards annexation and was designed to eliminate the haphazard and undesirable annexa- tion pr:ictices which existed in California prior to 1963. Factors considered by LAFCO in reviewing an application for approval are set forth in Government Code Section 5JI796: "Factors to be considered in the review of a pro- posal shall include but not be limited to: (a ) Population, population density; land area and land use; per capita assessed valuation; topography, 1 �j Councilman Henry H. Duke FROM: John o1Connor, Deputy City Attorney SUBJECT: Legal Implications of the Bolsa Chica Annexation r �' Page 6 natural boundaries, and drainage, basins; proximity to other populated areas ; the likelihood of significant growth in the area, and in adjacent incorporated and unincorporated areas, during the next 10 years. (b ) Need for organized community. eervices; the present -cost and adequacy of governmental services and controls in the area; probable future needs for such services and controls; probable effect of the Proposed incorporation, formation, annexation, or exclusion and. of alternative courses of action on the cost and adequacy of services and controls in the area j and adjacent areas . (0 The effect of the proposed action and of alternative actions, on adjacent areas , on mutual social and economic interests and on the local govern- mental structure of the county. (d ) The definiteness and certainty of the bound- aries of the territory, the nonconformance of proposed boundaries with lines of assessment or ownership, the creation of islands or corridors of unincorporated territory, and other similar matters affecting the proposed boundaries. " Among its powers, LAFCO has the authority. to require prezoning of territory to be annexed [Government Code Section 54793(a) ], and has authority to. condition, annexation Government Code Section 54790 . 1 ) . The complete provisions of the Government Code relative to LAFCO procedures are set forth as Appendix 1 to this memorandum. 4 , Annexation . Annexation. of the bolsa Chica would be under the procedures of :section 35300 et seq. of the Government Code, which set forth the requirements for annexation of un n a to territory. The complete text of the annexation procedures are set forth as Appendix 2 to this memorandum. �, . Lnvirunmental Analysis. `tie Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as construed by the courts, requlre6an environmental analysis be made by (a) the Local TO: counc i lmaii Henry H. Duke FROM: John O'Connor, Deputy City Attorney `y SUW ECT: Legal implications of the Bolsa Chica Annexation Page 7 AL;ency formation Commission prior to a recommendation of annexation (Bozun6 v. Local Aaacy Formation Coounisai n of Ventura, C.A . 2d No . 4149d C . v 1 ) ; (b an environmental ana ys s for the general planning and zoning of the area. An environmental analysis could , possibly be handled as a initial comprehensive analysis or on a step by step basis as the various agencies exercise their discretionary approvals . The 'type of environmental analysis , whether negative declaration, or EIR, will be determined by the public agency conferring discretionary approval . 6 . ' Total,- Partial or Igo Annexation. The determination of any annexation, whether total, partial or a denial o'f annexation rests with the Local APenc.y Formation Commission. Upon denial of an application, it cannot be considered for a subsequent period of at least one year unless LAFCO consents to refiling. (Goveriunent Code Section 54799 ) • It should be observed that annexation can be 'requested by any contiguous city , therefore, if the City of Huntington Beach desired not to annex, a request could be made ,-�, by any public entity contiguous to the property, i.e . Seal Beach, and LAFCO would act on that request or any request of the applicant for annexation. We have not commented on policy considerations for or against annexation since these are within the expertise of the Planning ! Department . i /JOHN 0' ;'014NOH j Deputy City Attorney i J .)C :er i APPROVED BY : DON P. BONFA, City Attorney f IS BOLSA C141CA STUDY COMMITTEE Sub-Coanittes Report Politics Members Ruth Bailey Bill Foster Ruth Finley A. RL(JRNAL JHPA TS CHANGE IF ANNEXED Orange County Transit Dist. Air Resources Metropolitan Water Dist. Regional Coastal Commission Cal Trans Flood Control Oist. B. AR.L.5 DF TR NATIONAL Congress Army Corp of Engineers Energy Commission (Price of Oil) Coastal Zone Monegow nt Act E.P.A. ® Offshore oil® On Shore Dov. STATE Legislature Fish and Game State Coastal Commission State Lands Commission Beach Division of State Landa Parise and Recreation ? Attorney General CUUNTY Board of Supervisiors X Local Agency Formation Cam. X Planning Commission X LOCAL City Council X would be load Planning Commission X agency School Districts X ( Pax Revenue to City from Oil 6.08 taxes etc. it .62 \1 BL)L';A CHICA STUDY COMMITTEE Sub-Committes Report - Politics Page 2 Change in the chain of approvals for any development. Uifferences in Ordinances ie® , Archeological, Grading. 1f pro-zoned, cwust conform to General Plan. If Acquisition by the State took place, then the State would be the Lead Agency - Control of development, etc. Economic Benefits to the City of Annexation with or without Acquisition overlapping of our committee ►+ez ards Faults Flood Plain I o� BOLSA ChICA STUDY COMMITTEE ADDITIUNAL INFORMATION ON SCHOOLS March 10, 1976 If annexation takes place and development occures, there would be a change in the population that would probably necessitate the building of a school (site 34 ) , that is located just North and outside of th• Balsa Chico arcs. At the present time , with decisions on the use of Balsa Chico caught up in the political process, there cannot be any predetermination of whether or not that school w411 be necessary. There is some controversy among residents of the California Classics homes because of a demand for a neighborhood school, which presently does not most the Stat►► requirements of population for a school. Conclusion: It is the responsibility of the Ocean View School District and the residents of the affected area to come up with projections and their recommendations-••-and show those to the City. POLITICS COMMITTEE Ruth Bailey Ruth Finley Bill Foster SECTION II POSITIONS OR PROPOSALS PRESENTED BY GROUPS REPRESENTED ON THE COMMITTEE. Amigo® de Balsa Chico Herb Chatterton Burmah Oil Corporation Bill Woods Chamber of Commerce Jim Foxx Economic Advisory Commission Donald Datko Environmental Council Lee Rebman Friends of Balsa Chico Pat Suter for Hayden Williams Huntington Beach Company Bill Foster League of Women Voters Ruth Bailey Planning Commission Brian Parkinson Recreation and Perks Commission Tom Cooper Signal Landmark George Stringer W. R. Grace R. F. Prock ® %'.1 1 }log tiv Ho l a (11 it- a VII I gO-ti (IL' Bu l �,.► Ci. ►i, .► has eva l tutted t iit al►nt Nat ►ou alternatives dt- tCrmint-d Icy th.c; I'.vIsa Chica Annexatiu►► Comnittee and has reached the fallowing conclusions . 1 . Partial Annexation , All proposa s except "no annexation" or "total annexation'.' represent a piecemeal approach which would violate the city ' s expressed policy. We feel that the city ' s policy of requiring master planning of the entire area prior to annexation and development is not only correct but essential to orderly growth. The following concerns regarding "total annexation" Mould also apply in the case of "partial annexation. " 11 . Total Annexation A. nnexataon would provide the Bolsa Chica with city service and move it one step closer to development. This would raise the market value of the property and inflict an increased burden on the people of California in their efforts to acquire the land for open space and restoration. If zonim for the area were changed to a developable zone , the impae on the State would be even more severe . B . Annexation could lead to unfavorable impacts on the city unless the area is carefully planned with thorough considera- tion given to the effects development of the Bolsa Chica would have on existing portions of the city. 1 . Since no public services are now provided to the more than 1S00 acres of the Bolsa Chica, development would place heavy burdens on adjacent areas . Many arterials which would Naturally service development in the Bolsa Chica are already at capacity or will reach capacity with continues] development of areas already in the city. 2 . There is substantial evidence to indicate that continued growth within the city would lead to a more than propor- tional rise in the costs of providing public services . Growth tends to increase expenses faster than the tax tease expands , thus , increasing the cost of services on a per capita basis . 111 . Nu Annexation A. TFe . tate s proposed acquisition , restoration, and preservation of open space in the Bolsa Chica will have substantial benefits for the entire South Coast area and especially for the residents of Huntington Beach. . 'fhe value of open space , recreational facilities , ecologically productive habitats , and educational opportunities , although difficult to assign dollar values , are unquestion- ably beneficial . A state park and preserve in the Bolsa Chica would I�r i tremendous asset to the city , substantially raising the v;, rues of nearby properties without the necessity ot' increased � ity costs . 'through implementation of the State ' .., acyuis i t ion plan , the city of Iuntington Reach can realize `ubstar►tial bonefit , improving the aesthtics of the c i t y , tite duality or life , and the tax Lase , with no direct and little indirect cost . tick au,,c• of the considerations noted above, the only annexation alternative that we feel is in the best interest of the residents of Huntington Beach is "no annexation." 1sJ JJr17 _ ; �i1dV'NAII.N A 114)AD I? I J r r J)-I,_,-4 0 rJiQi•O.rryY I✓Jp► St 11'r. ►C17 111 VT1N4u1-uv FAI r r TIVE VA119 L Jr►ua�1W.%1.11 11u1 ► %*.a►+n 1fu%r ►vrau%-IIE.%r•11.1..% osu•t7 April 19 , 1976 iluntington Beach City Council iluntington Beach City Hall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach , CA Councilmembers : The purpose of this letter is to express the concerns of Amigos de Bolsa Chica regarding annexation of the Bolsa Chica properties by the City of Huntington Beach. Amigos de Bolsa Chica believes that the titles held by Signal Landmark Properties , Inc. and W.R. Grace , Inc. to large areas of the Bolsa Chica lowlands may be defective because of the Possible invalidity of the land exchange between the State Lands Commission and Signal in 1973. Amigos de Bolsa Chica therefore urges a no-annexation policy rcbardin® Our doubts as to Signal and Grace ' s title are based on the following considerations : 1 . Title to the tidelands in California is not absolute , but is subject to an easement in favor of the public as set forth in the California Constitution , Article XV, Section 3. The words of the Constitution are considered incorporated in any grant of the tidelands , the same as if they were inserted in the grant , and they become a part of it and qualify it. The estate granted, therefore , is limited to the uses which do not interfere with the rights of the public. 2. Public trust uses are not limited to commercial navigation and fishery , but embrace the public interest in preserving open spaces for recreation and wildlife. Marks v Whitney 6 C 3d 2SI . 3. Government Commissioned maps of the Bolsa Chica dated prior to 1890 indicate that the tidelands of the Bolsa Chica were once much larger than at present , and once covered almost all the lowlands outside of the present city limits . Diminution of the area subject to the ebb and flow of the tide wits due pimarily to damming and diverting activities at the turn of the century by the Bolsa Land Company , Signal ' s predecessor in title . The construction of the dam and the filling of the ocean entrance were clearly illegal. Property Ilur►ti►►gtoil Reach City Council Ali r 1 1 19 , 1976 Page Two held by the state in trust for the public use cannot he gainer: by adverse possession , and the statute of limitations does not apply to an action to recover such property' f rom one using it for private purposes not consistent with the public use. City of Los Angeles v Anderson 206 C 662. The 1973 exchange between Signal and the State Lands Commission may have been invalid , because the findings required to be made before a conveyance of tidelands to a private grantee by the State Lands Commission may not have been supported by facts . The State may grant tidelands to a private grantee if it finds that .those lands are valueless for trust purposes ; if they have been or are to be reclaimed pursuant to and in the course of a highly beneficial public program of harbor development ; and if they constitute a relativelZ small Rarcel of the total acreage T-R-V-57ved. Long Beach v Mansell ,, 3 C 3d 46Z. Furthermore , the Appelate Court in CountX of Orange v Heim, 30 Cal App 3d 694 , found an exchange between Orange County and the Irvine Company invalid because the facts surrounding the exchange did not support the finding thatthe lands involved constituted a relatively small parcel of the total acreage involved. The Court found that , because the Irvine lands to be conveyed in the exchange were already tidelands under public control and subject to the Constitutional mandate , the County was actually relinquishing much more than a small parcel . It was relinquishing large parcels overwhich it had an easement . The 1973 land exchange in the Bolsa Chica is factually similar to the facts surrounding the Upper Newport Bay exchange discussed in the Heim case , and hence is subject to unwinding by the Courts , should a awsuit to confirm title be initiated. For the above reasons , Amigos de Bolsa Chica urges the City Council to adopt a cautious attitude towards annexing land burdened with dubious title which may make impossible ultimate development in a manner financially beneficial to the City; and which may embroil the City of Huntington Beach in litigation over such title. Very truly yours , Gretchen A. Hoad Attorney for Amigos de Bolsa Chica cc: Don Bonfa, Huntington Beach City Attorney C. E. barker, Attorney at Law Bolsa Chica Annexation Committee Gil/lm Z ,�,. � -- _- _ .;..-.: r:•:"k�". .{.. ._ -tr:;�-:.„a-jam ��•_, :a-,:�:a�: �_`-3}..;,?K'".:r`•: :�, a�- ,i - _....�......,d.... :...,i•.>._._.—,.___:,�tvkr:-�-..c+...'.,'kwic.ruv� x,-.i-.. :-,•.�i.-'�arr•;..� :hk".`�,r ..•�;;•« ire„'-:,7`•�,,;�.•,`�€;,,,�:..•.•S'.._ -- --�-__- ,�,�,,,�. `. a,-?� -• _ ,�.. ��....• - _ "�- n:.� - __ ..f.,r ... =T?', Yam: ,"",« ��..� ..s �� - �. - .. ;'�''P.->+,n:S.'L�ee� � '•J .. _�-�T', --F' 'ri - �`r=�`�-4" ,_. ..4',�',. .'v.5 _{ - ..c •';ems•- ,. _ J - / AN Ap - SWKD WAS i SF � •r «f� .7 sK ' .,.� �, 'fie- - 1�L��s�!• - '` " �.w-_�`�}'`• PRE5ENTED BY : Amigos de Bolsa Chica 5OURCE : Coastal Commission Information 5ervice IINFACT Of' GOVERAW0rT ACTION OILY tRO?LR'Y°T VA)1M Ira et on Values of Ralative Importauce of Impact an Values of Neighboring or Net Effect on SpecUlc Actions in Type of ActionSnblect Proel" Competitive Prop shies prooert•z ValuesDyermini.na lm acts Resttfctions on land use Value declines Value rises Rodistributlocal. Way important Developer required to make Value declines Value rises Slightly negative U611suportass compared to i:nprovements or pay fees Offset public actions Resource amenities protected Value rises Value rises 311I ly positive to Very vay Important or restored by government Live action • e a a I Shore access by the public Value declt V rnegative maximized and protected semktions or amealty pastactlaft Concentrating develoment If stM wadeveloped6 vWu@ Value rim pawwa Vary Unpentaut In existing communities 4sellness If . d, value elses ttaviding infrastructure, Value rim m Values wachanged ` lro public facilities, and ' services • Tax reduction or deferral Value rbes Vahm=changed SWIF ba for regulated, restricted® restirtedens Os arwasity or encouraged uses of Protection Coastal properties ®, Source: Real Estate ResearchCo.-porotim March 1976 Prepared under contract to U-S- PaTtms'nt Of C® "Ce POTENTIAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TMC°TS OF SELECTED COASTAL PLAN POLICY ACTIONS (continued) Potential Economic Effects Primary Coastal Primary Affected Emp'oyment erus new ss i' Issaefits/Cores Man PohSles Secto-s of the Economy - _(non-construction) Construction Activity invettr++ent/teofltablli�► to the Consur,er Rertrict thermal dis® Commercial and Indus- Nominal Nominal Increased investment Higher prices for mac: char-es and whe- trial development; in pollution controls; factured goods; protect forms of water po!lu- en-rb/ deve!cprrent, reds ced profitability. marine resources tion (7, 9, 10, 11, 12) -ecreat!on and tourism More productive marine Industries Cive commercial rec- Recreation and Positive or negative, Positive or negative. Positive or negative, Preserve public access reation uses priority tourism; housing and depending on whether depending on whether depending on whether to recreational amen!- over other private urban development other potential uses other potential asses other potential uses Lieu of the coast development (133, 134) Mould be more labor would entail larger are more profitable Intensive construction outlay than recreation y Protect the visual Recreation and Nominal Slightly positive Increased Investment Protect tourist enioy- quality of natural, tourism in site design, plan- assent of vtrual resourct historic, or open areas, ning, and main- and the coastal view- tenancei development shed (44, 45, 46, 47, may be less profitable 48, 49, 50) Encou.age aorver cost Recreations and Positive, but not to Positive, but not to Positive, but not ®s Maintenance of access tourist facilities over tourism the same extent as the same extent as profitable as more to coastal resources excl►:sivell• expensive more luxurious de- more l-:r.urious de- luxurious development. for citizens of all facilities (125) ® velopment velopment I Tax and other Incen- Income groups tives a positive induce- nrent. °Evaluate public recrea. Recreation and Positive or negative, Positive or negative, Positive or negative, Preserve public access tion potential and future tourism; housing.and depending on whether depending on whether depending an whether to recreational arrenl- demand before per- urban development other potential uses odwr potential uses other potential uses ties of the coan matting other uses of would be more labor would entail larger are more profitable oceanfront )and (132) intensive construction outlay thar. recreation PRUPOSAL FUR PARTIAL ANNEXATION Presented bys Rill Wood• Basch 31 , 1976 for Burnish Oil. Favors Mr. Stringer®s Partial Annexation proposal® because Total Annexation would impose additional costs on Burmah without any additional benefits derived from the City® Does not disagree with Mr. Foater's statement, referring to Total Annexation. However, Burmah must be allowed to come in under a toning that would allow for oil production to continue, i e fRUP05AL FUR TOTAL ANNEXATION Presented by: Jim Foxx March 31 , 19T6 Favors Total Annexation. Feels it would be a source of immediate revenue to the City in oil barrel taxes and property taxes. Does not feel Total planning necessary for development to begin. Q V ru : City Council Bola Chico Study Committee 5UBJECT : EAL position on Bole& Chico Annexation REFt. HENCE : letter (Position Paper) dated 4-9-76 to the Balsa Chico Study Committee from D. J. Datko, come subject. The annexation of the Balsa Chico Area was discussed at the regular EAC meeting of 4-7-76. The EAC felt that at this time NO position could be taken on annexation, since there is limited information regarding the potential economic impact to the City. The members felt that their position, should they eventually take one , will be based primarily on economics. Don Datko, Member Economic Advisory Commission cc : t. AC members Arnold Ross, Internal Auditor, City of Huntington Beach �i� KNVIA®N/AIgNTAL COUNCIL CityHuntingtonBeach P.O. Box 190 CALIFORNIA April 12, 1976 fol Bolsa Chica Annexation Committee , From 1 1�.argaret Carlberg, Alternate Representative of the Environmental Council lopice Comments on Final Bolsa Chica Study Committee report The sixteen Environmental Council members have reviewed the February 27 subcommittee reports of the Bolsa Chica Annex- ation Committee, and had half an hour to look at four copies of the recently prepared Bolsa Chica Study Committee Presentation to City Council . Since the Environmental Council action on the original annexation request, dated December 4, 1975, was omitted frai, both these sets of papers, we wish to restate our previous action, as it was concurred to be still valid, (See attached minutes. ) We further communicate a few commentp on the Areas of Agree- ment contained in the recent report, 1. Environmental Council members agree with #1. 2.. Environmental Council members agree generally with #2, but stivgest that the first sentence read ". . .place before ZU development begins" , and delete the second sentence as it is reds uidant. 3. This does not appear to be an "area of agreement"-- although it is a suggestion that the Environmental Council would not oppose. Signal 's financing part of the planning would probably ensure more planning than occurred between 1972 and 1975. 4. Environmental Council agrees with the proposal that the Sit'.nal and other private land if annexed, being zoned as a holding zone with oil use, and continuation of agricultural use. But the followi.nR suggestion is offered. (a) . Any zoning but R-1 would require prezoning , with hearings, and it would be most reasonable to have the DFG and NWD acreage prezoned permanent open space from the onset , rather than R-1 or RA, (b) RA is not a true holding zone. T'he. Planning Reserve status , or developing a true holding zone desig- nation should be established. 5. Environmental Council members agree with 5, � C Envimn Council CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH a-.,PZvm win Pal Olftce Box 190 Huntington Ouch. California 9218 CORRECTED MINUTES Thursday, December 4, 1975 The meeting wag called to order at 7: 38 p.m. by Vice Chaizman Churchill . 1 . 0 Members Present: Carlberg, Chatterton, Crane, Churchill, Green, Harbison, Baydoek, Lewinger, Milkovich, McConnell, Pow ll, kebwmn, Wallace, Winchell, Yue 1 . 1 Members Absents Frey, Fung, Roth (excused) , Valinsky (excused) 2 . 0 Approval of Minutes: The minutes of November 13, 1975 were approved as corrected. 3 . 0 Correspondence, Announcements, Presentations: Atone 4 . 0 Chairman, Executive Board Reports: 4 . 1 The proposed annexation of the eolsa Chic& Bluff was discussed. Mr. George Stringer presented the case of the Signal Bolsa Company. The following motion was passed 7 to 4. The Environmental Council opposes the proposed annexation of such an environmentally sensitive area as the Bolsa Chica without prior master planning. We believe that the City is seriously delinquent in preparing a master plan as requested by the Planning Commission in 1972. The Environmental Council requests that the City Council direct staff to prepare a master plan for the approximately 1600 acres within the Bolsa Chica within the next 12 months, beginning immediately with the preparation of a comprehensive environmental assess- ment . 4 . 2 The current status of the task forces on (1) the Coastal Commission Acquisition List and (2) the Bolsa Chica was reviewed. The Environmental Council has appointed members to both task forces, but no meetings have been scheduled. Members were encouraged to prepare for a Coastal Coamission hearing on the acquisition list in January 1976. r°^ r �► NO ANNEXATION Friends of the Bolsa Chico Support the position of the Amigos de Bolen Chico presented by Herb Chetterton to the Boles Chico Study Committee March 17, 1976. TUTAL ANNEXATION Huntington Beach Company Position presented by W. E . Foster March 24, 1976 to the Balsa Chico Study Committee. Why do we have spheres of influence? , Here we have 2000.02 acres completely surrounded by the City of Huntington Beach with very smell exception. We have announced that we want it to be a pert of the City of Huntingtmn Beech. We went to control the planning of it. So when it is time that it be considered for planning, and certainly development is closing in •round all the edges of it, what is going to happen in there is going to impact many other areas of the City. Concerns about transportation were mentioned. My concerns are much greater that if we don't plan Holes Chico and plan it now' the impacts are going to be such greater and very adverse on many areas of traffic throughout the City. We need to decide where the street* are going in and around the Bolas Chico. In any case, when the property owners, and we are owners, think that it is time for Annexation what should a City's response be? �} They have announced they went it to be part of the City. They have announced they went to do the planning. It has been designated officially by IAFCO to be in their sphere of influence. The only rational reasons I can find for a city not annexing under these circumstances are: 1 . People residing in the arse do not went to be annexed. This does not apply here because there are not any people residing in the area. 2. The City is unable to provide the services that would be required after annexation. That is not true have either because the area will not require any City services beyond planning and a few very minor service• that will be more then offset by the revenues to the city that will be generated by annexing the Balsa Chico property. I can find no reason for the City not to proceed when the planning of this area is so important to everything from traffic flow to how the property is going to be used. I do not consider the effect that it might have on State acquisition to be relevant to the question of Annexation. 1 . I do not think it will have any effect if it comes in as a Holding Zone. I one absolutely not a single shred of evidence pointing to the fact that it would change it. I do not think the value would change. I think the State would have anywhere from 3 to 5 years to firm up their plans and complete the acquisition. 2. Even if we felt that there would be a lowering of value or a holding of value by precluding annexation, I do not think that is equitable. I certainly do not think it is legal . There have been too many court cases on that point and if the City Council starts talking about it very much and too many of these kinds of things get in evidence, I think the property owners would have a clear cut legal remedy if annexation TOTAL ANNEXATION Huntington Beach Company Position (Continued ) wag refused. You cannot use the power of a City indirectly to drive down the value of property for public acquisition. The courts have held many times that doing something for a good purpose does not justify doing something inequitable or placing burdens where they do not belong. 1 . I am making the argument that it would not raise the value. 2. I am making the argument that even if it did it is irrelevant to the City of Huntington Beach's decision to annex. I can see no reason and really no disadvantage to anyone State, County, City, Property owners or residents ( 'cause there ain't any) in proceeding with annexation, because that is what it takes to get the planning off the ground. Presented to the Bolsa Chica Study Committee March 24 , 1976. 7 LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF HUNTINGTON BEACH-SEAL BEACH POSITION ON ANNEXATION OF BOLSA CHICA The League supports the preservation of Bola& Chico as an ecological preserve surrounded by open space to prevent further degradation of this unique Coastal resource. There- fore, the League recommends that no action on annexation be taken at this time. Until decisions can be made as to State Acquisition, we recommend that the present County zoning of recreational open-specs , which is more congruent with our �- stated goals, remain in effect. We would discourage piecemeal planning for the area. No action should be taken without careful assessment of cost-benefits; including accurate quantitative information as to short and long term economic effect as well as social and environmental impacts. Submitted by : Ruth Bailey, member Annexation Study Committee April 21 , 1976 Approved by: Sherry Baum, President League of Women Voters , Huntington Beach-Seal Beach �S I 1 J. Hnatiart®N Beach PhNNiNg commissiNN , P.O. SOX ISO CALM►ORMM 92M TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Planning Commission and Planning Department DATE : December 4 , 1975 ATTN: David D. Rowlands, City Administrator RE: PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF A PORTION OF THE BOLSA CHICA AREA BY THE STGNAL 'BOLSA CORPORATION. Transmitted herewith are the Planning Commission and Planning Staff recommendations for the proposed annexation of a 280-acre portion of Bolsa Chica. The City Council referred this request to the Planning Commission and Planning Staff for report and recounendation. The following is a listing of significant facts which relate to this proposal : 1 . vie unincorporated area of Bolsa Chica consists of approximately 1600 acres of land. ownership is primarily controlled by signal Balsa Corporation. Other owners within the area are Oceanview School District, Metropolitan Water District, Don Goodell, Kendall Development Company, Inc. , State of California, and the Orange County Flood Control District. A map depicting the locatiun and ,acreage of said parcels is attached. 2. The assessed value of Bolsa Chica is: I and - $3 ,047 , 920 Mincral Rights - $2 , 933 , 160 3 . 1--,il production on the entire area is estimated to be approximately h , 000 barrels per day.' 4 . County policy on annexation and how it affects Bolsa Chica is: ' hoCounty would like to see a development plan for the Bolsa Chic•a prepared jointly by the County, City, and Property Owners, prior to annexation of any portion of Bolsa Chica. (The City should serve as lead agency in this effort. ) This policy has not been spelled out on any adopted document, so the County would probably be in agreement with the City on more than one annexation or annexations prior to plan preparation provided a comprehensive planning effort of the entire Bolsa Chica Area would still occur and that the important resource area (Ecological Reserve) was protected. Bolsa Chica is within the City' s sphere of influence; therefore , it is appropriate for the City to take on this planning effort. V 5 I age Two i: . The i'ity is currently providing limited police and fire protection f-o this area. The City does not receive additional compensation for .this service. ' Planning effort undertaken by the City for this area would be cositly and 'ihe City would not receive any additional compensation for this effort. H . They City has an adopted policy regarding annexation which essen- tially calls for complete environmental analysis and planning of an area prior to annexation (see attached policy adopted by City Council , September 4 , 1973; Resolution N6. -3760) . et . Ti cre, '.ire other portions of Bolsa Chica which may be available for innexAtion. They, include: State ,Ecological Reserve, the Kendall Development corporation Inc. , property along the common boundary brtweEsn the Huntington Beach Company and .,Signail Bolsa Corporation and property located at the northwest corner of Edwards Street and F11is Avenue. 10 . to response to the statement, that significant changes have occurred in Dolsa Chica since the Policy Plan' s statement on annexation was adopted , the following is offered: the Metropolitan Water - District is a public utility. the 400 foot wide strip to be maintained as open space; therefore, the }physical sepal-ation caused by this strip of land in conjunction with the Flood Control District is not adequate separation to c•Leuse the parcels to be considered separate for planning purposes. b. Thy, State ' s acquisition of the ecological reserve has r,o bear- ing on the issue of annexation. If anything, this property Should be incorporated as a part of the comprehensive plan; inasmuch as any surrounding development will have a definite impact on ' the ecological reserve. The increase in the price of crude and the extending of the cxpeected economic life of the existing oil wells should not havO (iny bearing on the planning effort. The life of the oil field -does not mean that consideration should not be given to Olt.ernatives for development and the impact these uses may have on each other. ,1 . ,'hey different ownerships between the land and mineral rights should not. preclude Signal. Bolsa Corporation from preparing long�=range plans ,and an environmental analysis. Areas which are designated for resource production for 15 to 20 years may big so designated , but consideration, must be given to long- range altern-atives. 11 . Th(•re are es'senti'ally two issues: annexation and planning (in- c l ud ),ng envi't-briment;al analysis) . Techn.ica-1,ly, these issues may be -eparcited but as` a practical matter planning should be a 'total effort which should not be fragmented through piecemeal annexa- tion . The planning and environmental analysis of Bolsa Chica r � page Three it(.)uid occur with the, entire Bolsa Chita area either totally within the City or within the County unincorporated area. This w-ill assist in maintaining continuity throughout the planning IJ it this parcel is annexed, it could have an adverse impact on th - State' s plan for acquisition in that it will increase land values and thus increase acquisition cost to the public. 13 . Signal Bolsa Corporation has stated that their desire to annex this property does not mean that they will not follow through with t_hoir intent to plan and conduct an environmental analysis of 1301 sa Chica. 14 . Signal Bolsa Corporation has stated that the City would receive approximately $29, 155 per year by annexing subject property (property tax $22 , 030 per year, oil production $7,125 per year) . 11) : A total planning effort would allow for a complete cost benefit analysis of the proposal, i.e. , opening to .the occran, the need for bridges, and other public improvements. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: No annexation should be permitted until a total plan along with the r)CCCs nary environmental analysis has been complete. As an alternative, it is recommended that the City of Huntington Beach annex the entirey Bo sa Chica Area and continue with the expressed policy for pre-planninq < <_ and 'environmental analysis prior to development. The m111orit.y opinion of the Planning Commission is as follows: nnnox,o ion should be permitted to proceed but a planning analysis , both -,,-;)nomic and environmental , should be conducted before development a< cur This will allow the City to receive additional revenue as c ut l i n,,(-9 in the report from Signal Bolsa Corporation. STAFF RF;t't)MMF.NDATION : in view of the fact that the City is providing services, ' i .e. , Police, Hire .ln,i Planning , and because the County' will not be the lead agency, nor will they take an active role in the planning process, it is that the City, of Huntington Beach annex the entire Bolsa Chic-i nr''a and continue with the expressed policy for pre-planning and n1i_ronmental analysis prior to development. As an alternative, it t ,: recommended that no annexation be permitted until the total plan alonq with the necessary environmental analysis has been completed. A!, r, 1,, )int of information , it should be noted that the revenue derived fr(ml ,tnnexinq Bolsa Chica will assist in defraying those costs which -it (, hr,,�.ently passed on to the City. In effect, the services being pt ,�vided to other large vacant parcels, of land within the City of Mintin'(lton Beach are currently being provided to Bolsa Chica.. Page hour ' Rv ;p 'ct_ful ly submitted, !: , c h ii c3 A. Harlow ary RAM :cJ c: Annexation Ub)ec'tives: v ►:ncompass within City boundaries only those areas with common interests and which can be efficiently and economically served ►,y city facilities. Ili inciples: 1 . Approve and pursue only annexations which: a. Will contribute to the accomplishment of Huntington Beach Master Plan Objectives. b. Will "square off" city limits at the San Diego Freeway, Santa Ana River, Pacific ocean, and the Naval Weapons Station. C. Will not dilute the existing tax base. d . Will not place a burden on existing City facilities. P . Will meet all municipal codes. f . Will not overload existing gas, electric and water resources. 7 . Use pre-planning of unincorporated territory to assure that 4 annexed areas: a. 'Are developed in compatibility with surrounding neighbor- hoods. 1). Do not create unnecessary hardships on property owners in proximity to the annexed areas. Provide sufficient tax base to assure that the area will not cause tax increases for current residents within the City. (i . That no area be permitted to be annexed to the City which is contrary to the previously accepted Master Plan of the area, of which the annexation is 'a part. ? . t)uri'ng pre-planning for annexation , developers of unincorporated areas should be required to show to the public all their ac- cumulated information on ecological impacts of the whole area, including those studies required by Federal, State, and County jurisdictions . 4 . Historically important sites within an annexed area should be co<<- sidered for dedication to public use or public ownership. '� . Federal and State grants should be sought to develop property which is within the annexed area. DISCUSSLons should be pursued with adjacent community leader- ship to integrate their goals with those of Huntington Beach. 'T�t�/ EACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION 01TY CW HUNTINli To BOLSA CHICA STUDY COI From RECREATION AND PARKS COMMISSION Subject BOLSA CHICA ANNEXATION Date April *21, 1976 Mr . Tom Cooper reviewed the various positions of the Bolsa Chica Study Committee and asked for support from the Recreation and Parks Commission in time for the forthcoming April 21st Study Committee meeting. The Committee, chaired by Henry Duke and attended by approximately 17 different City groups, has not agreed on a single proposal to present to City Council in its weekly deliberations regarding the feasibility of annexation, partial annexation, or no annexation of Bolsa Chica. They have arrived at certain areas of ,agreement; however: 1 . There should be TOTAL GENERAL PLANNING of the Bolsa Chica. 2. Total General Planning should take place before any development begins. 3. The Committee is willing to accept the offer from Mr. George Stringer of Signal-Landmark that Signal would contribute financially to the TOTAL GENERAL PLANNING effort of the Bolsa Chica provided they were assured annexation would be accomplished. 4. If any annexation takes place prior to comple- .. - tion of the planning effor_t., the Committee agrees it should come in as a Holding Zone, Zoned RA-01 or RA-02 (oil zones depending on density of wells) . S . The City Council should move toward a timely decision on: A. Not to Annex or B. Delay Annexation for a finite period of time or C. Initiate proceedings necessary for Annexation.— There are position papers enclosed with the Study Committee ' s presentation to City Council on total , partial or no annexation. Recommendations for no annexation are based on the City Council and Staff progress in planning the area complicated by overlapping jurisdictions of City, County, State, Southern California Coastal Commission, and the State Coastal Commission, and the unavaila- bility of funds for in-depth planning. Signal has already spent $2 million on plans for Bolsa Chica and needs reasurrance of future annexation by the City before investing any more time or money. Assembly Bill #2948 (Hart) for acquisiton of additional land for recreational open space in Bolsa Chica will be on the r t� i .. Bolsa Chic& Study Committee Page 2 . April 21 , 1976 State ballot in November. Mr. Cooper supports partial annexation of the 264 acres at the Huntington Harbour westerly bluff area < including the triangle area at Edwards and Talbert which is strategically adjacent to Huntington Central Park. It would pave the way for dedi;gtian of 15+ acre addition to Huntington Central Park by Si ark once the land is within the ; . City. If the prop tions were to take place and the land developed reside , the City would gain 23 acres of park land or $986, 156 in cash. It would cost approximately $S77 ,500 +' for park development and $41 ,580 per year for maintenance of ry the 23 acres. Mr. Cooper believes the balance of Bolsa Chica is too difficult to contemplate for annexation and development until it is known what the State intends to do about it. Proponents for total annexation point to the fact that Bolsa Chica cannot help but influence and be influenced by the City of Huntington Beach surrounding it and it is to the City's advantage to be in charge of its planning. MOTION: Mr. Tom Cooper moved the Recreation and Parks Commission recommend to the Bolsa Chica Study Committee that the 264 acre Signal Bolsa bluff property south and adjacent to Warner, Los Patos , and Bolsa Chica Streets and the 60 acre triangle sector of property at Talbert and Edwards Streets be annexed by the City to show good faith to Signal-Landmark that future annexation of the entire Bolsa Chica area is forth- coming with the understanding that the City and Signal-Landmark .begin a total general planning effort for all of Bolsa Chica. Also, that no development take place until a Master. Plan of the entire Bolsa Chica area is finalized. Mr. Rudy Lozano seconded the motion. Motion carried. Respectfually submitted, Norm Worthy, Secietary Recreation and 'Parks Commission by Katherine Goodall ---ems \t l • �• CITY tW Mtoff lortiTON MACH INTER DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION to Mr . Tom Cooper From Mr . Norm Worthy, Director Recreation f, Parks Commissioner Recreation , Parks and Human Services Subject AOLSA CHICA ANNEXATION/IMPACT ON Date March 24, 1976 RECREATION f, PARKS SERVICES In response to your request for some estimated figures on the financial impact the total annexation or partial annexation of Bolsa Chica would have on Recreation and Parks services, I sub- mit the following : TOTAL ANNEXATION ( 1460 acres) 11 Assessed Value : $ 14 ,600, 900 2) Market Value : $ 58 ,400, 000 ($40, 000 per acre) 3) Income to City Recreation $ Parks Department per year ( 20f per $100 A.V . ) a $29, 200 4) Park acquisition acres or cash (if totally developed R-1) : a) 1460 acres x 5 (homes per acre) s 7 , 300 hoses x 3. 5 (people per home) a 2S , 550 people h) 25 SSO T 1000 x 5 . 127 . 75 acres (required dedication) or x 42 , 700 • $S ,4S4 ,92S (cash) _ 5) Park development cost : 127 . 7S acres @ $25 , 000 per acre s $3 , 193 , 750 6 ) Park maintenance cost : 127 . 75 acres ! $1 ,800 per acre (per yr) $229,950 PARTIAL ANNEXATION Z ac 36 ac (234 600 ac 41 . 09� 1162 ac (79. 591 lj , 6� T- 3 ,- , 000 T , §� T—M,620,140 2) $ 10 , S58 , 720 $13 , 432 , 000 $23 ,996 , 560 $ 46,480,S60 3) $ 5 , 279 $ 6 , 716 $ 11 , 998 $ 23, 240 4 ) Park acquisition acres or cash (if totally developed R-1) : a), 4 , 619 5 , 877 10,498 20,335 b) 23. 1 ac 29 . 38 ac 60 ac 116. 2 ac or or or or $986, 156 $1 , 254 , 740 $2 , 561 , 573 $4 ,961 ,740 5) $ 577 , 500 $ 734 , 500 $1 , 500 , 000 $2 ,90S,000 6) $ 41 , 580 $ 52 , 884 $ 108 , 000. $ 209 ,160 r arm or rector Recreation, P rks and Human NW : ac Services cc : City Administrator Recreation f, Parks Commission PROPOSAL FOR PARTIAL ANNEXATION Presented by: George Stringer for Signal Landmark March 10, 1976 Annexation of the westerly bluff, including the Goodell property. Bring it in under a Molding Ions RA. Environmental assessment of the bluff to proceed. Planning to proceed. Some planning to include the gap. The City and the landowner will jointly fund the planning (Total ) of the Balsa Chico. Signal Landmark will work with the Staff in deciding who the Planner will be . 'resented March 24 , 1976 : Another proposal . Annex the triangle (See map attached) at Edwards and Talbert. The City cannot accept a park dedication unless it is in the City. We could dedicate to the City soma 15 acres to complete the Central City Park over to where Edwards would ultimately curve around the bottom of the bluff. Dedicating the park site accomplishes the State 's proposal for that piece of property by providing access to Central City Park from the Boles Chice. Standard Uil does have some surface rights in the area. All I 4 March 31, 1976 ttr. Dick Harlow Director of Planning City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re: Approximately 41 Acres Located Adjacent to Existing Subdivision - Tract 8894 Dear Dick: It is W. R. Grace Properties. Inc. 's (formerly known as Kendall Development Co. , Inc. ) desire to have our existing 41 acres which is described In Exhibit r-- "A" annexed to the City of Huntington Beach as expeditiously as possible. We would request that zoning on said property be R-1 to allow us to develop it in a similar manner as our existing Tract 8893 and 8894. W. R. Grace Properties. Inc. fMels very strongly that this particular 41 acres Is a natural extension of our current subdivision, Tracts 8893 and 8894. This is borne out by the fact that the Planninq Coarmission in approving the tentative map for 8630 required that the future extensions of the street systems into this 41 acres be shorn on the tentative map. A copy of said map 1s included for your review. , We recognize that the Bolsa Chica Annexation Study Committee is currently reviewing the properties in which property owners have requested annexation to the City of Huntington Beach. W. R. Grace Properties, Inc. would welcome the opportunity to make a presentation before this committee, staff, Planninv CowA ssi on and/or City Council if you feel this would be appropriate in order to make our position known and to clarify the issue. Very truly yours, W. R. GRACE PROPERTIES. INC. ohn L. Dome�r Director of Pl anni ng , JL D:sep cc: Boisa Chic& Study Committee Henry Duke '� i OMAw'r Pul,cr rven N Woof Gddwn,a LMxi 7,Uc A-amin,nn SL*mWU V0 Mqp✓WvCV-IVIJ r Thu I,111i1 1 h,111-ti to 10 thI%P01ILY if deu.fibcd dt follows. PARCrI. 1 : THAT PORTION OF THE SOUT1111EST QUARTER OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP S SOUTH, RANGE 11 uEST, tit T1:E RANClio LA [%OLSA CHICA, CITY OF 11UNTIt.C.T0N ►►Ft.C►1, COU.JY OF ORAt:GE, STATE OF CALIFOR141A, AS PER MAP R:.CORD.D t is KOOK 51 111'42 13 OF 141SCELLANZ-OUS MAPS, IN VE OFF1C': Or THE COUNTY 'ZLC0rZDLR OF SAID COUNTY. QEG1NNINC, AT T107 VIESTFRLY CORNIER OF TRACT NO. 76340 AS SHOWN' ON VAP RECORDS D 114 BOOK 330 PAGES 26 THROUGH 29 OF SAID MIS— CLLLA1jCnuS MAPS; TllFNCC ,'•.LO►)G THr PROLONGATION OF Tl1E NORTH- a1FST(*rL'( LI1"41 OF SAID TRACT NO. 7634, SOUTH 540 49' 0511 WEST 360. 0+1 FZZT; T141NCE NOPTH 470 18' 30" WEST 530,00 FEET; THENCE NO1l711 570 of,' no" WEST 1142.36 FEET; VIENC£ 14ORTI1 400 00• 00" WEST 3010.1to r': :T TO T!IE SCII'niEASTERLY LINE OF THE CRANCE COUNTY FLOI[b CC':TRUL D I r-TR 1 CT k I CHT-OF-i'lAY, DESCRIBED AS PARCFL C5-101 It: Dt'rD R.:CGRDr"'D IN BOOK 7181 PAGE, 748 OF OFFICIAL ItECORDS, IN THE OrrICE Or SAID RECORDER; T11Et'CF ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LIF1C, [,nitl'N h3° 40 ' 14" r..AST 600.00 FCFT TO Tf"iE NORTll'? STERLY PROLO: •C,11TICk OF THE ;CUT:1t:_STERLY LINIE OF SAID TRACT NO. 7634; T11�t1CC ALONG 5AI n F'R')LC;:GAT ION, SOUTH 450 351 11" ".AST 1904.63 FLET TO. THE POIt'T OF -BEGINNING, !`XCEPT ALL OIL, rAS, t1YDPOCARDONS AND MINERALS OF EVrRY KIND AND C1+ARACT!:R IN OR 04Df-R AND SUCH WHICH MAY LC PRODUCED FROM SAID LANDS TOG:'11!;R 14I TH TfIE RIG►iT TO EXTRACT THE SAt1E FROM ALL T1IF SAID LANU)S, 1UT UI TH NO RIGHT TO USE OF ANY PORTION VlEk;:OF A!.UVF A PLANT 500 FEET BELOW THE SURFACE OF SUCH LANDS FOR THE PRODUCTIPN OF SAID MINERALS, 11UT WITH Tr1r PERPETUAL RICI•IT or I!XR`S5 ANU =GRr57 3ELOW A DEPTH OF FIVE ItUNDRED (500) FEET SENFA111 THE SURFACF OF ALL OF SUCII LANDS FOR Tll_c PURPOSE OF DR I LL I t:G INTO# II::D;'R At;p THROUGH THE LANnS FROM_ Tt1IE SURFACE OF OTHER LANDS, TOGETHER 11IT!1 THE RIGHT TO POOL SAID RI0M AI40 INTER:.)TS 114 SAID LAND I!ITH RIGHTS AND INTE►.S:STS IN OTHER 1.01DS; Srt U R ICHTS At.,n I NT!71;t.STS IN SAID LAt:DS SHALL It:CLUDE ALL SUS- TFRRAt.EAN RIG11TS ,I.:.LO►' A DEPTH ".017 FIVE 1,IUNDRED (500) FEET SENEAT11 THE SUkr-AC- OF SAID Lg-%[)S NECESSARY, INCIDFUTAL OR CO`;VFNIENT TO THE rul_L -Xi�P.CY OF SAID EXCF_PTCD RIGtiTS .N4D INTEkt STS, AND SHALL INCLU.'1t" THC k1f ii f TO DRILL, CPEk/!TZ, MAI►":TAIN, REPAIR AND RcPI/•Cc, TU.�:N.'L, COR� 11^.t.�S, 110:k;:S AND INJ::CTION YELLS INTO SAID LAND TO OR TIQ00('11 "OT't''R LAND:; F(,R T11F PURPOSE OF REVOVING OIL, GAS, HYDRC'- CAR:;("! SUDSTANC::S Ai!!) 11114-RALS FROM SAID LANDS OR FRU:1 OTItER LANDS FOR T:1F PU:1'O"1-:5 OF 5U.%S i U:hCC CONTROL OR PREVL--IITION OF SALT HATER INTR11:,IO,J1v AS h::SCrZI'.'LD AS BEING FXCSPTFO IN Da"D FRON SIGNAL " PRO1'►::TI' S, I':C. , A CALIFORIIIA CORPCRATIONo TO SIGNAL GOLS•A CrRrrOQATIONJP A CAl_IFIRN1A CORPORATI^"rl, At'D :;IGNAL OIL INHO GAS COt'I'l.1lY, A D) :LA- ARC CORrCRATION, DATSn AUGUST o, 1973, AND R£CGrtnED AUGU'.,T 17, 11173 IN 000l,' 10855 PAG..L 340, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. ,�\ [?X11 I B I T "A" i 5405041i, SCHP_D. C r PAGE 2 PARC5L 2 : THUSf. r'C)I;lIONS OF SECTIGI,S 28 AND 33, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 11 tirEST, Iri TiiF CITY OF HUNTIKGTON 3EACii, COUNTY OF OFAN-G;, STATC OF CA.I.IFO2NIA, AS SHOWi,i ui. A tLAP FILCU 114 LIUOK q2 PAGES 19 THROUGH 28 I(:CLU IVt:' OF K.COPUS OF SURVdY, IN THE OFFICE OF TH1= COUNTY Rs-. CORD: Q Of SAID C00-iTY; DH5CRIl11:D AS FGLLOWS: I BEGlt.�Jlt.. AT Ti-l': SCUTHEPLY COP."iER +'�F TRACT NO. 7634, AS SHOWN ON I-AP R':C(;knFD IN r.C17K 33n PAGES 26 Tii�UUGH 29 OF i-1ISCELLAUEOUS MAPS, IA TtiF. OFFIC- OF SAIL) kcCORD::?f THENCE ALONG 'rif SOUTH. VF.STt:RI.Y LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 7634, NORTH 480 379 02" %ILST 24.nG F: ..T TO A': r'i,[r,T AND NORTH 450 359 111' MIST 1589. 35 i'L-.►_T TO THE VEST-PLY CoRi4'LR tF SAID TIRAXT; THn-NCC AL064C TI IL PRCL.)`.G`ATIO;•'. OF Tlit N,ORTtiV STL RL.Y t_I Rs OF SAID TRACT, SOUTii 54° 4n# (15t' 11.-S T 360 .00 F-*ET; TIiuI cr- ,C)UT1i W 10 • 55" BAST 300. nn Fr"T1 T;t.:t,CC cOUT'H 32° 13' 43" FAST 1396 . 60 FEET; Tt1ENCE NDR1'N 51° 47 ' ,r1" :AST 305.00 F ! T; THENCE: NORTH 420 191 4514 FAST 43n.(10 FCF:T TO THE POINT OF IL-Gl1NING. fXCtrr'T ALL OiL, GAS, HYDROCARBONS AND MINERALS OF EVERY KIND 1 AND CIIARACT"R IN Cm U,:D: R /04D SUCH WHICH P.-.AY- GE PRCDUCrD FRlN4 SAID LP:A): TGGSIt-iFP UITlI T1 RIrI-iT TO EXTRACT THE SAME FROM ALL T►iF. SAID L,,V:DS, nUT 1,1ITH NO Rli•li'Y TO USE OF ANY PORTION THERCOF At r,V:� A PLANE 500 FEF-T BELOW THE SURFAC! OF SUCH LAUDS FOR Tlll. PPODOCT1011 OF SAID 0114ERALS, nUT '117H Tlif! PFRPCTUAL RIGHT OF I'+Gk 5S .>,:%b Et;R.:SS I,ELOW A DEPTH OF FIVE ► 11UNDRE D (500) FEET BkN�:ATH Ttt': SUR.FPCE OF ALL OF SUCH LANDS FOR TliF PURPUSE OF DRILLING INTO, Uf#DFR Arch THROUGH THE LANDS FRC•�i THE SURFACE OF UTIicR LA'.D 1, TOGFT:IEr VI TH THE RIGHT TO POOL SAID RIGHTS AND INT:R..STS 1:1 SAID LA►.D 141 TH RIGHTS A?10 111TERSETS IN OTHER LANDS; SAID kIC-AT" AND INT­RFSTJ 1N SAID LA',rDS SHALL IIiCLUD!: .ALL SUB- TERRAt•.Fr.y R I CHTS tk' LOW A D.:.PTH OF F I V.: tiUtlDlrc D (50 n) FE: T CEfIZATH THE SORFACi OF SAID LANDS NECESSARY, I:vC, IDENTAL OR CONVdNIENT TO TtiE FULL rX;R.CISF OF SAID EXC;'PTED 41CHTS A::D 1 '4Ti:RESTS, AND ;HALL I+<CLUID.. TI'" Rl(;IiT TO DRILL , ^rfRATE, 1'AINTA;N, 2SPAIR AND REPLACE, TU'44FL, COR: HOLCS, li0t:c5 AND I NJEC'TI DN VELLS 11gTi) SAID LAND TO OR TIIQ')UC,li CTHrR LAWK: FOR Ttiv PLIRPCSE OF ReHOVING 0IL, GAS, HYDRt�-- CARnOIN AND 111,.FRALS FROtl SAID LANDS 04 FROM UPIER LANDS FOR Tit' i'U''I'ns'S C.r- 'snsiL,:'..,iCf CC?,4TtZ-L �)R PREVr_t:TION OF SALT VATFR INTRtI` (,N, AS D SCRII-eD 'AS "E'ING EX.C--'PTED IN nLFD FRCM SIGNAL PROf'F..^.TI F.';, It-C. , A CAL I FCRfA A CCrtP^4.4TI Of3, TO I GNAL POLSA CORPORATITI, A C-ALIFORNIA CORPORATIO':, AND SIGNAL OIL AND GAS COtirkiY, A DrLAti.A^,- CCM"I'OkATIOlc, VAT-r!) AUGUST 9, 1973, AND RECORDED AUGUST 17, 1973 I11 BOOK 10855 PAGE 3400 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. I' i I " 24 .,. H SLATER' CHAMMEL Mw 0, `'•�' 76SlN �lrw$or . �w co• ♦why � �Vf . 1 I I ' I � p � ( i I I 1 I I t!wN , if"Sot to +•s�.frCa• e• s�/.+-r�) � _ Jr� N NW SECTION III RELEVANT LEGISLATION Beilenson Bill SB - 1579 Hart Bill AB - 294.8 Wornum Bill AB - 3544 Warren Bill AB - 15 j 49 In a esources _ '4NATE BILL No. 1579 Coastal Conservation-Coininission and six regional coastal conservation commissions;-and-prescribe their membership, -! powers, and duties. _ ; Ir (b) Terminate each regional commission within 30 days Introduced by Senators Beilenson, Behr, Dunlap, Gregorio, after the last required local coastal program has been certi- Mills, and Smith fied, as prescribed, of on January 1, 1981; whichever is the (Coauthors: Assemblymen cGarth , Siero `earliest date. ym M y ty, and. �'Vornum) (5) Designate the-commission as the successor- in interest to all remaining obligations, powers, duties, responsibilities, benefits, and interest.of-the.*California Coastal Zone* Conser- vation Commission or any-regional coastal zone conservation - February. 10, 1976 commission establishe nder, the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act of.19'T :- (6) Provides:for.the"preparation of local coastal programs by each city or county.ayingwithin the coastal resource man - Anact to add Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) agement area, as defiried;and for approval and certification to, and to amend Sections 25103, 25115, 23500, 25507; 25508, of any such prograni.tiy,an appropriate regional commission 25514,25519,and 25526 of,the Public Resources Code,relating• or the commission,respectively, in conformity with the goals, to the coastal resources. objectives, and policie's.b the state set forth in.this bill. (7) Require, witli'pres6ibed exceptions,any person wish- - . LEcts(.A-ME COUNSEL'S oicEST - ing to perforrn or -undekak-e any development on or after 'SB 15'9-, as introduced, Beilenson. Coastal resources., effective date of this bill;;within designated areas,.to obtain a The present :California Coastal Zone Conservation .Act of permit authorizing such,-development from a regional com- 1972, in effect until January. 1, 1977„provides for the establish! . mission or.th e commission„as prescribed, which would have ment of the California. Coastal Zone Cbnservation Commis= to meet prescribed requirements. , sion and six region' d coastal zone conservation commissions, (8) -Terminate, with•prescribed exceptions, the permit au with prescribed membership, powers, and duties. -It provides thority of"the commission or regional commission over any for the commission to develop,adopt,and submit to the Legis development proposed'within the area covered by a local -lature the California Coastal Zone Conservation Plan.The act 'coastal program which. as been certified and becomes.effec- prohibits, with- prescribed exceptions, developments within five,anti delegate such authority to appropriate city or county designated areas of the coastal zone, as defined,.without ob implementing such'local coastal program. taining a%permit-from a regional commission or the commis (9) Provide for judicial review,for penalties,for issuance of sion on appeal. 1 cease and desist ordersand for imposition of.civil fines, in- This.bill, in general, would do all-of the following-- , . eluding exemplary.damages, in connection with the ,provi- (1) Enact the California Coastal Conservation Act of 1976. sion of this bill. +`, (2) Declare , legislative findings relating to California (10)` Revise the existing law as to the jurisdiction of certify- ; coastal resources. - ing sites and related powerplant facilities to be located within (3) Prescribe goals, objectives, and policies of the. state the coastal zone. with:r6pect to marine environment, land environment,.ap- (11) Provide that there shall be no reimbursement pursu- pearance and design, .development, energy, transportation, ant to Section 2231 of the Revenue and Taxation Code nor public access, and recreation, and provide, generally, for car- shall there be an appropriation made by this bill; for specified Irying out such, goals,. objectives, and policies in connection reasons. with manager-'�' t of the coastal resources. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal cor--Nnittee-. yes. -- --- - Sf-ite-mard;,rnrI lnr^l nrmcyr, IV native Americans weer here oauwrtalrlc to the voters. But . . . first, of course. They were the first Ayala has problems with the coast• to harvest the bounty of the Califor- The sutus of the plan, as It stands al bill. and how the new coastal nia coastline. And Bane would sa} . nnw, Is described by one observer as agency would operate: they were the i8ri1 Tea!conservation►- , merely "a report to the Legislature." t'- one hopeful sign this year is theca l')1W. Words on• paper. State shelves are - seems to be a greater degree of rea- i But as history''has a habit of re- yonmed with ponderous planning " son and serimn'tLudy of the Issue in ' `cording it, the coast was"drscovereet iforunirntS that have done little more % the legislature. It,isn't quite the, 434 years ago when Juan Cabrillo than gather dust over the yeart good•guys-Ven s-the-bad•guys battle sailed north from' exam as. 1972 the.strident yokes on north perhaps � + The,bill to implement.key provf. Pe Ds !•. ions of the Coastal Plan. sponsored ®tterttbn:_ „�� 'I'h� tthip's,offlcers groused. as re-, s rn. Anthony C. Beilerwn(D-Los t: ' �;- AnpOes)declares' .1 'The California coastal 'zone is a dt-ttnct and valuable natural re- f- ere kk the Xey Elements enurre belonging to all the pe%le,, Try fret Jim Justesen agree to:. ®f, :CaliforleniaP'Cpastal Plan that. Him is not alone by any means. 1 bs Fympathizers range from felkw home nwners to giant firms,sKn as What does the CaVoin a Coastal ' source protection, where economic Exxon Oil Co. Plan seek to do? Here are the keY development confliets with cottaerva- 'rho plan declares that it protects!, elements:' ; tion, Vhere` urban expansion COM- this rights of property owners: that i --The plan promotes: productive peter'with the.retention of natural. critical land needed for public owner- agriculture, viable communities and areas.'or where shod-run gains re- chip and accgw.will be adequately.,; neighborhoods, expansion of cm. °suit in the forfeiture of long-rub eco- pa+d fnr mercia) fishing activity and fisheries . +It also ,a};,'The property rights of research, acquisition of additional nomic berx1its. a landnwner are not absolute." parklands, restoration of degraded —The plan is highly restrictive in Their is a gray area where land, ,�^coastal en�lronrrrcnt_z and continued its control over the dredging and fill- ofownrtq contend their rights ire development "existing ports and ing of coastal wetlands. its protection ahn�lard. and their land devalued. marinas."'"" of areas of unusual natural or histor- merely because it "might' be bought r —The plan seeks to achieve bal is value and in its regulation of acU-,. or needed some day. ance where there is a competition vities that, involve substantial en- A )ot deperxia on wchose ox is being', among goals, such as where increas- vironmental risk or the loss of pro- gored, ing coastal acem competes with re- ductive agricultural or forest bn& l {� n V A r EVALUATION: AH 2946 - HART BILL PRLSENTED HY: Herb Chatterton, Amigos do Bolve Chico March 1U, 1976. 'laces bond issue of $290,000,000 on November 1976 election. The Edwin L. Z ' herg Coastal Park Fund will be used as follows: j a. $150,000 ,000 Acquisitions to state park system. . b. 9 50,000 ,000. Grants to local governments for acquisition of recreational resources, C . f 10,000 ,000 Acquisition and restoration of property for wildlife management by Department of Fish and Game. d. 1 55,000 ,000 For local grants and state expense for other park , recreation and historical resources. For items a & b , the first priorities are those consistent with the Coastal Zone Conservation Commission recommendations and that are: ( i ) Land and water areas best suited to serve the recreational needs of urban populations shall be given priority over outlying land and water areas. i ( ii ) Land and water areas of significant environmental importance, such as habitat protection, shall have priority over other less important areas , ( iii ) Land and water areas in either of the above categories for which development or a use incompatible with the resource or recreational value of such area is proposed shall be given the highest priority and shall be acquired or protected before j land or water areas experiencing little or no development pressure. I i i ' 1 k Ali 3544 Wornum PRESENTED BY: Tom Cooper, Recreation and Parke Commission k March 31 , 1976 G LEGI5LATIVE COUNSEL 'S DIGEST AB 3544 , as introduce , Wornum (Res. , L.U. , & E. ) . State Coastal Conservancy. There is no existing law providing for a state agency with authority or responsibility to act as a conservancy over specific areas in the Coastal Zone of the state. This bill , in general , would' do all of the following: ( 1 ) Declare legislative findings relating to the lands within the coastal zone , as defined. (2 ) Establish in the Resources Agency, the State Coastal Con— ; y servancy and prescribe its membership, powers , and duties. ( 3 ) Authorize the conservancy to acquire fee title, development rights , easements , or other interests in designated land located' in the coastal zone , subject to designated certification of the California Coastal Conservation Commission, proposed to be established by Senate Bill No. 1579 of this session, require the conservancy to return to private use of ownership lands so acquired for agricultural preservation, and require the conservancy to pay fees tolocal public agencies , as defined , and special districts , for loss of revenue due to conservancy having an interest in the land. Authorize the conservancy to award grants , as prescribed, to local public agencies for coastal restoration projects and coastal resources enhancement projects , as defined, and authorize the conservancy to undertake any such project under prescribed conditions. ( 5) Provide for establishing of resource protection zones and preservation of significant coastal resources areas. (6 ) Provide for acquisition by the Department of Parks and Recreation, of public access ways along the coast line of the state. ( 7 ) Provide that this bill shal become operative only if 58 1579 is enacted. ,�3 r OeFICE OFF THE CITY ATTORILY j OPINION 110. 76-14 I March 15, 1976 ` U' LCT: Impact of Assembly Bill No. 15 on Proposed Bolsa Chica Annexation i r;LQU1 cTL•:D BY: Bolsa Chica Annexation Committee PRI,PARED BY: Don P . Bonfa, City Attorney John O'Connor, Deputy City Attorney QUESTION: What is the impact of Assembly Bill No. 15 upon the annexation issues relating to Bolsa Chica? i OPINION: See Discussion. l DISCUSSION: Assembly Bill 11o. 15 creates the "California Agricultural Lands Act" which is designed to conserve prime agricultural j land . The bill establishes an agricultural land use policy : ( 1 ) That agricultural lands are a finite and irre- ,Iaceable resource; i (2) That such lands should, to the maximum possible extent , be maintained and preserved for the production of food i ,irid fiber; and ( 3 ) That such lands should not be converted to other than i attylcultural uses except where such other uses are clearly 1`:!r'�im0ul7t to - agricultural use of the land and it is clearly i unreasonable to use other than agricultural land for such purposes . ^c Implement these policies, the bill required all state and !, c<tl agencies which have within their jurisdiction an aggregate j1' l ,6nr) acres or more of, land in actual agricultural use, or w-re zoned for such use, to identify and delineate on maps the location of all prime agricultural land within their ,jurisdiction -,rithin 120 days of the effective date of Assembly Bill No. 15 . ` i�nder Section 67750 of this bill, a public entity with less than i ,600 acres of such land is exempted from the Act . We have been I ^ r ! '.'d A.ioWlEY '•.zirct. 15 , 1976 rage 2 itdvtjed by the Planning Department that there are less than 1,600 i UVrcr, of agricultural as defined in this bill within the City of !(unt.ington Beach; therefore, this bill would not be directly applicable to the City of Huntington Beach, however, it would be applicable to the County of Orange. , I Prime agricultural land within the meaning of this Act is defined in Section 67720, and provides : , ; " '_x!ime agricultural land' means an area of land, whether a single parcel or contiguous parcels, which: (1 ) is over 20 acres in size; (11) on the date on which this title is chaptered, has not been developed for a use other than an agricultural use; and (III) meets any of the following qualifi- cations: (1 ) Land which qualifies for rating as class I or class II in the Soil Conservation Service land use capability classification; (2) Land which qualifies for rating 80 through 100 Storie Index Rating; (3) Land which supports livestock used for the production of food and fiber and which has an annual carrying capacity equivalent of at least one animal unit per acre•, as defined by the United States Department of Agriculturie in the National Handbook on Range and Related Grazing Lands , July 1967, developed pursuant to Public Law 46, December, 1935; (4) Land planted with fruit or nut-bearing trees, vines , bushes , or crops which have a nonbearing period of legs than five years and which will normally return during the commercial bearing period on an annual basis from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant production not less than two hundred dollars ($200) per acre ; (5) Land which has returned from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant products an annual gross value of not less than two hundred dollars ($200) per acre for three of the previous five years. . . . " If the Bolsa Chica land could meet any of the qualifications (1) through (5) of Section 67720, it could be included within the OranCe County plan. (Section 67750 limits application of this Act to land within the "Jurisdiction" of the public entity, and while the City 's sphere of influence may extend beyond City boundaries, Jurisdiction extends only to the boundaries, therefore, the juris-- diction over the Bolsa Chica under this Act is in the County. ) We have been advised by the Planning Department (copy attached) that the Bolsa Chica does not come within the qualification �• !• 1 1 , 7ci �l of SecIA on Q711.' Circe it is not land i 1 { ''f :► t't j• r•itintL as C l-&;3 C, c t'.us I1 in the Soil z l.,ttd use capability class ifi.cation, or, i n1i iiii' ch nuaU rio:,i for rating; 00 tt,.rougl; inn Storie Index x. ,towever, a srllall portion of the iiolsa Chica bluff area Ici, appar•rntly been under cultivation; and 1'f this has been for t;lrc(., of the last five years. and produced not less than $200 � per acre , it mould fall within the purview of Section 67720 (5) . a 'i'he Portion of the property under cultivation (if it qualifies) rt:iv he included un(ler the Orange County"u plan and that would hl! the extent of any impact of Ab 15 on the Holea Chica annexa— tion. y R ,/:91 o D014 P. BON • ' City Attor4y t, and r JC11id 0'C01111OR ' Deputy City Attorney DPB:JOC :er i Attachment i i i i 1 I ' i 1 ` A ' off! CITY OF HUNTINGTO 1 IMACH , IN1EIi-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION I 'Ui .ii .11MMIMN /, ` lu Jahn O'Connor From Dave Eadi Subject Agricultural Land Date March 15, 1976 In furtherance of our phond conversation regarding the extent of agricultural land within the City of Huntington Beach, please consider the following information in rendering your legal opinion requested by Dick Harlow on March ll, ,1976. The City does not have more than 1 ,600 acres of prime agricultural land as defined in Assembly Bill 115. The unannexed area in and around the Bolsa Chica Marsh,while totally undeveloped, does not qualify as prime agricultural land. '► 1 trust this information answers your questions regarding i= agricultural land. DE:gc I i I I o� NUNT nvor AIR I 1976 = 44000 : o r 'STRINGER COMPANY j SkyWk Chch l rvkok CMilwab sZ COMMENTS ON A. B. NO. 15 WARREN BILL !. March 169 1976 1. Would limit the use of prime agricultural land essentially to agricultural purposes. • i 2. Huntington Beach would probably be exempt since there are probably less than 1600 acres zoned and/or used for agricultural purposes. 3. Orange County would not be exempt, hence, Bolsa Chica could be affected. 4. Land could later be excluded if the City finds it is needed for urban growth and urban growth is necessary for the public welfare and if approved by the State Agricultural Resources Council. 5. Land (unless within an exempt agency at the time of passage of the Act), will be determined to be prime agricultural land if ' any of the following exist: y A. Class I or Class H per Soil Conservation Service land use capability. B. Rating of 80 through 100 (Storie Index • j fkating). C. Could support at least one (1) animal unit per acre. D. Could normally produce a gross value of agricultural products of $200. 00 per acre per year. i E. Land which has produced a gross value of agricultural products of $200. 00 per acre per year ; in three of the last five years. 6. Depending on interpretation, Bolsa Chica might be classified as prima agricultural land. 7. There are numerous similar acts being discussed, and the chances of this one passing without substantial modifications are, I am told, not likely. i George D. YStringer :crm � e r I ` 't SECTION IV i AREAS Of AGREEMENT P t BOLSA CHICA STUDY COMMITTEE AREAS Of AGREEMENT 1 . There should be TOTAL GENERAL PLANNING of the Bole& China. 2. TOTAL GENERAL PLANNING should take place before ANY j development begins. 3. If any annexation takes place prior to planning the Committee agrees it should come in as a Holding Zone, Zoned RA-01 or RA-02. ti I4 . The. City .Council should move toward a timely decision oni A. Not to Annex or B. Delay Annexation for a finite period of time or C. Initiate proceedings necessary for Annexation. I 5. (This is an offer made by Mr. Stringer for Signal I - Landmark ) Signal Landmark would be willing to finance a portion of the TOTAL GENERAL PLANNING, but must have some assurance Annexation will take place. 6. Matrix of Alternates for Annexation t N (71•t1 H•t7-I:Le1 CJFiETCHEN A. HUAD is 1.t)n.t�•I�,..'�f .. ��. r U . ��, nt�r , .•i this SUITE 107 HUNTINOTON ExrectrnvB PARK 10052 BEACH BouL YARD CITY OF HUNTIMTO4 UE911 j HunrrimoroN BEACH.GA eee47 CITY COUNCIL OFFICE April 19 , 1976 Ilan t inston Beach City Council D� hunt ington Beach City Hall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach , CA Gin' OF if;i�VTjr�t;iG;J GEl<t, t:o un c i lmembe rs : The purpose of this letter is to express the concerns of' Amigos de Bolsa Chica regarding annexation of the Bolsa Chica properties iiy the City of Huntington Beach. rlrnigos de Bolsa Chica believes that the titles held by Signal Landmark Properties , Inc. and W. R. Grace , Inc. to large areas Of the Bolsa Chica lowlands may be defective because of the -,ossible invalidity of the land exchange between the State ;,acids commission and Signal in 1973. Amigos de Bolsa Chica ; ;.•�refore urges a no-annexation policy regarding these lands . 1�nr loubt ~ as to Signal and Grace ' s title are based on the foi lo,.Jn6 considerations : 1 . 'title to the tidelands in California is not absolute , but is subject to an easement in favor of the public as set rfrt >> ..in the California Constitution , Article XV, Section 3. ihr %.ords of the Constitution are considered incorporated B in any grant of the tidelands , the same as if they were i inserted in the grant , and they become a part of it and qualify it . The estate granted, therefore , is limited to the uses i<hiJi do not interfere with the rights of the public. 2 . Public trust uses are not limited to commercial navigation and fishery , but embrace the public interest in preserving open spaces for recreation and wildlife . Marks v Whitney 6 C 3d 251 . 3. Government Commissioned maps of the Bolsa Chica dated prior to 1890 indicate that the tidelands of the Bolsa Chica were once much larger than at present , and once covered almost all the lowlands outside of the present city limits . Diminution of the area subject to the ebb and flow of the tide was due pimarily to damming and diverting activities at the turn of the century by the Bolsa Land Company, Signal ' s predecessor in title . The construction of the dam and the filling of the ocean entrance were clearly illegal. Property i Huntington Beach City Council April 19 , 1976 Page Two I jheld by the state in trust for the public use cannot be gained' ._ . ` by adverse possession , and the statute of limitations does not apply to an action to recover such property from one using it for private purposes not consistent with the public use. City of Los Angeles v Anderson 206 C 662 . The 1973 exchange between- Signal and the State Lands Commission' may have been invalid, because the findings required to be made before a conveyance of tidelands to a private grantee by the State Lands Commission may not have been supported by facts . ''The State may grant tidelands to a private grantee if it finds that those lands are valueless for trust purposes ; if they have been or are to be reclaimed pursuant to and in the course of a highly -beneficial public program of harbor development ; and if they constitute a relativelt small Rarcel of the total acreage involved. ong beach v Mansell , 3 C 3d 46Z . Furthermore , the Appelate Court in County of Orange v Heim, 30 Cal App 3d 694 , found an exchange between Orange County and the Irvine Company invalid because the facts surrounding the exchange did not support the finding thatthe lands involved constituted a relatively small parcel of the total acreage involved. The Court found that , because the Irvine lands to be conveyed in the exchange were already tidelands under public control and subject to the Constitutional mandate , the County was actually relinquishing much more than a small parcel , It was relinquishing large parcels overwhich it had an easement . The 1973 land exchange in the Bolsa Chica is factually similar to the facts surrounding the Upper Newport Bay exchange discussed in the Heim case , and hence , is subject to unwinding by the Courts , should a Tawsuit to confirm title be initiated. For the above reasons , Amigos de Bolsa Chica urges the City Council to adopt a cautious attitude towards annexing land burdened with dubious title which may make impossible ultimate development in a manner financially beneficial to the City; and which may embroil the City of Huntington Beach in litigation over such title. Very truly yours , Gretchen A. Hoad Attorney for Amigos de Bolsa Chica cc : lion Bonfa, Huntington Beach City Attorney C.E. Parker , Attorney. at Law 'Bolsa Chica Annexation Committee GHjlm 3 TO: City Council . DATE: April 29, 1976 SUBJECT: BOLSA CHICA STUDY COMMITTEE REPORT Ruth Bailey, Vice Chairman of the Bolsa Chica Study Committee will make a fi:•e (S) minute speech. presenting the Final Report to the City Co>>ncil , Monday, May 3, 1976. George Stringer, Brian Parkinson and Herb Chatterton and other committee members will be available for questions during the presentation. Pat Suter, Secretary Bolsa Chica Study Committee f E BOL5A CHICA STUDY COMMITTEE FINAL REPURT TO HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL MAY 3, 1976 Z 1 i TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION SECTIUN I MATERIAL RELATING DIRECTLY TO ANNEXATION SECTION II POSITIONS OR PROPOSALS PRESENTED BY GROUPS REPRESENTED ON THE COMMITTEE SECTION III RELEVANT LEGISLATION SECTION IV AREAS OF AGREEMENT I i INTRODUCTION The Bolsa Chica Study Committee dealt primarily with the I, concerns involved with Annexation or No Annexation of the i Bolsa Chica property not with the impact of potential develop- ment. However, Annexation, Zoning and Planning were all t part of 'the discussions. The positions and/or proposals presented herein are listed in alphabetical order, not in order of preference. This was done in an effort to fairly represent the diverse I points of view existing on the Committee. Please note: The Economic Advisory Commission could not deal with annexation, because of a lack of financial information. i The Areas of Agreement are for the most part self- explanatory and represent those areas in which the Committee could reach a consensus. The Bolsa Chica Study Committee has compiled a considerable amount of relevant material during the months it has been meeting. The Council is welcome at any time to call upon j the Committee for any of the information it has accumulated. i �i SECTION I MATERIAL RELATING DIRECTLY TO ANNEXATION Matrix - Alternates for Annexation City Revenue Estimates Maps 1 . Ownership 2. Showing areas proposed for acquisition by state. City Attorney - Procedure for Annexation. Sub-Committee Report - Politics I , S� �j BOLSA CHICA STUDY COMMITTEE Matrix Alternates for Annexation TOTAL ANNEXATION PARTIAL ANNEXATION NO ANNEXATION 1 . Bluff Only 2. State & MWD 1 . & 2. Acres Acquired 1460 264 336 600 0 Economics Short Term $110,000/yr. $19,000 $6,000 $25,000 No Change (172,000 Revenue (oil declining) less oil and property taxes) Long Term 7 7 7 7 No Change (Revenue-Costs Nst.2/3 revenue lase services) Growth R-1 16,000 4,000 0 4,000 0 Potential Population (all land developed ' 4 units per acre, 4 people per unit) 32,000 8,000 0 8,000 0 Politics Local Control Some Control ? Some Control No Local Control Timing 1 . If City annexes total area for potential development it will probably increase value of the land. 2. If City annexes total area, pre-zoned, Holding Zone, it will probably not increase value of land. Annexation with Developable Zoning Would probably increase value of land depending on zoning. Additional cost information needed. Planning Planning Commission says City plans all. (Around State if acquisition occurs. ) BOLSA CHICA ANNEXATIONS CITY REVENUE ESTIMATES January 19, 1976 Revised April 23, 1976 Assessed Value Property Tax Oil Barrel Tax Grand Total Annexation Taxable O-knershi s Only Revenue Production @ Annual Land Minerals Total @ 1.62/ 100 Brls Da .08/Brl. Revenue Entire Unin- corporated Area $1, 944, 050 $2, 426, 250 $4, 370, 300- $70, 799 3, 500 $102, 200 $172, 799 Initial Request (260 acres) plus MWD plus Goodell plus Kendall $1,645, 600 $ 766, 890 $2,412,490 $39, 082 250 $ 7, 300 $ 46, 382 State 300 Ac. N.A. Nil Nil Nil 300 $ 8, 760 $ 8, 760 NOTE: The above estimates are based on current assessed (excluding personal property) valuations, with no allowance for changes as a result of annexation, zoning or development. There will be some expense to the City as a result of any of these annexations, but they will probably be minor, except for the one time cost of planning, which is estimated to be $100, 000, more or less, for the entire Bola& Chica area. PROPERTY OWNERS ACRES ® SIGNAL 60LSA CORFMATION 11016 (230 ACS. LEASED TO STATE) KENDALL DEVELOPMENT COMMW 41 ME DON 000MLL (• ® METROP1PLITAN WATER DISTRICT 36 eXEtWVIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT 115 Q ST06 OF CALLFORWIA 3D0 • <~ '.' ! i ^�• ORAµ G COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL 20(LEASED) POWUIE ANMIxJ1T10N ' +.�� z JJJ • • • e � - i� MJrT•0�"�6J�x o e Y O••A•o•• •�Y• • •ge�s•e•s 1•�¢ DF UNINCORPORATED BOLSA C CA Z;p. i CITY ATTORNEY P1.®. sox ift "UNT"Tal M ACM 8 IAma Deli P. 90HPA Ttlellll CITY AYT0O®19<V January 21, 1976 TO: Councilman, Henry H. Duke, Chairman, Bolsa Chica Annexation Study Committee FROM: John O'Connor, Deputy City Attorney SUBJECT: Legal Implications of the Bolsa Chica Annexation This memorandum responds to your request for an analysis of the legal implications of annexation of the Bolsa Chica area. The annexation process must include : (a) Preparation of a general plan of the area; (b ) Implementation of appropriate zoning consistent with the general plan; (c ) Approval of annexation by the Local Agency Formation i Commission; (d ) An environmental analysis; and (e ) Compliance with the requirements for annexation of uninhabited territory . We will proceed to examine each of these requirements separately . 1 . Preparation of a General Plan. Government Code Section 65300 provides : "Each planning agency shall prepare and the legislative body of each county and city shall adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and of an land outside its boundaries which in theplannin agency s u gmeFf bears re a on o s p ann ng. i I TO: Councilman Henry H. Duke FROM:' John O'Connor, Deputy City Attorney SUBJECT: Legal Implications of the Bolsa Chica Annexation Page 2 Government Code Section 65301 further states: "The general plan shall be so prepared that all or individual elements of it may be adopted by the legislative body, and so that it may be adopted by the legislative body for all or part of the territory of the county or city and such other territory outside its boundaries which in its judgment bears relation to its planning." The Bolsa Chica is presently designated as a Planning Reserve under the General Plan Land Use Element . This was an interim designation to meet the State deadline requiring a General Plan on or before December 31, 1973. Monica Florian of the Planning Staff has succinctly stated the General Plan status of the Bolsa Chica as follows : i "As adopted by Council, Resolution No. 3814 on December 19 , 1973, the Land Use Element of the General Plan (required by Government Code Section 65302a) designates the Bolsa Chica area as Ecological Reserve (that acreage proposed for state use) and Planning Reserve . As defined in the Land Use Element, i Planning Reserve is ' a broadly defined interim desig- nation intended for areas where long-term comprehen- sive planning and development is anticipated. ' Uses may include : 1 . Land areas in a predevelopment phase that are not yet fully planned or ready for immediate development 2 . Land in transition to ultimate use that may be designated by a ' holding' zone (such as the ' RA' District ) 3. Resource production areas including land In use for agriculture or oil extraction purposes. (Oil extraction may be combined with land designated as industrial , residential agricultural, or residential. ) The Element further states that ' the intent of this category is not to preclude development, but to identify such areas as deserving special attention and planning efforts . ' As an additional policy for the Bolsa Chica, the Element states : 'Certain problems and questions ~1 that are inherent in the development of this area should be addressed and annexed prior to proceeding with ID annexation. ' TO: Councilman henry H. Duke r^ FROM' John O'Connor, Deputy City Attorney SUBJECT: Legal Implications of the Bolsa Chica Annexation Page 3 "The Open Space and Conservation Elements of the General Plan (required by Government Code Section 65536) adopted by Council Resolution No. 3813 on December 19, 19736 designate the Bolsa Chica as a First Priority Area in the City with greatest potential for preservation of open space and destined to serve as the core of the Open Space Program. "The Seismic-Safety Elements of the General Plan (required by Government Code Section 65355) adopted by Council Resolution No. 3964, designate portions of the Bolsa Chica area as IIigh , Seismic Risk and Flood Plain areas making seismic safety and flood hazard policies applicable there . " The general plan for the Bolsa Chica must be integrated with the general plan of the City, and consistent with the policy and objectives of other elements of the general plan. e � 2 . Zoning of the Bolsa Chica in Consistency with the Adopted General an. Government Code Section 65860 requires that City zoning ordinances sBall "be consistent with the general plan. This has been a mandatory. requirement imposed upon cities since 1974 . Government Code Section 65359 authorizes a city to prezone unincorporated terri- tery adjoining the city . This section reads : "A city may prezone unincorporated territory adjoining the city for the purpose of determining the zoning that will apply to such property in the event of subsequent annexation to the city. The method of accomplishing such prezoning shall be as provided by this chapter for zoning within the city. Such zoning shall become effective at the same time that the. annexation becomes effective. " Government Code Section 65354 requires that prezoning procedures comply with the notice and hearing requirements of the Government Code . Section 65854 (c ) reads : " (c ) In prezoning, if the matter is before a city planning commission the notice shall be Published at least once in a newspaper of. general circulation, published and circulated in the area i t� 1 To: Councilman }lenry li. Duke FHOM: John O'Connor, Deputy City Attorney SUBJLCT: Legal Implications of the Bolsa Chica Annexation Page u to be prezoned, or if there is none, it shall be posted in at least three public places in the area to be prezoned. In addition to notice by .publication, a county or city may give notice of the hearing in such other manner as it may deem necessary or desirable. " Further, prezoning is authorized under }iuntington Beach Ordinance Code Section 9823 which provides : "The City Council recognized that a city's social and economic life is seldom limited to the area within its corporate limits ; that a real need exists to consider zoning and physical planning on the basis of the existing and developing area rather than only the areas currently within the City limits; that State law recognized the existence of the close relationship between a city and the area contiguous thereto . In view of such policy and purpose and the possibility of annexation of adjoining lands the City undertakes to establish an expansion of a consistent land-use pattern that shall prevail if and when areas contained within such expanded plans to annex to the City . For that purpose prezoning maps may be developed and adopted In the same manner prescribed by this Ordinance Code, for the classification or reclassification of property within the City, including; procedures for and concurrent consideration of variances, conditional use permits and :iite plans . " IIantanrton Beach ')ruinance Code Section 9823 . 1 provides, in relative part , . 11' a prezoninf, map for an area has not been adopted then such area shall , upon annexation, be deemed to be classified Rl It is our firm legal conclusion that zoning procedures must comply with provisions of the Government Code and the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code . Section' 78�3. l or rthe Huntington Beach Ordinance Code to the extent that it purports to zone property tit without the hearing and notice process is invalid. Therefore, we would suggest and recommend that the area be prezoned before a>>nc::ltion into the City , or if a substantial amount of Planning TO: Councilman Henry 11. Duke FROM:. John O'Connor, Deputy City Attorney r- SUBJECT: Legal Implications of the Bolsa Chica Annexation Page 5 Department study is involved for appropriate prezoning, that the area be placed in a moratorium under Government Code Section 65858 until such time as the zoning studies are completed and appropriate zoning adopted. In addition, it is necessary that the zoning of the Bolsa Chica comply with any local open space plan in effect in the City . Government Code Section 65566 provides: "Any action by a county or city by which open- space land or any interest therein is acquired or disposed of or its use restricted or regulated, whether or not pursuant to this part, must be consistent with the local open-space plan." 3. Approval by the Local Agency Formation Commission. Any annexation of the Bolsa Chica, in whole or in part , must be approved by the Local Agency Formation Commission. Government Code Section 35003 provides : "No petition seeking the annexation or transfer of territory to 'a city shall be circulated or filed, nor shall any public officer accept any such petition for filing, nor shall any legislative body initiate proceedings to annex or transfer on its own motion, until approval of the local agency formation commission is first obtained pursuant to Chapter 6 .6 (commencing with Section 54773, Part 1, Division .1, Title 5 . " The Focal Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) was created by State legislation in 1963, to regulate. annexation of territory within each county in California. The Commission is given broad powers over annexation of new territory to cities (Government Code Section 54190 ) ; and has authority to adopt standard proce urea for evaluation, incorporation and annexation proposals . LAFCO allows the County to follow a regional approach towards annexation and was designed to eliminate the haphazard and undesirable annexa- tion practices which existed in California prior to 1963 . Factors considered by LAFCO in reviewing an application for approval are set forth in Government Code Section 511796: "Factors to be considered in the review of a pro- posal shall include but not be limited to: (a ) Population, population density; land area and land use; per capita assessed valuation; topography, 1� 1 ` TO: Councilman Henry H. Duke IOM: John O'Connor, Deputy City Attorney SUBJECT: Legal Implications of the Bolsa Chica Annexation Page 6 natural boundaries , and drainage, basins; proximity to other populated areas ; the likelihood of significant growth in the area, and in adjacent 'incorporated and unincorporated areas, during the next 10 years. i (b ) Need for organized community services; the present cost and adequacy of governmental services and controls in the area; probable future needs for such services and controls; probable effect of the proposed incorporation, formation, annexation, or exclusion and of alternative courses of action on the cost and adequacy of services and controls in the area and adjacent areas . I (c ) The effect of the proposed action and of alternative actions, on adjacent areas, on mutual social and economic interests and on the local govern— mental structure of the county. (d) The definiteness and certainty of the bound— aries of the territory, the nonconformance of proposed boundaries with lines of assessment or ownership, the creation of islands or corridors of unincorporated territory, and other similar matters affecting the proposed boundaries. " Among its powers , LAFCO has the authority to require prezoning of territory to be annexed [Government Code Section 54793(a)], and has authority to condition annexation Government Code •Section 54790. 1) . The complete provisions of the Government Code relative to LAFCO procedures are set forth as Append x 1 to this memorandum. 4 , Annexation . Annexation of the Bolsa Chica would be under the procedures of oection 35300 et seq. of. the Government Code, which set forth the requirements for annexation of un n ab to territory. The complete text of the annexation procedures are set forth as Appendix 2 to I this memorandum. `i . Environmental Analysis. The Environmental duality Act of 1970, as construed by the courts, ` requiresan environmental analysis be made by (a) the Local i . TO: councilman Henry H. Duke FROM: John O'Connor, Deputy City Attorney SUBJECT: Legal Implications of the Bolsa Chica Annexation Page 7 Agency formation Commission prior to a recommendation of annexation (Bozung v. Local AancY Formation Comtaissi n of Ventura, C.A. 2d i No . 4149b Civil ) ; b an environmental analysis for the general planning and zoning of the area. An environmental analysis could , possibly be handled as a initial comprehensive analysis or on a step by step basis as the various agencies exercise their discretionary approvals . The type of environmental analysis , whether negative declaration, or EIR, will be determined by the public agency conferring discretionary approval . I 6. Total, Partial or No Annexation. The determination of any annexation, whether total, partial or a denial of annexation rests with the Local Apency Formation Commission. Upon denial of an application, it cannot be considered for a subsequent period of at least one year unless LAFCO consents to refiling. (Government Code Section 54799 ) . It should be observed that annexation can be requesteU by any contiguous city, therefore, if the City of Huntington Beach desired not to annex, a request could be made by any public entity contiguous to the property, i .e . Seal Beach, and LAFCO would act on that request or any request of the applicant for annexation. We have not commented on policy considerations for or against annexation, since these are within the expertise of the Planning Department . i XOHN O'CONNOR Deputy City Attorney 'i JOC : er I i I i APPROVED BY : i' DON P. BONFA, City Attorney it ram ' BOLSA CHICA STUDY COMMITTEE Sub-Comaitto• Report - Politics Members Ruth Bailey Bill Foster Ruth Finley A. RE61DUAL IMPACTS CHANGE IF ANNEXED Orange County Transit Dist. Air Resources Metropolitan water Dist. Regional Coastal Cossiission Cal Trans Flood Control Dist. NATIONAL Congress Army Corp of Engineers Energy Commission (Price of Oil) Coastal Zone Manager nt Act E.P.A. - Offshore oil, On Shore Bev. STATE Legislature Fish and Game State Coastal Commission State Lands Commission Beach Division of State Lands Parks and Recreation 7 Attorney General COUNTY Board of Supervisiors X Local Agency Formation Com. X Planning Commission X LOCAL City Council X would be load agency Planning Commission X �r School Districts X ( tax Revenue to City from Oil f.08 taxes etc. 61 .62 bULr)A CHICA STUUr COMMITTEE 5ub-Committes Report - Politics Page 2 Change in the chain of approvels for any development. Differences in Ordinances is. , Archeological, Grading. If Ors-zoned, Must conform to General Plan. If Acquisition by the State took place, then the State would be the Lead Agency - Control of development, etc. Economic Benefits to the City of Annexation with or without Acquisition overlapping of our committee Naz •rda - Faults Flood Plain , 1 BOLSA CHICA STUDY COMMITTEE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 'ON SCHOOLS March 10, 1976 If annexation takes place and development occures, there would be a change in the population that would probably necessitate the building of a school (site 34 ) , that is located just North and outside of the Bolas Chica area. At the present time , with decisions on the use of Bolsa Chica caught up in the political process, there cannot be any predetermination of whether or not that school will be necessary. There is some controversy among residents of the California Classics homes because of a demiind for a neighborhood school, which presently does not most the Static requirements of population for a school. Conclusion: It is the responsibility of the Ocean View School District and the residents of this affected area to come up with projections and their recommendations--•rand show those to the City. POLITICS COMMITTEE Ruth Bailey Ruth Finley Bill Foster i 1n � �b i i SECTION II i i POSITIONS OR PROPOSALS PRESENTED BY GROUPS REPRESENTED i ON THE COMMITTEE. Amigos de Bolsa Chico Herb Chatterton Burmah Oil Corporation Bill Woods Chamber of Commerce Jim Foxx Economic Advisory Commission Donald Datko Environmental Council Lee Rebman Friends of Bolsa Chico Pat Suter for Hayden Williams Huntington Beach Company Bill Foster League of Women Voters Ruth Bailey Planning Commission Brian Parkinson Recreation and Parks Commission Tom Cooper Signal Landmark George Stringer I W. R. Grace R. F. Prock i `� I I O1' 1Y.V 1', (:VI I (ON "i, � I A;,1► gos tit, Nn 1 s 4 t:)1 ► L u 1u► i gu; de BuI ,,,i Cii tc.► has evaIuated tit. a,iac.\at ion alternatives (IC to rmi►►ed by the l:u I sa Chica Annexation Committee and has reached thU following Cor►clusions . I . Partial Annexation , All proposals except "no annexation" or "total annexation',' represent a piecemeal approach which would violate the city ' s expressed policy. We feel that the city' s policy j of requiring master planning of the entire area prior to ;annexation and development is not only correct but essential to orderly growth. 'i 'fhe following concerns regarding "total annexation" would also apply in the case of "partial annexation. " 11 . Total Annexation A. Annexation would provide the Bolsa Chica with city services and move it one step closer to development. This would relse the market value of the property and inflict an increased burden on the people of California in their efforts to acquire the land for open space and restoration. If zonin for the area were changed to a developable zone , the impact on the State would be even more severe . t B . Annexation could lead to unfavorable impacts on the city unless the area is carefully planned with thorough consideria- tion given to the effects development of the Bolsa Chica would have on existing portions of the city. 1 . Since no public services are now provided to the more than 1S00 acres of the Bolsa Chica, development would place heavy burdens on adjacent areas . Many arterials which would naturally service development in the Bolsa Chica are already at capacity or will reach capacity with j continued development of areas already in the city. 2 . There is substantial evidence to indicate that continued growth within the city would lead to a more than propor- tional rise in the costs of providing public services. Growth tends to increase expenses faster than the tax tease expands , thus , increasing the cost of services on a per capita basis . 111 . No Annexation A. The 7 ate s proposed acquisition , restoration, and preservation of open space in the Bolsa Chica will have substantial benefits for the entire South Coast .area and especially for the residents of Huntington Beach. The ' value of open space , recreational facilities , ecologically productive habitats , and educational opportunities , although difficult to assign dollar values , are unquestion- ably beneficial . A state park and preserve in the Bolsa V i i Chica would l)r a tremendous asset to the city , substantially raising the val ►►es of nearby properties without the necessity of increased city costs . virough implementation of the state ' s acquisition plan , the city of Huntington Beach can realize suhsta►►tial benefit , improving the aesthtics of the city , the duality of life , and the tax hale , with no direct ,ind little indirect cost . Because of the considerations noted above, the only annexation alternative that we feel is in the best interest of the residents of Huntington Beach is "no annexation." O I tl rt•1) I �s121':'I'C'111:K A. 110AD I•/1 it 17-1�'J t 1 ,�,�.Jro�y a/✓adM fit 1'1'li I(17 IIt NTIN4.ru` FX1.1'I TIVE PA14x Itsua� tir:.�t n BOV1.1-NA141) Ilt'.�,+tt.run Ii1:.%t-II.C-A ssum-&7 I f April 19 , 1976 Huntington Beach City Council 1hintington Beach City Hall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA Councilmembers : The purpose of this letter is to express the concerns of Amigos de Bolsa Chica regarding annexation of the Bolsa Chica properties by the City of Huntington Beach. Amigos de Bolsa Chica believes that the titles held by Signal Landmark Properties , Inc. and W.R. Grace , Inc. to large areas of the Bolsa Chica lowlands may be defective because of the possible invalidity of the land exchange between the State ij Lands Commission and Signal in 1973. Amigos de Bolsa Chica therefore urges a no-annexation policy regarding, t'-csc ?^nay . Our doubts as to Signal and Grace ' s title are based on the following considerations : 1. Title to the tidelands in California is not absolute , but is subject to an easement in favor of the public as set forth in the California Constitution, Article XV, Section 3. The words of the Constitution are considered incorporated in any grant of the tidelands , the same as if they were inserted in the grant , and they become a part of it and qualify it . The estate granted, therefore , is limited to the i uses which do not interfere with the rights of the public. 2. Public trust uses are not limited to commercial navigation and fishery , but embrace the public interest in preserving open spaces for recreation and wildlife . Marks v Whitney 6 C 3d 251. 3. Government Commissioned maps of the Bolsa Chica dated prior to 1890 indicate that the tidelands of the Bolsa Chica were once much larger than at present , and once covered almost all the lowlands outside of the present city limits . Diminution of the area subject to the ebb and flow of the tide was due pimarily to damming and diverting activities at the turn of the century by the Bolsa Land Company, Signal ' s predecessor in title . The construction of the dam and the filling of the ocean entrance were clearly illegal. Property f � Ilan tL111;ton Reach City Council April 19 , 1976 11age Two held by the state in trust for the public use cannot he gainer: by adverse possession, and the statute of limitations does not apply to an action to recover such property from one using it for private purposes not consistent with the public use. City of Los- Angeles v Anderson 206 C 662. The 1973 exchange between Signal and the State Lands Commission may have been invalid, because the findings required to be made before a conveyance of tidelands to a private grantee by the State Lands Commission may not have been supported by facts . The State may grant tidelands to a private grantee if it finds that those lands are valueless for trust purposes; if they have beers or are to be reclaimed pursuant to and in the course of a highly beneficial public program of harbor development; and if they constitute a relatively small parcel of the total acreage involved. Long Beach v Mansell , . Furthermore, the Appelate Court in County of Orange .v Him, 30 Cal App 3d 694 , found an exchange between Orange`County and the Irvine Company invalid because the facts surrounding- the exchange did not support the finding thatthe lands involved constituted a relatively small parcel of the total acreage involved. The Court found that, because the Irvine lands to �-� be conveyed in the exchange were already tidelands under public control and subject to the Constitutional mandate, the County was actually relinquishing much more than a small parcel . It was relinquishing large parcels overwhich it had an easement. The 1973 land exchange in the Bolsa Chica is factually similar to the facts surrounding`, the Upper Newport Bay exchange discussed in the. Heim case , and hence is subject to unwinding by the Courts , should lawsuit to confirm title be initiated. For the above reasons , Amigos de Bolsa Chica urges the City Council to adopt a cautious attitude towards annexing land burdened with dubious title which may make impossible ultimate development in a manner financially beneficial to the City; and which may embroil the City of Huntington Beach in litigation over such title. Very truly yours , Gretchen A. Hoad Attorney for Amigos de Bolsa Chica cc: Don Bonfa, Huntington� Beach City Attorney C.E. Parker, Attorney at Law Bolsa Chica Annexation Committee f GH/1m . I 77 RPM F -9 A, M Nth 01, NFIN 17., Ar to lips MAI p IN awl low BY OUT ramZi S@ gtw W.; ON d ,g y­ W a Q 0111"P" 11 lam nool g, U'l V' I yam Too to t"rM1M'�;'.Y+ "J�t ,. �.t rt� ''`+ .`'v � i yt � t �°!e• '�• � t. VAIN �57 qO ohm 11,�zII. WORK, 4, W; %Z� 4K Eve hump. yam PLO wet "A AWT, low sa- MAW Q Wks- W11>0 VaR=Mfinv y jo At NMI,A !A PRESENTED BY: Amigos de -Bolsa Chica SOURCE : Coastal Commission Information Service IMPACT OF COVED-M-AWT ACTION ON rRMLIB Y VALtt1fS Impact on Values of Relative Importance of Impact on Values of Neighboring or Net Effect on Specific Actions In Type of Action Subiect Property Competitive Properties Property Values Determinin„ nit Impacts Restrictions on land use Value declines Value rises Redistributional. Very important Developer required to make Value declines Value rises Slightly negative Unimportant compared to Improvements or pay fees other public actions Rtsource amenities protected Value rises Value rises Slightly positive to very Very Important or restored by government positive action Shore access by the public Value declines Value rises Slightly negative Lai Important than use maximized and protected restrictt fo ns or amenity • protection Concentrating development It still undeveloped. value Value ryes Positive Very important . in existing communities deelinesl If already sin- • ' proved, value rises Providing infrastructure, Value rises Valets unchanged Positive. Impoetalrt public facilities, and services • Tax reduction or deferral Value rises Values unchanged Slightly positive Last Important than use for regulated, restricted, restrictions or amenity or encouraged uses of protection coastal properties •� Source: Real Estate Research Corporation. March 1976 Prepared under contraet .to U.S. Department of Commerce EXHIBIT 3 ' POTENTIAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT EFFECTS OF SELECTED COASTAL PLAN POLICY ACTIONS (continued) ' -Potential Economic Effects . Prl-nary Coastal P-imary Affected Employment Other Business Eenefitt/Com Plan Policies Sectors of the Economy (non-construction) Construction Activity investmentLprofitability to the Consurner Res-.rict thermal dis- Commercial and Indus- Nominal Nominal Increased investment Higher prices for mac,.. char-es and other trial development; in pollution controls; factured goods; protectet forr:rs of water po!!u- enera f development, reduced profitability. marine resources tion (7, 9, 10, I1, 12) recreation and tourism More productive marine Industries Give co.Imercial rec- Recreation and Positive or negative, Positive or negative, Positive or negative, Preserve public access reation uses priority tourism; housing and depending on whether depending on whether depending on whether to recreatioaal'arnent- over other private urban development other potential uses other potential uses other potential uses ties of the coast development (133, 134) would be more labor would entail larger are more profitable inteniive construction outlay than recreation Protect the visual Recreation and Nominal Slightly positive Increased Investment Protect tourist enjoy- quality of natural, tourism in site design, plan- men:of visual resources historic, or open areas, ning, and main- and the coastal view- tenancei development shed (44, 4S, 46, 47, may be less profitable 48, 49, 50) Encourage sower cost Recreation and Positive, but not to Positive, but not to Positive, but not is Maintenance of access tourist facilities over tourism the same extent as the same extent as profitable as more to coastal resources exclusively enpensive more luxurious de- more Inr.urious de- luxurious development. for citizens of all facilities (125) u velopment velopment Tax and other incen- income groups tives a positive Induce- ment. Evaluate public recrea- Recreation and Positive or negative, Positive or negative, Positive or negative, Preserve public access tion potential and future tourism; housing.and depending on whether depending on whether depending on whether to recreational ar-eni- 'demand before per- urban development other potential uses other potential uses other potential uses ties of the tout mitring other uses of would be more labor would entail larger are more profitable oceanfront land (132) intensive construction outlay than recreation PROPOSAL FOR PARTIAL ANNEXATION Presented by: Bill Woods March 31 . 1976 for Burmah Oil. Favors Mr. Stringer's Partial Annexation proposal, because Total Annexation would impose additional costs on Burmah without any additional benefits derived from the City. i Does not disagree with Mr. Foster's statement, referring to Total Annexation. However. Burmah must be allowed to come in under a zoning that would allow for oil production to continue. I i r� op PROPOSAL. FOR TOTAL. ANNEXATION Presented by: Jim foxx March 31 , 1976 Favors Total Annexation. Feels it would be a source of immediate revenue to .the City in oil barrel taxes and property taxes. Does not feel Total planning necessary for development to begin. 1 r IU : City Council Balsa Chico Study Committee SUBJECT : EAC position on Balsa Chico Annexation REFERENCE : Letter (Position Paper) dated 4-1-76 to the Balsa Chico Study Committee from D. J. Datko, same subject. The annexation of the Balsa Chico Area was discussed at the regular EAC meeting of 4-7-76. The EAC felt that at this time NO position could be taken on annexation, since there is limited information regarding the I potential economic impact to the City. The members felt that their position, should they eventually take one , will be based primarily on economics. Don Datko, Member Economic Advisory Commission cc : LAC members Arnold Ross , Internal Auditor, City of Huntington Beach ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL �® City o Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 CALIFORNIA 9MQ 1�® April 12, 1976 Tol Bolsa Chica Annexation Committee , Froml A.argaret Carlberg, Alternate Representative of the Environmental Council Topicl Comments on Final Bolsa Chica Study Committee report The sixteen Environmental Council members have reviewed the February 27 subcommittee reports of the Bolsa Chica Annex- ation Committee, and had half an hour to look at four copies of the recently prepared Bolsa Chica Study Committee Presentation to City Council. Since the Environmental Council action on the original annexation request, dated December 4, 1975, was omitted fra>> both these sets of papers, we wish to restate our previous action, as it was concurred to be still valid. (See attached minutes. ) We further communicate a few comments on the Areas of Agree- ment contained in the recent report. 1. Environmental Council members agree with ,#1. 2. Environmental Council members agree generally with #2, but silrgest that the first sentence read ". . .place before ,1y development begins" , and delete the second sentence as it is redtuidant. 3. This does not appear to be an "area of agreement"-- although it is a suggestion that the Environmental Council would not oppose. Signal 's financing part of the planning would probably ensure more planning than occurred between 1972 and 1975. 4. Environmental Council agrees with the proposal that the Signal and other private land if annexed, being zoned as a holding zone, with oil use, and continuation of agricultural use. But the followi.np suggestion is offered. (a) . Any zoning but R-1 would require prezoning, with hearings, and it would be most reasonable to have the DFG and NWD acreage prezoned permanent open space from the onset, rather than R-1 or RA. (b) RA is not a true holding zone. The. Planning Reserve stratus , or developing a true holding zone desig- nation should be established. 5. Environmental Council members agree with #5. i. v CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH �«••� Past Office Box 190 Huntw*tan , Wifon%is 92648 CORRECTED MUTES f � Thursday, December 4, 1975 The meeting was called to order at 7: 38 p.m. by Vice Chairmian Churchill. 1 . 0 Members Present: Carlberg, Chatterton, Crane, Churchill, Green, Harbison, Eaydock, Lewingrr, Milkovich, McConnell, Powell, Rebm an, Wallace, Winchell, Yue 1 . 1 Members Absent: Frey, Fung, Roth (excused) , Valinsky texcused) 2 . 0 Approval of Minutes: The minutes of November 13, 1975 were approved as corrected. 3 . 0 Correspondence , Announcements, Presentations: None 4 . 0 Chairman, Executive Board Reports: 4 . 1 The proposed annexation of the Bolsa Chica Bluff was discussed. Mr. George Stringer presented the case of the Signal Bolsa Company. The following motion was passed 7 to 4. The Environmental Council opposes the proposed annexation of such an environmentally sensitive area as the Bolsa Chica j without prior master planning. We believe that the City is seriously delinquent in preparing a master plan as requested by the Planning Commission in 1972. The Environmental Council requests that the City Council direct staff to prepare a master plan for the approximately 1600 acres within the Bolsa Chica within the next 12 months, beginning immediately with the preparation of a comprehensive environtsental assess- ment. 4 . 2 The current status of the task forces on (1) the Coastal Commission Acquisition List and (2) the Bolsa Chica was reviewed. The Environmental Council has appointed members to both task forces, but no meetings have been scheduled. Members were encouraged to prepare for a Coastal Commission hearing on the acquisition list in January 1976. i NO ANNEXATION Friends of the Balsa Chico Support the position of the Amigos de Balsa Chico �— presented by Herb Chetterton to the Balsa Chico Study Committee March 17, 1976. /—TOTAL ANNEXATION Huntington Beach Company Position presented by W. E. Foster March 24, 1976 to the Holes Chica 5tudy Committee. Why do we have spheres of influence? , G Here we have 2000.02. acres completely surrounded by the City of Huntington Beach with very small exception. We have announced that we want it to be a part of the City of Huntingis9n Beach. We went to control the planning of it. So when it is time that it be considered for. planning, and certainly development is closing in around all the edges of it, what is going to happen in there is going to impact many other areas of the City. Concerns about transportation were mentioned. My concerns are much greater that if we don't plan Bolas Chica and plan it now the impacts are going to be such greeter and very adverse on many areas of traffic throughout the City. We need to decide where the street@ are going in and around the Bolas Chica. In any case, when the property owners, and we are owners, think that it is time for Annexation what should a City's response be? They have announced they want it to be part of the City. They have announced they went to do the planning. It has been designated officially by LAFCO to be in their sphere of influence. The only rational reasons I can find for a city not annexing under these circumstances are: 1 . People residing in the area do not want to be annexed. This does not apply here because there are not any people residing in the area. 2. The City is unable to provide the services that would be required after annexation. That is not true here either because the area will not require any City services beyond planning and a few very minor services that will be more than offset by the revenues to the city that will be generated by annexing the Balsa Chica property. I can find no reason for the City not to proceed when the planning of this area is so important to everything from traffic flow to how the property is going to be used. I do not consider the effect that it might have on State acquisition to be relevant to the question of Annexation. 1 . I do not think it will have any effect if it comes in as a Holding Zone. I see absolutely not a single shred of evidence pointing to the fact that it would change it. I do not think the value would change. I think the State would have anywhere from 3 to 5 years to- firm up their plans and complete the acquisition. 2. Even if we felt i that there would be a lowering of value or a holding of value by precluding annexation, I do not think that is equitable. I certainly do not think it is legal . There have been too many court cases on that point and if the City Council starts talking about it very much and too many of these kinds of things gat in evidence, I think the property owners would have a clear cut legal remedy if annexation \ TOTAL A.NNEXATIUN Huntington Beach Company Position ( Continued) wen refused. , You cannot use the power of a City indirectly to drive down the value of property for public acquisition. The courts have held many times that doing something for a good purpose does not justify doing something inequitable or placing burdens where they do not belong. 1 . I am making the argument that it would not raise the value. 2. I am making the argument that even if it did it is irrelevent to the City of Huntington Beach's decision to annex. I can see no reason and really no disadvantage to anyone State, County. City, Property owners or residents ( 'cause there ain't any) in proceeding with annexation, because that is what it takes to get the planning off the ground. j Presented to the Bolse Chica Study Committee March 24 , 1976. G ti k LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF HUNTINGTON BEACH-SEAL BEACH POSITION ON ANNEXATION OF BOLSA CHICA y The League supports, the preservation of Bolsa Chica as an ecological preserve surrounded by open space to prevent further degradation of this unique Coastal resource. There- fore , the League recommends that no action on annexation be taken at this time. Until decisions can be made as to State Acquisition, we recommend that the present County zoning of recreational open-space , which is more congruent with our stated goals, remain in effect. We would discourage piecemeal planning for the area. No action should be taken without careful assessment of cost-benefits; including accurate quantitative information as to short and long term economic effect as well as social and environmental impacts. Submitted by: Ruth Bailey, member Annexation Study Committee April 21 , 1976 Approved by: Sherry Baum, President League of Women Voters, Huntington Beach-Seal Beach I "WA Huntington Beach Planning commission P.O. ilOX 190 CALIROMNM liiM To: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Planning Commission and planning Department DATE: December 4, 1975 ATTN: David D. Rowlands,` City Administrator RE : PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF A PORTION OF THE BOLSA CHICA AREA BY THE SIGNAL BOLSA CORPORATION. ,I j Transmitted herewith are the Planning Commission and Planning Staff recommendations for the proposed annexation of a 280-acre portion of Bolsa Chica., The City Council referred this request to the i Planning Commission and Planning, Staff for report and recommendation. The following is a . listing of significant facts which relate to this proposal: 1 . The unincorporated area of Bolsa Chica consists of approximately 1600 acres of land,. ownership, is primarily controlled by Signal Bolsa Corporation. Other owners within the, area are Oceanview School District, Metropolitan Water District, Don Goodell, Kendall Development Company, Inc. , State of California, and the Orange County Flood Control District. A map depicting the locatiun and acreage of said parcels is attached. 2. The assessed value of Bolsa Chica is: t,and - $3, 047, 920 Mineral Rights - $2, 933, 160 3.. Oil production on the entire area 'is estimated to be approximately 6) , OU() barrels per day. 4 . County policy on annexation. and how it affects Bolsa Chica is : The County would like to see a development plan for the Bolsa China prepared jointly by the County, City, and Property Owners, prior to annexation of any portion of Bolsa Chica. (The City should serve as lead agency in this effort. ) This policy has not been spelled out on any adopted document, so the County would probably be in agreement with the City on more than one annexation or annexations prior to plan preparation provided a comprehensive planning effort of the entire Bolsa Chica Area would still occur and that the important resource area (Ecological Reserve) was protected. 5 . Bolsa Chica is within the City' s sphere of influence; therefore , it is appropriate for the City to take on this planning effort. I age Two G . The City is currently providing limited police and fire protection to this area. The City does not receive additional compensation for this service. Ar111 ' planning effort undertaken by the City for this area would be costly and the City would not receive any additional compensation for this effort. H . The City has an adopted policy regarding annexation which essen- tially calls for complete environmental analysis and planning of an area prior to annexation (see attached policy adopted by City Council , September 4 , 1973, Resolution No. 3760) . 9 . There. are other portions of Bolsa Chica which may be available for annexation. They include: State Ecological Reserve, the Kendall Development Corporation Inc. , property along the common boundary between the Huntington Beach Company and Signal Bolsa Corporation and property located at the northwest corner of Edwards Street and Ellis Avenue. 10. Ln rr,sponse .to the statement that significant changes have occurred i.n Bolsa Chica since the Policy Plan' s statement on annexation was adopted , the following is offered: a. The Metropolitan Water District is a public utility. The 400 foot wide strip to be maintained as open space; therefore, the j physical separation caused by this strip of land in conjunction with the Flood Control District is not adequate separation to cause the parcels to be considered separate for planning purposes. b. The State ' s acquisition of the ecological reserve has no bear- ing on the issue of annexation. If anything, this property j should be incorporated as a part of the comprehensive plan, inasmuch as any surrounding development will have a definite impact on the ecological reserve. c . The increase in the price of crude and the extending of the expected economic life of the existing oil wells should not have any bearing on the planning effort. The life of the oil field does not mean that consideration should not be given to alternatives for development and the impact these uses may have .on each other. (1 . The different ownerships between the land and mineral rights i should not preclude Signal Bolsa Corporation from preparing Long-range plans and an environmental analysis. Areas which are designated for resource production for 15 to 2.0 years may be so designated , but consideration must be given to long- range alternatives . 11 . There are essentially two issues : annexation and planning (in- cluding environmental analysis) . Technically, these issues may be separated but as a practical matter planning should be a total effort which should not be fragmented through piecemeal annexa- tion. The planning and environmental analysis of Bolsa Chica _21 Page Three r;huuld occur with the entire Bolsa Chica area either totally . within the City or within the County unincorporated area. This will assist in maintaining continuity throughout the planning 12 . 1f this parcel is annexed, it could have an adverse impact on thy_ State' s plan for acquisition in that it will increase land values and thus increase acquisition cost to the public. 13 . Signal Bolsa Corporation has stated that their desire to annex 8 the property does not mean that they will not follow through with their intent to plan and conduct an environmental analysis of Bolsa Chica. . 14 . Signal Bolsa Corporation has stated that the City would receive approximately, $29, 155 per year by annexing subject property (property tax $22 , 030 per year, oil production $7,125 per year) . E 15 . A total planning effort would allow for a complete cost benefit ,. analysis of the proposal , i,.e. , opening to the ocean, the need for bridges , and other public improvements. i PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: No annexation should be permitted until a total plan along with the necessary environmental analysis has been complete. As an alternative , it is recommended that the City of Huntington Beach annex the entire ; Bolsa Chica Area and continue with the expressed policy for pre-planning and environmental analysis prior to development. The m.ii,ibrity opinion of the Planning Commission is as follows: Annexation :should be permitted to proceed but a planning analysis , both oconomic and environmental , should be conducted before development occurs . This will allow the City to receive, additional 'revenue as outlined in the report from Signal Bolsa Corporation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION : in view of the fact that the City is providing services, i.e. , Police, Fire and Planning , and because the County will not be the lead agency, nor will they take an active role in the planning process, it is recuin1w,,,dc.d that the City of Huntington Beach annex the entire Bolsa Chica Area and continue with the expressed policy for pre-planning and environmental analysis prior to development. As an alternative, it is rec-ommended that no annexation be" permitted until the total plan along with the necessary environmental analysis has been completed. A:.; a point of information , it should be noted that the revenue derived from ,annexiinq Bolsa Chica will assist 'in defraying those costs which "ItA, presently passed on to the City. In effect, the services being provided to other large vacant parcels of land within the - City of thintin(Iton Beach are currently being provided to Bolsa Chica. 1A. I Page Four r Respectfully submitted, t; i.ch•:ird A. Harlow I;ok,rc tary $ RAH :gc r I K. I i j i I I 1 I I Annexation objectives: ^1 t:ncompass within City boundaries only those areas with common interests and which can be efficiently and economically served t,y city facilities. Principles: 1 . Approve and pursue only annexations which: a. will contribute to the accomplishment of Huntington Beach. Master Plan Objectives. b. Will "square off" city limits at the San Diego Freeway, Santa Ana River, Pacific Ocean, and the Naval Weapons Station. C . Will not dilute the existing tax base. d . Will not place a burden on existing City facilities. e . Will- mieet all municipal codes. f . Will not overload existing gas, electric and water resources. Z . Use pre-planning of unincorporated territory to assure that annexed areas: a. Are developed in compatibility with surrounding neighbor- hoods. t,. Do not create unnecessary hardships on property owners in proximity ' to the annexed areas. Provide sufficient tax base to assure that the area will not cause tax increases for current residents within the City. ci . That no area be permitted to be annexed to the City which is contrary to the previously accepted .Master Plan of the area, of which the annexation is a part. 3 . 1 During pre-planning for annexation , developers of unincorporated areas should be required to show to the public all their ac- cumulated information on ecological impacts of the whole. area, including those studies required by Federal , State, and County jurisdictions . 4 . Historically important sites within an annexed area should be con- sidered for dedication to public use or public ownership. •'Z `i . Federal and State grants should be sought to develop property which .is within the annexed area. U .�� . Discussions should be pursued with adjacent community leader- ship to integrate their goals with those of Euntington Beach. • CIT'If'' OF HUNTINGTON NUACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION r r',, RECREATION AND PARKS COMMISSION To BOLSA CHICA STUDY COM �;: ; I:rom. Subject BOLSA CHICA ANNEXATION Date April 21, 1976 i G Mr. Tom Cooper reviewed the various positions of the Bolsa Chica Study Committee , and asked"for support from the Recreation and Parks Commission in time for. the forthcoming April 21st Study Committee meeting. The Committee, chaired by Henry Duke and attended by approximately 17 different City groups, has not agreed on a single proposal to present to City Council in its weekly deliberations regarding the feasibility of annexation, partial annexation, or no annexation of Bolsa Chica. They have arrived at certain areas of agreement ; however: 1 . There should be TOTAL GENERAL PLANNING of the Bolsa Chica. 2. Total General Planning should take place before any development begins . 3. _ The Committee is willing to accept the offer from Mr. George Stringer of Signal-Landmark that Signal would contribute financially to the TOTAL GENERAL PLANNING effort of the Bolsa Chica provided they were assured annexation would be accomplished. 4. If any annexation. takes place prior to comple-.: - tion of the planning effort,, the Committee agrees it should, come in as a Holding Zone , Zoned RA-01 or RA-02 i (oil zones depending on density of wells) . S . The City Council should move toward a' timely decision on: A. Not to Annex or, B. Delay Annexation for a finite period of time or C. Initiate proceedings necessary for Annexation.— There, are position papers enclosed with the Study Committee ' s j presentation ' to City Council on total , partial or no annexation. Recommendations for no annexation are based on the City Council and Staff progress in planning the area complicated by overlapping jurisdictions of City, County, State, Southern California Coastal Commission, and the State Coastal Commission, and the unavaila- bility of funds for in-depth planning. Signal has already spent $2 million on plans for Bolsa Chica and needs reasurrance of future annexation by the City before investing any more time or money. Assembly Bill #2948 (Hart) for acquisitor of additional land for recreational open space in Bolsa Chica will be on. the It LO { Bolsa Chica Study Committee Page 2 . April 21, 1976 State ballot in November. Mr. Cooper supports partial annexation of the 264 acres at the Huntington Barbour westerly bluff area including the triangle area at Edwards and Talbert which is strategically adjacent to Huntington Central Park. It would pave the way for delis in of 15+ acre addition to Huntington Central Park by Si ark once the land is within the City. I f the pr ed" eons ere to take place and the ' land developed reside . ° 9 the Ci.t would gain 23 acres of y B park land or $986,156 in cash'® It would cost approximately $577 ,500 .J".., for park development and $41,580 per year for maintenance of the 23 acres. Mr. Cooper believes the balance of Bolsa Chica is too difficult to contemplate for annexation and development until it is known what the State intends to do about it. Proponents for total annexation point to the fact that Bolsa Chica cannot help but influence and be influenced by the City of Huntington Beach surrounding it and it is to the City®s advantage to be in charge of its planning. MOTION: Mr. Tom Cooper moved the Recreation and Parks Commission recommend to the Bolsa Chica Study Committee that the 264 acre Signal Bolsa bluff property south and adjacent to Warner, Los Patos , and Bolsa Chica Streets and the 60 acre triangle sector of property at Talbert and Edwards Streets be -annexed by the City to show good faith to Signal-Landmark that future annexation of the entire Bolsa Chica area is forth- coming with the understanding that the City and Signal-Landmark ' begin a total general planning effort for all of Bolsa Chica. Also, that no development take place until a Master Plan of the entire Bolsa Chica area is finalized. Mr, Rudy Lozano seconded the motion. Motion carried. Respectfually submitted, t Norm Worthy, Seckeiary Recreation and Parks Commission by Katherine Goodall I 7-7 l INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION � ►Maaan,tc�eaa j i � I'I ; 10 Mr . Tom Cooper From Mr. Norm Worthy, Director i Recreation & Parks Commissioner Recreation, Parks and Humana Services j Subiect BO.LSA CHICA ANNEXATION/IMPACT ON Date March 24, 1976 I RECREATION $ PARKS SERVICES In response to your request for some estimated figures on the financial impact the total annexation or partial annexation of j Bolsa Chica would have on Recreation and Parks services, I sub- mit the following : TOTAL ANNEXATION (1460 acres) ssesse a ue : $ 14 ,600,000 2) Market Value : $ 58 ,400,000 ($40,000 per acre) 3) ' Income to City Recreation & Parks Department per year ( 204 per $100 A.V. ) = $29, 200 4) Park acquisition acres or cash (if totally developed R-1) : a) 1460 acres x 5 (homes per acre) - 7 ,300 homes x 3. 5 (people per home) - 25 , 550 people h) 2S SSO = 1000 x 5 127 . 75 acres (required dedication) or x 142 , 700 - $S, 454 ,925 (cash) _ L 5)-". Park development cost : 127 . 7E acres 8 $2S,000 per acre '$3, 193, 7SO 6) Park maintenance cost : 127 . 75 acres @ $1 ,800 per acre (per yr) $229,950 I PARTIAL ANNEXATION � Z�a`c8 �36 ac 23% 600 ac 41 . 09%) 1162 at (79. 591) ' l 2 ,659,680 3 , 358 , 000 5 ,999, 140 $ ,11 ,620,140 2) $ 10, S58 , 720 $139432, 000 $23,996, 560 $ 46,480, 560 j 3) $ S, 279 $ 6 , 716 $ 11 ,998 $ 23,240 4) Park acquisition acres -or cash (if totally developed R-1) : 1 a) 4 , 619 5 ,877 10,498 20,335 b) 23 . 1 ac 29 . 38 ac 60 ac 116. 2 ac or or or or $986, 1S6 $1 , 254 ,740 $2 , S61 , S73 $4 ;961 ,740 S) $ S77 , S00' $ 734 , SOO $1 , S00,000 $2 ,905,000 6) , $ 41 , S80 $ S2 , 884 $ 108 , 000 $ 209 ,160 I Orm` rt , rector Recreation, P rks and Human NW: ac Services cc : City Administrator Recreation & Parks Commission i PROPOSAL FUR PARTIAL ANNEXATION Presented by: George Stringer for Signal Landmark March 10, 1976 Annexation of the westerly bluff, including the Goodell property. Bring it in under a Folding Zone RA. Environmental I! assessment of the bluff to proceed. Planning to proceed. II. 5oms planning to include the gap. The City and the landowner l 9 will jointly fund the planning (Total ) of the Balsa Chico. Signal Landmark will work with the Staff in deciding who the Planner will be. ij Presented March 24 , 1976 : Another proposal. Annex the triangle (See map httached) at Edwards and Talbert. The City .cannot accept a park dedication unless it is in the City. We could dedicate to the City some 1,5 acres to complete the Central City Park over to where Edwards would ultimately curve around the bottom of the. bluff. Dedicating the park site accomplishes the State °s proposal for that piece of property by providing access to Central City Park from the Bolas Chica. . . Standard Uil does have some surface rights in the area.. 1 i i � I , II i l s March 31 , 1976 fir. Dick Harlow Director of Planning Ciiy of Huntington Beach 2DOD Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Ra: Approximately 41 Acres Located Adjacent to Existing Subdivision Tract_8894 Dear Dick: It is W. R. Grace Properties, Inc. 's (formerly known as Kendall Developwnt Co. , Inc.) desire to have our existing 41 acres which is described in Exhibit "A" annexed to the City of Huntington Beach as expeditiously as possible. We would request that zoning on' said property be R-1 to allow us to' de"lop it i in a similar manner as our existing Tract 8893 and 8894. W. R. Grace Properties. Inc. feels very strongly that this particular 41 i acres is a natural extension of our current subdivision, Tracts 8893 and 8994. This is bore out by the fact that the Planninq Commission in approving the tentative map for 8630 required that the future extensions of the street systems into this 41 acres be shown on the tentative snap. A copy of said map is included for your review. We recognize that the Dolsa Chica Annexation Study Committee is currently reviewing the properties in which property owners have requested annexation to the City of Huntington Beach. ' W. R. Grace Properties, Inc. would welcome the opportunity to make a presentation before this committee, staff, Planninq Commission and/or City Council if you feel this would be appropriate in' order to make our position known and to clarify the issue. Very truly yours, W. R. GRACE PROPERTIES. INC. ohn L. Downey Director of Planning �., JLD:sep cc: Bolsa Chica Study Committee Henry Duce cvAor'r t,oicy roan li wo rrr California Land TillL A%sixialion Stamford CoMap rwrCV—ltfrs Schedule C dim Thu lunli tufmicli to in this policy is described as follows: PARCrL 11 THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTIOE4 28, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE: 11 WEST, IN TI;E RANCHO LA SOLSA CHICA, CITY OF HU#4TIt,GT0i: 11F,-Cf1.. COU:-TY OF ORANCE, STATE 01' CALIFOR14TAO AS PER MAP r::.ClfRf).-D IN' BOOK 51 PAGE 13 OF 141 SCEI_LAfr-OU5 MAPS, IN THE OFFIC4: OF THE COUNTY RLCORDER OF SAID COUNTY, B EG INNI NC, AT TI I' VIESTF.RLY CORNER OF TRACT NIO, 7C 34,- AS SHOWN ON PAP Rc.COPF);_`D 114 BOOK 330 PAGES 26 THROUGH 29 OF SAID MIS— CLLLAt4COtIS MAPS; THENCE .L091G THE PROLOMGATIOY OF THE NORTH- t wr-s, rLY LIN': OF SAID TP!!CT NO. 76340 SOUT11 540 492 0511 WEST 360 .nn FF .T; TNRNCE NORTH 470 18' 30" WEST 530,00 FEET; THENCZE i NoR,ril 570 OV no" WEST 1142.36 FEET; WENCE NORTH 40® 000 00" WE'S1' 340,00 F1 T TO THE SCUT,iEASTERLY LIFE OF THE GRANGE COU:.TY FLOCfl CONITROL DISTRICT RICHT-OF-WAY, DESCRIBED AS PARCFL C5-101 It: DrFD R•.CCRDr7D IN E1.00K 7181 PAGE 748 OF OFFICIAL 4ECORDS, IN THE. orriG'E or SAID kcCCRW_-'R; TH`VCE ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY � LINC,p I,ORTH b3" 40 ' 1401 FAST 600.00 FEET TO 714E NORT1i1-!..5TERLY PROL0;"('.ATI01q OF THE Sf;UT:-IS:;?STERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 7634; � THEMCC ALONG SAID PR.0LC-1:;GA1 ION, SOUTH 45° 35' 11" _AST 1904.63 FL•cT TO THE POWT OF UEGINUING. EXCEPT ALL OIL, CAS# HYPPOCARBONS AND MINERALS OF EVrRY KIND AND CNARACT':R IN OR IIt,iD�..R AND SUCI i WHICH MAY GC PRODUCED FROM SAID LANDS TOC'"THEIZ WITH THE RIGHT TO EXTRACT THE SAME FROM ALL TIIF SAID LA1,:05, 1UT %ilTH NO RIGHT TO USE OF ANY PORTION THER'*OF A"OVF A PLANE' 500 FEET BELOW THE SURFACE OF SUCH LANDS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF SAID HINI..'RALS, BUT WITH Trit= PERPETUAL RICrIT 1 or 1',XR°SS AND =GRrSS BELOW A DEPTH OF FIVE HUNDRED (500) FE T PENrATH THE SURFACE OF ALL OF SUCH LANDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF i DRILLINC YIqT(), ll:,D::2 AN0 TfiROUGH THE LANDS FROM THE SURFACE OF GTIICR LAN:Ds.. TOGETHER 111T,1 THE RIGHT TO POOL SAID RIGHTS X4D INTER'ir,TS 114 SAID LAN'() c'ITH RIGHTS AND INTERESTS IN OTHER LANDS; y SAID RICliT5 At.,n I1;T}'RF5T`r IN SAID LA?:DS SHALL ILCLUDE ALL SUS- TY'RRAt.EAN RlGlfl'S A DEPTH OF FIVE IfUNDRED (500) F_-=T SENEAT11 THE SUkFAC= OF SAID L9+1)S NECESSARY, INCIDENTAL OR CO`:VnNIENT TO i THE FULL rX6PC1 5 -: OF SAID EXCEPTED RIGIiTS .(VaD INTEItcSTS, AND SHALL INCLUO! THc kif'. 'r TO DRILL, CPEkATL, MAI'.,TAIN, REPAIR AND REPLAC.:, ! TUB:Iv:'L, CJR' ^1.i5, HURLS AND IIvJ:.CTION YELLS INTO SAID LAND TO OR I THROUC-11 OT1l', R LAM05 FOR THE PURPOSE OF RE110VING, OIL.. GAS, HY0110- I� CAR:;C"I SUDSTAtCES APID Ilit;`RALS FROM SAID LANDS OR FROM OTitER LAsnS ! 1=0:1 T,IT f URPO"!'5 OF SU.;SeD-i'NCE CONTQDL OR PREVL-NTION OF SALT HATER IKT>+1f;,10NP AS n::SCRI!'::D AS BEING 7XC_'PTrD IN DEED FROM SIG14AL ; PROt'c:%TI`5.. I':C. , A CALIFOR141A CORPGRATION', TO SIGNAL f:OLS•A C(,kPORATI01h, A CALIF')RNIA CORPORATI^;'i.. AVD SIGNAL OIL iVID GAS COMI'P.t!.Y, A p':L/=:rAIZi= CORPCIZATION® nATED AUGUST 9, 1973, AND RECORDED AUGUr.;T 17, 11173 IN BOO), 10855 PAGL 3400 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. . f:;C11 rr r, / IBIT A ; r z t ram. 54054 , SCNF_D. C PAGE 2 PARCEL 2 THOSE. PORTIONS OF SECTIONS 28 AND 33® TOWNSHIP 5 S(XUTH, RANGE 11 NEST, 11`4 THE CITY OF llUNTIl:GT0N BEACH., COUNTY OF. ORAr'G , STATC OF CALIrORNIA, AS SHOWN UN A MAP FILED I14 BOOK 92 PAGES 19 THROUGH 28 1r:CL1j:•IVh OF RECORDS Or SU;tVrY, IN THE OFFICa OF THE COUNTY RL— ICORM R OF SAID COIII-;TYI DESCRI13ED AS FGLLOWS: BEG I t.N1 r-7 AT TI'I_ SOUTHERLY CORNER OF TRACT NO. 76340 AS SHOWN ON 1,V%P P.!:CU►tnt_O IN rCOK 55n PAGES 26 T1l:ZOUGH 29 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, I A THE OFF I C OF SA-&U k6CORDE P g TIISNCE ALOfgG 'OiE SOUTH. VESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 7634, NORTH 480 379 0211 WEST 74.riS F:::T TO A!-' ANGL- `'LINT T11 ^�:It3, AND NORTH 450 351 11" VtEST 158R.35 F L';.tT TO THE '�'EST!cRLY CORi4IER OF SAID TRr'',CT; TH=NCE ALOWC TIIE PROL:)..GAT101 OF THT MORrA'::5Tyt1LY LIRE OF SAID TRACT, SOUTH 540 W . n511 WEST 360.00 F EFT; 1MEN-Cr' SOUTH 35° 101 55" FAST 300.11111 Fr'I:T; Tr4::r,Cr SOUTH 320 13' 43*1 r-AST 13,16.60 FIEET; THENCE NORTH 510 47 f ?Int° ±BAST 335.00 F I"T; THENCE. NORTH 420 199 4511 FAST 43n.00 FrF;T TO THE POINT OF SEGltti ING. + EXCEPT ALL OIL, GAS, HYDROCARBONS AND MINERALS OF EVERY KIND ANO CFtARACT7R IN CR U":Dz`R A'0 SUCH WHICH MAY CC PRCDUCCD FROM SAID L/I rA)S. TCGET;iFfi WI Ti t TIC: 'I GHT TO EXTRACT THir SAME FROM ALL TIIP SAID Lh`-'D5, nUT 'r!ITH NO RICHT TO USE OF ANY POQT10N THERCOF At.0V:` A PLANE 500 FE:FT BELOW THE SURFACE OF SUCH LANDS FOR Tit!: PPODUCTION OF SAID HINERALS, nUT :+ITH THE PFRPFTUAL RIGHT OF I�413k!:GS A:,AD ECR.:S5 I)ELOW A DEPTH OF FIVE HNUNDRED (,;On) FEST 11kNZAT11 TI1'. SURFACE' OF ALL OF SUCH LANDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DRILLING INTO, Uc<I)FR AND THROUGH THE LANDS FRC*M THE SURFACE OF OTI4FR LA:.l)S, TOGFTHER WITH THE RIGHT TO POOL SAID RIGHTS AND INT:sR.-.51'S 1 id SAID I.A *D WITH R IGMTS ANl) INTERSETS IN OTHER LANDS; 6AI D k lrr'HT S AND I NT":R'FST5 IN SAID LANDS SHALL INCLUDE .ALL SUR— TERRAI:1Fr.N RIGHTS sr­*L131•: A D.-PTH OF FIV�: flUhDRCD (500) FEET M16ATH THE 5UR FACT OF SAW LANDS NECESSARY, I.NCI DENTAL OR CONV!�NI ENT TO TrIE rUl.L M' RCISE OF SAIn E'XCPPTED !LIGHTS A::D INTERESTS, AND SHALL I(4CLU0.: TI'•": RIGHT TO GRILL, OPERATE.* 11AII.TAINv REPAIR AND REPLACE, TU.'44FL, COR:: HOLES, BORZES AND INJECTION WELLS INTO SAID LAND TO iR T11R:)UG11 GTHrR LANDc: FOR THE PURPOSE OF [AIL, GAS, HYDRO-- CARnV,`: >l;t�yT��1:C,:+ AND III:+FRALS FROM SAI ) LANIDS OR FROM OTHER LANDS FOR TI1' r6''pC►5r-r5 cr SU►1SI0::ACE CONTR-L. OR PREV6NTION OF SALT 1:ATFR INTI2U-r!,ICI4, AS D-.SCsRY:'cn AS SE14G EXCETTED IN nEFD FROM SIGNAL PROMITiF^,, IVC. , A CALIFCORNIA, CGRP^R.ATION.. TO :•IGNAL POLSA CORPORATIONO A C^LIFOR1111A CGRPORATION'o AND SIGNAL OIL .AND GAS COMPA.NY, A n"LA.VA!:: CC1,RV0RATION, nATcn AUGUST 9, 1973, AND RECORDED AUGUST 170 1973 IN HOOK 10855 PAGE 340, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. - MN s0 per S �u-c��:c sa i1d)..c►r�c at a,s uar••+lbo is 1 O h l 1s I dip w i 1 P *v.r •�. ,. ""y'. ... . molo f1 /CG I I i i i i SECTION III RELEVANT LEGISLATION Beilenson Bill 5B - 15T9 Hart Bill AB - 2948 Wornum Bill AB - 3544 Warren Bill AB - 15 � I i i I i i i i I i' i 1 i 49 3k�, i (4) (a)—t<:stabtisn, in_the Resources agency; one ywitornia NATE BILL No. 1579 Coastal Conservation:Commission and six regional coastal —� conservation commissions,.and prescribe their membership, powers, and duties. ,e,�. (b) Terminate eacli .regional commission within 30 days Introduced by Senators Beilenson, Behr, Dunlap, Gregorio, der the last required..local:coastal program has been certi- llills and Smith fied, as prescribed, or-pii"Jihpary 1, 1981; whichever is the Coauthors: Assemblymen 'vIcCarth , Siero and. Test date: (5) Designate the'•co'trimission as the successor in.interest to all remaining obligations, powers, duties, responsibilities, benefits, and interest:of-the*California Coastal Zone*.Conser- vation Commission or jegional coastal zone conservation . February 10, 1976 commission establishedf rider, the .California 'Coastal Zone Conservation Act ofJ972.;.':. (6) Provides for,thepreparation.of local coastal.programs • by each city.'or county'1}�irigwithin the coastal resource man- An act to add Division 20 (commencing with Section.30000) agement area, as defined';and for approval and certification :o,*and to amend Sections 25103, 25115, 25500, 25507; 25508, of any such prograip...t y;ari appropriate regional commission .5514,25519;and 2552fi of,the Public Resources Code,relating or the conmmission,`resfiectively,in conformity with the goals, . -. .-o the coastal. resources. objectives, -arid police's:-tif the state set forth.in.this bill. :.: (7) Require, witli':prescnbed'exceptions,any-person wish- . _. �'LECISIATIVE COUNSELS DtcEST• ing to perform or -undertake any 'development::on or after 'SB 15'9-, -as introduced, Beilenson. - Coastal resources.': effective date of-this:Bill;,within designated areas,.to'obtain a- The present .California Coastal Zone Conservation .Act'of permit authorizingsuch`development from a regional com- 1972, in effect until January 1, 1977;,provides for'the establish.:`- mission.or.the commission,,.as.prescribed,-which would have ment of the California, Coastal Zone Conservation Commis to meet prescribe&requirements, - ;ion and six regional coastal zone conservation commissions, (8) Terminate, itli-prescribed exceptions, the permit au- with prescribed membership, powers, and dudes It provides thority of-the corriinission`or regional commission over any For the commission to develop,adopt,and submit to the Legis- lature development .proposed'wiithin the. area covered by. a local the California'Coastal Zone'.Conservation.Plan..The act 'coastal program whichIl been certified and becomes.effec- prohibits, with prescribed exceptions; developments within five,and'delegate iii`6 authority to,appropriate city or county designated.areas.of the coastal zone, as defined;without ob-% implem"' iting such'local coastal program. taining apermit-from a regional commission or the comrriis-' (9) -Provide foriudicial review,for penalties,for issuance of ;ion on appeal. cease arid'desist orders;;and for imposition Of.Civil fines, in= This.bill, in general, would do all of the following:. t eluding exemplary damages,` in. connection with the provi- (1) Enact the California Coastal Conservation Act of 1976.. sions of this bill. (2) .Declare. .legislative findings relating �to . California (1Q)` Revise the existing law as to the jurisdiction ofcertify= :oastal resources. - ing sites and related powerplant facilities to be located within . (3�. Prescribe goals, objectives, and policies Of. the. state the coastal zone. vith:re'spect to marine environment, land environment,.ap- (11) Provide that there shall. be no reimbursement ptirsu- )earan_ce-and design, .development, energy, transportation, ant to Section 2231 of the Revenue and Taxation Code nor wblic access, and recreation, and provide, generally, for car shall there be an appropriation made by this bill;for specified ying out such .goals, objectives, and policies in connection reasons. vith managert of the coastal.resources: Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal cor �ittee: yes. • - - - -- ------ -- - - S*ate-m.a,rdatAd log^l n*C)qT��m• vPc. The native Americans were here .� ` at dccuuaitawe to the voters. 1lut . . . first, of course. They were the first Ayala has problems with the coast- to harvest the bounty of the Califor- The status of the plan, as it stands al bill, and how the new coastal nia coastline. And some would saj.1. now. Is described by one observer as agency would operate. they Were the fiat teal conservation- ' merely "a report to Legislature." t' hopeful sign this year is theWI �sists• + lVords on paper. State shelves are seems to be a greater degree of rea- But as,history-has a habit of re- yimmed with ponderous planning r'• son and serious�ludy of the issue in 'cording it,the coast was"discover:-gi documents that have done little rk�r N the Legislature. It`isn't quite the, is 434 years ago when Juan Cabrillo�N than ether dust over the a V* g� Vet mis-the-bad-guys battle salted north from exico, as. g y l I the�strident voices on_ $forth rha as li , The,bill to implement,key provik pe t� �• ` lions b);,the Coastal Plan. sponsored t�ttentfon: '�'t `�'hg ship's offi+,cers groused. as re-'.. t)v ern. Anthony C.Beilensort(D-Los i. Angeles)declares: �� "The California coastal zone is a d+ tinct and valuable nawraI re ►: e rrret heKey S j source-belonging to all the-peoele; `< ...ftt j - Try to get Jim Justesen to agree to " f C 0 , ; ® ® 4' that. Ile is not alone by any means. a a,#-MI. 'Ian His sympathizers range from fellow CP homeowners to giant firms,such as What does the California Coastal source protection, where economic Exxon Oil Co. Plan seek.ta dog Here are the key development, conflicts with corperva- i Thhe plan declares that it protects t,.elements:'� + ,. , ` t,, tion. Alvhere urban expansion cam- the rights of property owners: that `£ —The plan promotes: productive .,,+ petes'with the.retention of natural. ' s.�. critical land needed for public owner- agriculture, viable communities and areas,"or where short-run gains re- ship and access will: ,adequately;w. neighborhoods, expansion of com- paid for. mercial fishing activity and fisheries suit in the forfeiture of long•nm eco; 1 it also says.'The property rights of research, acquisition of additional nomic benefits. a landowner are not absolute." parklands. restoration of degraded —The plan is highly restrictive in There is a gray area where land, ,r;coastal environwnts and continued its control over the dredging and fill- owners contend their rights dre' 'developittetit ofrexisting ports and ing of coastal wetlands. iLs protection I abridged. and their land devalued.. a..marinas. of areas of unusual natural or histor- merely because it "might" be bought —The plan seeks to achieve bal- is value and in its regulation of acU-,. !. or needed some day. ance where I there is a competition viUes that involve substantial en- ', A lot depends on.whose o$is being, among goals,such as where increas-. vironmental risk or the loss of pro- gored. ing coastal aooese�competes with re- ducttve agricultural or forest lands If n i 'a r � r I i ;t i I , i EVALUATION: AB 2948 - HART BILL PRESENTED BY: Herb Chatterton, Amigos de Bol�sa Chico March 10, 1976. Places bond issue of $290,000,000 on November 1976 election. The 'Edwin L. Z 'berg Coastal Park Fund will be used as follows: a. $150,000,000 Acquisitions to state park sy6tem. b. $ 50,000,000 Grants to local governments for acquisition of recreational resources, c. $ 10'000'000 Acquisition and restoration of property for wildlife management by Department of Fish and Game. d. $ 55,000,000 For local grants and state expense for other park , recreation and historical resources. I For items a & b, the first priorities are those consistent with the Coastal Zone Conservation Commission recommendations and that are: ( i ) Land and water .areas best suited to serve the recreational j needs of urban populations shall be given priority over outlying I land and water areas. (ii ) Land and water areas of significant environmental importance, I such as habitat protection, shall have priority over other less important areas. (iii ) Land and water areas in either of the above categories I ' for which development or a use incompatible with the resource or recreational value of such area is proposed shall be given the highest priority and shall be acquired or protected before land or water areas experiencing little or no development pressure. I i I i I ^ I I AH 3544 - 'WornumI PRESENTED BY: Tom Cooper, Recreation and Parks Commission March 31 , 1976 LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL 'S DIGEST AB 3544 , as introduce, Wornum (Rea. , L.U. , & E. ) . State Coastal &Conservancy. There is no existing law providing for a state agency with authority or responsibility to act as a conservancy over specific areas in the Coastal Zone of the state. This bill, in general, would do all of the following: ( 1 ) Declare legislative findings relating to the lands within the coastal zone, as defined. i (2 ) Establish in the Resources Agency, the State Coastal Con- servancy and prescribe its membership, powers, and duties. j ( 3 ) Authorize the conservancy to acquire fee title, development rights , easements , or other interests in designated land located in the coastal zone , subject to designated certification of the California Coastal Conservation Commission, proposed to be established j by Senate Bill No. 1579 of this session, require the conservancy to return to private use of ownership lands so acquired for agricultural preservation, and require the conservancy to pay fees to local public agencies , as defined, and special districts, for loss of revenue due uto conservancy having an interest in .the land. Authorize the conservancy to award grants, as prescribed, to local i public agencies for coastal restoration projects and coastal resources enhancement projects , as defined, and authorize the i conservancy to undertake any such project under prescribed conditions. ( 5) Provide for establishing of resource protection zones and preservation of significant coastal resources areas. i (6 ) Provide for acquisition by the Department of Parks and Recreation, of public access ways along the coast line of the state. ( 7) Provide that this bill shal become operative only if 58 1579 is enacted. OPPICE OF THE: CITY ATTORILY OPINION IdO. 76-14 March 15 , 1976 :�',QT.TECT: Impact of Assembly Bill No. 15 on Proposed Bolsa Chica Annexation J;EQUESTLD BY: Bolsa Chica Annexation Committee PREPARED BY: Don P . Bonfa, City Attorney John O'Connor, Deputy City Attorney QUESTION: ghat is the impact of Assembly Bill No. 15 upon the annexation issues relating to Bolsa Chica? OPINION: See 'Discussion. . DISCUSSION: 1ssembly Bill No. 15 creates the "California Agricultural Lands Act" which is designed to conserve prime agricultural land. The bill establishes an agricultural land use policy: (1 ) That agricultural lands are a 'finite and irre- placeable resource; (2) That such lands should, to the maximum possible extent , be maintained and preserved for the production of food end fiber; and ( 3) That such lands should not be converted to other than agricultural uses except where such other uses are clearly paramount to agricultural use of the land and it is clearly unreasonable to use other than agricultural land for such purposes . implement these policies, the bill required all state and !.deal agencies which- have within their Jurisdiction an aggregate of` 1 ,6no acres or more of 'land in actual agricultural use, or we.-e zoned for such use, to identify and delineate on maps the location of all prime agricultural land within their ,jurisdiction within 120 days of the effective date of Assembly Bill No. 15 . Uiider erection 67750 of this bill, a public entity with less than 1 ,600 acres of such land is exempted from. the Act . We have been ' !'i'Y A 'TO}tNZY l5 , 1976. rage 2 advised by the Planning Department that there are less than 10600 . acre., of agricultural as defined in this bill within the City of !iuntington Beach; therefore, this bill would not be directly applicable to the City of Huntington Beach, however, it would be applicable to the ,County of' Orange. , Prime agricultural land within the meaning of this ' Aet is. defined in Section 67720, and provides : , 'Prime agricultural land' means an. area of land, _ whether a single parcel or contiguous parcels, which: (i) is over 20 acres in size; (ii) on the date on which this title is chaptered, has not been developed for a use other than an agricultural use; and (ii3) meets any of the Following qualifi- cations : ' (1) Land which qualifies. for rating as class I , or class II .in the Soil Conservation Service land use capability classification; (2) Land which qualifies for rating' 80 through 100 . Storie Index Rating; (3) . Land which supports livestock used For the production of food and fiber and which has an annual ( carrying capacity equivalent of at least one animal unit per acre as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture in- the National Handbook on Range and Related Grazing Lands, July 1967, developed pursuant to Public Law 46, December, 1935; ' (4) Land planted with fruit or nut-bearing trees, vines , bushes , or crops which have a nonbearing period of less than five years and which will normally return during the commercial bearing period on an annual basis from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant production not, less than two hundred dollars ($200) per acre ;. (5) Land which hds re' turned' from the production of unprocessed , agr"icultural plant products an annual gross value of. hot less than two hundred dollars ($200) per acre. for three of the previous five years. . . ." I If the Bolsa Chica land could meet any of the qualifications (1) through (5) of Section 67726, it could be included within the Orange .County plan. ' . (Section 67750 limits application of this Act to land within the "Jurisdiction" of the public entity, and while the City 's, sphere of influence may. extend beyond_ City 'boundaries, .lurisdidtion extends only to the boundaries, therefore, the diction over the Bolsa Chica under this Act is in the County. ) We have been' advised by the Planning Department' (copy attached) { that the Bolsa Chica does not come within the qualification � . 70 i I ' I . ,t.a 0 } of Section b'1711., since it is not land i. r .� 1 { `'1 �. :► t'j.;- 'I"It:inv 1.3 c t.aua I1 ir; the Soil c' • ,:., 1• r:rt ).oil Lind use curability classification, or, �. .r;(i ;,I i t. t) n u:i 1i f_!e:; for ratini; 00 tl:roug3; inn Storie Index jimoever, a ",ruall Vor.tion. of the 3olsa Chica bluff area h,-is tipparently been under cultivation; and IT this has been for giro(, cif' the last five years , and produced not less than $200 ;per ne e, it mould fill within the -purvjew. of Section 67720 (5) • 111h:e portion -of the property . under cultivation (if it qualifies)" M,ly he included under the Orange County'u plan and that would ` bo the extent of any impact of .Ab 15 on the Bolsa Chica annexA- tion. DON P: B0,1ly City Attor and JOIIN 0 C0111JOR Deputy City Attorney DPB:JOC:er Attachment f f . � Y s, ICITV OF HUNTINGTOMI (BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION AL In♦it��J1 My YIM N /1 7u John O'Connor From Dave Eadi Subject Agricultural Land Date March 15, 1976 In furtherance of our phoney conversation regarding the extent of agricultural land within the City of, Huntington Beach, please consider the following information in rendering your legal opinion requested by Dick Harlow on March 11, 1976. The City does not have more than 1, 600 . acres of prime agricultural land as defined in Assembly Bill 415. The �9h. unannexed area in and around the Bolsa Chica Marsh,while r4'; totally undeveloped, does not qualify as prime agricultural .`.i land. I trust this information answers your questions regarding agricultural land. f DE:gc of NON 100 15 1976 i STRINGER COMPANY DD [ 17141 079-7m I?MSkypak Chefs • 1whW.CdfilwnM 92!07_,' COMMENTS ON A. B. NO. 15 WARREN BILL March 16, 1976 1. Would limit the use of prime agricultural land essentially to agricultural purposes. 2. Huntington Beach would probably be exempt since.there are probably less than 1600 acres zoned and/or used for agricultural purposes. 3. Orange County would not be exempt, hence, Bolsa Chica could be affected. 4. Land could later be excluded if the City finds it is needed for urban growth and urban growth is necessary for the public welfare and if approved by the State Agricultural Resources Council. 5. Land (unless within an exempt agency at the time of passage of the Act), will be determined to be prime agricultural land if any of the following exist: A. Class I or Class II per Soil Conservation Service land use capability. B. Rating of. 80 through 100 (Storie Index • Rating). C. Could support at least one (1) animal unit per acre. D. Could normally produce a gross value of agricultural products of $200. 00 per acre per year. E. Land which has produced a gross value of agricultural products of $200. 00 per acre per year in three of the last five years. 6. Depending on interpretation, Bolsa Chica might be classified as prime agricultural land. 7. There are numerous similar acts being discussed, and the chances of this one passing without substantial modifications are, I am told, not likely. George D. Stringer :crm � ® a2 � [ , . ( z � �> �1 \ \ §» SECTION IV \\ � \ \ AREAS OF AGREEMENT \� ƒ ` { \ � { � 1 � « . \\ G ; �\ � {\ \� ( � Sa § © ƒ\ R` BOLSA CHICA STUDY COMMITTEE I AREAS OF AGREEMENT I t 1 . There should be TOTAL GENERAL PLANNING of the Bolsa i Chice. i 2. TOTAL GENERAL PLANNING should take place before ANY i development begins. j3. If any annexation takes place prior to planning the Committee agrees it should come in as a Holding Zone, Zoned RA-01 or RA-02. ^ i 4 . The City Council should move toward a timely decision on: A. Not to Annex or B. Delay Annexation for a finite period of time or C. Initiate proceedings necessary for Annexation. 5. (This is an offer made by Mr. Stringer for Signal Landmark ) Signal Landmark would be willing to finance a portion of the TOTAL GENERAL PLANNING, but must have some assurance Annexation will take place. 6. Matrix of Alternates for Annexation �0 i \ r, f , (7 1•4) H•1.7-i::n C1F2ETCHEN A. HUAD 1' �t7 I tl H•'t7-I LeL?(I SUITE 107 r� HUNTINOTON EXECUTIVE PARK 10052 BEACH F30UL6VARD CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINOTON BEACH.CA B2847 CITY CQl1NCil. OFilCC April 19 , 1976 , D '- Huntington Beach City Council ,L 1r: Huntington Beach City Hall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach , CA CITY OF GF N;iiylj�,;{;iC J T+t:i; counci.lmembers t The purpose of this letter is to express the concerns of Amigos de, Bolsa Chica regarding annexation of the Bolsa Chica properties ity the City of Huntington Beach. Amigos de Bolsa Chica believes that the titles held by Signal 1,andmark Properties , Inc. and W. R. Grace , Inc. to large areas .,". of the Bolsa Chica lowlands may be defective because of the ,,,nss:ibl-e invalidity of the land exchange between the State 1..tltds Commission and Signal in 1973. Amigos de Bolsa Chica i.;,�,rcf.ore urges a no-annexation policy regarding these lands . ` 11tr Ooubt.-, as to Signal and Grace ' s title are based on the foi Loa.0ig considerations : 1 . 'Title to the tidelands in California is not absolute , but is subject to an easement in favor o-f the public as set " f.c: rth in the California Constitution , Article XV, Section 3. t. Chc wards of the Constitution are considered incorporated B in any grant of the tidelands , the same as if they were ,: inserted in the grant , and they become a part of it and x'~ qualify it . 'The estate granted, therefore , is limited to the uses tvlli�-h do not interfere with the rights of the public. 2 . Public trust uses are not limited to commercial navigation and fishery , but embrace the public interest in ha, preserving open spaces for recreation and wildlife . Marks v Whitney 6 C 3d 251 . 3. Government Commissioned maps of the Bolsa Chica :,: dated prior to 1890 indicate that the tidelands of the BolsaG .; Chica were once much larger than at present , and once covered ,v almost all the lowlands outside of the present city limits . P,. Diminution of the area subject to tite ebb and flow of the tide ,"` was due pimarily to damming and diverting activities at the turn of the century by the Bolsa Land Company, Signal 's predecessor in title. The construction of the dam and the filling of the ocean entrance were clearly illegal. Property #y . .q-. ------------ Huntington Beach City Council April 19 , 1976 Page 'Two held by the state in trust for the public use cannot be gained by adverse possession, and the statute of limitations does not apply to an action to recover such property from one using it for private purposes not consistent with the public use . City of Los Angeles v Anderson 206 C 662 . i The 1973 exchange between Signal and the State Lands Commission may have been invalid, because the findings required to be made before a conveyance of tidelands to a private grantee by the State Lands Commission may not have been supported by facts . The State may grant tidelands to a private grantee if it finds that those lands are valueless for trust purposes ; if they have been or are to be reclaimed pursuant to and in the course of j a highly beneficial public program of harbor development ; and if they constitute a relativelz small zarcel of the total acreage involved. one beach v Mansell , 3 C 3d 4U . Furthermore , the Appelate Court in County of Orange `v Heim, 30 Cal App 3d 694 , found an exchangebetween Urang`e County and the Irvine Company invalid because the facts surrounding the exchange did not support the finding thatthe lands involved constituted a relatively small parcel of the total acreage .involved. The Court found that , because the Irvine lands to be conveyed in the exchange were already tidelands under public control and subject to the Constitutional mandate , the County was actually relinquishing much more than a small parcel . It was relinquishing large parcels overwhich it had an easement. k The 1973 land exchange in the Bolsa Chica is factually similar to the facts surrounding the Upper Newport Bay exchange discussed 1 in the Heim case , and hence is subject to unwinding by the Courts , should a Tawsuit to confirm title be initiated. For the above reasons , Amigos de Bolsa' Chica urges the City Council to adopt a cautious attitude towards annexing land burdened with dubious title which may make impossible ultimate development in a manner financially beneficial to the City ; and which may embroil the City of Huntington Beach in litigation over such title. Very truly yours , r Gretchen A. Hoad Attorney for Amigos de Bolsa Chica cc : Don Bonfa, Huntington Beach City Attorney C. E. Parker, Attorney at Law Bolsa Chica Annexation Committee GH/lm C I y � FINAL 10 .-pact w(spoTt 7605 BOLSA CHICA ANNEXATION #7 Sept, 1976 huntington beach planning department TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. 0 INTRODUCTION 1 1. 1 Planning Area 1 1. 2 Project Description 1 1. 3 Project Objectives 3 1. 4 Methodology 3 _ 2 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 5 2 .1 Natural Setting 5 2 .2 Urban Setting 13 3/. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATING MEASURES 19 3.1 Land Resources 19 3. 2 Water Resources 21 3 .3 Bilogical Resources 23 3.4 Air Quality, Noise, Traffic 23 3. 5 Public Services 25 3 . 6 Utilities 27 3. 7 Human Habitat 30 3 . 8 Cost-Revenue Analysis 30 4 . 0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 35 4 . 1 No Annexation 35 4 .2 Delayed Annexation 35 4 . 3 Partial Annexation 36 5. 0 SHORT TERM USES VS. LONG TERM PRODUCTIVITY 37 6. 0 IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES 39 7.0 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACT 41 ADDENDUM 43 l �' ��r`y. ( � �;%�•; '�\ � � � ./,.'��•.,��,, � �.//' ��� i/G"`�`ti��\•� .�, �e.off` �, . .` / ,/�. t f `,��.�J ��'� � �; "� ;� j'F :%�� �.:\ _ ;cam. .v :' ,.�``':••i;, _'-�\' .,� �• NORTH 1 `��:'� �. >•�.. '� — ,r—_t,�• ,•�,'J/' �/', ``.�\_.. .�-; — ,�^,—Alt-•��' -P' — ' �f .' \ •� .�-\\ \err\�`.�.. "/Y.• ��'i � ,� �f / ANNEXATION LIMITS �' _ f �F'• %:;: �''.`. �: 3;� ..` �V� - \� CITY LIMITS '`` ,, '/ <,. , �• <\ ; f SIGNAL'`S OLSA 1 p GAR, LD ANNEXATION 1 Uj ow 4 e GARFIELD 3 GARFIELD 2 S '\ ORIGINAL EASTERLY 386.46';THENCE 39.24' CITY LIMITS (REFER TO LEGAL DESCRIPTION) ""' "' =�,;_ LF-4' ��-'__-_ _ fT•iE b BOLSA CHICA STATE PARK - -- IT`�` - ROS -01 ..�.� PROPOSED BOLSA CHICA ANNEXATION --";'-7 TO THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH (1603.12 ACRES) FIGURE 1-1 r 1. 0 INTRODUCTION The Environmental Impact Report for the annexation of the Bolsa Chica has been prepared by the Plan Development Section of the City (� of Huntington Beach Planning Department. The Environmental Impact Report is in accordance with the "Revised Guidelines for Imple- mentation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" and the California Council on Intergovernmental Relations ' (CIR) "General Plan Guidelines" of September, 1973. 1. 1 Planning Area The section of Huntington Beach commonly referred to as the Bolsa Chica comprises the planning area (Figure 1-1) . Covering 1603 . 12 acres, the study area includes the Bolsa Chica Mesa and the Bolsa Gap. 1. 2 Project Description The proposed project is the annexation of the Bolsa Chica. This annexation establishes new zoning for the study area. Much of the zoning is transitional , as an initial step to refinement of 1 land use objectives in the Bolsa Chica. K: 4 1. 3 Project Objectives The Bolsa Chica is in the sphere of influence of the city of Huntington Beach. As such, the City has a responsibility to determine its interests in the area and its objectives for the area. Annexation is a logical step toward fulfilling that re- sponsibility. The determination of objections and development of plans for the Bolsa Chica is expected to be expensive and time consuming. It is anticipated immediate annexation will provide funding (in property and oil taxes) for the planning process. r 1 . 4 Methodology To determine changes generated by annexation, potential develop- ment under proposed City zoning will be compared to potential C� development under existing County zoning. The General Plan land use designations for the study area will not be utilized for pur- poses of the analysis because the City ' s General Plan presently designates the developable area within the Bolsa Chica as a planning reserve. Both existing County zoning and the proposed City zoning are con- sidered transitional zones. Consequently, there is some doubt as to whether the environmental impacts discussed throughout the text are meaningful . This is further highlighted by the fact development under either the City ' s or the County ' s transitional zones is extremely unlikely. According to the Huntington Beach C` Ordinance Code, Section 9600, the intent of the RA zone is, " . . . . to provide a transition between the present agricultural activities and possible development to other uses. It is further intended that prior to development, any land in the RA zone will be rezoned to conform with the Master Plan of Land Use and said land shall not be subdivided for residential, commercial or industrial purposes until it is rezoned . " The environmental assessment must deal with the specifics of the project. The specifics of this project include annexation and existing zoning and prezoning. These are the issues that have been considered. The potential environmental impacts of the City ' s transitional zoning is a worst case analysis which should be re- viewed with the intent of RA zoning in mind. It goes without say- ing that if there are future development related zone changes to the RA transitional zone, additional in depth environmental assessments will be required. t� �,) r Cl 2. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 2 .1 Natural Setting C, The environment of the Bolsa Chica is predominantly natural al- though it has been altered for purposes of oil extraction. Even so, the natural environment has been able to change and survive in the wake of man ' s intrusion. The following sections reference the land, water, air, biological and cultural resources in the Bolsa Chica. 2 . 1. 1 Land Resources 2 . 1 . 1 . 1 Topography The majority of the study area comprises the Bolsa Gap, C� with elevations ranging from at or below sea level to not more than 5 feet above sea level . The Bolsa Gap is bordered on the northwest by the bluff of the Bolsa Chica Mesa, which rises from 5 feet to 66 feet above sea level at its highest point near the northern bound- ary of the study area. The southern boundary of the study area corresponds closely with the bluffline of the Huntington 'Beach Mesa, which rises 25-75 feet above the Bolsa Gap. W. . �?1 'N` ;a 11 ``` 5 2 . 1 . 1.2 Geology Because of intensive oil production activity within the study area, the subsurface geologic conditions are well known to a depth of 10, 000 feet. The Newport-Inglewood structural zone runs the length of the study area. This zone is considered active and historically has bee associated with earthquakes of moderate magnitude. Although the zone is thought to contain a complex system of small and short faults, two larger faults can be identified--the North Branch and South Branch Faults. In addition, the buried traces of the Olive Street and Walnut Street Faults are located in the southern portion of the study area. Land subsidence in the study area can be attributed to two main causes--oil and gas withdrawal and tectonic movements. Tectonic activity can be fast fault slippage or slow down warping of strata. Observation of bench marks along Pacific Coast Highway indicates an average settlement of between 6 and 8 inches over a 20-year period believed to be due in part to tectonic movement. Oil activity in the Bolsa Chica between 1933 and 1964 has caused a maximum of 2 .16 feet of cumulative subsidence, however, recent practices of water injection and repressurization have all but eliminated any new subsidence. Although groundwater extraction is usually the most extensive man-made cause of subsidence? it does not affect the Bolsa Chica area because the sub- surface water in the area would be replac by seawater if depleted. Oxidation of peat deposits has also caused localized subsidence as much as 14 feet along the coast between Sunset and Newport Beach, but the probability of future subsidence of this nature should be evaluated on a site by site basis. Overall, not more than 2 . 75 feet of subsidence 3should occur in the study area over the next 50 years. 2 .1 . 1. 3 Soils i Over half of the study area is a tidal marsh. The Bolsa Chica Mesa contains primarily Ramona Loam with some Ramona Fine Sandy Loam. The study area is bounded to the southwest along Pacific Coast Highway by Coastal Sand and to the northeast by Heavy Chino malty Clay. A one-half to five-foot thick layer of peat runs along the 2Geotechnical Inputs, Leighton-Yen and H.B. Planning Dept. , page 7 <. 3Geotechnical Inputs, Leighton-Yen and H.B. Planning Dept. , page 39 The Environment of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands, Space Division, Rockwell International , page IV-3 6 bottom of the northern bluff for approximately 2 , 300 feet and is 500-900 feet in width. Additionally, about one- third of the study area has been identified as a probable peat location of unknown depth. A study by Leighton-Yen and Associates produced a map showing expansive clay hazard potentials for the study area, based on the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Map (1919) . This map rates the relative expansive potential for the upper six feet of soil in the area as a function of the percent of clay sized particles found in the soil. The Bolsa Chica Mesa contains predominantly sandy soil, therefore, this area has been given a low expansive potential . (� However, the underlying soils on the Mesa contain a higher percentage of clay size particles and have a moderate expansive potential . The soil types found in the tidal marsh range from sand to clay and because of this variety, the marsh has been assigned a variable value. The coastal sand along the southwest border is of low expan- C" sive potential. 2.1.1. 4 Geotechnical Land Use Capability In 1973 Leighton-Yen and Associates evaluated the risk from possible geotechnical problems for the Hunting- C` ton Beach area. The evaluation was based on fault rupture potential, peat deposits, liquefaction potential, beach erosion, and tsunami hazards, and exluded earthquake shaking, expansive soils, areal land subsidence, and groundwater problems. On a relative scale to surrounding areas, the Bolsa Chica Mesa was assigned a "nominal risk" C-1 value, presenting only minor problems. The tidal marsh, however, because of its proximity to several active fault zones, peat deposits, and high liquefaction potential, was assigned a "high risk" value, having major problems but controllable through design and/or setbacks. n 2. 1. 1. 5 Mineral Resources Well over half of the study area is contained within the Huntington Beach Oil Field, about 400 active wells are located in the study area. The Huntington Beach Field produces about 5% of the State ' s total, yielding around 45, 000 barrels a day. 4Geotechnical Inputs, Leighton-Yen and H.B. Planning Dept. , page 37 5Geotechnical Inputs, Leighton-Yen and H.B. Planning Dept. (Figure 4-1) 1� 7 2. 1. 2 Water Resources 2 . 1 :2 .1 Surface Water Surface water in the study area consists mainly of a series of ponds and channels, an extension of the inland alluvial flood plain of the Santa Ana River. Included in this system are the Bolsa Chica Channel and the terminus of the Freeman Creek Channel and East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Flood Control Channel (See Figure 2-1) . These channels empty into the Inner and Outer Bolsa Bays , which flow through Huntington Harbour and Anaheim Bay before reaching the Pacific Ocean. The Bolsa Chica and Wintersburg Channels combine to serve a drainage area of some 57 square miles of Orange County. The increasing urbanization of surrounding areas have greatly increased the amount of water usage and surface runoff into these channels; the Wintersburg Channel has accommodated up to 259 cubic feet per second in daily runoff. During very heavy rains, the network of oil roads in the subject area impedes runoff and may result in freshwater flooding. A set of tide gates at the Bolsa Bay-Wintersburg Channel interface allows freshwater drainage to flow into the ! bay while preventing seawater from flowing into the channels and ponds in the area. This lack of flushing of the inland waterways prevents flooding of the lowlands but at the same time creates an extreme environment for vegetation and wildlife in the area. 2. 1. 2. 2 Groundwater Conditions The groundwater level in the study area varies with location, but averages less than 5 feet below the surface. According to Talbert (1952) the Bolsa Gap was filled with peat springs and artesian wells which flowed freely. Development of surrounding areas has stopped the springs and lowered the water table to the point that seawater is flowing in to replace the depleted water level, bringing with it the threat of contamination of fresh water aquifers . This salt water intrusion is retarded by the Newport-Inglewood Fault zone, however, because the displacement of strata has formed a relatively impermeable barrier against subsurface water flow. 2. 1. 2. 3 Santa Ana Flood Plain The majority of the study area, being at or near sea level, is in a natural flood plain. The Standard Pro- ject Flood, or 200-year flood, would flood the area in the marsh with at least 5 feet of water. The Bolsa Chica Mesa would not be subject to flooding because of its elevation. 6The Environment of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands, Space Division, Rockwell International , page V-6 . Y' nl 8 J wf W / Z \ ! U Y w ldk U 0 1800' / !/� z % Uj Sa U O ` f+ \ 2 \j / 38 LL C > epo � VIP ` Q CHANNEL v �. iu MIDDLE a� a OUTER BOLSA BAY TIDE GATES INNER ? / BOLSA BAY SOUTH BOLSA SLOUGH Z�- BOLSA CHICA WETLANDS Figure 2-1 2. 1. 3 Air Resources 2 . 1. 3.1 Climate The Bolsa Chica area and Huntington Beach region in general are described as having a Mediterranean climate, characterized by warm, dry summers and mild, sunny winters with occasional rainfall. Mean daily temper o 0 atures during the summer range from 660 - 68 and 52 56 during the winter. The average rainfall is between 12 and 15 inches, with 90% falling between November and April . Prevailing westerly and southwesterly winds of 10 to 15 miles per hour off the ocean produce smog free conditions and ameliorate climatic extremes. Fog is common in the morning during the summer and in the evening during the winter, keeping the air moist, the average relative humidity is 71%. Heavy fog conditions average about 24 days out of the year. Less frequent than this ^ are Santa Ana conditions, marked by hot, dry, and dusty winds from the east during winter months. 7 2. 1 .3 . 2 Air Quality ------_-- Several sources of air pollution affect the Bolsa Chica area including industrial, power plant, and transportation activities . The only industrial source of air pollution in the area are from oil-drilling operations . On a County wide basis , these activities contribute 20 tons of hydrocarbons and 4 tons of sulfur oxides daily, but only a small percentage of this comes from the Bolsa Chica area . There are three power plants located within five miles of the study area -- the Southern - California Edison Company Huntington Beach electrical plant to the southeast, their Alamitos electrical plant to the northwest, and the Department of Water and Power ' s Haynes Steam Plant. Although these power plants are responsible for a substantial amount of emissions on a regional basis , they have little effect on the air quality of the study area because the prevailing sea breeze tends to blow pollutants inland and away from the Bolsa Chica. By far, the most im- portant source of pollution in the area is automobile traffic, accounting for 98% of all emissions in Orange County (1972) . Traffic along the Pacific Coast Highway is the single most important source of emissions--a total of 6 . 4 tons of carbon monoxide, 0 .8 ton of hydrocarbons, and 0 . 6 ton of nitrogen oxides were emitted daily by 7The Environment of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands, Space Division, Rockwell International, page IX-1 10 / by this traffic in 1972 . No data was available on particulate matter or sulfur oxides for the study area. Overall, the air quality of the Bolsa Chica area is excellent because of the flat topography and the prevail- ing breeze, however, occasionally Santa Ana conditions temporarily reverse the situation. $ 2 .1. 3. 3 Noise There are three general sources of noise that affect the Bolsa Chica area. The most important of these is noise from vehicular surface traffic, especially that along the (` Pacific Coast Highway. With an average daily traffic of 24, 000 vehicles, there is almost a constant back- ground noise above the ambient sound level. A study of noise sources in Huntington Beach conducted by Wyle Laboratories in 1975 produced a map of noise contours for ground transportation. Along Pacific Coast Highway, (` the day-night average sound level (Ldn) at 60 decibels (dB) extends from 366 to 420 feet of either side of the right-of-way. 9 A second source of noise is aircraft passing over the area. The Bolsa Chica area is within the air traffic zone of four airports : Long Beach Airport, Orange County Airport, Los Alamitos Naval Air Station, and Meadowlark Airport. Over recent years the frequency of flights to and from these airports has increased, so have heli- copter surveillance flights by local police and fire agencies . The third noise source is that of oil-drilling and refining equipment found in the study area. As oil operations decrease in the future, so will the noise they produce. 2. 1. 4 Biological Resources n The study area abounds in biological resources, both in vegetation and wildlife (Refer to Figure 2-2) - A total of 156 species of plant life were identi- fied by the Dillingham Corporation. Among the more common of these were pickleweed, iceplant, beach primrose, bird ' s foot trefoil , spike rush, sea lavendar, shore rJ grass, cord grass, sea blite, telegraph weed, and mustard. Agricultural areas in the north support lima beans as well as pasture for dairy cattle. Several acres alonq the outer Bolsa Bay comprise a true salt marsh environment receiving both tidal and fresh water, but the remainder of the area is dependent on rainfall or channel water. Of the 8The Environment of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands, Space Division, Rockwell n erna Iona , page IX-2 9Noise Element, Wyle Laboratories, page 54 AW! V (� 11 i® Relief Salt Marsh Plants Wooded Bluffs and �. (Healthy Stands) Dune Related Vegetation r� '7� Aquatic Habitats and = Aquatic Invertebrates Fish _ ::€';` Salt Water Intrusion (Species Diversity) (Species Diversity) .I� O yy' f;w r£th` yZ4` e F�- ^"7 Water Birds Land Birds Mammals (Abundance) o (Abundance) (Abundance) ( Each factor mapped In graduated tones from most,BLACK,to least,WHITE.) ROLSA CHICA: Community Mosaic Figure 2-2 156 species of flora recorded, only 10 percent are charac- teristic of salt marsh habitats. Sixty five percent are weeds that have invaded this man-modified environment. A large stand of eucalyptus trees lines the bluff of the Bolsa Chica Mesa. Wildlife in the study area consists of invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. A total of 157 species have been sighted in the Bolsa Chica; among the more common are polychaeta worm, jacknife clam, California hornshell, striped shore crab, California killfish, western fence lizard, western sandpiper, ring billed gull, harvest mouse, and desert cottontail. A more detailed list can be r found in Dillingham. 10 2 . 1. 5 Cultural Resources 2.1 . 5 . 1 Recreation Areas C" Within the study area are 530 acres of a state-owned and leased ecological preserve. This preserve includes both the Outer and Inner Bolsa Bays as well as a substantial amount of waterways. There are also four proposed neighborhood park sites encompassing a total of twelve acres in the study area. 2 .1. 5. 2 Archeological Resources A survey of the Huntington Beach area conducted by Archeological Research, Incorporated identified twelve archeological sites in the study area. These are located primarily along the blufflines of the Huntington Beach and Bolsa Chica Mesas. Four of these sites have been totally or partially destroyed by agricultural or oil activity. 2. 1. 5 . 3 Historical and Cultural Sites Three potential historic or landmark sites exist within the study area--Warner and Marine View Water Tower, Huntington Oil Well #A-1, and World War II Bunkers . 2 . 2 Urban Setting This section addresses the urban or man-made environmental, setting. Seven major topics are covered: (1) land use, (2) age and condition of structures, (3) zoning, (4) Land Use Element of the General Plan, (5) circulation, (6) community facilities, and (7) public utilities. 1 10An Environmental Evaluation of the Bolsa Chica Area, The Dilling- ham Corporation, Sections V-XI. 13 2. 2 . 1 Land Use A good portion of the land in the study area is covered by water in the form of debris basins, sumps, flood control channels, and bays . The majority of the land that is not submerged is used for oil and gas extraction. Four sites are used for the processing and storage of petroleum and natural gas. Almost all of the land on the Bolsa Chica Mesa contained in the study area is vacant. A small portion of the Bolsa Chica is used for agricultural purposes. 2 . 2 . 2 Age and Condition of Structures Very few structures exist on the land in the study area other than oil wells and processing machinery of varying structural integrity and age. 2 . 2 . 3 Zoning The study area is presently regulated by Orange County Zoning Codes. 1,575.13 acres are zoned Al and Al (0) ; general agricultural district, combined with oil production in certain areas. A 28 acre strip along Warner Avenue is zoned AR; agricultural residential district. Some 52 acres were prezoned RA, Rl, Rl-CD, and -CD. Since then, the City has prezoned the entire study area; 1, 424 . 4 acres to residential agricultural combined with oil production, 2. 29 acres to recreational open space combined with oil production and 176.43 acres to recre- ational open space. 2. 2. 4 Existing Land Use Element ^ The Phase I Land Use Element of the city of Huntington Beach General Plan has designated land uses for the study area. Approximately 530 acres, that area owned or leased by the State of California, have been designated as an ecological reserve. A 50-acre area located in the eastern portion of the study area near Edwards Street has been designated low density residential . A 10-acre area in the southernmost section of the Bolsa Chica is designated resource production. The remaining 1 , 013 .12 acres con- stitute a planning reserve. 2. 2. 5 Circulation 2. 2. 5. 1 Arterial Streets No arterials as defined by the Master Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways exist within the boundaries of the study area. A number run adjacent to and toward the Bolsa Chica. North-South arterials surrounding the area include Bolsa Chica, Graham, Springdale and Edwards Streets . East-west arterials include Pacific Coast Highway, Warner, Slater, Talbert, Ellis, and Garfield Avenues. The Master Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways has proposed an extension of Bolsa Chica Street that will -run- through the study area and intersect Pacific Coast Highway at the southern end of the marsh. 2 . 2. 5. 2 Local Streets A network of elevated dirt roads runs throughout the oil field but these are not open for public use. C` 2 . 2. 5. 3 Public Transportation The Orange County Transit District provides intercommunity fixed bus route service throughout the County. Three routes run past the study area: Route 1 runs along Pacific Coast Highway, and Routes 21 and 158 run along Warner Avenue. They provide transportation for local residents as well as visitors passing through Huntington Beach. 2 . 2 . 6 Community Facilities (, 2 . 2 . 6 . 1 Police and Fire Protection The study area is presently under the jurisdiction of the Orange County Sheriff' s Department. The Huntington Beach Police Department enters the area only on rare occasions, such as an airplane crash from Meadowlark n Airport, fires involving the Huntington Beach Fire Department, or pursuit of criminals. Fire protection in the area is provided by the Orange County Fire Department, however, in the event of a major oil or brush fire, the Huntington Beach Fire Department provides manpower under a mutual aid agreement with the County. 2 . 2 . 6 . 2 Educational Facilities No educational facilities exist in the study area . There are several schools surrounding the area, includ- ing Harbour View, Marine View, and two other proposed elementary school sites. Two elementary school districts serve the Bolsa Chica, Ocean View School District in the northern portion and Huntington Beach Elementary School District in the south. All of the study area is located within the boundaries of the Huntington Beach -1� Union High School District, the closest high school being Huntington Beach High School, located two miles to the southeast. The Coast' Community College District i � 4 15 also serves the study area, with Golden West College located three miles to the northeast. 2 . 2. 6. 3 Parks The only park in the study area is an ecological preserve maintained by the State of California. This is primarily a wildlife area with few recreational facilities. Four 3-acre sites have been identified as proposed neighborhood parks throughout the study area. 2 . 2 .6 . 4 Library Service Library Service for the study area is provided by any of four locations: The city of Huntington Beach' s Book- mobile, which is parked on Algonquin Street 1/2 mile north of the Bolsa Chica area; Huntington Central Library and Cultural Resource Center, 1-1/2 miles to the east; the Graham Annex, located 2 miles to the north; and the Goldenwest College Library 3 miles northeast of the study area. 2. 2 . 7 Public Utilities 2 .2 .7 .1 Water Water supply in the study area is supplied by wells and is used mainly for industrial activity. Water injection is used to increase oil production. Rainfall and runoff from the Wintersburg Channel provide water for vegetation and wildlife habitats. Surrounding areas are served by a combination of Colorado River water through the Metropolitan Water District and a series of deep water wells . 2.2 . 7 . 2 Sanitary Sewer No sources consulted indicate the existance of sanitary sewers. 2. 2 . 7 . 3 Storm Drains No storm drains are located in the study area. Although the Wintersburg Channel flows through the Bolsa Chica, it does not receive runoff from the area. Most drainage , is absorbed by the soil or evaporated from ponds. 11Open Space/Conservation Element, H.B. Planning Dept. , pages46-47. 16 2. 2 . 7 . 4 Oil Lines Most of the Study Area is criss-crossed with oil and miscellaneous oil-related interconnecting lines. Most of these lines are active and remain below the surface. t� Because many of of these lines were installed several years ago when the City experienced its earlier oil booms, no accurate record of the location of the lines is available. According to the City' s Oil Field Inspector the pipelines tend to run 3 to 6 lines per row. There are approximately 18 rows. The rows are located approx- imately 2 to 4 feet below the surface. 2. 2. 7 . 5 Solid Waste Disposal The Rainbow Disposal Company collects refuse within the city of Huntington Beach and the Bolsa Chica. Residents and businesses may subscribe to weekly pick-up, which is contracted for by the City, or make arrangements with -the Disposal Company for individual refuse collection. Generally, most apartment owners and businesses make individual contract arrangements with the disposal �,. company. 2. 2. 7 .6 Other Utilities Gas, electricity, and telephone service can be provided to the Study Area by the Southern California Gas Company, Southern California Edison Company, and General Telephone Comany, respectively. At present, however, users provide their own service. Electricity would be supplied from a main ,generating plant located on Pacific Coast Highway and Newland Street. Electrical hookup is installed as new development occurs. Telephone service is extended to all land uses upon request. I NO 17 I C - - - -- - - - - ._. o..' KEY: as •• OIL WELLS oa TANK FARM \ BUILDING y' yyJ ' r•—ROADS JJ Ire � I \\ 0,0 000 ?n•r� vsfihF I Bolsa Chica : Present oil extractive use. '? n Figure 2-3 18 C` 3. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATING MEASURES 3. 1 Land Resources 3. 1. 1 Topography The majority of the project area comprises the Bolsa Gap and is below sea level or less than five feet above sea level. The southern boundary of the project area corresponds roughly with the western bluff of the Huntington Beach Mesa, which rises 25 - 75 feet above the marsh. The northern portion of the area comprises the Bolsa Chica Mesa, sloping from 5 feet to 66 feet above sea level at its highest point at the northern boundary of the project. The project area is undeveloped but much of the area is cluttered with uses associated with oil operations including t wells and access roads. Ihis property, except portions of the Bolsa Chica State Reserve, is prezoned RA-02 . This is a transitional zone on which actual development is not anticipated. If development does take place, the .potential intensity is greater under the City' s RA-02 than under existing County zoning. However, in either case, develop- ment could be effectuated with minimal grading (and there- fore limited landform alteration) provided. specific° develop- 9 19 ment plans give careful consideration to the bluffs. 3. 1. 2 Soils - The majority of the project area is a tidal marsh. The mesa in the northern portion is comprised mostly of Ramona Loam with some Ramona Fine Sandy Loam. The tidal marsh is bounded by Coastal Sand to the south and Chino Silty Clay , (heavy) to the north. A one-half to five-foot layer of peat runs along the bottom of the northern mesa for approxi- mately 2300' and is 500-900 ' wide. About one-third of the project area has been identified as a probable peat location of unknown depth. The varied types of soils found in the tidal marsh area makes assigning a value for expansive 'po- tential difficult; therefore most of the study area has been given a variable value. The northern mesa was assigned a low to moderate expansive potential (6 - 27% clay) . Sandy soils are suitable for development. Expansive soils require special treatment because they can cause extensive damage to lightly loaded structures, pavements, driveways, sidewalks, etc. , due to volumetric changes associated with increases or decreases in moisture content. The tidal sediments vary in clay content (and therefore ex- pansive qualities) . Liquefaction is considered high in most of this location. Hazard from expansive soils can be reduced through the following mitigating measures: (a) Remove clay soils and relocate to areas used for recreation or landscape purposes— (b) Mix the clay soils with a less expansive soil, replace, and recompact. Damage from liquefaction can only be minimized through changes in land use. The hazard posed by liquefaction will be the same, for all intents and purposes, whether development of this location conforms to existing zoning or the proposed zoning. 3. 1. 3 Oil Resources n Considerable property within the Bolsa Chica supports oil uses. There is very little possibility that upon annexation the RA-02 zoning will induce the development of existinq properties on which are located oil uses. Oil uses are anticipated to be profitable for + 15 years. _ r, 20 3. 1. 4 Geologic Considerations The Newport-Inglewood Structural Fault Zone runs the length of the study area. In this zone are included the North Branch and South Branch Faults as well as the buried trace of the Olive Street Fault at the southernmost end of the project area. Development over and close to active faults in the Bolsa Chica will probably not be subject to the restrictions of the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazard Zones Act, because all earthquake faults in the Study Area are buried. Since the Alquist-Priolo Act only governs surface hazards, the California Division of Mines and Geology has indicated that the special hazard zones and accompanying regulations will probably not be imposed for buried traces. �^ The City' s Department of Building and Community Develop- ment requires either an engineering geologist' s analysis of construction sites or the design of buildings for human occupancy to resist a seismic force equal to 0. 20 gravity. These requirements are imposed for all discretionary acts. Loss of life and structural damage is thereby reduced. 3.1. 5 Cultural Resources The Open Space Element has identified three potential sites in the area as having historical/landmark signi- ficance: These include the Warner and Marine View Water Tower, Huntington Oil Well A-1, and World War II Bunkers. Archaeological sites line the bluffs of both the Bolsa Chica and Huntington Beach Mesas. Four have been totally or partially destroyed by oil or agricultural activity. The remaining sites are ORA #78, 82 , 83 , 85, 88 , 289, 291, & r, 365. Also included in the project area is a 300 acre state owned ecological preserve and a large eucalyptus tree stand. Artifacts can be recovered from archeological sites prior to grading provided experts in the field of archeology are notified in advance, In the past, the Citv has notified Archeological Research, Incorporated (who performed a City-wide investigation) to analyze sites proposed to be developed. If preservation of the site is not considered vital, the artifacts are salvaged and then turned over to the City for display and permanent custody. Any detrimental impacts on important cultural resources are thereby mini-. mized. The preservation of historic resources must be handled through specific" development plans. 21 3. 2 Water Resources 3. 2. 1 Regional Flood Hazard A small portion of the Bolsa Chica, located on the Hunting- ton Beach Mesa in the southeast and on the Bolsa Chica Mesa in the northwest, is free from flooding. The mesas are bisected by the Bolsa Gap which is subject to flooding in 100 - and 200-year storms. A program to minimize danger from flooding has been adopted by the City Council as part of the Seismic-Safety Element (refer to Section 5. 2 in the Seismic-Safety Element, Huntington Beach Planning Department) . Further, as a participant in the Federal Insurance Program, Huntington Beach flood hazard areas are governed by the regulations imposed by the Federal Insur- ance Administration. Certain steps are also being taken to eliminate the flood hazard posed by the Santa Ana River. The United States Army Corps of Engineers has proposed a plan that would make the City (and all of Orange County) flood safe from the 200-year storm. It will be several years before the ^ project can mitigate flood potential, however. In the meantime, development of flood hazard areas will be regulated by the programs mentioned previously. 3. 2. 2 Local Drainage and Groundwater The entire study area is subjected to local surface drainage problems during heavy rains. Although development according to RA zoning is not anticipated, the situation will worsen if vacant areas are developed due to decreased ground percolation and increased surface runoff. Under 25- year storm conditions, RA development would increase storm runoff by 520 cubic feet per second over that generated by existing County zoning. The Public Works Department indicated that the local surface drainage problem can be mitigated by installation of a pump station at Springdale and Talbert. Groundwater level is very important in a coastal city like Huntington Beach (subject to salt water intrusion) which relies on groundwater as a major source of domestic water. The amount of percolation will be reduced by development under the proposed zoning. Less percolation will mean decreased fresh groundwater storage and possible increased salt water intrusion. Runoff is characteristically of poor quality and can contaminate surface water. It is probable that pollutants from adjacent residential developments will flow into the State wildlife preserve via the Wintersburg Channel through tidal flushing. Primary pollutants would include vehicle hydrocarbons, greases , oil, rubber, plastics, asbestos, paint, and metal fragments from paved surfaces, and 22 fertiziers and pesticides from landscaped areas. The control of urban runoff and its impact on regional water quality is so poorly developed that at present the only effective mitigation measure is to process such runoff in a sewage treatment facility. The Wintersburg Channel could be extended to the ocean to reduce adverse effects on Bolsa Chica. However, this action could- increase the potential for adverse effect at the coastline and beach. 3. 3 Biological Resources Extensive fauna and flora exists in the Bolsa Chica. Most of the tidal marsh area would be protected from development by the ROS prezoning designation and more importantly, by virtue of the fact that it is a state owned ecological reserve. The Bolsa Chica Mesa and the inland lowland property, which no longer is a marsh due to man' s intrusion, are prezoned RA-02 . Although development is not anticipated at RA-02 standards, potentially development would be possible. This development would be more intense than under existing County zoning. Development would negatively affect the large number of weedy plants occupying the mesa and lowland areas and the ( � eucalyptus grove which together provide a "savannah-like" grassland habitat. The land bird fauna, including Finches, Meadowlarks, Mourning doves, Loggerhead shrike, California quail, Cliff swallows (utilizing the ponds for insects) and all the birds of prey, as well as some of the rarer species, tend to reflect affinities with such an open, dry-land habitat configuration and would also be negatively affected. The avifauna which was, in the past, located on the bluffs and mesas, has now been able to move into the lower elevations which were formerly salt marsh habitats. - The "grassland" habitats juxtaposed with an agricultural-livestock-suburban situation, have combined to produce an unusual land bird population, more typical C) of little disturbed bluff-mesa habitats than salt marshes. To mitigate the impacts of development of the mesa and lowlands , appropriate open spaces (such as the eucalyptus grove) should be preserved. In addition, expansion of the ecological reserve to include some of "savannah-like" property would be important. This might be accomplished through public purchase of property or by the State successfully acting on its option for 230 acres of Signal Bolsa Corporation property. 3. 4 Traffic 3. 4. 1 Traffic Circulation Development according to the proposed RA prezoning would generate, a total of about 14,240' vehicular trips per day. At ultimate development under existing County zoning, an estimated 5,470' trips per day- would be generated, or -0 approximately 8,770 daily trips less than generated by the prezoning. Bolsa Chica Street would be extended south Aft 23 and southeast to Pacific Coast Highway to accomodate in- creased traffic in the area. Vehicular trips would be distributed in the following manner: Existing Prezoning % Existing Zoning % Volume Volume Increase Volume Increase ADT (ADT) (ADT) Bolsa Chica 1,800 12,4.80 593 6,300 250 Pacific Coast Hwy 24,000 26, 848 12 25,100 5 Warner 16,400 17, 112 4 16,700 2 Increased vehicle trips and congestion can be mitigated to a small measure by increased public use of and access to available bus service on Orange County Transit District routes serving the area. 3. 4. 2 Air Quality Development under the proposed prezoning would increase vehicle miles travelled in Bolsa Chica by approximately 48,235 miles per day above that generated by existing County zoning. This would result in the following increase in contaminants from the study area at full development: PROJECTED DAILY EMISSIONS INCREASE Tons of Emissions Percentage of per Day County Emissions CO 1 . 46 . 05 Hydrocarbons . 19 . 06 NOx . 26 . 06 Particulates . 06 . 39 Sox . 06 . 19 TOTAL 2. 03 . 05 The additional vehicle traffic generated by Bolsa Chica residents would contribute to the deterioration of air quality in the South Coast Regional Air Basin. Traffic under prezoning would generate about . 05 percent more emissions than existing County zoning. Air pollution would also be generated on a short-term basis from grading of individual project sites. This effect is, however, common to both existing zoning and the proposed prezoning. Adft 24 ' Although development under RA-02 or Al-0 standards would not by itself have a substantial effect on air quality ,- within the South Coast Regional Air Basin, its effect must be considered as an increment in the cumulative degradation of air quality in the basin. 3. 4. 3 Noise Short-term noise can be expected from both construction equipment and related vehicular traffic. Intermittent noise levels of 75 to 80 db (a) at 100 feet would persist throughout the normal working hours of the week. As residential traffic volumes increase and further r development occurs, some locations within Bolsa Chica may experience negative impacts from traffic noise. Using traffic volumes as an indication of noise levels, the following areas of increase are estimated: Existing dB(A) Prezoning dB(A) Existing Zoning n at 100 ft. at 100 ft. % dB(A) at 100 ft. o for L50 for L50 Increase for L50 Increas Bolsa Chica 52 63. 5 22 .1 59.5 14.4 Pacific Coast Hwy 67.5 68 .7 67.7 .3 Warner 64.5 65 .8 64.7 .3 Certain methods can be employed to keep traffic in Bolsa Chica at an acceptable level. These methods, as detailed in the Noise Element Background Report (Huntington Beach Planning Department, June 1975) include: - Local reduction of traffic noise through operational modifications (e.g. , revise flow control methods; reroute traffic) - Outside to inside noise reduction for dwellings through modifications to improve sound insulation (e.g. , minimize "sound leaks" around doors, windows, and vents; replace It c,•oustica11y weak" components; str. ucturfl.ly improVci weak walls and roofs. ) 3. 5 Public Services 3. 5. 1 Fire Protection Of prime importance to the adequacy of fire protection coverage is response time, which is basically a function of -1 the distance from the fire station to the incident location and the average speed of travel by fire apparatus. Fire Adft 25 r stations should be located to provide an average response time of five minutes or less in 90 percent of the incidents. Development in Bolsa Chica would require one new engine company and ladder truck station at Talbert Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street. This station would serve a response district encompassing four square ,miles. It would serve the study area east of Bolsa Chica Street while the response district of the existing Warner Station expands to serve the west half of Bolsa Chica. Manpower is a secondary factor in fire protection coverage because manning practices are normally based on the City' s financial capability rather than the fire hazard potential. As Bolsa Chica develops, higher levels of manning will be necessary if the Fire Department is to maintain the level of service required. 3 . 5. 2 Police Protection The Special Operations Section of the Huntington Beach Po- lice Department calculated the impact on manning capabili- ties in the study area. Based on manning ratios for the RA designation and population occupancies per unit, the Police Department estimates that five additional police officers would be necessary to serve Bolsa Chica. At ultimate development under existing County zoning, an estimated two additional police officers would be re- quired for the study area, three less than required for development under the proposed prezoning. 3. 5. 3 Recreation and Parks The City Recreation and Parks Department is currently studying open space and park needs within Bolsa Chica. However, no recommendations will be made until development intensity is firmly established. Development according to the proposed RA prezoning yields a park requirement of at least24.85 acres using the City' s standard of five acres per 1000 population. The existing County zoning produces a demand of 9. 5 acres of park space, or about 15.35 acres less than prezoning development. 3. 5. 4 Schools Based on residential development according to the proposed RA zoning, elementary school student generation will be approximately 1, 035, high school - 347 , and junior college- 241. The following number of students would be generated at ultimate development under existing County zoning: 399 elementary, 134 high school, and 93 junior college. The Huntington Beach Elementary School District has indicated that it can accommodate additional students Aft 26 �� generated by new housing developments within district boundaries. The Huntington Beach Union High School District has five schools which are already overloaded with a total capacity of 14 , 798 and a current enroll- ment of 18, 661. This student overload is being accommodated by temporary structures and extended-day schedules. Continued enrollment growth will intensity the need for extended school day schedules and force the continued implementation of other classroom alter- ` natives. These effects will be partially mitigated by construction of '.the proposed Ocean View High School at Gothard Street and Warner Avenue, within the Huntington Beach Union High School District. The Coast Community College .District indicates that their facilities can adequately accommodate the expected student increase from the study area. 3. 5. 5 Medical Services There are two hospitals in the City of Huntington �. Beach which serve the total population of approximately 151, 000. An estimated 2, 500 people are served by Huntington Intercommunity Hospital in some capacity every month. Pacifica Hospital serves an estimated 350 people every month. Both hospitals are within ten minutes travel time from the study area. Given the wide range of services offered at the two hospitals, there should be no problem providing health care to residents of Bolsa' Chica. Development under the proposed prezoning would require local hospitals to accommodate about 3 , 070 more persons � i than at ultimate development under existing County zoning. 3. 6 Utilties 3. 6. 1 Water ,n Development as allowed by the proposed prezoning would create an additional demand for water of approximately 451, 290 gallons per day over the demand predicted for ultimate development under existing County zoning. The Public Works Department indicated that a 16-inch trunkline ( ; along Pacific Coast Highway ,and a 24-inch line extending southwest from Springdale Street would adequately serve Bolsa Chica. Any increase in land use intensity would require a re-evaluation of water facilities. i� Aft v 27 3. 6. 2 Sanitary Sewer The RA prezoning would increase peak sewage flow by 414,450 gallons per day over the flow predicted for ultimate development under existing County zoning. Keith and Associates is currently designing County. trunklines that will service Bolsa Chica at ultimate development. The determination of sewer line size is pending a more specific indication of the future development intensity. Although the RA zoning designation is only interim, the proposed trunklines would be adequate to meet future demand based on a population of 4,970 people. The main sewer line will extend south and southeast from Balsa Chica Street. Two secondary lines will connect the main trunkline in Bolsa Chica southwest from Springdale and Edwards Streets. 3. 6 . 3 Oil Lines Oil lines and wells can be found singly or in concentration at any particular location within Bolsa Chica. Abandoned oil lines usually range in depth from several inches to 3 feet below the surface. The Huntington Beach Oil Field Inspector has indicated that virtually all active lines range in depth from 2 to 4 feet below the surface. Street development would not disturb the soil to a depth of 2 feet. As a mitigation measure, a detailed review of all locational records for subsurface oil lines could be made. Where such information is incomplete, a metal detector could be employed to locate subsurface facilities. . Where oil lines conflict with proposed residential development, structures could be arranged in order to avoid the lines. Careful pipeline rerouting could be performed if unavoidable 3. 6. 4 Solid Waste Disposal Prezoning will generate an additional 2 , 860 tons of solid waste per year over the amount predicted for ultimate development under existing County zoning. The Rainbow Disposal Company foresees no local service constraints in either case. ' Orange County Refuse Disposal indicates that the refuse transfer station in Huntington Beach will operate indefinitely. The Coyote Canyon landfill site is projected to reach capacity during 1981, but several replacement sites will begin operation at that time in accordance with the Orange County Solid Waste Management Plan. 28 lip C 3. 6. 5 Energy Utilities Prezoning will create an additional natural gas demand of 99 million cubic feet per year and an additional electrical demand of 4 . 4 million kilowatt hours per year above the respective demands predicted at ultimate development according to existing County zoning. %~ Gas service is generally provided as a normal extension of existing facilities. However, the availability of natural gas service is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities C Commission. Federal regulatory agencies can also affect gas supply. Should these agencies take any action which affects gas supply or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be pro- vided according to the revised conditions. The Southern California Edison Company has indicated that electrical load requirements can be met for 1975 through 1977 provided that electrical demand does not exceed estimates and there are no unexpected outages to major sources of electrical supply. The total demand is expected to continue to increase annually. If Edison ' s plans to proceed with future construction of new generating facilities continue to be delayed, the ability to serve customer loads could become marginal by 1978 . The following energy conservation measures are recommended for new and renovated structures : 1 . Open gas lighting should not be used in public or private buildings. 2 . Electric lights should be strategically placed to 'y maximize their efficiency. Their size and power consumption should be minimized as much as possible. 3 . Electrical heating in public and private structures should be discouraged. Solar assisted heating systems should be encouraged. 4. Reflecting and/or insulating glass should be used in structures where windows are not shaded by exterior architectural projections or mature plants. 29 3. 7 Human Habitat 3 . 7 . 1 Aesthetics Four historic landmarks exist within the study area which have aesthetic value: The Warner and Marine View Water Tower, the Bolsa Chica Gun Club, Huntington Oil Well A-1, and World War II Bunkers. Although development is not anticipated, should it occur the landmarks could be preserved through specific development plans; therefore, no adverse impact is anticipated. The bluff areas and the tidal marsh area are physical features with aesthetic significance. The tidal marsh is to be preserved by the State. Efforts would be necessary to preserve the bluffs by integrating them into potential development plans in order to mitigate possible negative effects. 3. 7. 2 Population The City' s RA-02 zoning category allows one residential unit per minimum one acre site. However, the property may not be subdivided under the RA zone. Although residential development would not be economically feasible under the RA zone, a potential 1,424 units could be developed. This represents 877 more units than allowable under existinq County zoning. Therefore, City zoning would allow 3,070 more persons than likely under County zoning (at 3. 49 persons/unit) . The impacts associated with this potential population as well as mitigating measures necessary to deal with the impacts have been detailed throughout Section 3 . 0. 3. 8 Cost-Revenue Analysis This section of the Environmental Impact Report details the fiscal costs and benefits of the annexation of the Bolsa Chica. The costs and benefits are presented in 1976 dollars as they apply to the City of Huntington Beach and the local school districts. In addition, consideration is given to the potential affect of annexation on the land values within the Bolsa Chica. 3. 8. 1 Cost-Benefit to the City The analysis assesses the fiscal costs and benefits of the proposed annexation as they relate to the City in terms of services provided and property tax and other revenues received. AM�N 30 kip Upon annexation and if the property remains undeveloped, the City could expect a net surplus of $51 , 032 per year. This assumes the costs of servicing the Bolsa Chica will be equal to those of similar properties in the City. In actuality, costs are anticipated to be considerably less. Therefore, the surplus, should the property remain_ undevel- oped, is expected to be between $51, 032 per year and $200, 000 plus per year. If development did take place and the oil fields were depleted, the City could expect a surplus of $209 ,680 per year. Detailed revenues and expenditures are summarized in Figure 3-1. r� 3. 8. 2 Cost-Benefit to the School Districts This analysis examines the fiscal costs of educating the population and financing the local school system through district taxes. If development does not take place upon annexation, the school district would receive a surplus of $284, 860 per year. However, if development does take place the school districts will realize a surplus of $2, 196,172 per year. Detailed revenues and expenditures are summarized in Figure 3-2. 3. 8. 2 Impact of Annexation on Land Values Data concerning average land values is not reliable because of the variable suitability of developable land in the Bolsa Chica. Consequently, although assessed values for the property exist, a specific projection of future values due to annexation is not feasible without weeks of study on the part of the Assessor' s office. The Assessor' s office is, on the other hand, willing to make certain statements concerning anticipated values. Specifically annexation would be expected to ' produce a mild rather than a dramatic increase in the value of Bolsa Chica property. There are two reasons for the anticipated mild affect. First, the County' s Al zone and the City' s RA zone are viewed as transitional zones therefore property values are and will be based on anticipated uses under future, more permanent zoning categories. Consequently, the fact that potentially more residential units could be built under the City' s RA zone than under the County' s Al zone is of little significance. Second, ordinarily, annexation to a City makes development of property significantly easier;. This is in fact the case for property with scattered ownerships. However, the Bolsa Chica is similar to properties in the southern AM& 31 portion of Orange County in that there is. a large land- owner. The large landowner is capable, by providing appropriate facilities, of development without incorpor- ation (witness development in the southern section of the County) . - Incorporation would simply make development more cost efficient. This cost efficiency would be responsible for the mild increase in property values. Dramatic increases in property values because of annex- ation are due to the associated creation of developable property from property which heretofore was infeasible to develop. This is not the case in the Bolsa Chica. Ad ft. , 32 Figure 3-1 SUMMARY OF CITY ANNUAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES DUE TO BOLSA CHICA ANNEXATION1 Land Use Revenues Expenditures I. Undeveloped ROS-01 (2. 29 acres) 2 $ 1,161 $ 643 i ROS (176 . 43 acres) -0- 6,704 RA-02 a) Oil uses (830 acres±) 2 420,810 232 ,230 b) Vacant (594. 4 acres±) 100,454 231,816 TOTAL $ 522 ,425 $ 471,393 NET SURPLUS 51, 032 II. Developed ROS (-01) (179 . 72 acres) 3 -0- 6 ,829 (Depleted)Oil RA-02 (1424 .4 acres) 4 $1,595,328 $1, 378., 819 ' TOTAL $1, 595 , 328 $1, 385, 648 NET SURPLUS , $209, 680 1. Based on 1976 Revenue/Expenditure Analysis of Land uses. 2. Oil Revenues are based on average revenue per acre for off and on shore properties. Actual revenues may be higher when consideration is given only to on shore properties. In addition, oil revenues may vary by geographical area depending on the wealth of oil in any one location. 3 . $38/acre/year police and fire protection. { 4 . Revenues and Expenditures based on Estate 0-2 units/acre figures. i� Aft 19 Figure 3-2 SUMMARY OF SCHOOL DISTRICT REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES DUE TO BOLSA CHICA ANNEXATION) Land Use Revenues Expenditures I. Undeveloped ROS-01 (2 . 29 acres) 2 $ 419 $ -0- ROS (176 . 43 acres) -0- -0- RA-02 a) Oil Uses (830 acres) 2 151 ,890 -0- b) Vacant (594 . 4 acres±) 132 , 551 -0- TOTAL $ 284 , 860 -0- NET SURPLUS $ 284 ,8603 II. Developed ROS (-01) (179 . 72 acres) -0- -0- (Depleted)Oil RA-02 (1424 . 4 acres) 4 $3 , 605, 568 $1, 409 ,3965 TOTAL $3 , 605, 568 $1,409 ,396 NET SURPLUS $2 ,196 ,1723 1. Based on 1976 Revenue/Expenditure Analysis of Land Uses. 2 . Oil Revenues are based on average revenue per acre for off and on shore properties. Actual revenues may be higher when consideration is given only to on shore properties . In addition, oil revenues may vary by geographical area depending on the wealth of oil in any one location. 3. The School Districts do not actually receive surplus monies, instead, the local share of the cost of education would increase relative to the State share. 4. Revenues and Expenditures based on Estate 0-2 units/acre figures. r 5. Local share only. 0 rip Ash r 4 . 0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION n 4.1 No Annexation Failure to annex will negate the City' s role in the land use planning of Bolsa Chica. If development occurs under County authority, the City will have no input except to the extent the County determines to cooperate with the City. Huntington Beach could withhold access to portions of the City' s infrastructure thereby influencing future development. On the other hand, the mild inflationary affect of annexation on Bolsa Chica property values would be absent thereby permitting a lower purchase price by the State should they determine to purchase the property as recommended by the California Coastal Plan. 4. 2 Delayed Annexation Delayed annexation would permit the City to master plan the Bolsa f� Chica prior to annexation thereby allowing the plan to be input into the process of determining whether or not annexation is desirable. However, the considerable front end costs of planning the Bolsa Chica would have to be born by the citizens of Huntington Beach rather than by taxes collected from the Bolsa Chica property owners as would be possible if annexation were to occur prior to master ' planning. 35 Delayed annexation could provide enough time for the State to determine whether or not to purchase the Bolsa Chica at lower pre- annexation values. However, such a delay is questionable if the City has determined it is ready to annex but is holding back solely to provide the State the opportunity to purchase property at a lower value. 4. 3 Partial Annexation The policy of the City of Huntington Beach is that the entirety of Bolsa Chica must be master planned at one time. This allows proper evaluation of the cumulative environmental impacts of the development of each portion of the Bolsa Chica. Adequate control in the planning of the potential land uses of Bolsa Chica can not be otherwise guaranteed. r. AMIN 36 I I r-, r F" 5 . 0 SHORT-TERM USES VS. LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY Annexation of the Bolsa Chica is anticipated to have some affect on the existing short-term uses. Oil production will continue T> until depletion although it may have to accommodate other uses prior to ultimate phase out. Existing open space to some degree or another would be reduced. However these are the same potential affects of development under existing County zoning. Annexation may have a mild inflationary affect on property values in the Bolsa Chica thereby making public purchase of property in the area t somewhat more expensive. On the other hand, annexation will insure that should development in the Bolsa Chica occur the proposed land uses will be compatible with the existing surrounding land uses. Also that Bolsa Chica as a whole will be planned, as opposed to a piecemeal approach. And finally, that appropriate mitigating measures will be taken to insure the integrity of the environment. O 37 6 . 0 IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES Irreversible environmental changes resulting from the annexation of the Bolsa Chica will be of a secondary nature. They will occur due to development rather than annexation itself. However develop- ment could occur without annexation. Loss of open space as vacant land is converted to other uses will be a change. Although the option to recycle the land to open space after development- is available, it is probably not economically feasible. 1� Alteration of topography will be an irreversible change. Although mitigating measures can be imposed as part of the development process, the natural topography will experience some degree of change. During the planning period, most of the oil-producing areas will be phased out. Unless significant technological changes are developed, this non-renewable resource will no longer exist in recoverable quantities within the Bolsa Chica. Construction materials of mineral origin will be needed for develop- ment to occur, and fossil fuels will be committed for long periods to satisfy local energy demand'. 39 Other environmental changes may occur as a result of further planning and implementation of land uses. At each step in the process the significance of the action should be evaluated. r r, I F., ti. C � ti 40 r` r„ 7. 0 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACT To measure the growth inducing impact, growth stimulated by the proposed City zoning was compared with that of existing County zoning. The ultimate population generated by the proposed City zoning will exceed ultimate population generated by existing County zoning by an estimated 3, 070 persons. Basically the Bolsa Chica is undeveloped. The annexation may provide the stimulus to encourage development in this area. However, because of existing market pressures, development of the Bolsa Chica would eventually occur under existing County zoning, as well. The recommended annexation will merely help to insure that future growth is well-planned and serves to broaden the City' s economic base. I' 16 lip 41 i l` ADDENDUM (Includes distribution list, comments on the draft EIR, and responses to the comments. ) ACOL lip ,ry I F i l 43 DISTRIBUTION LIST BOLSA CHICA ANNEXATION EIR 76-3 CITY DEPARTMENTS SCHOOLS Department of Public Works Ocean View School District C-1 Harbors and Beaches H.B. Elementary School District City Attorney H.B. Union High Schoo. District ,Department of Building and Coast Community College District Community Development Fire Department Police Department FEDERAL AGENCIES C, Recreation and Parks Department City Council U.S. Bureau of Fisheries & Planning Commission Wildlife Economic Advisory Commission , Corps of Engineers Environmental Council Recreation & Parks Commission City Library INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES Office of the City Clerk SCAG LAFC Metropolitan Water District COUNTY DEPARTMENTS C) Mosquito Abatement District Orange County Water Department PROPERTY OWNERS Orange County Transit District Orange County Planning Dept. Eminoil Orange .County Sanitation District Signal Bolsa Environmental Management Agency Grace Properties Orange County Auditor Donald Goodell Orange County Assessor STATE DEPARTMENTS OTHER INTERESTED AGENCIES �� Air Resources Board Chamber of Commerce Secretary for Resources Supervisor Schmit State Department of Fish & Game Home Council Division of Mines & Geology League of Women Voters Public Utilities Commission Hal Tobin, Board of Realtors Environmental Protection Agency _ Bob Terry, Downtown Merchants Regional Water Quality Control Board Guild State Lands Commission Herb Chatterton, Amigos de Bolsa State Clearinghouse Chica State Coastal Commission Regional Coastal Commission 1� f!! j qq�7niQ The Metropolitan Water Distrid. of Southern California AUG 2 7 1976 Office of the General Manager Environmental Review Board City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Attention: Mr . James W. Palin, Secretary Gentlemen: Bolsa Chica Annexation Environmental Assessment Metropolitan has reviewed your July 1976 Bolsa Chica Annexation Environmental Assessment report and finds the report to be quite detailed and well prepared. However , no mention is made in the report of Metropolitan' s existing right of way for a utility corridor which is within the limits of your proposed annexation. The utility corridor right of way was acquired for desalted water pipelines and power cables in connection with the possible development of a seawater desalination project. While no immediate development of a seawater desalination project is presently contemplated, the possibility' of such future development does exist; ther2fore , Metropolitan must retain the rights of way previously acquired for the development of such a project. We are enclosing for your information and use Sheets 1 and 2 of Right-of-Way Drawing 1435-1 showing the rights of way acquired for the Bolsa Island Project. Should you have any questions, please contact Mr . E . F . Butler , ( 213) 626-4282 , extension 455 . very trully yours, David N. Kennedy Assistant General Manage EFB/ro Enclosure 1111 Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles,Calif./Mailing address: Box 54153, Los Angeles,Calif.90054/Telephone: (213)626-4282 1 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Response: Section 2 . 2 . 7 .1 should reflect the existance of the utility corridor. n •. ADDRESS ALI-COMWINICATIONS TO TNC COMMISSION CALIFORNIA STATE ROILOING SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 cli.oa�i+A TELEPHONE: (416) 557- 3938 l> pubfir Ifilifir,i Tolumili.shill STATE OF CALIFORNIA August 34 1976 FILE No. 1799--6 ' Environmental Review Board PLFaVNINu^ DEPARTMENT City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 �• ' " ra j ) C` P. 0. Box 190 Gentlemen: Hunting-Ion ae=!i, Calif. 2f#' I_ RE: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL.IMPACT REPORT ON BOLSA CHICA ANNEXATION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The staff comment on the above project is as follows: With reference to the 90 million cubic feet per year (� of additional natural gas requirement on page 29 and to the declining availability of gas supply, do you have assurance that such additional natural gas demand can be met? Very truly yours, PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION By WILT-TAM R. JOHNSON Executive Director cc: Southern California Gas Company f9 PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Response to question concerning whether or not there is assurance that additional natural gas demand can be met? Since no time frame is mentioned, a long-term view is taken in this response. The assumption must be made that at some time natural gas supplies will be depleted. This will occur whether persons are housed in the Bolsa Chica or whether these same persons are housed elsewhere. This situation may be accelerated or decelerated depending on the dispersal of the population. If, for instance, persons are not housed in the fair climate of the Bolsa Chica but instead in a colder climate, natural gas supplies will be depleted more quickly. The solution then lies not with the development of the Bolsa Chica but with population control . ORANGE COUNTY ®O BOUNTY C>F ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 515 N. SYCAMORE STREET 2 ? ROOM 101 Q SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 TELEPHONE: 834-2239 "'• jot CODE 714 111JN i!NGTON BEACH LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION PLANNING DEPARTMENT �. August 30, 1976 rJ1,1; P. O. Box 1910 Hunting;on Beach, C31if. C2648 CHAIRMAN THOMAS F. RILEY SUPERVISOR FIFTH DISTRICT James W. Pal in, Secretary l I Environmental Review Board City of Huntington Beach VICE-CHAIRMAN P.O. Box 190 DONALD J. ELLI COUNCCILMANILMAN Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 CITY OF TUSTIN Dear Sir: BATTIN SUPERVISOR We acknowledge receipt of the Draft Environmental Impact Report FIRST DISTRICT (76-3) for the Bolsa Chica Annexation, dated July, 1976. DONALD . McINN15 We have reviewed the above draft environmental impact report and A , ` COUNCILMAN offer the following observations: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 . Page 13 of the report states "within the study area are 530 acres of a state-owned and leased ecological preserve" . TANNOR REPRESENTATIVE OF While, on page 14, it is stated only 313 acres Will be pre- GENERAL PUBLIC zoned to recreational open space. 2. On page 35, reference is made to the "California Coastal Plan. ALTERNATE However, no description of that plan is found in the report. LAURENCE J. SCHMIT SUPERVISOR SECOND DISTRICT RECOMMENDATIONS: ALTERNATE 1 . Since a significant portion of the study area is under the REEBURNAP auspices of the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission, REPRESENTATIVE OF which has formulated a policy urging the restoration of the GENERAL PUBLIC Bolsa Chica wetlands, we would think a discussion of this subject would be in order. ALTERNATE AL IC E FRANKIEWICH 2. In view of the recognized ecological preserve status of 530 COUNCILWOMAN acres of 'the study area, we think it is necessary to explain CITY OF CYPRESS why only ,313 acres are planned to be prezoned as recreational open space. RICHARD T. TURNER EXECUTIVE OFFICER Page 2 We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this draft environmental impact report. Very truly yo�urs, z „ Kenneth W. Scattergood Administrative Assistant KWS:ih r LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION Response to Comment #1 : A 300-acre parcel is owned by the State, while another 230 acres are being leased from the Signal Bolsa Corporation. The relatively large scale oil operations in the leased and owned properties requires the -02 zoning suffix ac- cording to the City' s ordinance. This suffix cannot be attached to the ROS base district. Therefore, only those portions of the reserve not subject to -02 type oil activities were prezoned ROS or ROS-01. r� Response to comment #2 : The Coastal Commission has adopted a policy of restoring the Bolsa Chica wetlands, avoiding encroaching residential development as well as intensive recreational proposals (marinas) . Proposition 2 , a bond issue for acquisition of state parks and coastal recreation areas, will appear on the November ballot. The Commission has recommended 560 acres (separate from presently State-owned & leased lands) of Bolsa Chi.ca wetlands to be considered for ac- quisition if funds are made available - through the passage of Proposition 2 . C-` C� Adft r- j "je Environmental @ouncil CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 TO: Environmental Review Committee FROM: Huntington Beach Environmental Council Keith Lewiriger, Chairman DATE: September 1, 1976 TOPIC: Comments on Bolsa Chica Annexation Environmental Assessment , July 1976 (EIR 76-3) The Environmental Council members reviewed these reports and discussed them at length at their August 26 special meeting. The Environmental Council recommends that action on annexation be r` delayed until after the November election when the issue of bonds to acquire high priority coastal lands (which includes acreage in Bolsa Chica) will be before the voters . Many aspects of the environmental and economic concerns would likely change if addi- tional acreage were to be acquired by the state. There still would be the need for master planning the entire area, but the location <` and extent of acreage that would be added to the state holdings would change, affecting land uses and tax revenues returning to the city and other taxing .agencies. With the wrong zoning applied throughout the report (having been modified August 17 and approved by the Planning Commission August 31), there are so many inaccuracies that it is nearly impossible to outguess what the changes should be to make this draft EIR accurate. With more land zoned RA instead of ROS and with the RA land not being allowed to be subdivided 'so that building could be one unit par parcel, not to exceed one unit per acre, nearly all the fugures including economics would need revision. The following sections (and probably others as well) need major modification: 2. 2 . 3 , 3 . 4 . 1, 3 . 4. 2, 3 . 4 . 3 , 3 . 5. 3 , 3 . 5. 4 , 3 . 6. 1, 3 . 6 . 2 , 3 . 6. 4 , 3. 6. 5, 317. 2. Geology and Soils C` 1. Because of the expansive clay underlying the mesa, how would heavy rains affect the stability if the- lands are built upon? 2. In identifying areas of "high risk, " the Leighton Yen report excluded earthquake shaking, expansive soils , areal land n subsidence, and ground water problems , all of which are prob- lems in the Bolsa Chica. Even without these, the majority of the Bolsa Gap is labeled "High risk - extensive problems difficult or impractical to overcome. " With the compound problems, is it likely that the extensive development proposed on that land is feasible or worth the liability risk to the city in allowing building on it? Q) H.B. Environmental Council EIR 76-3 - Bolsa Chica September 1, 1976 Page 2 3. What is the time span for the peat oxidation-caused subsi- dence of 14 feet that occurred between Sunset and Newport Beach? Without the site-by-site evaluation of continuing subsidence in the Bolsa Gap, can any construction be anticipated? 4 . Subsidence of even the 2. 75 feet in the area over the next 50 years projected in 2. 1. 1. 2 would be 0 . 6 inches per year, or 12 inches in 15 years . No matter what the time frame, serious problems could occur with structures, utility lines , streets, etc. , many of which should be the city' s responsibility for maintaining if they allow construction in such as unstable area. -` 5 . Section 3 . 1. 2 recommends mitigating measures to deal with expansive soils , but none for liquefaction. Section 3. 1. 4 describes standards to resist seismic forces of 0 . 2 g , but not necessarily the liquefaction that could occur with the ground shaking. Isn' t there any measure to protect against " damage caused by liquefaction? i 6. More information should be included regarding this area being in the tsunami run-up basin, posing an additional threat to construction. 7. Will construction in the "high risk areas with problems which are difficult or- impractical to overcome" meet adequate design standards to be safe to residents and visitors? Is there liability to the city if there is extensive damage or loss of life from structures built in these "high risk" zones? 8. Regardless of whether the city will have to meet the standards of the Alquist-Priolo Act, the impact of construction on or near the faults must be dealt with. Design to resist a seismic force equal to 0 . 2 gravity may reduce some damage and loss of life. However, the Leighton Yen report analyzing the impact of the 1933 Long Beach earthquake and others in the subsequent 16 years in the Bolsa Gap and the Bolsa Chica Mesa describe the Bolsa Gap area as experiencing a Modified Mercalli intensity of IX, which relates to 0. 35 to 0 . 70 ground accelera- tion, and the mesa as experiencing Modified Mercalli intensity of VIII, which relates to 0 . 15 to 0, 35 g. Hence, design to 0 . 2 g seems low for reasonable protection. Water Concerns 1. Discussion on local drainage and groundwater (Section 3 . 2 . 2) should include the fact that development in the Bolsa Chica area would decrease the percolation of water back into the groundwater table, further aggravating the sea water intrusion. Further growth in, the area, Bolsa Chica or elsewhere, will H.B. Environmental Council EIR 76-3 - Bolsa Chica September 1, 19�76 Page 3 ,- increase the need of water from that groundwater table or others. Also on that subject, while an effective mitigation measure, to process the poor quality runoff water is indeed to process ,it in the sanitation district' s treatment facility, that is not a practical solution because those plants cannot be designed to handle the volumes of water at peak flow periods that would be necessary. 2. It is recommended that the final EIR include a summary of the three-quarter page of Flood Hazard Abatement plans that were adopted by - the City Council in the Seismic Safety Element, to alleviate problems in the interim prior to the Army Corps completion of their flood protection project. 3.. Section 2 . 2 . 7 . 1 might be clarified to describe more accurately the City Water Department' s operation, indicating that it is a city function as well. Archaeology 1. Section 3. 1. 5, second paragraph, implies that anyone can remove artifacts from archaeological sites if they notify archaeolog- ists - this must be changed. Line 7 also should be modified to read: the artifacts are salvaged by professional archaeologists, studied, and then turned over to the city. " 2 . Section 3 . 1. 5 might be revised to more clearly point out the mitigating measure of requiring competent professional archaeologists to be advised in the early pre-development stages C` and to be present for all phases of grading on known sites to assess the archaeological condition of the area and submit information and recommendations to the city. After any site excavation and during grading on known sites, if human or other significant remains are discovered, machinery must be diverted until adequate salvage is performed. Socio-Economic Concerns 1. On page 13 it states that there are four proposed neighborhood park sites. Are these within the city' s plan? How can park sites be identified when land use is not yet determined? And how could 12 acres of park satisfy the needs of the unknown number of future residents? 2 . For a number of years the city has proposed a greenbelt link along the bluff between Central Park and the coast - shouldn' t (? this be mentioned? 1� H.B. Environmental Council / EIR 76-3 - Bolsa Chica - September 1, 1976 Page 4 Socio-Economic Concerns 1. How is it proposed to evenly distribute the costs, benefits , and detriments of the annexation throughout the city? 2 . The discussion on- pages 30 and 31 and Figure 3-1 are not very " clear. It appears from the figures in 3 . 8 .1 that it would be ' more economical to the city to have the property remain undeveloped ($187 , 580 surplus per year) than to develop the oil fields ($184 , 109 per year) . This benefit of open space has been noted in other reports; e.g. , Palo Alto, Anaheim,. etc. In Figure 3-1 why is $59 , 817, the low range of the figures " quoted ,in 3. 8. 1, used instead of the $187 , 580 plus? This is i misleading. 3 . In Figure 3-2 , there should be major expenditure (not zero) for schools if the area were developed residentially. With ultimate development as proposed with high population densities, new schools will need to be constructed as well to handle large increased loads . The Environmental Council reiterates that for the social and educational benefit to the community the developer should be required to provide fees for school construction that needs to be made to educate the students coming to live in his houses. Miscellaneous 1. Sealing "noise leaks" in dwellings would likely include air conditioning, which is " not generally necessary in the Bolsa Chica environment. This would result in increased power consumption which is not necessary; setbacks, and location of windows, etc. , should be encouraged. 2. Argument against partial annexation in Section 4 . 3 is not valid. Since the Bolsa Chica area is in the Huntington Beach sphere of influence, the entire area could be master-planned at one time but annexed in increments. (This may not be economically desirable, but it is an alternative. ) 3. Can the rather nebulous scale in 2 . 1. 1. 4 "relative to surrounding areas . " be clarified? Does this mean Sunset Beach,, Sunset Heights , the undeveloped oil lands on the Huntington Beach mesa or the entire County? 4 . In Section 3 in many subsections it seems more appropriate to use "could" instead of "will, " such as in Section 3. 3 . 2 "Development under the prezoning will increase VMT. Besides the potential development that could occur with that pre- zoning being inaccurate with the August 17 change, the report states that development to the RA limit is not likely anyway, so the figures noted throughout the 'section are worse than - the "worst case" figures. n H.B. Environmental Council EIR 76-3 - Bolsa Chica . Septembe 1, 1976 Page 5 5. Footnotes need page references throughout the report. 6. There should be consistency of tense - present or future in Section 2. 2. 6. 1. 7. On page 20, last line, change "±" to "approximately. " 8. Figure 2-1 has many numbers on it - it would be nice to have an identification key to accompany that map. 9 . On page 24 , section number should be 3. 4 .2. 10. -The inference that the Bolsa Chica area could be developed by the county should be questioned, in that the county has indicated publicly that it is not willing to do so. I {, Conclusions and Recommendations 1. The Environmental Council, after reviewing the EIR and being familiar with many aspects of the Bolsa Chica Area, feels that major portions of the land are not developable without signifi- cant risk and are not likely to be economical or ecologically desirable to develop in the future. Annexing the land and holding it as open space appears to be of economic benefit to the City, though not to the landowner; so pressures will probably be great for planning and building in spite of the risks. This is growth inducing, and is not the expressed inter- est of the people. 2. If the annexation proceeds, the Environmental Council recom- mends that the following mitigation measures in particular be required, as noted in .the EIR or below: a. Minimum landform alteration (3. 1. 1) ; n b. Expansive soil modification (3. 1. 2) ; C. Seismic safety (3. 1. 4 and also Geology Section No. 8 of this report) ; d. Archaeological resources preservation as noted in separate section of this report; e. Energy conservation measures (3. 6 . 5) ; f. Design commercial and residential units to conserve energy Using natural air circulation instead of artificial air conditioning wherever possible; and also g. Preservation of the healthy eucalyptus trees. HUNTINGTON BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL Response to comment #1 on Geology and Soils : By virtue of the expansive nature of clay soils associated with increases or decreases in moisture content, heavy rains would have a negative impact on the stability of the stability of the soil. Since most of the Bolsa Chica has been assigned a variable expansive soil potential , soil engineers should be utilized to identify expansive soils , evaluate the problem and make proper design recommendations for individual structures. Response to comment #2 on Geology and Soils: The proposal is one of annexation. There is no development proposed. Concerning liability refer to "Response to comment #7" of this section. Response to comment #3 .on Geology and Soils : I The 14-foot subsidence caused by peat-oxidation was long- term but not located in the Bolsa Chica. For safety' s sake, the EIR indicates that subsidence should be evaluated on a site-by-site basis. ^ Response to comment #4 on Geology and Soils: The great majority of subsidence occuring in the Bolsa Chica has been due to oil activity. The assumption of 2 . 75 feet of subsidence (1. 75 feet due to non-repressurized oil and aas withdrawal) over a fifty year period is hypothetical. In actuality, recent practices of water injection and re- pressurization have all but eliminated any new subsidence. Leighton-Yen and Associates indicate the chances of any future problems arising from land subsidence due to oil field operations are negligible (see footnote #2 & #3 in text). Response to comment #5 on Geology and Soils: Aside from the construction of structures capable of resist- ing the hazards of liquefaction the best mitigating measure, as discussed in section 3 . 1. 2 , is appropriate land use planning. Response to comment #6 on Geology and Soils: The tsunami hazard is considered to be very low for the higher elevations within the Bolsa Chica Mesa. The low areas within one mile of 'the coast are considered to have a a low to moderate tsunamic hazard depending on tidal conditions. According to the California Division of Mines and Geology, -2 - special caution should be observed in Huntington Beach during a tsunami alert and that low coastal areas and public beaches be cleared if a flood tide and tsunamis are likely to be coincidental. Response to comment #7 on Geology and Soils: Construction of any sort must meet appropriate health and safety standards. City liability for damage or loss to structures built in high risk zones in accordance with accepted health and safety standards would have to be de- termined in the courts. There is no reason to assume liability if in fact appropriate building standards and planning practices have been judisciously followed. Response to comment #8 on Geology and Soils: The EIR text was in error concerning the applicability of Alquist-Priolo Act to the Bolsa Chica. In actuality, nearly half of the Bolsa Chica is subject to the reg- ulations of the Alquist-Priolo Act. Response to comment #1 on Water Concerns : Such concerns are-discussed in Section 3 .2 . 2 . Response to comment #2 on Water Concerns: Huntington Beach flood hazard abatement programs are as follows: 1. In conjunction with other cities in the Santa Ana n Watershed--through the ICC, the League of Cities, and . the Man in Washington Program--encourage immediate action by the Corps of Engineers to execute a com- prehensive flood control plan for the Santa Ana River. 2 . In conjunction with other cities in Orange County-- through the ICC, the League of Cities, and the Man in Washington Program--encourage revision of the Flood - Disaster Protection Act to more realistically approach the flood problems of urban flood plains. 3 . Improve and upgrade critical facilities in flood hazard areas (subject to inundation by the 100 Year Storm) when practical through anchorage to prevent floatation, water tight barriers over openings, reinforcement of walls to resist water pressures, use of materials to reduce wall seepage, and installation of pumping facilities for internal and subsurface drainage. 4 . Prevent construction of additional critical facilities in hazard areas unless absolutely necessary. New Aft I lip 1� -3- facilities should be flood-proofed. 5. Construct additional water supply and waste disposal systems to prevent entry of flood waters when practical. 6 . Continue to maintain flood disaster preparedness plans. 7 . Continue to conduct periodic exercises to ensure that all City departments respond efficiently during emergencies. 8. Develop education and information programs to inform the public of flood hazards and measures to reduce personal losses in the event of flood disaster. 9. Seek Federal and State financial assistance to offset improvement costs. Response to comment #3 on Water Concerns: The City' s water supply system is administered by the Water Division of the Public Works Department. Reference to same is made in Section 3. 6 . 1. Response to comment #1 on Archaeology: Text should be amended to reflect the comments. • Response to comment #2 on Archaeology: Text should be amended to reflect the comments. Response to comment #1 on Socio-Economic Concerns (Open Space) : The proposed park sites are reflected in the Open Space and Conservation Plan. They are floating sites and are essentially anticipatory. These floating park sites should not be construed to reflect anticipated future land uses in the Bolsa Chica. Response to comment #2 on Socio-Economic Concerns (Open Space) : The Open Space and Conservation Plan proposes a Scenic Corridor between Central Park and the coast. Response to comment #1 on Socio-Economic Concerns : According to the revenue expenditure, analysis in the text of the EIR annexation of the Bolsa Chica will have a positive net effect on City revenues. These benefits directly and evenly accrue to the entire City by offsetting -4- some of the costs of servicing the City. Response to comment #2 on Socio-Economic Concerns: The net effect on City revenues as detailed in Figure 3-1 reflects the costs of servicing and revenues collected from similarly zoned properties in the City. The text on pages 30 and 31 indicates that costs of servicing vacant properties in the Bolsa Chica will probably be less than similarly zoned properties in the City since little population use of the Bolsa Chica is anticipated in comparison to the amount of population which does use similarly zoned properties in the City. The ,probable lack of service costs in the Bolsa Chica is not easily quantifiable, consequently a range of net revenues has been proposed on page 31. An estimate of revenues generated by the Bolsa Chica as determined by the Bolsa Chica Study Committee is attached. Response to comment #3 on Socio-Economic Concerns: Figure 3-2 is in error. Refer to "Response to pages 31 and 34 comments. " Comments were made by the Huntington Beach Union High School District. Response to comment #1 on Miscellaneous : Sealing noise leaks in dwellings need not include the intro- duction of air conditioning. Response to comment #2 on Miscellaneous: The ability to master plan an area cannot be separated from the cost of and the commitment to master planning an area. It is questionable what commitment there would be to master planning an entire area while annexing only a portion of that area. This is especially true in face of the fact that partial annexation would not offset the costs of master planning the entire area. Nevertheless, partial annexation was determined to be an alternative otherwise it would not have been dealt with. Response to comment #3 on Miscellaneous: "Relative to surrounding areas" may be read as "the planning area. " Response to comment #4 on Miscellaneous: A worst case analysis in terms of residential development involves utilizing the most units hypothetically allowable under a particular designation. This is regardless of topography, climate, economics or other peculiarities . A worst case analysis is rarely realistic. The purpose of Adft I BOLSA CHICA ANNEXATIONS CITY REVENUE ESTIMATES ` January 19, 1976 \ Revised April 23, 1976 Assessed Value Property Tax Oil Barrel Tax Grand Total Annexation Taxable 0,vnershi s Only Revenue Production @ Annual Land Minerals Total ® 1.62/ 100 Brla Da .08/Brl. Revenue Entire Unin- corporated Area $1, 944, 050 $2, 426, 250 $4. 370, 300- $70, 799 3. 500 $10Z, 200 $172. 799 Initial Request (260 acres) plus MWD plus Goodell plus Kendall $1, 645, 600 $ 766, 890 $2, 412,490 $39, 082 250 $ 7, 300 $ 46, 382 State 300 Ac. N.A. Nil Nil Nil 300 $ 8, 760 $ 8, 760 NOTE; The above estimates are based on current assessed (excluding personal property) valuations. with no allowance for changes as a result of annexation. zoning or development. There will be some expense to the City as a result of any of these annexations, but they will probably be minor, except for the one time cost of planning, which is estimated to be $100, 000, more or less, for the entire Bolsa Chica area. -5- such an approach is to insure that the worst possible situation has been assessed. If development occurs at less intensity, this will constitute an environmental plus. In this case, a realistic assessment would indicate no development potential under the RA zone. This clearly would not be an acceptable base from which to examine the potential environmental impacts of annexation. r Response to comment #5 on Miscellaneous : i Footnote page references have been added. Response to comment #6 on Miscellaneous : The text should be in the present tense. Response to comment #7 on Miscellaneous: On nape 20 , last line, +" should be changed to "approximately. " Response to comment #8 on Miscellaneous: The letters were not germaine to the issue of surface water location. A corrected map has been provided in the text. Response to comment #9 on Miscellaneous: Correction has been made. Response to comment #10 on Miscellaneous: By the same reasoning the inference that development is possible under the City' s RA zone should be questioned. The fact is development would not be economically feasible. However, this is a worst case analysis both under the proposed City incorporation and as unincorporated territory. AlilL i'OLLU-FiOi\J CONTROL D1STP 1C T UISi"I41cr HE'AUUUAHrERS '9420 TFLSrAR AVENUE EL MONTE CALIFORNIA 91731 • 1I13,443.3931 August 31, 1976 File No. 0 Mr. James W. Palin 11L'r!'i?:2Q70i! DCRC`! Environmental Review Board Pu1.NIaNG DEPARTMENT P.O. Box 190 ' City of 1luntington Beach, CA 92648 1'! 3 1')71.; Mr. 1'alin P. o. eLm, 190 Ilcrtt!rt,:tca Ccrc:;, C d:.. .?64 co:,!-",Nf3 0,1: EIR-76-3 Bolsa Chica Annexation 0? AIR ��j.LLITY A_IALYSIS Adequate Inadequate Exi s*in; Air 24�iality in Area_ — — — —— ❑ tin; Eiissious in Area _ _ — — — b Project E:nissio ns: Constructic_i phase — — — — — ® O Comoleted oroject vehicular_ — _ ❑ 2) Stationary G. and electric power usage)— ❑ ® 3) Project Impact on Air Quality— _ — _ — ❑ ill 4) ARE ADEdUATE MITIGATION MEASURES PROVIDED FOR PROJECT AIR POLLUTANTS? Do Yes ❑ No ❑ Incomplete ARE GROWTH INDUCIING EFFECTS OF PROJECT ON POLLUTAN'P EMISSIONS DISCUSSED? ❑ Yes ❑No ZPartially 5) APCJ Fzi?;1ZP POTEIITLAL EFFECT ON AIR QUALITY (AQ) ❑ Plot req,.ired ❑ Beneficial: will probably tend to inprove AQ FJ Required ❑ No effect on AQ Q�1 May be required, depends M Will probably not have a substantial adverse on U1ti'.ate u: e effect Q Adverse: _ly degrade air quality, to a sit,ni- ficant extent. c0;,1—IrE S 014 DEF.LCIENCIES: l Air (uifity Data should be presented in the EIR. I am enclosing; 1975 Air Quality Data. 2) On a is l'3 it was indicated that 7,243 daily trips would be a result of the prezoning. It is then aSSUITIed on page 24 that each trip is only 1 mile. This seems to be an underestimate. If it is true, please substantiate it in _ the EIR Also the emission factors should be tabulated. 3) The emissions due to gas and electric power usage should be made. I have enclosed a table of Energy Use Emission factors. 4) All the emissions should be tabulated together. 5) Projected emissions for 1980, 1985 and 1990 should be tabulated. The SCAPCD does not approve or disapprove of projects in the reviewing of E111's. The Engineering; Division does issue permits. Requests for a permit should be made at the appropriate time. "They can grant or refuse to grant permits without regard to what we say about the E11t. AXD Y'.5'IIE.J FE,�UF-3T D' C1 Yes ❑ No 1f vo.1 havo any furt'i=r pie lions pleaL---e call me at (213) 443-3931, Ext.23c8 or z,&Kx-xoeixxxy=*xxxxk%xx John Gins at Ext. 240. _ Very truly yours, J. A. St•.lart Chi PolLutic ontrol Officer A1aAlanK. StaS.,-,*.: Senior Air Pollution Aa=lyst Head, I:np.act Anatycis Section 1cS rr. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT Response to comment #1: Y 1975 Air Quality Data is attached hereto. Response to comment #2 : r't The assumption of one mile per trip was .an error. Vehicle miles traveled and related emissions have been corrected to .reflect five miles .per trip. Response to comment #3 : Refer to response to, comment #5. Response to comment #4 : Refer to response to comment #5. r, Response to comment #5: Projected emissions at ultimate development are delineated in the following table. These emissions may be considered sufficient for the intervening years of 1980, 1985, and 1990. F Tons. .of Emissions Per Day Percentage of P6dR. Generation* Gas Vehicular Totall l County Emissions CO . 03 Negl. 1. 46 1.49 . 05 Hydrocarbons . 02 Negl. . 19 . 21 . 07 NOX . 31 . 02 . 26 . 59 . 14 Particulates . 05 . 002 . 06 . 112 . 73 �1 SOX .72 Negl. . 06 .78 2 .47 TOTAL 1. 13 . 022 2. 03 3 . 182 . 08 * Oil fired (worst case) AMk f a tble 6 ': `�ii v�i . ilk J Ilt�illili`i 1r lllr Li6FI i iJ Ui'1 1:i! r , AIR M0NITO "It 'ING STA- TIO -NS � .LIPORNIA DATA Coi L'J:ANT AIR QUALITY Los Santa Ana San Juan Laguna . W: STANDARDS rORMAT Anaheim Costa Mesa La Habra El Toro • Alamitos Canyon Capistrano Beach (6 months) molit is mont is� �:11)A'1T 0 . 10 'ppm D iys 2 . : 6 days 15� 11 days G8 days 56 clays 51 days 122 days 27 days - 137 1 hr avg . 11ax. . 23 ppm .18 ppm .28 ppm .19 ppm .21 ppm .33 ppm .18 ppm .33 � OG:,I (11 mo, ) (11 months) (4 mo. ) (4 mo. ) (1 mo, ) 1G.;IDE ' 0 .25 ppm Da z 1.1 days 3 days 16 clams 3 clays 0 days - - 2 days 18 d � 1 hr avg . 1-lax. .50 ppm .35 ppm .46 ppm .41 ppm .16 ppm . 35 ppm . 50 (NO2) _ 11 mo. 5 months (6 months (5 mo.) (6 mo. ) (9 mo• ) 10 ppm LIL_d= 31 da s 12 days 0 days 4 clays - - 2 days 48 d; :1"'0�' 12 lir avg . Da s 15 ppm 20 ppm 15 ppm 5 ppm 12 ppm 10 ppm 20 pi N0,,1DE Max. 11 mo. 5 months mo. 5 nio. 6 mo. (9 Mo. ) (CO) 40 PPin 0 days 0 days 0 days 0 days 0 days - - 0 day a 0 dt 1 hr avg . 27 ppm 31 ppm 38 ppm 8 ppm 19 ppm 16 ppm 38 pi 0.04 ppm 10 nio. ) (7 mo. ) (10 mo) (4 months) - :JLx�UP 2�r lir ,ivg . 1 dam` 0 days0 days 0 dates 0 dam 0 days _ lda Days ,043 ppm . 020 ppm . 039 ppm .007 ppm .039 p2m .012 ppm 063 1GaID1 --- Max. ppm (10 mo, ) (7 mo. ) (lO mo. ) ( ► mo U ,SO (SO2) 1 50 0 da s 0 eta s 0 days 0 clays 0 clays 0 days - 0 da• liravg . .12ppm___ . 13 ppm .13 m .03 m .21 ppm, . 03 ppm .21 60 ig/in3 (11 mo. ) (7 mo.� (9 mo. � (9 mo. ) (9 mo. ) - "S2717NDUU AGP W, 3 ' 101ug/m3 74ug/m3. lllug/m3 58ug/m 99ug/m 88 ug/m3 - 73ug/ni3 .11"ICULATE - -- 9 Mo.) mo. (7 mo. ) (9 mo. ) {9 mo. ) { r 100 ugJm3 % over 4 ' 57% 37% 65 Z 14% 48Z 49% - 15% 437 :Al'TLR -94 hr avg . Nax. � 3 3 3 3 3 3 r 7.49uf;/m 177ugJm 220ug/m 124uf;/m 273uf;/m 218 uf;/m 16 iuf;/m3 273iif L A7 1 ,5 ug/m3 5 (11 mo.) (7 mo.) (9 mo.) (9 mo.) (9 mo. ) :l'T7CULAT)J) 1 , clay n Months 7 months 5 months 7 months 0 montlis 4 months 4 months - 4 month; 7 mw Itax. 4.77uf,,/m3 3.99uf;/m3 4.58ug/m3 1.46up/nl 5 .85ug/m3 2.6Eg/m I 13.37ug/mI5.8', ** Corrected for ultraviolet photometric calibration. A I R P- 0 L L U T I 0 N E P I S O D E S 1. Days - Number of days standard equalled or exceed: 2. Max. - IIighest value over averaging time Pollutant Criteria (ppm/time) Stif,,e Number 3. AGM - Annual. Geometric Mean 0 .20 j I. hr 1 25 4. % over - ,Percent of sample© over criterion OlidanL 0;3i 1 hr 2 0 5. I•lonths - Number of months standard equalled or Sulfur 0 .50 1 hr or l 0 exceeded Dic,xidc 0 .20 / 24 hr (CaZirornia Ambient Air QuaZity Standarda are not dar✓rer r�- ZeveZa. T11asc are ZeveU required to protect pubZic hea• Carbon GO / 1 hi: or 1 0 . n 1 r •+ 9 f' i l_LiL,\ill— JIlli.�iuiV hail l'wV V" 11 i V11 _L.�! J TaDlc 5 AIR ' MONITOIZ 'ING S T A T 1 0 N S FEDERAL DATA C 1'OLLUThINx AIR QUALITY t STANDARDS FORMAT Anaheim Costa Mesa La Habra E1 Toro Los Santa Ana San Juan Laguna Alamitos Canyon Capistrano Beach v INT O .Og m Da s 2. (6 months) (10 months (9 months) O,,I;),1�,T pp E-Ly-- 10 days 19 days 83 days 72. days 64 days 135 days 39 days - 149 (OZONG) 1 hr an . Max. .23 ppm .18 ppm .28 ppm .19 ppm .21 ppm .33 ppm .18 ppm .33 N ITR0GEN' 0.05 ppm annual DIOXIDE annual avg . avg . (NO2) 11 months, (5 months) (6 months) (5 mo.) (6 months (9 months 9 ppm - - 4 da 66 -CARLON 35 days 40 days 23 days 0 days 7 days ^�s_ 8 hr avg . Days 18 PPM 23 ppm 17 ppm 5 pl)m 16 ppm 10 ppm 23 M0170Y.IDE Max. ll months (5 months) (6 months) (5 mo.) (6 months (9 months (CO) 35 ppra 0 days 0 days 1 day 0 days 0 days - - 0 days 1 1 hr avg . 27 ppm 31 ppm 38 ppm 8 ppm 19 ppm 16 ppm 38 (10 months) (7 mo. ) (0 mo. ) (4 months) S:JLFUR 0 . 14 ppm Days 0 days 0 days 0 days 0 days 0 days 0 days - - 0 24 hr avg . Max. .043 ppm .026 ppm .039 ppm .007 ppm .039 ppm .012 ppm 04., DIOl'IDE 0 .03 ppm annual annual avg . avg. 75 u /m3 3.' (11 months) (7 mo. ) (9 months (9 months) (9 months AGi•i SUSPENDED 3S AGM lolug/1113 74ug/m3 lllug/m3 58ug/m3 99ug/m3 88 ug/m3 - 3ug/m3 1 i'AR'I'ICli;..ATE 3 4. (11 months) (7 mo. ) (9 months (9 months - (9 months % over 0% 0% 0% 0%. 2% KVITLR 260 ug/m 0% 0% 0.3 24 hr avg . Max. 249ui;/m3 177ug/m3 220ug/m3 124up,/m3 273ug/m3 218ug m3 64ug/m3 271 m'OROCARBONS 0 .24 ppm (5 months) I (6 mo. ) (6• month s' (7 Days (CO r avg . 66 days 98 days 16^ Max . Fol x1:-1';L L (6-9 a.m.) 6 ppm 2 ppm 6 ppm 6 A I R P 0 L L U T I 0 N E P I S O D E S 1. Days '- Number of days standard exceeded _ 2. Max. highest value over averaging time Pollutant Criteria (ppm/time) Sta7,e dumber 3 . AGM - Annual Geometric Mean 0 .20 / 1 hr 1 25 4. % over - ,Percent of samples over criterion Oxidant 0 .3 hr 2 0 . • (Fede,raZ Ambient Air QuaZity.Standards are not danger ;;lsliur 0 .50 1 hr or- 1 0 ' Zevel,s: 77iese are levels. required to protect public he-- Dioxide 0 .20 / 24 hr with an adequate margin of safety. ) rbon 40 / 1 -hr or. 0 ** Corrected or ultraviolet photgtj�_tric calibr ;ti•. �' I <<_); T_.kl PLMNING DEPARTMENT O U N-rY O F O P, O, pox ago U Hunt(njWn pooch, Calif. C2648 5 AN CA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY TELEPHONE: 884-5678 Bll NORTH BROADWAY AREA CODE 714 SANTA ANA CALIFORNIA MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 4048 September 3, 1976 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 l� H. G. OSBORNE DIRECTOR FILE 250 i Mr.' James W. Palin, Secretary Environmental Review Board P. 0. BOX 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Mr: Palin: This is in response to your letter dated August 6, 1976 by which the "Bolsa Chica Annexation Environmental Assessment" was transmitted and comments re- quested by September 3, 1976. This document has been reviewed by the appropriate divisions of the Orange County Environmental Management Agency (EMA) including the units known as Flood Control District and Harbors,Beach and Parks District. EMA has no specific comments related to this documents adequacy to address the environ- mental effects of annexation however, it appears that further indepth assess- ment of the environmental opportunities and constraints on the site will be required if annexation occurs and changes to the City's designated Land Use patterns and zoning is proposed. Also it should be pointe&out that much of the subject area is within a Special Studies Zones as shown on the California Division of Mines and Geology Official Map that became effective January 1,. 1976. Areas within the zones are subject to special controls under the Alquist-Pr.iola Act enacted by the State Legislature. Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing the Environmental Assessment. Very truly yours, r H. G. Osborne Director JEB:bl cc: EMA, Development (Schwarze, Hudson, Fisher) EMA, Advance Planning (Drennan) ESD Project File ESD Reading File i i i n i i COUNTY OF ORANGE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY .Response #1 �. The Environmental Management Agency correctly _indicates further in depth assessment of the environmental oppor- tunities and constraints on the site will be required if further changes to the City' s designated Land Use patterns and zoning are proposed. r: Response #2 The indication that the entire area of the Bolsa Chica will probably not be subject to the special controls under the Alquist-Priolo is an error. Actually nearly half of the Bolsa Chica is within a Special Studies Zone as ` shown in the attached figure. The Special Study Area in the Bolsa Chica is to be further studied to determine its ultimate status. 9� Adft 1%s FX >-A.K..........� .... ..................�........ ...... L, .w...lf.. ...... MdA00Et� ..� �.. � 3 •. .../ �. ............ .............. .............. i i ............ ................. ............. ....................... i ......... WARNER ....... .......... ........... . ... ................. ............ ........... ........... SLATER .+�\ • / �•••• :TIT;. i ----- am GARFIELD ------- ,.__..._..... IORNTOWN ADAMS \ __ ..._.. ..AAT.�7Ld.,:......._..... _,..__.......s..__.—M f INDIANAPOLIS N. ATLANTA 13 HAMLTON !' i..;. BANNING Jan. 1976 EARTHQUAKE HAZARD a4 ' SPECIAL STUDY ZONE Ja A�• huntington beach planning department n IPJidi?Idv L.'id DEACH PLANNING DE?A^TMENT P. o, Bu;C 190 " Huntin&n Beach, Calif, E264+:' August 31 , 1976 "IN QUEST OF EXCELLENCE" Mr. James W. Palin, Secretary Environmental Review Board P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Palin: In reply to your recent request, the Board of Trustees expresses a neutral posi- tion to the annexation of the Bolsa Chica. Because the Ocean View School District purchased two sites to serve the possible development in that area some years ago, it is difficult to take a negative position with respect to our ability to locate schools there. However, it should be pointed out, the ability to finance the con- struction of more than one school in that area might well be a hardship as con- struction. costs continue to soar. Your Section 3.8.2, page 31 , relates to cost benefits to the school district. We would like to point out that schools no longer realize additional funds from additional assessed valuations. School financing as it is currently being oper- ated is based on a ratio of state and local funds. An increase of assessed valua- tion simply lowers the state's participation, thereby leaving the district with the same per child income it was receiving prior to the change. This is dramatic- ally illustrated by the recent local increases in assessed home values that did not change our per student income because the additional tax monies simply lowered the state's participation. While we are responsible only for students through grade 8, we would anticipate the annexation could provide a critical problem for the Huntington Beach Union High School District. It is our understanding they do not own a high school site in that area and youngsters who leave our system are already faced with the problem of overcrowded high schools. We are not attempting to speak for the High School District on this �i matter, but our students are very directly affected by situations that have a nega-, tive impact on the Huntington Beach High School District. Sinc ely, Dale Coogan Superintendent DC/js lt�A m VIEW SUPERINTENDENT BOARD OF TRUSTEES SCHOOL DISTRICT Dale Coogan Marianne Blank, President ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENTS Charles Osterlund, Clerk James Carvell Jean Bogen 7972 WARNER AVENUE Woodis Chaddick Darrell Carter HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92647 James Jones, Jr. Julio 'Jay" Rivera 714 /847.2551 Monte McMurray We A,e An Epuet Opportunity Employer Thy,Ou,—,Does Not Practice Da im ne .n On The Bens O,Sex J Ocean .View School District No response necessary. RIF Aft 6.My,1Y1Op y'` � � TELEPHONES: COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS $- € .�� AREA COOE 714 540-2910 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ,C 962-2411 P. ❑. BOX 6127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 1OB44 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) August 26, 1976 Environmental Review Board City of Huntington Beach Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Attention: James W. Palin, Secretary Subject: Bolsa Chica Annexation (' The Bolsa Chica Annexation Environmental Assessment, July, 1976, has been reviewed and has been found deficient in information with respect to the proposed sanitary sewer service. The proposed annexation is outside the boundaries of County Sanitation District No. 11 and if sewerage service is required, the area must be in or annexed to District No. 11. In addition, the present master plan for District No. 11 that is being prepared by Keith and Associates, has not been approved by the Board of Directors of District No. 11 and is still subject to change. I J Dennis M. Reid Senior Engineer DMR:hje COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Potential sanitary sewer service to the Bolsa Chica is in a state of flux. This is noted in the text of the EIR and by the comments from the County Sanitation Districts. ,ram Aft n r 11`JililidCi'01i EILF�t,.ri pU'Nj41NG DEPPPTPAENT C. O. Pc'c 190 Directors I , r�lii. . 6f Officers Nuntin�4,cn Cc cri PRESTON K. ALLEN PRESTON K. ALLEN COURTNEY R.CHANDLER . President ROBERT L.CLARK ROBERT L.CLARK JOHN V. FONLEY First Vice President THOMAS T. LACY NOBLE J.WAITE AUGUST F. LENAIN ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Second Vice President E. RAY QUIGLEY,Jr. HENRY T.SEGERSTROM 10500 ELLIS AVENUE - P.O. BOX 8300 — �� MERWIN WAGNER FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 NEIL M. CLINE NOBLE J.WAITE TELEPHONE (714) 963-5661 / 556-8260 Secretary Manager r i September 1, 1976 In Environmental Review Board City of Huntington Beach Post Office Box 190 iHuntington Beach, California 92648 Gentlemen: Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing your draft environmental impact report entitled "Bolsa Chica Annexation Environmental Assessment,. July 1976" . The following is a list of comments relative to our review of that report: Page 20 , Section 3. 1. 3 - Oil Resources This section should clearly point out whether or not the proposed zoning and/or development will have a potential to limit oil production on either a short or long-term basis. If so, will oil production be given top priority when develop- ment is being considered? It is said that, "oil uses are anticipated to be profitable for ± 15 years" . The source for this information should be referenced. What would this figure be if the proposed zoning was not put into effect? Page 21 , Section 3. 1. 4 - Geologic Considerations More detailed information on active faults in the area is desirable (recorded maximum magnitude, frequency and duration of movements) . There is no mention of the effects of continued land subsidence (see page 6) . f(� Environmental Review Board City of Huntington Beach September 1, 1976 Page Two It should also be mentioned here that the area has been designated a nominal to high risk area with respect to geotechnical problems (see page 7) . Page 23 , Section 3 . 4 . 1 - Traffic Conditions The sources for this information should be referenced. Will there be any development and/or expansion of local streets and public transportation? Page 24 , Section 4 . 3. 2 - Air Quality The sources for this information should be referenced. Page 26 , Section 3. 5. 3 - Recreation and Parks This section makes no mention of the existing 530-acre recreational preserve (see page 13) . What is planned for this area? Page 28 , Section 3. 6 . 4 - Solid Waste Disposal It should be mentioned here that extra solid waste will generate r several additional trips to the disposal sites. This is an adverse impact in that it will put a greater strain on the South Coast Air Basin. Page 39 , Section 6. 0 - Irreversible Environmental Changes This section should also list the following irreversible impacts : - Less percolation will mean decreased fresh groundwater storage and possible increased salt water intrusion resulting from loss of open space. - Increased degradation of the South Coast Air Basin resulting from construction activity and population increase. - Noise impacts resulting from increased vehicular traffic, construction activities and increased population. - Increased water demands due to population growth. - Additional fuel requirements and resultant air pollution problems involved in disposal of increased solid wastes. r-. Environmental Review Board City of Huntington Beach September 1, 1976 Page Three Again, we thank you for the opportunity of reviewing the report. Very truly yours , Joyce Truby V Environmental Projects Manager 1 I ,I I ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Response to comments on page 20, Section 3. 1. 3 - Oil Resources: The City chose to assign the -02 zoning suffix to a large portion of the proposed annexation area to reflect existing oil production activity as well as permit these operations to continue in the future. No development is proposed at this time, therefore oil operations will not be effected. The profitibility of maintaining oil extraction uses will probably play a major part in determining the timing and form of any development in the area. In discussing the life span of oil operations in the Bolsa Chica, the 15-year figure is commonly used by the oil companies, property owners, and planning staff. Such a figure, however, is dependent on several variables: availability and price of crude oil, development pressures, and environmental concerns. These variables could effectively lengthen or shorten the life span of the oil field. If the proposed prezoning were not put into effect, the area would be .annexed as R1 and subject to immediate pressure to develop. Response to comments on page 21, Section 3. 1. 4 - Geologic Considerations: Attached is information concerning historical earthquake activity along the Newport-Inglewood Fault, excerpted from EIR 74-4 , prepared by the Signal Bolsa Corporation. The Bolsa Chica area has experienced land subsidence in the past, damage being minimal due to lack of structures on the land. It is felt that with the current level of water injection into oil wells (300, 000 to 400 , 000 barrels/ C day) (Day, 1973) , the chances of any future problems arising from land subsidence due to oil field operations are negligible. Little additional subsidence is expected from oxidation of peat deposits but this should be evaluated on a site by site basis. The potential problems associated with land subsidence are over-shadowed by other geotechnical concerns . Refer to footnote #2 in the text. Geotechnical capability was mentioned in Section 2. 1. 1. 4. Response to comment on page 23, Section 3. 4 . 1 - Traffic Conditions: Traffic statistics are based on the LARTS Base Year Report, 1967 Origin - Destination Survey, Los Angeles Regional Transportation Study, 1971. i Arterial development and public transportation are adequately dealt with in Sections 2 . 2. 5 .1, 2. 2. 5. 2, 2 . 2 . 5 . 3, and 3. 4 . 1 . .f - Table 1 NEWPORT - INGLEWOOD EARTHQUAKE ACTIVITY Characteristics of some significant earthquakes associated with the Newport-Inglewood structural zone, excluding aftershocks. (Barrows, 1973; Wood, 1966; DWR, 1964 and 1967) . SUMMARY OF DIRECTLY MAGNITUDE APPROXIMATE LOCATION ASSOCIATED j DATE (RIGHTER) OF EPICENTER DAMAGE/INJURY June 21 , 1920' 4.9 Inglewood, California _ Numerous building fail- (Inglewood (estimated) ures and severe struc- Earthquake) tural damage to poorly built structures in localized epicentral area. Several people injured, .1 killed, March 10, 1933 6.3 3.5 miles offshore of Numerous building fail- (Long Beach Newport Beach, ures, including schools. Earthquake) California Bridges, roads, utili- ties damaged. Damage in, excess of $40 million. y 120 people killed, hun- dreds injured: Quake felt over 100,000 sq.mi . area. 4th most destruc- tive earthquake in United States history.: October 2, 1933 5.4 Signal Hill , near Los Considerable minor (Signal Hill Alamitos, California damage. Earthquake) December 27, 1939 4.5 Huntington Park' - Long Minor damage. to struc- Beach area, California tures and street lights. October .21 , 1941.. 5.0 Long Beach, California Damage in blest Dominguez oil field. Minor damage, to structures, especially in Gardena area. $10.,000 damage in Gardena. November 14, 1941 5.4 Long Beach, California 50 buildings severely damaged. Power failures, damage to pipelines, storage tanks, ,2 schools condemned because of structural damage. Approximately $1 million { damage. June 18, 1944 4.59 Dominguez Gap Area, Minor property damage. 4.4 near Compton, California. t October 27, 1969 . 4.5 1 .5 miles offshore of Extent and type' of Laguna Beach, Calif. damage, if- any, . (Most southerly unknown. . �wake" attributd N-I Zone) Table 2 MAXIMUM PROBABLE AND CREDIBLE EARTHQUAKES CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Approximate Probable Maximum* Distance to Maximum Rupture Length Corresponding** City of Estimated Magnitude For Range of Maximum Maximr: -� Huntington Total Fault of 'Maximum I%faxirnum Probable Credi'a :o Beach Length Historical Earthquake Earthquake Earthquake ,Earthct1,-.': Fault Zone (miles) (km) Earthquakes (km) Magnitudes Magnitude Magn1"L:: � Newport- 0-3 90+ 6. 3 45 or less 6 . 6- 7. 6 6 . 6 7 . r Inglewood (1933) Whittier 21+ 103+ 3 . 2 51 or less 6 . 8 - 7 . 7 6 . 8 (1971) Elsinore 2S+ 180+ SA 90 or less 7 . 2 -8 . 0 7 . 2 8 . 0 . , . (1938) San Jacinto 50+ 310+ 7 . 1 1SS or less 7 . S- 8 . 2_ 7. S 8 . 2 (1940) (Seven quakes of N1 greater than 6 . 0 since 1918) San Andreas 53+ 4S0+ 6 . 5 22S or less 7 . 7 -8 . 4 7. 7 8 . 4 (from Garlock (1948) Fault S/E) *Based on the suggestion by Albee and Smith (1966) that the primary causal rupture at depth for the maximum earthquake <<hic:i can be generated on a given fault has .a maxir,rum length of less than half the total fault length . **Based on-. Figure 1 (Albee and Smith , 1966) . Tabl e 3 ESTIMATED. GROUND AND BASE ROCK MOTION CHARACTERISTICS MAXIMUM PROBABLE EARTHQUAKES CITY: OF HUNTINGTON. BEACH: Estimated(1) Estimated(2) Predominant (3) Probable (4) Distance. from %taximuwa 'Maximum Period of Duration ,.lf Causative Causative E.stimat-e.d Base- Rock Ground Base Roca: Strong Earthquake Fault �-I•agnitud.e Acceleration Acceleration . Motion Shaking Fault (;\Iiles )� (Richter). (g) (g) (S.econas) (Seconds) Newport- Lag1ew.00d° 0- 3 6 . 6 0:. 65+. 1 ..0 0 . 30+ 19 0 . 9 (4) — Whittier 21+ 6 . 8 0 . 21 0 . 30 0 . 30+ 22 ,Elsinore 2S+ 7 . 2 0 . 20 0 . 3S 0 . 3S+ 30 :San Jacinto S0+ 7 . S. 0 . 10 0 . 18 0 . 45•+ 40 S'an Andreas S3+ 7 . 7 0 . 10 0 . 20 0 ..50+ 6 (1) Schnable and. Seed, 1972 (2) Matthiesen., et a.l , 19-72 - (3) Seed,, et al , 19,69 (4) Geological Survey 'Circular 672 ,. 1972 . Response to comment on page 24, Section 3. 4 . 2 - Air Quality: Air quality statistics are based on the Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Revised) , Environmental Protection Agency, April 1973. Response to comment on page 26 , Section 3. 5. 3 - Recreation and Parks: The State of California is presently proceeding toward implementation of Phase I of the Bolsa Chica Marsh Reestablishment Project. When completed, the Phase I project will provide 200 acres of salt marsh for fish and wildlife a's well as a visitor walkway" along Pacific Coast Highway. Long-range planning for the remainder of the State property is underway, but current oil production activity is' expected to continue for several years. A . detailed description of the entire project can be found in the Bolsa Chica Marsh Reestablishment Project, prepared by the State of California Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, March 1974 . . Response to comment on page 28, Section 3. 6. 4 - Solid Waste Disposal: Section 3. 6. 4 should indicate that there may be an adverse i environmental impact caused by air pollution due to an increase in the number of trips to and from disposal sites. Response to comment on page 39, Section 6. 0 - Irreversible Environmental Changes: Section 6. 0 should be amended to include the following changes which could occur as a result of development of property within the proposed annexation: - Less percolation will mean decreased fresh groundwater storage and possible increased salt water intrusion resulting from loss of open space. Increased degradation of the South Coast Air Basin resulting resulting from construction activity and population increase. 1 - Noise impacts resulting from increased vehicular traffic, construction activities and increased popula- tion. - Increased water demands due to population growth. - Additional fuel requirements and resultant air pollution problems involved in s osal of increased solid wastes. STATE OF CALIFORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD- SANTA ANA REGION 6833 INDIANA AVENUE, SUITE,1 ' RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92506 PHONE: (714) 684.9330 11UNT!NGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT P. O. Box 190 Hunting(zon Beach, C31if. C2W August 19, 1976 . Mr. James W. Palin, Secretary Environmental Review Board City of Huntington Beach P. O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Palin: We have reviewed the Bolsa Chica Annexation Environmental Assessment. It was our impression that the presence of the ecological reserve within the area to be annexed was not given adequate emphasis. The California Department of Fish and Game has done a considerable amount of planning for the area, but this was not reflected in the EA. They have assured us that their comments on this document will reflect their interests and activities in the area, and with that understanding, we have no further comments at this time. Sincerely, Gor on K. Anderson Environmental Specialist cc: DF&G i GKA:pk Ir S " CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD - SANTA ANA Refer to "Response to comment #2 . " Comment was made by the Local Agency Formation Commission. HUNTINGTON BE/":H UNIO7Fank HIGH SCHOOL DISTRIC01 bolsa �,ve. (714)898-6711 ington beach,ca. 92647 bbott, ED.D. Superintendent of Schools HUNTINGTON BEACH.WEST MIN STEP. MARINA. FOUNTAIN VALLEY. EOISON.WINTER SBURG -OCEAN VIEW.EVENING HIGH SCHOOL ADULT SCHOOL 0 September 2, 1976 Mr. James W. Palin, Secretary Environmental Review Board P. O. Box 190 190 Huntington Beach CA 92648 LtOn D �cl�• c` »un{t�` Re: Bolsa Chica Annexation EIR Dear Mr. Pal in: On behalf of the 20,000 high school students currently being crowded into five high schools, we strongly object to the following aspects of EIR 76-3, Bolsa Chica annexation. Page 3 A "transitional zoning" could result in development which ranges from 500 to 3,000 new stu- dents and, therefore, the study does not provide any meaningful EIR school service data. Al Page 27 Ocean View High School will not eliminate even our current overcrowding, much less mitigate any of Balsa Chica's new student growth potential . Page 31 Educating, transporting and housing from 500 to 3,000 new high school students cannot be ac- and 34 complished without any expenditures! 4 In addition to the above specific objections, it is a matter of grave concern to us that at no time prior to the EIR draft were any members of the District staff consulted regarding either numbers of potential stu- dents that could drastically affect housing in our District, or the fiscal cost impact of educating this ad- ditional population. Prior to any such massive rezoning of agricultural/industrial land to any residential uses, the City should reconsider requiring developer allocation of either real estate or funds to the critical high school housing need adversely impacted by this rezoning. For several years, San Diego City has been able to obtain de- veloper compliance (even Christiana Oil of Huntington Harbour) with this very modest pre-development requirement. We hereby request an opportunity to review .with your Board the further ramifications of this annexation. Please let us know when such an opportumity will be made available. Sincerely, Board of Tr stees Mrs. Helen E. Ditte, President - �j' � Al L�l K7 Don MacAllister, Vice President Ralph H. Bauer, Ph.D., Clerk ev Mrs. Zita I. Wessa, Alt. Clerk _ Board of Trustees Ron Shenkman ■Robert A. Knox■Ralph H. Bauer, Ph.D.■ Helen E. Ditte■ Don MacAllister Vice President President Clerk HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Response to page 3 comment: School service data is provided on pages 26 and 27. Response to page 27 comment: This is addressed on page 27. Response to page 31 and 34 comments: The Revenue and Expenditures Table is in error as it indicates no expenditures and incorrect revenues. The corrected figures are as follows: REVENUES EXPENDITURES Developed ROS (-01) (179. 72 acres) -0- -0- (Oil Depleted) RA-02 (1424. 4 acres) $3 ,605,568 $1,409, 396* TOTAL $3 , 605 ,568 $1 ,409,396 NET SURPLUS $2 ,196 ,172 The Revenue/Expenditure analysis did not indicate the revenue surplus to the school districts from existing county zoning. The surplus is approximately $221,343. - , Response to comment that District staff were not consulted regarding numbers of potential students and the related fiscal impact: Figures for student generation rates and revenues and expenditures were developed in conjunction with the District and are reflected in the 1976 Revenue/Expenditure Analysis of Land Uses. In addition, a meeting was held September 14, 1976 between School District and City staff to further re- view .the revenue/expenditure data presented in "Response to pages 31 and 34 comments" . * Local share only (total expenditure is $2 ,117 ,424) . e • Response to comment concerning developer fees for high school development: Section 3. 5. 4 should be amended to indicate that as a mitigating measure the City should consider requiring developer allocation of either real estate or funds to the critical high school housing need. This is in view • of the fact that $60, 000 of new construction could be needed for each high school student and $30 , 000 of new construction could be needed for each elementary school student. Ad ft, • • • • AM 1 GUS cle BOLSA CI I I CA 5602 Lud I ow Ci. rc le llu1itington Beach , Ca. 92649 H'UINTING i ON BEACH September 2 , 1976 PLANNING DcPT. A3 � 1'0 : Environmental Review Board S E P 1976 City of Iluntington Beach James W. Palin , Secretary P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 From : Amigos de Bolsa CILica I herb Cliaterton , President i The following comments reflect the concerns of Amigos de Bolsa Cliica in regard to EIR 76- 3, Bolsa Chico Annexation Environmental. Assessment . The Bolsa Chica area has been widely acknowledged as one of the most valuable and sensitive environmental resources on the Southern r California coast . Therefore , we feel that the City of Huntington Beach is obligated to thorouglity assess the environmental impacts of, all projects within the Bolsa Cliica area and prepare a thorough report of all environmental impacts for public review and comment . Amigos de Bolsa Chica has reviewed the publicly distributed EIR on the Bolsa Chica annexation and is disturbed to find it inappropriate , incorrect and most inadequate as a public disclosure document . Specifically : I . EIR 76- 3 is inappropriate in that :impacts attributed to the annexation have been significantly altered by subsequent pre- zoning modifications whicli have reduced Upon Space (ROS) and increased Residential-Agricultural (RA) areas . The EIR, as posted , evaluates an obsolete annexation proposal . As such , it fails to disclose the appropriate environmental impacts as required by the California Environmental Quality Act . II . FIR 76- 3 is inaccurate as it contains many factual discrepancies . The following are among the more obvious A. Contrary to Section 3 . 1 . 4 , a large portion of the 1003 acres are =included in the Alquiyt l'riolo Special Studies Zone of Geologic Ilazards . B . Section 3 . 8 . 2 l.ists ! a surplus Of up to $ 187 , 580 per year with no development and $1.84 , 109 with RA development . This conflicts with Figure 3- 1 which shows only the lower no- development surplus figure of $59 , 817 . C. Section 3 . S . 4 fails to discuss impacts on the Ocean View Elementary School Di_strict , although a majority of development would probably fall. within this district . - 1). figure 3- 2 lists no school expencl.i.t Lire s lender development . however , 1476 students will. obviously create significant costs for the school districts involved. i Page Z r E . Section 4 . 1 indicates that: lluut..ingtou peach will have no role in the planning of the Bolsa Chica unless the property is first annexed . To the contrary , since the Local Agency formation Commission of Orange County has determined the Bolsa Chica to he within the sphere of - influence of the City o f Huntington Beach , the ci ty ' s s role in land use planning of the Bolsa Chica is assured. The above examples highlight only a few of the more obvious discrepancies of fact and logic which permeate this EIR. III . ElR 76- 3 is also inadequate as a public disclosure document in that it fails to assess the impact of alternative zoning and development modes which should be applied to the Bolsa Chica property , including those zoning alternatives which -A would be in closer conformance with the Huntington Beach General flan. The significant alternative of zoning the entire 1603 acres of the Bolsa Chica as Open Space (ROS) has been ignored in E1R 76- 3 . Section 21151 of the California Environmental Quality Act states , _ The legislative bodies of all cities and counties which leave an official adopted' conservat.ion element of a general plan shall make a finding that any project they intend to carry out , which may have a significant effect on the environment , is in accord with the conservation element of the general plan. The Open Space and Conservation Element of the Huntington Beach General Plan , adopted by Council Resolution on December 19 , 1973 , designates the Bolsa Chica as a first Priority Area in the City with greatest potential for preservation of open space and destined to serve as the core of the Open Space Program. To be complete and in compliance with the CaJifornia Environmental Quality Act , this EN should address the significant alternative of zoning the entire 1603 acres of the Bolsa Chica as Open Space (ROS) . For the above reasons , it is encumbent upon the city to withdraw 11R 76- 3 and submit an environmental document which sufficiently addresses the impacts of the proposed annexation. The City of Huntington Beach has long held that the Bolsa Chica is the most environmentally sensitive area remaining in its sphere of influence: . As such , it deserves a most careful and detailed environmental assessment . SM • AMIGOS DE BOLSA CHICA • Response to comment #1 : The purpose of posting an EIR is to solicit comments and provide the apportunity to produce a correct and complete final EIR. This includes incorporating any changed cir- cumstances which might effect the environment as well as correcting errors or adding information which has been determined to be necessary to the document. From this process evolves a final EIR which is complete and correct. The final EIR fulfills the requirements of a public dis- closure document under the California Environmental • Quality Act. Response to comment #II: A. Refer to the 2nd. response to the Orange County r Environmental Agency. B. Refer to "Response to comment #2 on Socio-Economic Concerns. " Comment was made by the Huntington Beach Environmental Council . C. The Ocean View School District currently owns two lb elementary school sites within the boundaries of the proposed annexation and several surrounding the area. The District has indicated that construction of ele- mentary schools on these sites would be adequate to handle new students if the area were developed to RA standards. D. Refer to "Response to pace 31 and 34 comments. " Comment was made by the Huntington Beach Union High School District. E. Unless Planning has behind it the authority to im- plement, Planning is only an empty exercise. Authority to implement comes with annexation. Response to comment #III : EIR 76-3 is an assessment of the environmental impacts of annexation. The alternatives to annexation are delayed annexation, partial annexation or no annexation. These alternatives are reviewed in the document. As far as the conformance of the prezoning to the General Plan is con- cerned, the ROS-01 and ROS zones are clearly consistent with the General Plan. The RA-02 zone is also consistent with the General Plan by virtue of the fact the RA zone is and acts as a holding zone until such time as permanent zoning can be determined. 54'io. TF u+uy GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1400 TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO 95814 EDMUND G. BROWN JR. GOVERNOR September 13 , 1976 HUN T HNGTON BEACV PLANNING DEPT. Tom Moseley S E P i 5 1976 Planning Department P .O . Box 190 P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA926 ' SUBJECT : SCH# 760816SO - BOLSA CHICA ANNEXATION EIR 76-3 Dear Mr . Moseley: This is to certify that State review of your environmental ' document is complete . The results of the State review are attached. You should respond to the comments as required by the California Environ- mental Quality Act . You should address your responses to the commenting agency with a copy to the Clearinghouse . • Sincerely, William G . Kirkham • Division Chief State Clearinghouse IVGK/mcd Attachment (s) cc : William Lockett , ARB E . C . Fullerton, Fish and Game John Reeves , District 07 :Mary Schell , Library • • • State of California The Resources Agency Memorandum To 1, L. Frank Goodson, Projects Coordinator Date: August 31, 1976 Resources Agency 2. City of Huntington Beach Planning Department P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 From Department of Fish and Game Subject: ES _ SCH 76081650 — Bolsa Chica Annexation Environmental Assessment We believe subject document does not relate adequately the impacts of the growth inducing elements of the proposed annexation and rezoning on the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve. The proposed action will not directly affect the Ecological Reserve; however, the potential adverse impacts of development within the adjacent lands (11000 acres) would be greater than existing County zoning would allow. For example, present County zoning would permit the development of 547 units as compared to 11289 units under the proposed City zoning. The Environmental Assessment also does not reflect the Resource Agency' s planning for the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve and fails to consider the recreational elements of the ultimate plan for the area. We believe subject document should be modified to incorporate our concerns as outlined above. If the project sponsors have any questions regarding these comments, they .should contact Mr. Robert D. Montgomery, Regional Manager, Region 5 at 350 Golden Shore, Long Beach, California 90802. The phone number is (213) 590-51-13• E C' Director • State of California Memorandum To 1 ) L. Frank Goodson Date : September 7, 1976 Projects Coordinator Resources Agency Subject: Bolsa Chica Annexation EIR 76-3 - Huntington 2) Huntington Beach Planning Dept. Beach - Orange County P.O. Box 190 SCH. No. 76081650 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 49 from Air Resources Board The Bolsa Chica Annexation draft environmental impact report (DEIR) proposes the annexation of 1 ,603 acres and establishes a transitional zoning on the land. r We have reviewed the DEIR and have several concerns about the adequacy of the report. First, the purpose is unclear for developing compara- tive impacts between county/city zoning. The "no project" alternative (no further development) needs to be evaluated as specified in Section 15143(b) of the State EIR Guidelines. The county and/or the city' s zoning densities then ID become project alternatives which should be evaluated individually for air quality impact. Second, on page 10, emissions in Orange County are quoted and the sources need to be identified. Additionally, the air quality discussion needs to include a description of current air quality which utilizes quantitative data from a nearby air monitoring station. The ambient air quality standards also need to be incorporated for comparative purposes. Third, the air quality evaluation is restricted solely to motor vehicular sources without regard to emissions generated by the development . itself. This appears inappropriate since the contribution from sources other than motor vehicles are increasing, relatively, and need to be acknowledged. Also, the DEIR should describe the methodology and document the source of the emission factors used in the analysis on page 24. Fourth, the annexation proposal is in an air quality maintenance planning (AQMP) area where considerable activity is currently underway. The AQMP effort is required for areas where ambient air quality standards are expected to be violated up through 1985. This proposal acknowledges increases in air pollutants which are counter to the AQMP effort to decrease air pollution and the legislative direction to ". . . take all action necessary to provide the people of this State with clean air . . . " (Public Resources Code, Section 21001 ) . Additionally, the decision makers need to consider carefully the trade- offs involved by increasing emissions in this instance thereby creating a need to reduce emissions on other projects or actions. William C. Lockett, Ch of Planning Division cc: W. H. Lewis, Jr. M. Nichols State of California Business and Transportation Agency Memorandum To MR. JOHI - GRATTAN Date: August 30, 1976 A-95 Coordi for Transportatio gen Fide : A-95 REVIEW 1120 N Street Sacramento, CA 95 MR. JOHN E. REEVES - District 07 From DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Subject: Protect Review Comments SCH NUMBER 76081650 Discussions of impacts on State Highway facilities appear to be inadequate. Traffic on Bolsa Chica would increase 589.%, on PCH only ll%! This does not appear to be reasonable analysis . r Impacts on the Ecological Reserve are also analyzed inadequately- the Coastal Commission proposals are largely ignored. /J' OHN E. REEVES, Chief Environmental Planning Branch Transportation District 07 Clearinghouse Coordinator For information, contact George Boyle (ATSS) 640-3785 or (213) 620-3785 JS :gv Attachment w STATE CLEARINGHOUSE Air Resources Board Response to comment on comparatives between City and County zoning: i These comparisons are made because the project annexation, if completed, will replace existing county zoning and city zoning. Response to comment on no project alternative: The comment reflects a misunderstanding as to what con- stitutes the project. The project is annexation. The no project alternative is no annexation. The no annexation alternative is dealt with in Section 4. 1. Response to comment on emissions in Orange County: For source of information refer to "Response to comment on page 24, Section 3. 4 . 2 - Air Quality" . Comment made by the Orange County Water District. For additional air quality information refer to "Response to comment #1 and comment #5. 11 Comment was made by the Southern California Air Pollution Control District. Response to comment on air quality evaluation: Refer to previous response on emissions in Orange County. Response to comment on air quality maintenance planning area: Section 3. 3. 2 should reflect the fact that air quality . maintenance planning efforts are required for areas where the ambient air quality is expected to decrease. The . effort must be made through the year 1985. In addition, decision makers should consider the tradeoffs in increasing emissions in one location and thereby creating a need to reduce emissions in other locations . Department of Fish and Game Response to comment concerning the impacts of development on the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve: The environmental impact report deals with the entire Bolsa Chica area of which the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve is a portion. The impacts discussed apply to the entire Bolsa Chica. Response to comment concerning the Resource Agency' s planning for the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve: The plans the State has for the development of the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve are not subject to the controls that the City or County can employ on private developments. Consequently the State is responsible for determining the environmental impacts of its own project. An environmental impact report has been prepared by the State Department of Fish and Game on the Bolsa Chica Reestablishment Project. State plans may be reviewed in Volume I, Bolsa Chica Marsh Reestablishment Project; Volume II , Environmental Impact Report; and Volume III , Bolsa Chica Reconnaissance Level Study and conceptual Master Plan. Department of Transportation - District 7 Response to comment on impact on State highway facilities: There are three reasons why the increase in the use of Bolsa Chica Street would be relatively greater than use of Pacific Coast Highway. First, a majority of the Bolsa Chica area is shielded from Pacific Coast Highway by the Bolsa Chica Ecological Preserve. Consequently, most of the habitable area in the Bolsa Chica does not have direct access to Pacific Coast Highway. Second, approximately 85% of all trips eminating from the coast head northward to the San Diego Freeway or beyond. Third, since the existing ADT on Bolsa Chica Street is only 8% of that on Pacific Coast Highway, each additional trip represents a significantly greater relative (percent) increase on Bolsa Chica Street than on Pacific Coast Highway. Response to comment on adequacy of impacts on the Ecological Reserve: Refer to responses to the Department of Fish and Game comments. Response to comment on Coastal Commission proposals: Refer to "Response to comment #2" . Comment was made by the Local Agency Formation Commission. , r Environmental EIR• 76-3 REVIEWER• Review Committee DATE- 9-14-76 PAGE PARA. COMMENTS : PAGE 1 OF 1 2 Fig. 1-1 is not correct as approved by the Planning Commission on August 31, 1976 . 13 . 1. 5. 1 1. Explain the components of the 530 acres or reference the Fish & Game EIR - (i.e. , 250 acres owned in fee with 300 under lease agreements. Fee ownership of the 300 acres will revert b the State only if an entrance to the sea is constructed by the State within the next 10 years) . 2 . Where are the proposed four parks and how can they be proposed with no land use or general plan designation? 13 . 1. 5. 3 The historic significance of the three sites mentioned have never been established. The City Council has already approved the removal of the water tower at Marine (sic) and Warner; therefore, they have determined that no significance exists. 14 2. 2. 3 The totals of the acreage under consideration and presently zoned • by the County does not total what the City is attempting to prezone; i.e. 1655 acres vs. 1603 acres) . 14 2 . 2. 4 Total here is 1623 acres? 14 2. 2 . 6. 2 It is my understanding that the High School District owns a school site on the bluff (west side of Bolsa Chica) . 21 3 . 1. 5 As yet, no artifacts are stored or displayed in the City. In fact, the City is not privy to any special field studies performed by archaeologists in the Bolsa Chica. (Also see comment on para- graph 2 . 1. 5. 3. ) • 23 3. 3 ROS-02 zoning was modified at Planning Commission meeting of August 31, 1976 . 30 3. 7. 1 Historic landmarks are again mentioned here and, according to the Orange County Historical Society, they are not historical • landmarks. 22 3. 2. 2 1. Water wells from irrigation systems ought to be capped off at time of development to prevent salt water intrusion. 2. The pump station already developed has not been accepted by • the City because permanent power is not in the area: yet. 28 3. 6. 2 Major pump station necessary to get sewer up bluffs. 14 2 . 2 . 5. 1 How does extension of Bolsa Chica affect wild life preserve? • • ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Response to page 2 comment: Figure 1-1 has been corrected. Response to page 13 , Section 2. 1. 5. 1 comment: 1. Refer to "Response to comment on page 26, Section 3. 5-3 - Recreation and Parks" . Comment was made by the Orange County Water District. Also refer to "Response to comment #1" . Comment was made by the Local Agency Formation Commission. 2. Refer to "Response to comment #1 on Socio-Economic Concerns (Open Space) " . Comment made by the Huntington Beach Environmental Council. Response to page 13, Section 2 . 1. 5. 3 comment: The sites have been identified as having potential historic significance. Response to page 14, Section 2. 2. 3 comment: The figures have been corrected to indicate 1603 . 13 acres. Response to page 14, Section 2. 2 . 4 comment: The figure has been corrected to indicate 1603. 13 acres. Response to ,page 14, Section 2. 2. 6 . 2 comment: The Ocean View Elementary School District owns the site on the bluff. Response to page 21 , Section 3. 1. 5 comment: However, if the Bolsa Chica is annexed the procedures in Section 3. 1. 5 will take effect. Response to page 23, Section 3. 3 comment: Correction has been made. Response to page 30, Section 3. 7 . 1 comment: Refer to "Response to page 13 , Section 2 . 1. 5. 3" . Comment made by the Environmental Review Committee. Response to page 22 , Section 3. 2. 2 comment: 1. Section 3. 2. 2 should reflect this comment. 2. The pump station is located in the City near the boundary of the Bolsa Chica at the extension of Springdale Avenue Response to page 28 , Section 3. 6 . 2 comment: The text should reflect the fact that a major pump station would be necessary to move sewage over -the bluffs. This pump station would be located near the proposed intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Pacific Coast Highway. It will service the western section of the City including Bolsa Chica. Response to page 14, Section 2. 2. 5. 1 comment: The extension of Bolsa Chica Street would not enter the State Preserve. Refer to attached map. �07h, f S� 3 TO City Council ✓ DATE: April 29, 1976 v SUBJECT : BOLSA CHICA STUDY COMMITTEE REPORT Ruth Bailey, Vice Chairman of the Bolsa Chica Study Committee will make a five (5) minute speech presenting the Final Report to the City Council , Monday, May 3 , 1976. George Stringer, Brian Parkinson and Herb Chatterton and other committee members will be available for questions during the presentation. -At "� Pat Suter, Secretary Bolsa Chica Study Committee J BOLSA CHICA STUDY COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT TO HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL MAY 3 , 1976 I - _- TABLE OF CONTENTS / INTRODUCTION ' | | SECTION I MATERIAL RELATING DIRECTLY TO ANNEXATION SECTION II POSITIONS OR PROPOSALS PRESENTED BY GROUPS REPRESENTED ON THE COMMITTEE SECTION III RELEVANT LEGISLATION SECTION IV AREAS OF AGREEMENT a INTRODUCTION The Bolsa Chica Study Committee dealt primarily with the concerns involved with Annexation or No Annexation of the Bolsa Chica property not with the impact of potential develop- ment. However, Annexation, Zoning and Planning were all part of the discussions. The positions and/or proposals presented herein are listed in alphabetical order, not in order of preference. This was done in an effort to fairly represent the diverse points of view existing on the Committee. Please note : The Economic Advisory Commission could not deal with annexation, because of a Tack of financial information. i The Areas of Agreement are for the most part self- explanatory and represent those areas in which the Committee could reach a consensus. The Bolsa Chica Study Committee has compiled a considerable amount of relevent material during the months it has been meeting. The Council is welcome at any time to call upon the Committee for any of the information it has accumulated. SECTION I MATERIAL RELATING DIRECTLY TO ANNEXATION i Matrix - Alternates for Annexation City Revenue Estimates Maps 1 . Ownership 2. Showing areas proposed for acquisition by state. City Attorney - Procedure for Annexation. Sub-Committee Report - Politics BOLSA CHICA STUDY COMMITTEE Matrix Alternates for Annexation TOTAL ANNEXATION PARTIAL ANNEXATION NO ANNEXATION 1 . Bluff Only 2. State & MWD 1 .. & 2. Acres Acquired 1460 264 336 600 0 Economics Short Term $110,000/yr. $19 ,000 $6 ,000 625,000 No Change (172 ,000 Revenue (oil declining) less oil and property taxes) Long Term ? ? ? ? No Change (Revenue-Costs= Net=2/3 revenue less a services) Growth R-1 16 ,000 4 ,000 0 4,000 0 Potential Population (all land developed 4 units per acre, 4 people per unit) 32,000 8 ,000 0 8,000 0 4 Politics Local Control Some Control ? Sorge - Control:.-�.No Local Control x 1 Timing 1 . If City annexes total area for potential development it will probably increase value of the:.land. 2. If City annexes total area, pre-zoned, Holding Zone, it will probably not increase value of land. Annexation with Developable Zoning Would probably increase value of land depending on zoning. Additional cost information needed. I Planning Planning Commission says City plans all. (Around State if acquisition occurs. ) i ' BOLSA CHICA ANNEXATIONS CITY REVENUE ESTIMATES January 19, 1976 Revised April 23, 1976 �1 Assessed Value Property Tax Oil Barrel Tax Grand Total Annexation Taxable Ownershi s Only Revenue Production @ Annual Land Minerals Total @ $1.62/$100 Brls/Da $.OS/Brl. Revenue Entire Unin- corporated Area $1, 944, 050 $2, 426, 250 $4, 370, 300- $70, 799 .3, 500 $102, 200 $172, 799 Initial Request (260 acres) plus MWD plus Goodell plus Kendall $1, 645, 600 $ 766, 890 $2,412,490 $39, 082 250 $ 7, 300 $ 46, 382 State 300 Ac. N.A. Nil Nil Nil 300 $ 8, 760 $ 8, 760 NOTE: The above estimates are based on current assessed (excluding personal property) valuations, with no allowance for changes as a result of annexation, zoning or development. There will be some expense to the City as a result of any of these annexations, but they will probably be minor, except for the one time cost of planning, which is estimated to be $100, 000, more or less, for the entire Bolsa Chica area. PROPERTY OWNERS ACRES Axe IN SIGNAL $OLSA CORPORATION 119& (230 ACS. LEASED TO 5TATE) KENDALL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 41 DON GOODELL (o ® METROPOLITAN WATER DIS'TIZICT 36 OCEANVIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT 15. • •� STATE OF CALIFORNIA 300 ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL 20 le 4 41 .�;/' . It ! .. '•1':�' rv0 ACRES e .� `�•:-�,�- ,.�..,i'.�•, .��---,•�` • ••i'E"'��•.. Q. a� � • i�� ;;� a �:';i • • m UNINCORPORATED BOLSA CHICA �R� OFFICE OF «+' CITY ATTORNEY .� P. O. BOX Is* HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA 92648 DON P. BONFA TELEPHONE CITY ATTORNEY (714)536 January 21, 1976 TO: Councilman, Henry H. Duke, Chairman, Bolsa Chica Annexation Study Committee FROM: John O'Connor, Deputy City Attorney SUBJECT: Legal Implications of the Bolsa Chica Annexation This memorandum responds to your request for an analysis of the legal implications of annexation of the Bolsa Chica area. The annexation process must include : (a) Preparation of a general plan of the area; (b) Implementation of appropriate zoning consistent with the general plan; (c) Approval of: annexation by the Local Agency Formation Commission; (d) An environmental analysis; and (e) Compliance with the requirements for annexation of uninhabited territory. We will proceed to examine each of these requirements separately. 1. Preparation of a General Plan. Government Code Section 65300 provides : "Each planning agency shall prepare and the legislative body of each county and city shall adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and of any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency' s judgment bears relation to its planning. ! 1 TO: Councilman Henry H. Duke FROM: John O'Connor, Deputy City Attorney SUBJECT: Legal Implications of the Bolsa Chica Annexation Page 2 Government Code Section 65301 further states : "The general plan shall be so prepared that all or individual elements of it may be adopted by the legislative body, and so that it may be adopted by the legislative body for all or part of the territory of the county or city and such other territory outside its boundaries which in its judgment bears relation to its planning. " The Bolsa Chica is presently designated as a Planning Reserve under the General Plan Land Use Element . This was an interim designation to meet the State deadline requiring a General Plan on or before December 31, 1973• Monica Florian of the Planning Staff has succinctly stated the General Plan status of the Bolsa Chica as follows : "As- adopted by Council, Resolution No. 3814 on December 19 , 1973, the Land Use Element of the General Plan (required by Government Code Section 65302a) designates the Bolsa Chica area as Ecological Reserve (that acreage proposed for state use) and Planning Reserve . As defined in the Land Use Element, Planning Reserve is ' a broadly defined interim desig- nation intended for areas where long-term comprehen- sive planning and development is anticipated. ' Uses may include: 1. :Land areas in a predevelopment phase that are not yet fully planned or ready for immediate development 2. Land in transition to ultimate use that may be designated by a ' holding' zone (such as the 'RA' District ) 3. Resource production areas including land in use for agriculture or oil extraction purposes. (Oil extraction may be combined with land designated as industrial, residential agricultural, or residential. ) The Element further states that ' the intent of this category is not to preclude development, but to identify such areas as deserving special attention and planning efforts. ' As an additional policy for the Bolsa Chica.,- the Element states : 'Certain problems and questions that are inherent in the development of this area should be addressed and annexed prior to proceeding with annexation. ' TO: Councilman Henry H. Duke FROM: John O'Connor, Deputy City Attorney SUBJECT: Legal Implications of the Bolsa Chica . Annexation Page 3 "The Open Space and Conservation Elements of the General Plan (required by Government Code Section 65536) adopted by Council Resolution No. 3813 on December 19, 1973, designate the Bolsa Chica as a First Priority Area in the City with greatest potential for preservation of open space and destined to serve as the core of the Open Space Program. "The Seismic-Safety Elements of the General Plan (required by Government Code Section 65355) adopted by Council Resolution No. 3964 , designate portions of the Bolsa Chica area as High Seismic Risk and Flood Plain areas making seismic safety and flood hazard policies applicable there . " The general plan for the Bolsa Chica must be integrated with the general plan of the City, and consistent with the policy and objectives of other elements of the general plan. 2. Zoning of the Bolsa Chica in Consistency with the Adopted. General Plan. Government Code Section 65860 requires that City zoning ordinances s all be consistent with the general plan. This has been a mandatory requirement imposed upon cities since 1974 . Government Code Section 65859 authorizes a city to prezone unincorporated terri- tery adjoining the city . This section reads : "A city may prezone unincorporated territory adjoining the city for the purpose of determining the zoning that will apply to such property in the event of subsequent annexation to the city. The method of accomplishing such prezoning shall be as provided by this chapter for zoning within the city. Such zoning shall become effective at the same time that the annexation becomes effective. " Government Code Section 65854 requires that prezoning procedures comp y with the notice and hearing requirements of the Government Code. Section 65854 (c ) reads : " (c ) In prezoning, if the matter is before a city planning commission the notice shall be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the area TO: Councilman Henry H. Duke FROM: John O'Connor, Deputy City Attorney SUBJECT: Legal Implications of the Bolsa Chica Annexation Page 4 to be prezoned, or if there is none, it shall be posted in at least three public places in the area to be prezoned. In addition to notice by .publication, a county or city may give notice of the hearing in such other manner as it may deem necessary or desirable . " Further, prezoning is authorized under liuntington Beach Ordinance Code Section 9823 which provides : "The City Council recognized that a city' s social and economic life is seldom limited to the area within its corporate limits; that a real need exists to consider zoning and physical planning on the basis of the existing and developing area rather than only the areas currently within the City limits; that State law recognized the existence of the close relationship between a city and the area contiguous thereto. In view of such policy and purpose and the possibility of annexation of adjoining lands the City undertakes to establish an expansion of a consistent land-use pattern that shall prevail if and when areas contained within such expanded plans to annex to the City. For that purpose prezoning maps may be developed and adopted in the same manner prescribed by this Ordinance Code, for the classification or reclassification of property within the City, including procedures for .and concurrent consideration of variances, conditional use permits and site plans. " Huntington Beach Ordinance Code Section 9823 . 1 provides , in relative part, " . . If a prezoning map for an area has not been adopted then such area shall, upon annexation, . be deemed to be classified Rl " It is our firm legal conclusion that zoning procedures must comply with provisions of the Government Code and the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. Section 9823 . 1 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code to the extent that it purports to zone property Rl without the hearing and notice process is invalid. Therefore, we would suggest and recommend that the area be prezoned before annc:.,ation into the City, or if a substantial amount of Planning i i TO: Councilman Henry II. Duke FROM: John O'Connor, Deputy City Attorney SUBJECT: Legal Implications of the Bolsa Chica Annexation Page 5 Department study is involved for appropriate prezoning, that the area be placed in a moratorium under Government Code Section 65858 until such time as the zoning studies are completed and appropriate zoning adopted. In addition, it is necessary that the zoning of the Bolsa Chica comply with any local open space plan in effect in the City. Government Code Section 65566 provides : "Any action by a county or city by which open- space land or any interest therein is acquired or disposed of or its use restricted or regulated, whether or not pursuant to this part, must be consistent with the local open-space plan. " 3. Approval by the Local Agency Formation Commission. Any annexation of the Bolsa Chica, in whole or in part , must be approved by the Local Agency Formation Commission. Government Code Section 35003 provides : "No petition seeking the annexation or transfer of territory to a city shall be circulated or filed, nor shall any public officer accept any such petition for filing, nor shall any legislative body initiate proceedings to annex or transfer on its own motion, until approval of the local agency formation commission is first obtained pursuant to Chapter 6 . 6 (commencing with Section 54773, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 . " The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) was created by State legislation in 1963, to regulate annexation of territory within each county in California. The Commission is given broad powers over annexation of new territory to cities (Government Code Section 54790) ; and has authority to adopt standard procedures for evaluation, incorporation and annexation proposals . LAFCO allows the County to follow a regional approach towards annexation and was designed to eliminate the haphazard and undesirable annexa- tion practices which existed in California prior to 1963 . Factors considered by LAFCO in reviewing an application for approval are .set forth in Government Code Section 511796: "Factors to be considered in the review of a pro- posal shall include but not be limited to : (a) Population, population density; land area and land use . per capita assessed valuation; topography, TO: Councilman Henry H. Duke FROM: John O'Connor, Deputy City Attorney SUBJECT: Legal Implications of the Bolsa Chica Annexation Page 6 natural boundaries , and drainage basins; proximity to other populated areas ; the likelihood of significant growth in the area, and in adjacent incorporated and unincorporated areas, during the next 10 years. (b ) Need for organized community services; the present cost and adequacy of governmental services and controls in the area; probable future needs for such ,servic:es and controls; probable effect of the proposed incorporation, formation, annexation, or exclusion and of alternative courses of action on the cost and adequacy of services and controls in the area and adjacent areas . (c ) The effect of the proposed action and of alternative actions , on adjacent areas, on mutual social and economic interests and on the local govern- mental structure of the county. (d) The definiteness and certainty of the bound- aries of the territory, the nonconformance of proposed boundaries with lines of assessment or ownership, the creation of islands or corridors of unincorporated territory, and other similar matters affecting the proposed boundaries . " Among its powers, LAFCO has the authority to require prezoning . of territory to be annexed [Government Code Section 54793(a) ], and has authority to condition annexation Government Code Section 54790 .1 ) . The complete provisions of the Government Code relative to LAFCO procedures are set forth as Appendix 1 to this memorandum. 4 . Annexation. Annexation of the Bolsa Chica would be under the procedures of Section 35300 et seq. of the Government Code, which set forth the requirements for annexation of uninhabited territory. The complete text of the annexation procedures are set forth as Appendix 2 to this memorandum. 5 . Environmental Analysis. The Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as construed by the courts, requiresan environmental analysis be made by (a) the Local TO: Councilman Henry .H. Duke FROM John O'Connor, Deputy City Attorney SUBJECT: Legal Implications of the Balsa Chica Annexation Page 7 Agency Formation Commission prior to a recommendation of annexation (Bozun5v. Local Agency Formation Commmission of Ventura, C.A. 2d No. 41498 Civil) ;(b) an environmental analysis for the general planning and zoning of the area. An environmental analysis could .; possibly be handled as a initial comprehensive analysis or on a step by step basis as the various agencies exercise their discretionary approvals. The type of environmental analysis , whether negative declaration, or EIR, will be determined by the public agency conferring discretionary approval . 6. Total, Partial or Ido Annexation. The determination of any annexation, whether total, partial or a denial of annexation rests with the Local Agency Formation Commission. Upon denial of an application, it cannot be considered for a subsequent period of at least one year unless LAFCO consents to refiling. (Government Code Section 54799 ) . It should be observed that annexation can a requested by any contiguous city, therefore, if the City of Huntington Beach desired not to annex, a request could be made by any public entity contiguous to the property, i .e . Seal Beach, and LAFCO would act on that request or any request of the applicant for annexation. We have not commented on policy considerations for or against annexation since these are within the expertise of the Planning Department . JJOHN O'CONNOR Deputy City Attorney JOC:er APPROVED BY : DON P. BONFA, City Attorney BOL5A CHICA STUDY COMMITTEE Sub-Committee Report - Politics Members Ruth Bailey Bill Foster Ruth Finley A. REGIUNA6 IMPACTS CHANGE IF ANNEXED Orange County Transit Dist. Air Resources Metropolitan Water Dist. Regional Coastal Commission Cal Trans Flood Control Dist. B. AREA] PF CQNTRUL NATIONAL Congress Army Corp of Engineers Energy Commission (Price of Oil) Coastal Zone Management Act E.P.A. - Offshore oil, On Shore Dow. STATE Legislature Fish and Game State Coastal Commission State Londe Commission Beach Division of State Lands Parks and Recreation ? Attorney General COUNTY Board of Supervisiors X Local Agency Formation Com. X Planning Commission X LOCAL City Council X would be lead Planning Commission X agency r,. School Districts X I ( fax Revenue to City from Oil S.08 taxes etc. 61 .62 I 80L`)A CHICA STUDY COMMITTEE Sub-Committee Report - Politics Page 2 Change in the chain of approvals for any development. Differences in Ordinances ie. , Archeological, Grading. If pre-zoned, must conform to General Plan, If Acquisition by the State took place, then the State would be the Lead Agency - Control of development , etc. Economic Benefits to the City of Annexation with or without Acquisition overlapping of our committee Haz ards Faults Flood Plain �D l f BOLSA CHICA STUDY COMMITTEE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON SCHOOLS March 10, 1976 If annexation takes place and development occures , there would be a change in the population that would probably necessitate -the building of a school (site 34 ) , that is located just North and outside of the Bolsa Chica area. At the present time , with decisions on the use of Bolsa Chica caught up in the political process, there cannot be any predetermination of whether or not that school will be necessary. There is some controversy among residents of the California Classics . homes because of a dem+jnd for a neighborhood school, which presently does not meet the States requirements of population for a school. Conclusion: It is the responsibility of the Ocean View School District and the residents of the affected area to come up with projections and their recommendations--••-and show those to the City. POLITICS COMMITTEE Ruth Bailey Ruth Finley Bill Foster SECTION II POSITIONS OR PROPOSALS PRESENTED BY GROUPS REPRESENTED ON THE COMMITTEE. Amigos de Bolsa Chica Herb Chatterton Burmah Oil Corporation Bill Woods Chamber of Commerce Jim Foxx Economic Advisory Commission Donald Datko Environmental Council Lee Rebman Friends of Bolsa Chica Pat Suter for Hayden Williams Huntington Beach Company Bill Foster League of Women Voters Ruth Bailey Planning Commission Brian Parkinson Recreation and Parks Commission Tom Cooper Signal Landmark George Stringer W. R. Grace R. F. Prock ` t q ,.V 0� .l ` i l'.Vr'.i,!l:\ 1 W1 OF \NNP1.� �1i. i i',I•.. 1. 1 l Yl:') A;ai-gos pie Bol s<< (JO k-a Amigos cie 13ols:t ('11 'LC L has evalu;itcd titc: a,iricartt.ion alternatives determined by the Lolsa Chica Annexation Committee and has reached the following coriclus ions . I . Partial Annexation 1 proposals except "no annexation" or "total annexation'' represent a piecemeal approach which would violate the city ' s expressed policy. We feel that the city ' s policy of requiring master planning of the entire area prior to annexation and development is not only correct but essential to orderly growth. The following concerns regarding "total annexation" would also apply in the case of "partial annexation. " H . Total Annexation A. nnexation would provide the Bolsa Chica with city servir and move it one step closer to development. Thi4 would rgi#@ the market value of the property and inflict an increased burden on the people of California in their effo-rts to acquire the land for open space and restoration. If zoninX for the area were changed to a developable zone , the impact on the State would be even more severe . B. Annexation could lead to unfavorable impacts on the city unless the area is carefully planned with thorough considera- tion given to the effects development of the Bolsa Chica would have on existing portions of the city. 1 . Since no public services are now provided to the more than 1500 acres of the Bolsa Chica, development would place heavy burdens on adjacent areas . Many arterials which would naturally service development in the Bolsa Chica are already at capacity or will reach capacity with continued development of areas already in the city. 2. There is substantial evidence to indicate that continued growth within the city would lead to a more than propor- tional rise in the costs of providing public services . Growth tends to increase expenses faster than the tax base expands , thus , increasing the cost of services on a per capita basis . III . No Annexation A. The State s proposed acquisition , restoration, and preservation of open space in the Bolsa Chica will have substantial benefits for the entire South .Coast .area and especially for the residents of Huntington Beach. The value of open space , recreational facilities , ecologically productive habitats , and educational opportunities , although difficult to assign dollar values , are unquestion- ably beneficial. A state park and preserve in the Bolsa Chica would he a tremendous asset to tine city, substantially raising the values of nearby properties without the necessity of increased city costs . Through implementation of the ` State ' s acquisition plan , the city of Huntington Beach can realize substantial benefit , improving the aestlitics of the city , the duality of life , and the tax base , with no direct and little indirect cost . Because of the considerations noted above , the only annexation alternative that we feel is in the best interest of the residents of Huntington Beach is "no annexation. " J J B.1 7-I (JA 1 11 (7 1 17-I S I(S7 HUNTINOTON I lux-1-1N(;T0N I 3FACII. CA W:20.17 April 19 , 1976 Huntington Beach City Council Huntington Beach City Hall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach , CA Councilmembers : The purpose of this letter is to express the concerns of Amigos de Bolsa Chica regarding annexation of the Bolsa Chica properties by the City of Huntington Beach. Amigos de Bolsa Chica believes that the titles held by Signal Landmark Properties , Inc. and W. R. Grace , Inc. to large areas of the Bolsa Chica lowlands may be defective because of the possible invalidity of the land exchange between the State Lands Commission and Signal in 1973. Amigos de Bolsa. Chica therefore ur-es a no-annexation poli — Our doubts as to Signal and Grace ' s title are based on the following considerations ; 1 . Title to the tidelands in California is not absolute , but is subject to an easement in favor of the public as set forth in the California Constitution , Article XV, Section 3. The words of the Constitution are considered incorporated in any grant of the tidelands , the same as if they were inserted in the grant , and they become a part of it and qualify it . The estate granted, therefore , is limited to the uses which do not interfere with the rights of the public. 2. Public trust uses are not limited to commercial navigation and fishery , but embrace the public interest in preserving open spaces for recreation and wildlife. . Marks. v Whitney 6 C 3d 251 . 3. Government Commissioned maps of the Bolsa Chica dated prior to 1890 indicate that the tidelands of the Bolsa Chica were once much larger than at present , and once covered almost all the lowlands outside of the present city limits . Diminution of the area. subject to the ebb and flow of the tide was due pimaTily to damming and diverting activities at the turn of the century by the Bolsa Land Company, Signal ' s predecessor in title . The construction of the dam and the filliiig of the ocean entrance were clearly illegal.. Property Huntington Beach City Council April 19 , 1976 Page Two held by the state in trust for the public use cannot be gained. by Adverse possession, and the statute of limitations does not apply to an action to recover such property from one using it for private purposes not consistent with the public use . City of Los Angeles v Anderson 206 C 662 . The 1973 exchange between Signal and the State Lands Commission may have been invalid, because the findings required to be made before a conveyance of tidelands to a private grantee by the State Lands Commission may not have been supported by facts . The State may grant tidelands to a private grantee if it finds that those lands are valueless for trust purposes ; if they have been or are to be reclaimed pursuant to and in the course of a highly beneficial public program of harbor development ; and if they constitute a relatively small arcel of the total acreage involved. Long Beach v Mansell , 3 C 3d 4 2 . Furthermore , the Appelate Court in County of Orange v Heim, 30 Cal App 3d 694 , found an exchange between Orange County and the Irvine Company invalid because the facts surrounding the exchange did not support the finding thatthe lands involved constituted a rel-atively small parcel of the total acreage involved. The Court found that , because the Irvine lands to be conveyed in the exchange were already tidelands under public control and subject to the Consti-tutional -mandate , the County was actually relinquishing much more than a small parcel . It was relinquishing large parcels overwhich it had an easement. The 1973 land exchange in the Bolsa Chica is factually similar to the facts surrounding the Upper Newport Bay exchange discussed in the Heim case , and hence is subject to unwinding by the Courts , should a lawsuit to confirm title be initiated. For the above reasons , Amigos de Bolsa Ch-i-ca urges the City Council to adopt a cautious attitude towards annexing land burdened with dubious title which may make impossible ultimate development in a manner financially beneficial to the City ; and which may embroil the City of Huntington Beach in litigation over such title. Very truly yours , Gretchen A. Hoad Attorney for Amigos de Bolsa Chica cc : Don Bonfa, Huntington Beach City Attorney C. E. Parker, Attorney at Law Bolsa Chica Annexation Committee GI-I/lm r SHADED AREAS PROPOSED, STATE ACQUISITION L / S i II / � ^ � \� I I J / � O t'`"Ly'r'�.1., •-y.'fr�,,'-:��u�4A'�j,slM1wy3� 1 1 11(1 / 1 =�� � \-� �'.�y..1 i�-,'y i+.i-.�•'iea+i'�-, .'�d.'.y��±� � .;. J � � \�\ I 1 JLI II 1� � _ �� �YS '.M 'f�c�'"r'i4i� •�rJ �, ;L.w.'Jry A � 'sq � o .% ��� _��—��'1 l I a® �.��r>t � '-`�'r.-� - � _ _� •f,'sl� 04"" e,r,'�-.,v 'kE q / r ✓ �, -fir*:;.a.'C�,w yF.,.�A'i�, ^°'-��" .:.�'�Se` �;�:w�c �.'..*.: ,'°',' �P'� 1/`l ti� 07 7 - _���==�;i�"®x1��r• _:y. -_" ,:d". "''...; .,.t`�' at ;yv`:,.,�s:�t• �:� �\'��<.-4..- � '�� :,+"�r..': ,/< _ i .yp�"�rt "'. „s, �xq✓""�"��w;r -a'�..a _n�cv Psy;.� F%t?ar::.r „-2r � .n.�j.�,l-.: ..�.�,k"�� ^o .�};i / \.� :�a' "e' ',.r'.r'.�u, a'7�aY'� Ss$�t.- � ;'.�'•. ,:O,y�"=%-"� :!'i"ir.,.,'sq, «-Y� � - __o® :.�u+;xt. ,:,1�r.`- �.-�`+>z..` _ _ •y:�',.e. -es7t....!a�''; ''s'e^` s' ten,. -'�� •> � .�. . - - r<4! - r+ •d�, 'p`?,k'Sm. .'��'� �.�""'�."k. - °"A j.Y.�y +i' 'w`>t,(.^' O.,%�';`.,• •,r.4' ��o`c„1-. .•.* �c^ x<if r ''ip„'Ssy �x" . /� s •.Ks^ .a. ..i^--� .r"r� "`'ny^"��.� -'•' ':�0'�1`'''"i`,=-.. - .f_ ,S, i!P nY,r.-er�3fr� :1_ d a'•`_.g may rrf r e r ,2"� . ..A :.h'i'er• ^>5w.�• 4 � t� f'd«?'s ti.+ - '+j�.:ala'( C•�•i.. '3� 3 rZs� rr�n /n ..a°, AFC'-�.'i• xI'✓'. ✓u-" ' '� 'rSaV Yy 1•�?a^.. �J."" =T' :� +il' t .. i d>... \ !C '.f 'D:Ci +:J,�'•r;- �5Y.%"v5i:i y� `•.SS+X. .,+w!+' ,K.t1 h•.J:w••�,� Tu , A \\ -- ".f.. f ;�..' N'3.':•r"J 9ns`V:t• �.'t` '>,. - :�l' M't:3"-' � �\ "%.4 `� <��. f3 ..F a.,. ,,[[ :.'rti':..- .µ,me J „�r."• ; "x.T t 0 n...e^_� ..yiJ'�!;:"r ..i af:�u'Y _ .r.lv�' poi f r.�.y _T,y/,..f,AI 'V V��k :P-.'.•,d•. y�i.. ,.�, fE 0 ..;r. �..:F." .'Cl�`^u :+f:< S"v .�•,�z Y, _�'? '_ ��'.n.ot�J'• t�hCr?- " -��_,.i.t�• .:�h �a%�::o'�'zt"<`.-i" r.3�_. .'.�- t.,��, '-_`^c�rss:. �; -fie .�'fo' ,�5•,�-- «�y-�.,.,,,�:,y,. .� '.x �"` . /' ..�., 'f - -" _ :f-da e ua.�-a�,.. .�$- b^:• LS..,,, ,r<t;;'�,....;. ..'1« ���� . .,,1». ::� �:,�'�"_<{• _,.o:! �.;�,p+, '"°r'rm, xf— /,,��r, it :?.1` iiXi"��+�'� rb.. 'P,] .,T ��}`f. - '.<f•': >hc.. _ M1 .,A9';f.�"1' ',:;f°r':;''`,�x,,.. �;;� ��'�' o;c ""3•>, ° pjG •o""•e'3r'K r o 1 e�.J ",+. .;v'r,,.> u`./. ?Mn % 3" .�t, .i�' 'a4.rC rt,:t,�No- ..fir <+:� ,=.:�Y• ,s -„F +'�t�%'zt. •-«�. .9- t, f:t - _ -f..�,�+� �o„r,. ,�4-'['�"�'`a �Iti`;," o ,1 �• �i-.�% - +:.-<+'...., .Y«�o. _�e�- •�P•,c; :�, � .".F�Fet�::fov.`",�.".�_ . .zS= ' � � �.x��.�,•.,�-'. �,:�,e�;M -Hi kA ��,�;� `".��„ •�Tw-'" e � n;,,�:'�j '+ ,e{n'<``u, y<. �.o ncr,F\,P,��.c.�_ v � / 7 J �� . ����r�^ter; s, ,r za } r�x sN�,.� , ..1 . (r, ;,','`,5 " "� ��•'az n;'.c,?cr`�'�'<'�?'.+; t. �.�c�;ar.,�:�,�_;,. ^�Y�3?"_4 '•y' . \ / PAGIF IC \ COAST -_ 0 LWGC L CCCCp py u noaa •CLA' CACr L p L i- i- _ _ \ YOWCop001N S, c I ? A C I F I _. - " i' PRESENTED BY: Amigos de Bolsa Chica SOURCE : Coastal Commission Information Service 2 IMPACT OF COVERNNIM'T ACTION 01"t PROPERTY` VAME-S Impact on Values of Relative Importance of Impact on Values of Neighboring or Net Effect on Specific Actions in Typo of Action Subject Property Competitive Properties Property Values Determining Impacts --r Restrictions on land use Value declines Value rises Redistributional• Very important Developer required to make Value declines Value rises Slightly negative Unimportant compared to I mprovements or pay fees other public actions Resource amenitics protected Value rises Value rises Slightly positive to very Very important or restored by government positive action Shore access by the public Value declines Value rises Slightly negative Less important than use maximized and protected restrictions or amenity protection Concentrating development If still undeveloped, value Value rises Positive Very important , in existing communities declinesi if already im- proved, value rises . y Providing Infrastructure, Value rises Values unchanged Positive. Important public facilities, and services a ; Tax reduction or deferral Value rises Values unchanged Slightly positive Len important than use for regulated, restricted, restrictions or amenity or encouraged uses of protection coastal properties Source: Real Estate Research Co-poration. March 1976 Prepared under contract to U.S. Department of Commerce EXHIBIT 3 POTENTIAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT EFFECTS OF SELECTED COASTAL PLAN POLICY ACTIONS (continued) Potential Economic Effects ' Primary Coastal Primary Affected mp oyraent Other$usiness Benefits/Costs Plan Policies Sectors of the Economy (non-construction) Construction Activity Investment/Profitability to the Comum. tr Res-trict thermal dis- Commercial and Indus- Nominal Nominal Increased investment Higher prices for manu. chartes and other trial development; in pollution controls; factured goods; protected forms of water pollu- energy development, reduced profitability. marine resources tion (7, 9, 10, 11, 12) recreation and tourism More productive marine Industries Give commercial rec- Recreation and Positive or negative, Positive or negative, Positive or negative, Preserve public access reation uses priority tourism; housing and depending on whether depending on whether depending on whether to recreational'arneni- over other private urban development other potential uses other potential uses other potential uses ties of the coast development (133, 134) .mould be more labor would entail larger arc more profitable intensive construction outlay than recreation L Protect the visual Recreation and Nominal Slightly positive Increased Investment Protect tourist eniay- q"ality of natural, tourism In site design, plan- men', of visual resources historic, or open areas, ning, and main- and the coastal view- tenance; development shed (44, 45, 46, 47, may be less profitable 48, 49, 50) Encourage lower cost Recreation and Positive, but not to Positive, but not to Positive, but not as Maintenance of access tourist facilities over tourism the same extent as the same extent as profitable as more to coastal resources exclusively expensive more luxurious de- more i!.xurious de- i luxurious development. for citizens of all facilities (125) a velopm_nt velopment Tax and other incen- income groups tives a positive induce- 7 nient. f 1 Evaluate public recrea- Recreation and Positive or negative, Positive or negative, Positive or negative, Preserve public access tion potential and future tourism; housing.and depending on whether depending on whether depending on whether to recreational arnenl- demand before per- urban development other potential uses other potential uses other potential uses ties of the coast mitting other uses of would be more labor would entail larger are more profitable ocear,L*ont land (132) Intensive construction outlay than recreation :i PROPOSAL FOR PARTIAL ANNEXATION Presented by: Bill Woods March 31 , 1976 for Burmah Oil. Favors Mr. Stringer 's Partial Annexation proposal, because Total Annexation would impose additional costs on Burmah without any additional benefits derived from the City. Does not disagree with Mr. Foster 's statement, referring to Total Annexation. However, Burmah must be allowed to come in under a zoning that would allow for oil production to continue. PROPOSAL FOR TOTAL ANNEXATION Presented by: Jim Foxx March 31 , 1976 Favors Total Annexation. Feels it would be a source of immediate revenue to the City in oil barrel taxes and property taxes. Does not feel Total planning necessary for development to begin. TO : City Council Bolsa Chica Study Committee SUBJECT : EAC position on Bolsa Chica Annexation REFERENCE : Letter (Position Paper) dated 4-1 -76 to the Bolsa Chica Study Committee from D. J. Datko, same subject. The annexation of the Bolsa Chica Area was discussed at the regular EAC meeting of 4-7-76. The EAC felt that at this time NO position could be taken on annexation , since there is limited information regarding the potential economic impact to the City. The members felt that their position , should they eventually take one , will be based primarily on economics. Don Datko , Member Economic Advisory Commission cc : EAC members Arnold Ross , Internal Auditor, City of Huntington Beach ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL City of Huntington Beach • P.O. BOX 190 April 12 , 1976 CALIFORNIA 92648 Tot Bolsa Chica Annexation Committee Fromt A,argaret Carlberg, Alternate Representative of the Environmental Council Topics Comments on Final Bolsa Chica Study Committee report The sixteen Environmental Council members have reviewed the February 27 subcommittee reports of the Bolsa Chica Annex- ation Committee, and had half an hour to look at four copies of the recently prepared Bolsa Chica Study Committee Presentation to City Council . Since the Environmental Council action on the original annexation request, dated December 4, 1975, was omitted from both these sets of papers , we wish to restate our previous action, as it was concurred to be still valid. (See attached minutes. ) We further communicate a few comments on the Areas of Agree- ment contained in the recent report. 1. Environmental Council members agree with #1. 2. Environmental Council members agree generally with #2, but suggest that the first sentence read " . . .place before any development begins" , and delete the second sentence as it is redundant. 3. This does not appear to be an "area of agreement"-- although it is a suggestion that the Environmental Council would not oppose. Signal 's financing part of the planning would probably ensure more planning than occurred between 1972 and 1975. 4. Environmental Council agrees with the proposal that the Signal and other private land if annexed, being zoned as a holding zone with oil use, and continuation of agricultural use. But the following suggestion is offered. (a) . Any zoning but R-1 would require prezoning , with hearings , and it would be most reasonable to have the DFG and NWD acreage prezoned permanent open space from the onset, rather than R-1 or RA. (b) RA is not a true holding zone. The Planning Reserve status , or developing a true holding zone desig- nation should be established. 5. Environmental Council members agree with #5. Aile Environmental eounal a, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH m-omcmwwine Post Office Box 190 a Huntington Beach, California 92648 v CORRECTED MINUTES Thursday, December 4, 1975 The meeting was called to order at 7: 38 p.m. by Vice Chairman Churchill. 1 . 0 Members Present: Carlberg, Chatterton, Crane, Churchill, Green, Harbison, Haydock, Lewinger, Milkovich, McConnell, Powell, Rebman, Wallace, Winchell, Yue 1 . 1 Members Absent: Frey, Fung, Roth (excused) , Valinsky (excused) 2. 0 Approval of Minutes: The minutes of November 13, 1975 were approved as corrected. 3 . 0 Correspondence , Announcements, Presentations: None 4 . 0 Chairman, Executive Board Reports: 4 . 1 The proposed annexation of the Bolsa Chica Bluff was discussed. Mr. George Stringer presented the case of the Signal Bolsa Company. The following motion was passed 7 to 4. The Environmental Council opposes the proposed annexation of such an environmentally sensitive area as the Bolsa Chica without prior master planning. We believe that the City is seriously delinquent in preparing a master plan as requested by the Planning Commission in 1972. The Environmental Council requests that the City Council direct staff to prepare a master plan for the approximately 1600 acres within the Bolsa Chica within the next 12 months, beginning immediately with the preparation of a comprehensive environmental assess- ment. 4 . 2 The current status of the task forces on (1) the Coastal Commission Acquisition List and (2) the Bolsa Chica was reviewed. The Environmental Council has appointed members to both task forces, but no meetings have been scheduled. Members were encouraged to prepare for a Coastal Commission hearing on the acquisition list in January 1976. NO ANNEXATION Friends of the Bolsa Chica Support the position of the Amigos de Bolsa Chica presented by Herb Chatterton to the Bolsa Chica Study Committee March 17, 1976. TOTAL ANNEXATION Huntington Beach Company Position presented by W. E. Foster March 24 , 1976 to the Balsa Chica Study Committee. Why do we have spheres of influence? Here we have 2000.02 acres completely surrounded by the City of Huntington Beach with very small exception. We have announced that we want it- to be a part of the City of Huntingttnn Beach. We want to control the planning of it. So when it is time that it be considered for planning, and certainly development is closing in around all the edges of it, what is going to happen in there is going to impact many other areas of the City. Concerns about transportation were mentioned. My concerns are much greater that if we don 't plan Balsa Chica and plan it now the impacts are going to be much greater and very adverse on many areas of traffic throughout the City. We need to decide where the streets are going in and around the Balsa Chica. In any case , when the property owners , and we are owners , think that it is time for Annexation what should a City's response be? They have announced they want it to be part of the City. They have announced they want to do the planning. It has been designated officially by LAFCO to be in their sphere of influence. The only rational reasons I can find for a city not annexing under these circumstances are : 1 . People residing in the area do not want to be annexed. This does not apply here because there are not any people residing in the area. 2. The City is unable to provide the services that would be required after annexation. That is not true here either because the area will not require any City services beyond planning and a few very minor services that will be more than offset by the revenues to the city that will be generated by annexing the Balsa Chica property. I can find no reason for the City not to proceed when the planning of this area is so important to everything from traffic flow to how the property is going to be used. I do not consider the effect that it might have on State acquisition to be relevant to the question of Annexation. 1 . I do not think it will have any effect if it comes in as a Holding Zone. I see absolutely not a single shred of evidence pointing to the fact that it would change it. I do not think the value would change. I think the State would have anywhere from 3 to 5 years to firm up their plans and complete the acquisition. 2. Even if we felt that there would be a lowering of value or a holding of value by precluding annexation, I do not think that is equitable. I certainly do not think it is legal. There have been too many court cases on that point and if the City Council starts talking about it very much and too many of these kinds of things get in evidence , I think the property owners would have a clear cut legal remedy if annexation TOTAL ANNEXATION Huntington Beach Company Position (Continued) was refused. You cannot use the power of a City indirectly to drive down the value of property for public acquisition. The courts have held many times that doing something for a good purpose does not justify doing something inequitable or placing burdens where they do not belong. 1 . I am making the argument that it would not raise the value. 2. I am making the argument that even if it did it is irrelevant to the City of Huntington Beach 's decision to annex. I can see no reason and really no disadvantage to anyone State, County, City, Property owners or residents ( 'cause there ain 't any) in proceeding with annexation, because that is what it takes to get the planning off the ground. Presented to the Bolsa Chica Study Committee March 24 , 1976. F ' LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF HUNTINGTON BEACH-5[AL BEACH POSITION ON ANNEXATION OF BOLGA CHICA The League supports the preservation of 8oloa Chioa as an ecological preserve surrounded by open space to prevent further degradation of this unique Coastal resource. There- fore, the League recommends that no action on annexation be taken at this time. Until decisions can be made as to State Acquisition, we recommend that the present County zoning of recreational open-space , which is more congruent with our ' stated goals, remain in effect. We would discourage piecemeal planning for the area. No action should be taken without careful assessment of cost-benefits; including accurate quantitative information as to short and long term economic effect as well as social and environmental impacts. Submitted by: Ruth Bailey, member Annexation Study Committee April 21 , 1978 Approved by: Sherry Baum, President League of Women Voters, Huntington Beach-Seal Beach 0 ` Huntington Beach Planning Commission P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Planning Commission and Planning Department DATE: December 4 , 1975 ATTN: David D. Rowlands, City Administrator RE: PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF A PORTION OF THE BOLSA CHICA AREA BY THE SIGNAL BOLSA CORPORATION. Transmitted herewith are the Planning Commission and Planning Staff recommendations for the proposed annexation of a 280-acre portion of Bolsa Chica. The City Council referred this request to the Planning Commission and Planning Staff for report and recommendation. The following is a listing of significant facts which relate to this proposal: 1. The unincorporated area of Bolsa Chica consists of approximately 1600 acres of land. Cwnership is primarily controlled by Signal Bolsa Corporation. Other owners within the area are Oceanview School District, Metropolitan Water District, Don Goodell , Kendall Development Company, Inc. , State of California, and the Orange County Flood Control District. A map depicting the location and acreage of said parcels is attached. 2. The assessed value of Bolsa Chica is: Land - $3 ,047 , 920 Mineral Rights - $2, 933 , 160 3. Oil production on the entire area is estimated to be approximately 6 , 000 barrels per day. 4. County policy on annexation and how it affects Bolsa Chica is: The County would like to see a development plan for the Bolsa Chica prepared jointly by the County, City, and Property Owners, prior to annexation of any portion of Bolsa Chica. (The City should serve as lead agency in this effort. ) This policy has not been spelled out on any adopted document, so the County would probably be in agreement with the City on more than one annexation or annexations prior to plan preparation provided a comprehensive planning effort of the entire Bolsa Chica Area would still occur and that the important resource area (Ecological Reserve) was protected. 5. Bolsa Chica is within the City' s sphere of influence; therefore, it is appropriate for the City to take on this planning effort. Page Two 6. The City is currently providing limited police and fire protection to this area. The City does not receive additional compensation for this service. 7 . Any planning effort undertaken by the City for this area would be costly and the City would not receive any additional compensation for this effort. 8 . The City has an adopted policy regarding annexation which essen- tially calls for complete environmental analysis and planning of an area prior to annexation (see attached policy adopted by City Council , September 4 , 1973 , Resolution No. 3760) . 9. There are other portions of Bolsa Chica which may be available for annexation. They include: State Ecological Reserve, the Kendall Development Corporation Inc. , property along the common boundary between the Huntington Beach Company and Signal Bolsa Corporation and property located at the northwest corner of Edwards Street and Ellis Avenue. 10. In response to the statement that significant changes have occurred in Bolsa Chica since the Policy Plan' s statement on annexation was adopted, the following is offered: a. The Metropolitan Water District is a public utility. The 400 foot wide strip to be maintained as open space; therefore, the physical separation caused by this strip of land in conjunction with the Flood. Control District is not adequate separation to cause the parcels to be considered separate for planning purposes . b. The State ' s acquisition of the ecological reserve has no bear- ing on the issue of annexation. If anything, this property should be incorporated as a part of the comprehensive plan, inasmuch as any surrounding development will have a definite impact on the ecological reserve. C. The increase in the price of crude and the extending of the expected economic life of the existing oil wells should not have any bearing on the planning effort. The life of the oil field does not mean that consideration should not be given to alternatives for development and the impact these uses may have on each other. d. The different ownerships between the land and mineral rights should not preclude Signal Bolsa Corporation from preparing long-range plans and an environmental analysis. Areas which are designated for resource production for 15 to 20 years may be so designated, but consideration must be given to long- range alternatives . 11. There are essentially two issues: annexation and planning (in- cluding environmental analysis) . Technically, these issues may be separated but as a practical matter planning should be a total. effort which should not be fragmented through piecemeal annexa- tion. The planning and environmental analysis of Bolsa Chica Page Three should occur with the entire Bolsa Chica area either totally within the City or within the County unincorporated area. This will assist in maintaining continuity throughout the planning process. 12. If this parcel is annexed, it could have an adverse impact on the 'State' s plan for acquisition in that it will increase land values and thus increase acquisition cost to the public. 13. Signal Bolsa Corporation has stated that their desire to annex the property does not mean that they will not follow through with their intent to plan and conduct an environmental analysis of Bolsa Chica. 14 . Signal Bolsa Corporation has stated that the City would receive approximately $29 ,155 per year by annexing subject property (property tax $22 , 030 per year, oil production $7 ,125 per year) . 15. A total planning effort would allow for a complete cost benefit analysis of the proposal , i.e. , opening to the ocean, the need for bridges, and other public improvements. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: No annexation should be permitted until a total plan along with the necessary environmental analysis has been complete. As an alternative, it is recommended that the City of Huntington Beach annex the entire Bolsa Chica Area and continue with the expressed policy for pre-planning and environmental analysis prior to development. The minority opinion of the Planning Commission is as follows: Annexation should be permitted to proceed but a planning analysis, both economic and environmental , should be conducted before development occurs. This will allow the City to receive additional revenue as outlined in the report from Signal Bolsa Corporation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In view of the fact that the City is providing services, i.e. , Police, Fire and Planning, and because the County will not be the lead agency, nor will. they take an active role in the planning process, it is recommended that the City of Huntington Beach annex the entire Bolsa Chica Area and continue with the expressed policy for pre-planning and environmental analysis prior to development. As an alternative, it is recommended that no annexation be permitted until the total plan along with the necessary environmental analysis has been completed. As a point of information, it should be noted that the revenue derived from annexing Bolsa Chica will assist in defraying those costs which are presently passed on to the City. In effect, the services being provided to other large vacant parcels of land within the City of Huntington Beach are currently being provided to Bolsa Chica. Page Four Respectfully submitted, Richard A. Harlow Secretary RAHsgc Annexation Objectives: Encompass within City boundaries only those areas with common interests and which can be efficiently and economically served by city facilities. Principles: 1. Approve and pursue only annexations which:- a. Will contribute to the accomplishment of Huntington Beach Master Plan Objectives. b. Will "square off" city limits at the San Diego Freeway, Santa Ana River, Pacific Ocean, and the Naval Weapons Station. C. Will not dilute the existing tax base. d. Will not place a burden on existing City facilities. e. Will meet all municipal. codes. f. Will not overload existing gas , electric and water resources. 2. Use pre-planning of unincorporated territory to assure that annexed areas - a. Are developed in compatibility with surrounding neighbor- hoods. b. Do not create unnecessary hardships on property owners in proximity to the annexed areas. C. Provide sufficient tax base to assure that the area will not cause tax increases for current residents within the City. d. That no area be permitted to be annexed to the City which is contrary to the previously accepted Master Plan of the area, of which the annexation is a part. 3. During pre-planning for annexation, developers of unincorporated areas should be required to show to the public all their ac- cumulated information on ecological impacts of the whole area, including those studies required by Federal, State, and County jurisdictions . 4 . Historically important sites within an annexed area should be con- sidered for dedication to public use or public ownership. 5. Federal and State grants should be sought to develop property which is within the annexed area. 6. Discussions should be pursued with adjacent community leader- ship to integrate their goals with those of Huntington Beach. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To BOLSA CHICA STUDY COMMITTEE From RECREATION AND PARKS COMMISSION Subject BOLSA CHICA ANNEXATION Date April 21 , 1976 Mr. Tom Cooper reviewed the various positions of the Bolsa Chica Study Committee and asked for support from the Recreation and Parks Commission in time for the forthcoming April 21st Study Committee meeting . The Committee , chaired by Henry Duke and attended by approximately 17 different City groups , has not agreed on a single proposal to present to City Council in its weekly deliberations regarding the feasibility of annexation, partial annexation, or no annexation of Bolsa Chica. They have arrived at certain areas of agreement ; however : 1 . There should be TOTAL GENERAL PLANNING of the Bolsa Chica. 2 . Total General Planning should take place before any development begins . 3. The Committee is willing to accept the offer from Mr. George Stringer of Signal-Landmark that Signal would contribute financially to the TOTAL GENERAL PLANNING effort of the Bolsa Chica provided they were assured annexation would be accomplished. 4 . If any annexation takes place prior to comple- _: : . tion of the planning :effo-rt., the Committee agrees it should come in as a Holding Zone , Zoned RA- 01 or RA-02 (oil zones dependingon density of wells) . 5 . The City Council should move toward a timely decision on: A. Not to Annex or B . Delay Annexation for a finite period of time or C . Initiate proceedings necessary for Annexation. There are position papers enclosed with the Study Committee ' s presentation to City Council on total , partial or no annexation. Recommendations for no annexation are based on the City Council and Staff progress in planning the area complicated by overlapping jurisdictions of City, County, State , Southern California Coastal Commission, and the State Coastal Commission, and the unavaila- bility of funds for in-depth planning. Signal has already spent $2 million on plans for Bolsa Chica and needs reasurrance of future annexation by the City before investing any more time or money. Assembly Bill #2948 (Hart) for acquisiton of additional land for recreational open space in Bolsa Chica will be on the Bolsa Chica Study Committee Page 2 . April 21 , 1976 , State ballot in November. Mr. Cooper supports partial annexation of the 264 acres at the Huntington Harbour westerly bluff area including the triangle area at Edwards and Talbert which is strategically adjacent to Huntington Central Park. It would pave the way for dedication of 15+ acre addition to Huntington Central Park by Signal-Landmark once the land is within the City. If the proposed annexations were to take place and the land developed residential , the City would gain 23 acres of park land or $986 , 156 in cash. It would cost approximately $577 ,500 for park development and $41 , 580 per year for maintenance of the 23 acres . Mr. Cooper believes the balance of Bolsa Chica is too difficult to contemplate for annexation and development until it is known what the State intends to do about it. Proponents for total annexation point to the fact that Bolsa Chica cannot help but influence and be influenced by the City of Huntington Beach surrounding it and it is to the City' s advantage to be in charge of its planning. MOTION: Mr. Tom Cooper moved the Recreation and Parks Commission recommend to the Bolsa Chica Study Committee that the 264 acre Signal Bolsa bluff property south and adjacent to Warner, Los Patos , and Bolsa Chica Streets and the 60 acre triangle sector of property at Talbert and Edwards Streets be annexed by the City to show good faith to Signal-Landmark that future annexation of the entire Bolsa Chica area is forth- coming with the understanding that the City and Signal-Landmark begin a total general planning effort for all of Bolsa Chica. Also, that no development take place until a Master Plan of the entire Bolsa Chica area is finalized. Mr, Rudy Lozano seconded the motion. Motion carried. Respectfually submitted, Norm Worthy., Secretary Recreation and Parks Commission by Katherine Goodall 4 �""iff CITY OF. HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION NUNIINf TON RIM 14 To Mr . Tom Cooper From Mr. Norm Worthy, Director Recreation & Parks Commissioner Recreation , Parks and Human Services Subject BOLSA CHICA ANNEXATION/IMPACT ON Da2e March 24, 1976 RECREATION $ PARKS SERVICES In response to your request for some estimated figures on the financial impact the total annexation or partial annexation of Bolsa Chica would have on Recreation and Parks services , I sub- mit the following : TOTAL ANNEXATION (1460 acres) 1Assessed Value : $ 14 ,600, 000 2) Market Value : $ 58 ,400, 000 ($40, 000 per acre) 3) Income to City Recreation & Parks Department per year (20a per $100 A.V. ) = $29, 200 4) Park acquisition acres or cash (if totally developed R-1) : a) 1460 acres x 5 (homes per acre) = 7 , 300 homes x 3 . 5 (people per home) = 25 , 550 people b) 2S , 5S0 1000 x S = 127 . 75 acres (required dedication) or x $42 , 700 = $5 , 454 , 92S (cash) S) Park development cost : 127 . 75 acres @ $25, 000 per acre = $3 , 193 , 750 6) Park maintenance cost : 127 . 7S acres @ $1 , 800 per acre (per yr) $229 , 9S0 PARTIAL ANNEXATION 264 ac (18 . 0EY 336 ac 23%) 600 ac (41 . 09%) 1162 ac (79. 59%) ] ) 2 , 639, 680 $ 3 ,358 , 0005 ,999, 140 11 ,620, 140 2) $ 10 , SS8 , 720 $13 , 432 , 000 $23 , 996 , 560 $ 46 ,480 , 560 3) $ S , 279 $ 69716 $ 11 ,998 $ 23 , 240 4) Park acquisition acres or cash (if totally developed R-1) : a) 4 , 619 S , 877 10,498 20, 335 b) 23 . 1 ac 29 . 38 ac 60 ac 116 . 2 ac or or or or $986, 156 $1 , 2S4 , 740 $2 , S61 , 573 $4 ,961 , 740 S) $ S77 , S00 $ 734 , S00 $1 , 500, 000 $2 , 90S, 000 6) $ 41 , 580 $ S2 , 884 $ 108 , 000 $ 209 , 160 4%m��Vorth'y, rector Recreation, P rks and Human NW: ac Services cc : City Administrator Recreation r`, Parks Commission PROPOSAL FOR PARTIAL ANNEXATION Presented by: George Stringer for Signal Landmark March 10, 1976 Annexation of the westerly bluff, including the Goodell property. Bring it in under a Holding Zone RA. Environmental assessment of the bluff to proceed. Planning to proceed. Some planning to include the gap. The City and the landowner will jointly fund the planning (Total ) of the Boise Chica. Signal Landmark will work with the Staff in deciding who the Planner will be. Presented March 24 , 1976 : Another proposal. Annex the triangle (See map attached ) at Edwards and Talbert. The City cannot accept a park dedication unless it is in the City. We could dedicate to the City some 15 acres to complete the Central City Park over to where Edwards would ultimately curve around the bottom of the bluff. Dedicating the park site accomplishes the State 's proposal for that piece of property by providing access to Central City Park from the Bolsa Chica. Standard Oil does have some surface rights in the area. March 31 , 1976 Mr. Dick Harlow Director of Planning City of Huntington Beach 2000 gain Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re: Approximately 41 Acres Located Adjacent to Existing Subdivision - Tract 8894 Dear Dick: It is W. R. Grace Properties, Inc. 's (formerly known as Kendall Development Co. , Inc.) desire to have our existing 41 acres which is described in Exhibit "A" annexed to the City of Huntington Beach as expeditiously as possible. We would request that zoning on said property be R-1 to allow us to develop 1t in a similar manner as our existing Tract 8893 and 8894. W. R. Grace Properties, Inc. feels very strongly that this particular 41 acres is a natural extension of our current subdivision, Tracts 8893 and 8894. This is borne out by the fact that the Planning Commission in approving the tentative map for 8630 required that the future extensions of the street systems into this 41 acres be shown on the tentative map. A copy of said map is included for your review. We recognize that the Bolsa Chica Annexation Study Committee is currently reviewing the properties in which property owners have requested annexation to the City of Huntington Beach. W. R. Grace Properties, Inc. would welcome the opportunity to make a presentation before this committee, staff. Planning Commission and/or City Council if you feel this would be appropriate in order to make our position known and to clarify the issue. Very truly yours, W. R. GRACE PROPERTIES. INC. ohm L. Downey Director of Planning JLD:sep cc: Bolsa Chica Study Comnittee— Henry Duke OvAier's Policy Form f; 1970 or California Land Tille A+,sociation Standard Coverage roncy—ivis Schedule C The land wfened to in this(policy is described as follows: PARCEL. 1 : THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH11EST QUARTER OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE I1 HEST, IN TIIE RANCIiO LA Jk0LSA CHTCA, CITY OF HUNTI NGTON [ EACH, CO3U.ATY {)F C)RAI"'Cz , STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP Z;_CORDr. D IN [i00K 51 PAGE 13 LF 1AISCELLAN-70US MAPS, IN THE OFFIC-: OF THE COUNTY 'RECO'DER OF SAID CODUTY. BEGINNING AT T! 7 VIESTF-.RLY .CORNIER OF TRACT NO. 7L34, AS SHOWN ON MAP RECOi?D_:D Ill. BOGY. 330 PAGES 215 THROUGH 29 OF SAID r1IS- CELLANE00S MAPS; T r4CG iLOttG THE: P,%0LOMGATI0,N OF TIME NORTH- wr-s, rLY Li'1 OF SAID TPACT NO. 7634, SOUTH 540 49' 05" LEST 360.00 Fi_r=T; TN�',aCE k1lORTH 470 18; 30" ::CSY 530.00 Fi!r-T; THENCE NriR TH 570 (361 00" WEST 1142.36 FEET; TI NORTH 400 00 • 00" WS51' 3it0. ()0 F_ T TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LIN;r OF THE 0RJ`%iN;GE CGU°7:TY FLQC•D CONTROL DISTRICT kICHT--OF-4IAY, D65CRIBED AS PARC6=L C5-101 IN•1 Df7.I) 2_'CORDr"D IN E1,00K 7181 PAC7f 7118 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, IN THE OFFTC! OF :SAID K-_C0RD'_`R; T•tEN CF. ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINZ.. iiO TH 63° 1-10 ' 14" FAST 600 .00 FEET TO THE r 4f21'iit1�:STERLY PROLOt;GATION' OF THI:F S:N1UT;-I1.:_.5TERLY LINe OF SAID TRACT No. 7634; TIIENd,CE ALOING SAID Pt"�LC�:�r=lTIo�a, SOUTH 450 35' 11" _AST 1904.63 FEZT TO TIME POINT OF BEGINNING, EXCEPT ALL OIL, CAS, HYDPOCARL3ONS AND MINERALS OF L'V7-RY rIND AND C14ARACTER Ie3 OR 04r)s�R AND SUCH WHICH N-!AY f'.E PRODUCED FROM SAID LANDS T0G-` TH%`1Z WITH THE RIGHT TO EXTRACT THE SAVE FROM ALL THE SAID L1'.`;t)5, "UT 1?ITH ^�0 RIGHT TO USE OF AitY f'i✓RTIO! THER' OF A",OVE A PLANE 500 FEET BELOW THE SURFACE OF SUCH LA14DS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF SAID MINERALS, BUT 1V."ITH T•riF PERPETUAL RI(.iIT OF I;JGR'_-SS AND =GR_:+5' BELOV, A D..PTH OF FIVi- I,UI:UF; D (500) FEET BENL'ATIi TFIF. SUPFAC= OF ALL OF SUCH LANDS FGR THE PURPOSE OF DRILLIN ItcTC}, ll::D :R AND THROUGH THE LANDS FROM TH'= SURFACE OF OTHER LA.:-!DS, TOCETII;_R LIIT;! THE RIG TO POOL SAID f2iC-liT5 AND INJTER':STS TL1 SAID .LAND �JTH RIGHTS AND INd ER::: TS IN 01`'HER LA^tDS; SAID RIGHTS ANT) INT:'RESTS IN- SAID LANDS SHALL INCLUD�' ALL SU!1- T'i:t2RAtrEAti RICFi7'S f;r L01' A DEPTH OF FIVE IfUNDR�D (500) FEET BEi.-AT!t THE Sutzrac OF SAID LANDSNECESSARY, IhCIG"=NTAL OR CO`F111ENT TO THE FULL X1ERCI :: OF SAID EXCEPTCD RIGHTS !VAD IIJTI"RESTS.. AtbD SHALL INCLLJD- THE flI!.li'C TO DRILL, -OPEkTTE., J1AV-A*AI^., REPAIR AND REPLrC::, TU;ON'=L, COf:::: HOLES, BORI..S AND I4NJc.:CT1©Z V-'ILLS INTO SAID LAND T 0R TIiiR011(:li rTil� R .Ld=.NDS FlUR TI-tF PUc�i'GSi: QF 2E1`0VI`!G OIL, CAS, HYDRQ- CAR1iC'1 SUDSTAItiCf:S A'-!D NIN—RAL" FROM SAID LA.NnSy OR FROH OTfitR LANDS FOR 'T'HE PURF'0"1:S OF SU;%S1D_NCE C011-1'T!Z0L OR PR;_VL-NTION OF SALT WATER INTRUST(?;d, AS D SCRII"_`D AS BEING FX.CEPM IN D::'=D FROMM SIGNAL PROPERTI�5, I':C. , A CALIFORNIA CORD CRATIQN', TO SIGNAL BOLS•A COfiPORATInti, A CALIF�)IZNIA CORP0RATI^:i, A!'D �,:GNAL U.IL AND GAS CON"I'P.NY, A CORPORATION, DATED AUGUST 9, 1'373, A;ND RI:CoRnED AUGU!�T 17, 1973 IN BCOI,', 10855 PAG;- 340, OF (;FF.ICIAL RLCJRDS. C XI-I I B I T "A" { 540540, SCHED, C i PAGE 2 PARCEL 2: THOSE PORTIONS OF SECTIC!kS 28 AND 33, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 11 WEST, IV' THE CITY OF IIUiyTINGTON BEACH., COUNTY OF ORA',G: , STATE OF C!t.LIFORMIA, AS 511014,N 01"i A MAP FILED IiJ LOOK 92 PAGES 19 THROUGH 28 1CCLU-4VE OF OF SORV-Y, IN THE i:FFICZ OF THE COUNTY CORD,''.:R OF SAID C')U!';TY; DESCRIBED AS FC•LLO'r1S: BEGINN1t:G AT .Tl+I _* S�;UTHEPLY Ct'1PME"Z ;`F TRACT NO. 7634, AS SHOWN GIB! l,i:Nf f?�C.?RDED Iiu rtC K 330 PAGES 26 TH."Al UGH 29 OF MISCv LLA;:IIOUS i MAPS, 1;4 THE OFFIC- OF SAID THENCE ALvf=-,G THE 3OUTH— V!I"STt`rtL.Y LINE OF �,AI D TRACT NO. 76 34, NORTH 480 37' 02" t•!;�ST 24.09 Fc::Y TO .11'--� f'{TN'T AND NORTH 450 35 ' 11" WEST 1589.35 Fl;`.t�T TO THIS 1-'EST'FRLY CC}Ri1E:R C,F SAID TR',CT; TF'i*F:CE ALONG TILL CIF Ti-!:E NORTf!l,=ST::!LY LINE OF SAID TR.,'1CT, SOUTtl 540 40f n5" 41. ST 3,60 .00 F_-T; TIi>wtiCF SOUTH 351 10 ' 55" VAST 300, ()n f"PET; 7l-I: t•.C"' SOUTH 32° 13' 43" FAST 1396 .60 F 'T; TtiENC NDRTH 510 47 ' 30" FSST 305 .Of) F::rT; THENCE ;TOOTH 420 19' 45" !FAST 430.00 FE'.ET T17 THE PJIR�T OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT ALL OIL, GAS.. HYDr'-,,Cr1,2BONS AND MIINERALS OF FVE-PY KIND A"M CFt• Rif CTFR IN C!', U".:D`zER AND SUCH WHICH PAY CIE PRCDUC-D FROt•1 SAID L1}. :h: TOGETHFR WI TI i Tklf: RIGHT TO EXTI:ACT Tli= SAME FROM ALL THE SAID L%?.,DS, t3UT ',!ITH NO ;2I(',HT TO USE OF A14Y PORTION THEREOF AMV6: A P LPN,lz_ 500 FEET BELOW THE SURFACE OF SUCH LMDS FOR THE t'ROI)UCT'? �,N OF SAID I'tIiiERALS, PUT 14TH THE Pr-RPFTUAL RIGHT OF I`JG n;: S r`%ND L'GR.'i SS i)ELOW A DEPTH OF FIVE H,:UND2ED (50 n) FEET B) NZATII Tli SUt?FA.CE OF ALL OF SUCH LANDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DRILLING INTO, Ai'1D THROUGH TIME LANDS f=RC-M THE SURFACE OF OT'HFR l.k �l7 , T0(; ?T!;l= :. V,ITH THE RIGHT TO POOL SAID RIGHTS AND INT_'R,-'5TS 1-41 SAID I_AJND WITH RIGHTS AND INTIrRSETS IN OTHER LANDS; SAID n)rGHT., AND 1'd7'_RFSTS IN SAID LM!DS SHALL II�.CLUDH ALL SUR— TERM,°Flt,.N RI(',HTS 13,:L01, A D•�PTH OF FIV;:: HUNDRED (500) Fc~T CEM;:ATH THE SURFACE OF SAID LANDS NECESSARY, INCIDENTAL OR CONV-'-NIENT TO THE FULL_ IEX,' CISF' OF SAID CXCFPTED '.i1(', iM A:iD I�417;rREST•S, AND SMALL I i;C LUf) Tl "'. RIGHT TO DRILL, OPERATE), !'Ai NTA1^', REPAIR AiND REPLAC-E., TU'-JNFL, COR:`_ H'CiLCS, t;nft~5 !ltiD I oNdErTI O`.1 !TELLS !NTO SAID LA"M TO !:R Ti•!R:iU(',Ii GTHV'R Li•' NIM: FOR THE PURPOSE OF R-Etl0VING OIL, GAS, HYD2t)— CARMN' AND t"11,41•RALS FROM SAID LANDS OR FROtH OTHER LA;':DS FOR Tit:' PU7,P05'S OF SUBSIl�::::.�CL' COMTRCL OR i•'RF.Vr_::TIOrt OF �"AL1' )-.AT"R INTt:t1IIf,'No A5 DC:SCRIi'cD AS BEEING FXC PTED IN D�.;:D FROM SIGNAL PROPE.^.TrFS, It'C. , ,A ChLIF-t,.RNIA CORPICRATION, TO is=;SAL POLSA CORPORATION, A C MFCRNIA C( RP0RATI0-.'4, ',N'D' SIGNAL OIL AN'D GAS COt'SI'A!-,'Y, A CORPORATION', DATE") AUGUST 9, 1973, C'ND RECC'MED AUGUST 17, 1973 IN BOOK 10855 PAGE 340, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. 24 �{ Is SLATER CHANNF.L „6O_�j• s yr'p5 )L 5S I7r +-nv t,r....... � a �=i lb o � �'ss 1� sf cop Y� SEC DW cop 9w)4 See 28 21.51.)E'(D,q as .... _... -- .. .. .. V6, Co . Of AIW!5 ,9Ec 33 i SECTION III RELEVANT LEGISLATION Beilenson Bill SB - 1579 Hart Bill AB - 2948 Wornum Bill AB - 3544 Warren Bill AB - 15 (4) (a)" Y:stablish, in the Resources Agency, the, Ualitornia SENATE BILL No. 1579 Coastal Conservation"Commission and six regional coastal - ;conservation commissions;'.and prescribe their membership, powers, and duties. (b) Terminate each:-regional commission within 30 days Introduced by Senators Beilenson, Behr; Dunlap, Cregorio, after the last required,,Iocal:"coastal program has been certi- Mills, and Smith -Jfied, as prescribed; o `ori:Jarl.uary 1, 1981; whichever is the (Coauthors: Assemblymen McCarthy; Sieroty, and_ ' I ti„�;r�,,.�,,. earliest date:.. : ::.,�:;,«krt.,, ;.. �'Vornum) ; (5) Designate the-commission as the successor in interest, to all remaining obligations powers, duties, responsibilities, benefits,"and interest'of�:the California Coastal Zone Conser ,y.regi February 10,*1976. ` vation Co'mission.oran , oval coastal zone con commission: establish 6d;,:under the .California. `Coastal`Zone. Conservation Act of;,1972 (6) Provides for the`preparation.of local coastal,programs by each city or county ling within thecoastal resource man An act to add Division 20 (.commencing with Section,30000)- agement area; as defined;:and for approval and certification to,:and to amend Sections 25103, 251I5, 25500, 25507; 25508, of any such;program:by an appropriate regional-commission 25514,25519,and 25526of,the Public Resources Code,relating- ; or the commission,'respectively, in conformity with the goals, . to the coastal resources., obi ectives,,"and policics; ftlie'state set forth".in..this bill. . (7) Require, with':prescrib6d exceptions,any person wish- iEcrsrlvl coutisELs DicEST ing to perform or.:undertake..any development.on or after. . 'SB 1579; -as introduced; Beilenson; " Coastal resources.':. . ::' effective'date of this bill �Ohin designated areas,.-to obtain a The:present ,California Coastal Zone Conservation-Act'of: permit authorizing such development from a regional com ' 1972; in effect until January 1, 1977;,provides for:the establish- ::. mission or"the.commfission„as prescribed, whichi;Would have ' ment of the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commis- to meet prescribed-requirements..' sion and six regional coastal zone conservation commissions; .(8):Terminate,with;prescribederceptions, the.:.permit au with prescribed membership, powers; and duties: It provides ': thorny of. the. commission or regional commission over any .for the commission to develop, adopt,andsubmit to the Legis development proposed%within the. area covered'by a local Mature the California'Coastal Zone.C6nservation.Plah.,The act,: . coastal program whic�i14"s been certified and becomes:effec- prohibits, 'with-,prescribed exceptions, developments within ,tive,and delegate sue authority to appropriate city,br county designated.areas of the coastal zone,.as defined;without ob- implementing such'local coastal.program: taining a'�permit"-from a regional commission or the commis (9) Provide for'jud cial review,for penalties,for issuance of sion on appeal. cease an( , esist orders;':and for imposition of.civil fines; in.; .,, This bill, in general, would do all-of the following:.: eluding exemplary:dariiages,'in, connection with:the provi- (1) Enact the California Coastal Conservation Act of 1976...:. sions of this bill. ::,`='- .Declare. _legislative findings relating to_ California.' (10)` Revise the.existing law:as to the jurisdiction of'certify' coastal resources. - ing sites and related powerplant facilities to be located within . (3}- Prescribe goals, objectives, and policies `o£: tlie.'stafe the coastal zone. with:.re`spect to marine environment;`land environment,;ap- (II) :Provide that there shall be no reimbursement pursu pearance-and design, ,development, 'eriergy, transportation, ant to Section 2231':of the Revenue and Taxation Code nor public access, and recreation, and provide','generally, for.car= shall there be an appropriation made by this bill; for specified rying out such goals, objectives, 'and policies in connection reasons, with management of the coastal.resources.: Vote: rriajority..Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. . ,_ '. ., CFn Fn..•v.n.,�ni-.�� �nnn7 r,rnfrrn m. trn,o The native Americans icans were here 1 lLi11 acUou111a010 to the voters. But . , . first, of course. They were the first Avala has problems with the coast- to harvest the bounty of the Califor- The status of the plan, as it stands _ al bill, and how the new coastal nia coastline. And some would say now,is described by one observer as agency would operate, they were the first real conservation merely"a'report to the Legislature.",`": dne hopeful,sign this year is there'' :ills. Words on paper. State shelves are ;': seems to be a greater degree of rea But as 'history'�has a habit of re..', � • jammed with ; ponderous planning �. son and se►ious'study of the issue in cording it,the coast was"discovered''a documents that have done little more.;'r the• :Legislature. It`isn't quite the.. ;�434 years ago when Juan Cabrillo,,! than gather dust over the years.r' ` :,- `good-guys-versus-the-bad-guys battle;.: sailed north from `Mexico, as.' r The.bill.to implement',key provi-'" {of 1972-when,�the,strident voices on ", north perhaps as the Oregon line., '''�"I,� lions of the Coastal-Plan' sponsored `n both sid&got'the most attention.' :," The ships:officers groused, as re=. by'5en.�Anthony C. Beflenson.(D-Los Angeles)declares: "The=California coastal zone is a distinct and valuable natural re-,.!.' Here;Ar e.the �e� Elements ,,.,� ! ,source belonging to all.the:peopte'• T ; j Try`iogetJimJustesento'agreeto,i_ .of California - ' that. He is not alone by any Coastal Plan y means. His sympathizers 'range from fellow ." homeowners'to giant firmsc such as ' What does the California Coastal source protection, where economic Exxon Oil Co. Plan seek to'do? Here are the key development,conflicts with conserva- The plan declares that it protects ;..elements: _ tion, >kvhere urban expansion com- the rights of property;owners; that,s —The plan promotes: productive''... peter with the aetention of natural,. critical land needed for public owner-. agriculture, viable communities and areas;'or where short-run gains re- ship,and'access";will"be.adequately:,z neighborhoods, expansion of com- paid for. mercial fishing activity and fisheries cult in the forfeiture of long-run eco- 1 It also says,"The property rights of research, 'acquisition of additional nomic benefits. a'landowner are not absolute." parklands, restoration of degraded —The plan is highly restrictive in 'There is a gray area where land,.. coastal environments and continued its control over the dredging and fill- ' owners contend their rights are' .;'drevelopment of.lexisting ports and ing of coastal wetlands. its protection ` abridged: and their land devalued_ ,..mannas." "' . of areas of unusual natural or histor- merely because it "might" be bought,.- —The plan seeks to achieve bat- is value and in its regulation of acti r� '. or needed some day. ance where there is a competition yities that involve substantial en-_ iA lot depends on whoseox is being: ..'among goals, such as where increas- Vironmental risk or the loss of pro- ' gored. ;l ing coastal access competes with re- ductive agricultural or forest lands. fin, EVALUATION: AB 2948 - HART BILL PRESENTED BY: Herb Chatterton, Amigos de Bolsa Chica March 10, 1976. Places bond issue of $290,000,000 on November 1976 election. The Edwin L. Z 'berg Coastal Park Fund will be used as follows: a. $150,000 ,000 Acquisitions to state park system. b. $ 50,000,000 Grants to local governments for acquisition of recreational resources. C. S 10,000,000 Acquisition and restoration of property for wildlife management by Department of Fish and Game. d. S 55,000,000 For local grants and state expense for other park , recreation and historical resources. For items a & b, the first priorities are those consistent with the Coastal Zone Conservation Commission recommendations and that are: (i) Land and water areas best suited to serve the recreational needs of urban populations shall be given priority over outlying land and water areas. (ii) Land and water areas of significant environmental importance , such as, habitat protection, shall have priority over other less important areas. (iii) Land and water areas in either of the above categories for which development or a use incompatible with the resource or recreational value of such area is proposed shall be given the highest priority and shall be acquired or protected before land or water areas experiencing little or no development pressure. AB 3544 - Wornum PRESENTED BY: Tom Cooper, Recreation and Parks Commission March 31 , 1976 LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL 'S DIGEST AB 3544, as introduce, Wornum (Res- , L.U. , & E. ) . State Coastal Conservancy. There is no existing law providing for a state agency with authority or responsibility to act as a conservancy over .specific areas in the Coastal Zone of the state. This bill, in general, would do all of the following: (1 ) Declare legislative findings relating to the lands within the coastal zone , as defined. (2 ) Establish in the Resources Agency, the State Coastal Con- servancy and prescribe its membership, powers, and duties. (3) Authorize the conservancy to acquire fee title, development rights , easements , or other interests in designated land located in the coastal zone, subject to designated certification of the California Coastal Conservation Commission, proposed to be established by Senate Bill No. 1579 of this session, require the conservancy to return to private use of ownership lands so acquired for agricultural preservation, and require the conservancy to pay fees to local public. agencies, as defined, and special districts , for loss of revenue due to conservancy having an interest in the land. Authorize the conservancy to award grants , as prescribed, to local public agencies for coastal restoration projects and coastal resources enhancement projects , as. defined, and authorize the conservancy to undertake any such project under prescribed conditions. (5) Provide for establishing of resource protection zones and preservation of significant coastal resources areas. (6 ) Provide for acquisition by the Department of Parks and Recreation, of public access ways along the coast line of the state. ( 7) Provide that this bill shal become. operative only if SB 1579 is enacted. OFFICE; OF THE CITY ATTORNEY OPI14ION NO. 76-14 March 15, 1976 SUBJECT: 'Impact of Assembly Bill No . 15 on Proposed Bolsa Chica Annexation REQUESTED BY: Bolsa Chica Annexation Committee PREPARED BY: . Don P. Bonfa, City Attorney John O'Connor, Deputy City Attorney QUESTION: What is the impact of Assembly Bill No . 15 upon the annexation issues relating to Bolsa Chica? OPINION: See Discussion. DISCUSSION: Assembly Bill No. 15 creates the "California Agricultural Lands Act" which is designed to conserve prime agricultural land. The bill establishes an agricultural land use policy : (1) That agricultural lands are a finite and irre- placeable resource; (2) That such lands should, to the maximum possible extent , be maintained and preserved for the production" of food and fiber; and (3) That such lands should not be converted to other than agricultural uses except where such other uses are clearly , paramount to agricultural use of the land and it is clearly unreasonable to use other than agricultural land for such purposes . To implement these policies, the bill required all state and local agencies which have within ,their jurisdiction an aggregate of 1,600 acres or more of land in actual agricultural use, or were zoned for such use, to identify and delineate on maps the location of all prime agricultural land within ,their jurisdiction within 120 days " of the effective date of Assembly Bill No . 15 . ,. Under Section 67750 of this bill, a public entity with less than 1,600 acres of such land is exempted from the Act . We have been OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY March 15 , 1976 OPINION NO. . 76-14 Page 2 advised by the Planning Department that there are less than 1,600 acres of agricultural as defined in this bill within the City of Huntington Beach; therefore, this bill would not be directly applicable to the City of Huntington Beach, however, it would be applicable to th,e County of Orange. Prime agricultural land within the meaning of this 'Act is defined in Section 67726 , and provides : , " 'Prime agricultural land' means an area of land, whether a single parcel or contiguous parcels, which:, (i) is over 20 acres in size; (ii) on the date on which this title is chaptered, has not been developed for a use other than an agricultural use ; and (iii) meets any of the following qualifi- cations : (1) Land which qualifies. for rating as class I or class II in the Soil Conservation Service land use capability classification; , (2)' Land which qualifies for rating 80 through 100 St.orie Index Rating; C3) Land which supports livestock used for the production of food and fiber and which has an annual . carrying capacity equivalent of .at least one animal unit per acre, as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture in the National Handbook on Range and Related Grazing Lands, July 1967, developed pursuant to Public Law 46, December, 1935; (14) Land planted with fruit or nut-bearing trees, vines , bushes , or crops which have a nonbearing period of less than five years and which will normally return during the commercial bearing period on an annual basis from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant production not less than two hundred dollars ($200) per acre; . (5) Land which has returned from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant products an annual gross value of not less than two hundred dollars ($200) per acre for three of the previous five years . . . . " If the Balsa Chica land could meet any of the qualifications (1) through (5) of Section 67720, it could be included within the Orange .County plan. (Section 67750 limits application of this Act to land within the "jurisdiction" of the public entity, and. while the City 's sphere of influence may extend beyond City boundaries, ,jurisdiction extends only to the •boundaries, therefore', the 4uris- diction over the Balsa Chica under this Act is in the 'County. ) We have been advised by the Planning Department (copy attached) that the Balsa Chica does not come within the qualification of :subsection (J.) ov of Section 67'j20 since it is not land Vhlch quali.fiefs :Vor° r!ltlnL class -I- , class Il in the Soil Conservation Service .1,,und use capability classification, or, land which qualific-., for ratin(.; 3Q through 10'0 Storie Index Rating. However, a srt;all portion of the Bolsa Chica bluff area has apparently been under cultivation; and if this ,has. been for three of the last five years , and produced not less than $200 '' per acre, it would fall within the purview of Section 67720 (5) . *, 1'he portion of the property under cultivation (if it qualifies)' may be included under the Orange County's plan and that would y be the extent of any impact of AB 15 on the Bolsa Chica annexa- tion. DON P. BONP " City Attorney and k /r J, IiN 0^'+C01414OR ; Deputy City Attorney DPB.JOCser Attachment .Kr r�,qst CITY OF HUNTMNGTO" BEACH i INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION i1UNIINGTON BEACN i i To John O'Connor From Dave Eadi ` - Subject Agricultural Land Date March 15, 197644 In furtherance of• our phoney conversation regarding the extent of agricultural land within the City of Huntington Beach, please consider the following information in rendering your legal opinion requested by Dick Harlow ,, on March 11, 1976. "w The City does not have more than 1,600 acres of prime agricultural . land as defined in Assembly Bill #15. The unannexed area in and around the Bolsa Chica Marsh,while 4'3 ' totally undeveloped, does not qualify as prime agricultural' land. g . .,a` . I trust this information answers your questions regarding agricultural land. DE:gc . %AUNT{No� AI 197 4 pro ktAtl k �. STRINGER COMPANY l/WW L--rVj(,('l"' AA �- ��•���^� 178130S1rypnrlc Circl© Irvine,Culifurnio 92707 COMMENTS ON A. B. NO. 15 WARREN BILL March 16, 1976 1. Would limit the use of prune agricultural land essentially to agricultural purposes. Z. Huntington Beach would probably be exempt since there are probably, less than 1600 acres zoned and/or used for agricultural purposes. 3. Orange County would not be exempt, hence, Bolsa Chica could be affected. 4. Land could later be excluded if the City finds it is needed for urban growth and urban growth is necessary for the public welfare and if approved by the State Agricultural Resources Council. 5. Land (unless within an exempt agency at the time of passage of the Act), will be determined to be prime agricultural land if any of the following exist: A. Class I or Class H per Soil Conservation Service. land use capability. B. Rating of 80 through 100 (Storie Index Rating). �. Could support at least one (1) animal unit per acre. D. Could normally produce a gross value of agricultural products of $Z00. 00 per acre per year. / E. Land which has produced a gross value of agricultural products of $Z00. 00 per acre per year in three of the last five years. 6. Depending on interpretation, Bolsa Chica might be classified as prime agricultural land. 7. There are numerous similar acts being discussed, and the chances of this one passing without substantial modifications are, I am told, not likely. George D. Pringer :crm ` , SECTION IV AREAS OF AGREEMENT t BOLSA CHICA STUDY COMMITTEE AREAS OF AGREEMENT 1 . There should be TOTAL GENERAL PLANNING of the Bolsa Chica. 2. TOTAL GENERAL PLANNING should takel,place before ANY development begins. I 3. If any annexation takes place priori to planning the Committee agrees it should come in as a !Holdi.ng Zone, Zoned RA-01 or RA-02. 4 . The City Council should move toward a timely decision on: A. Not to Annex or B. Delay Annexation for a finite period of time or C. Initiate proceedings necessary for Annexation. 5. (This is an offer made by Mr. Stringer for Signal Landmark) Signal Landmark would be willing to finance a portion of the TOTAL GENERAL PLANNING, but must have some assurance Annexation will take place. 6. Matrix of Alternates for, Annexation', 4 (714) 847-1225 GRETCHEN A. HOAR D a (714) 847-1226 SUITE 107 APR 2 3 19-16 HUNTINGTON ExEcUTIVE PARK 10OS2 BEACH BOULEVARD CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH.GA 92647 CITY COUNCIL OFFICE April 19 , 1976 Huntington Beach City Council Huntington Beach City Hall APR 20" 1976 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEAC[I ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE Councilmembers : The purpose of this letter is to express the concerns of Amigos de Bolsa Chica regarding annexation of the Bolsa Chica properties by the City of Huntington Beach. Amigos de Bolsa Chica believes that the titles held by Signal Landmark Properties , Inc. and W. R. Grace,, Inc. to large areas of the Bolsa Chica lowlands may be defective because of the possible invalidity of the land exchange, between the State Lands Commission and Signal in 1973. Amigos de Bolsa Chica therefore urges a no-annexation policy -regarding these lands . Our doubts as to Signal and Grace ' s title are based on the following considerations : 1. Title to the tidelands in California is not absolute , but is subject to an easement in favor of the public as set forth in the California Constitution, Article XV, Section 3. The words of the Constitution are considered incorporated in any grant of the tidelands , the same as if they were inserted in the grant, and they become � part of it and qualify it. The estate granted, theref e , is limited to the uses which do not interfere with the ri9ts of the public. 2. Public trust uses are not limited to commercial navigation and fishery, but embrace the public interest in preserving open spaces for recreation and wildlife . Marks v Whitney 6 C 3d 251. 3. Government Commissioned maps of the Bolsa Chica dated prior to 1890 indicate that the tidelands of the Bolsa Chica were once much larger than at present , and once covered almost all the lowlands outside of the present city limits . Diminution of the area subject to the ebb and flow of the tide was due pimaTily to damming and diverting activities at the turn of the century by the Bolsa Land Company, Signal ' s predecessor in title. The construction of the dam and the filling of the ocean entrance were clearly illegal. Property c-� Huntington Beach City Council April 19 , 1976 Page Two held by the state in trust for the public use cannot be gained by adverse possession, and the statute of limitations does not apply to an action to recover such property from one using it for private purposes not consistent with the public use. City of Los Angeles v Anderson 206 C 662 . The 1973 exchange between Signal and the State Lands Commission may have been invalid, because the findings required to be made before a conveyance of tidelands to a private grantee by the State Lands Commission may not have been supported by facts . The State may grant tidelands to a private grantee if it finds that those lands are valueless for trust purposes ; if they have been or are to be reclaimed pursuant to and in the course of a highly beneficial public program of harbor development ; and if they constitute a relatively small parcel of the total acreage involved. Long Beach UlMansell , 3 C 3d 462 . Furthermore , the Appelate Court in County of Oran e v Heim, 30 Cal App 3d 694 , found an exchange etween Orange County and the Irvine Company invalid because the facts surrounding the exchange did not support the finding thatthe lands involved constituted a relatively small parcel of the total acreage involved. The Court found that, because the Irvine lands to be conveyed in the exchange were already tidelands under public control and subject to the Constitutional mandate , the County was actually relinquishing much more than a small parcel. It was relinquishing large parcels overwhich it had an easement. The 1973 land exchange in the Bolsa Chica is factually similar to the facts surrounding the Upper Newport Bay exchange discussed in the Heim case , and hence is subject to unwinding by the Courts , should a lawsuit to confirm title be initiated. For the above reasons , Amigos de Bolsa Chica urges the City Council to adopt a cautious attitude towards annexing land burdened with dubious title which may make impossible ultimate development in a manner1financially beneficial to the City; and which may embroil the City of Huntington Beach in litigation over such title. Very truly yours , Gretchen A. Hoad Attorney for Amigos de Bolsa Chica cc: Don Bonfa, Huntington Beach City Attorney C.E. Parker, Attorney. at Law Bolsa Chica Annexotion Committee GH/lm �b DATE : February 13, 1976 TO: City Council FROM: Bolsa Chica Study Committee, Councilman Duke, Chairman INTERIM REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL The reports sym:aarized herein are of gathered facts. We have not addressed them to what their effect might be,. We hope to do that at our next meeting in two weeks, and hopefully too/ will be able to offer some alternatives. In order to make our final report more complete we are waiting to hear the results from the Coastal Commission meeting in San Francisco next week. A Transcription of the report given to the Bolsa Chica Study Committee by Mr. Mel Carpenter is included in this report. HHD:ps Enclosure BOLSA CHICA STUDY COMMITTEE Interim Report To City Council February 13, 1976 The following are summaries of Sub-Committee Reports: ECONOMIC Total Annexation would yield $172,000 a year to the City in Property Tax and Barrel Tax, and would cost the City $68,000 the first year, and $60,000 a year there after for services to the area. Report Attached. GROWTH If annexation took place and development were to occur, then the City Ordinances governing park sites, 5 acres per 1 ,000 residences, would take effect. Bolsa Chica is designated i major Cog Stone Site. See January 21 , Minutes POLITICS As for regional impacts and State and National Control, there mould be no change if Annexation takes place. There would be changes in the chain of approval, from County to City, for agy deveXQpmont. , The e,. woUld be some change for School D!istridts=., Annexation; w641d change Tax. revenues to the City. Report Attached. TIMING OF ANNEXATION Annexation per se would not have an impact on the State 's plans for acquisition, but changes in zoning would probably have a significant impac,t� on the Cost to the State for Acquisition. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Outlined by City Attorney's Office. a. Preparation of a general plan of the area; b. Implementation of appropriate zoning consistent with the general plan; c. Approval of annexation by the Local Agency Formation Commission; d. An environmental analysis; and e. Compliance with the require- ments for annexation of uninhabited territory. See Report for specifics. OWNERSHIP IDENTIFICATION Map Attached. OBLIGATIONS Outlines same areas as City Attorneys office. PLANNING See page 2 of this Summary. BOLSA CHICA STUDY COMMITTEE Summary of Reports Page 2. BOLSA CHICA STUDY COMMITTEE Sub-Committee Report - Planning Brian Parkinson BOLSA CHICA ANNEXATION For Annexation to take place City and Land owners must reach agreemment. LAFCO : Approval is required Review and approve or disapprove with or without amendment , wholly, partially or conditionally proposals for: The annexation of territory to local agencies. a. Cannot directly regulate land use by condition. b. Can require the city to prezone. c . Cannot specify law or in what manner territory shall be prezoned. E . I .R. Must be prepared for LAFCO action. Some E . I .R. -- -- may be acceptable for General Plan and annexation. GENERAL PLAN Amendment required to include the area. Zoning of Property Is required to obviate a potential legal problem for following reasons : 1 . City Code provides all non-zoned property would be R-1 . (Section 9823. 1 ) Probably invalid because there would be no public hearing as required by the Planning Act. (Government Code 65854 ) 2. Prezoning expressed is provided by HBOC - Sec. 9823 & Gov. Code 65860 Annexation Proceedings Must be uninhabited (less than 12 percent who have been registered to vote in the territory for at least 54 days ) at time of filing. COASTAL COMMISSION Would not be involved with annexation, but would be involved with granting of permits. For the Council - a copy of the Fish and Game Sub-Committee Report on what would be best for the ecological reserve is attached. It was prepared by two biologists. ANNEXATION ALTERNATIVES No Annexation 264 Acre Annex. State Land Only All Except Total Annexation State Annex. Annexation Acres 0 264 300 825 1125 PRE-ZONING ALTERNATIVES R-1 No hearingAssessed Value Assessed Inappropriate norease Assd. to rease Assd. rezone as City Tax inirease a€yease Taxes to ocEiiye Taxes o H ise Taxes master planned Property Tax later Bbl Tax Cont.Ag.Use Unecon. ueAg. Use e3Ag.Use Use nc8 ugc (R1 c ROS-DFG) Services Planning Bes fo mas er �lan (DFG) R-A & Rec. Assessed Value Assessed Value ± ? Inappropriate Agif V lue Agsf glue Open Space City Tax Some Tax to City sots TIX to �o y�iax to hearing Property Tax necessary Bbl. Tax rezone as Use Master Planned Resources later Services Planning Look at each from 3 points of view - City Government, Citizens , Landowners BOLSA CHICA STUDY COMMITTEE Sub-Committee Report - Planning Margret Carlberg BOLSA CHICA ANNEXATIONS CITY REVENUE ESTIMATES January 19, 1976 Assessed Value Property Tax Oil Barrel Tax Grand Total Annexation Taxable Ownershi s Only Revenue Production @ Annual Land Minerals Total @ $1. 62/$100 Brls/Da $. 08/Brl. Revenue Entire Unin- 3 Sri a lo'L�ym�A �'�'� =a ac? corporated Area $1, 944, 050 $2, 426, 250 $4, 370, 300 $70, 799 Initial Request (260 acres) plus MWD plus Goodell plus Kendall $1, 645, 600 $ 766, 890 $2, 412, 490 $39, 082 250 $ 7, 300 $ 46, 382 State 300 Ac. N.A. Nil Nil Nil 300 $ 8, 760 $ 8, 760 NOTE: The above estimates are based on current assessed (excluding personal property) valuations, with no allowance for changes as a result of annexation, zoning or development. There will be some expense to the City as a result of any of these annexations, but they will probably be minor, except for the one time cost of planning, which is estimated to be $100, 000, more or less, for �. the entire Bolsa Chica area. V . Y t DATE: January 30, 1976 TO: Bolsa Chica Annexation Committee ATTN: Councilman Duke, Chairman FROM: planning Department The Bolsa Chic& Annexation Committee at its January 21 meeting requested additional information relative to the estimated cost of annexing Bolsa Chica. Attached are rough estimates of these costs. If the Conaittee needs any additional information, feel free to call ,on us at your convenience. i I RAH:ja Enclosure I I I .^ Now GSTIRATED COST OF ANNEXING BOLSA CBIC& l . Processing Costs Planning 40 bro. @ $8 ' 61 = $ 344 ' 40 City Clerk 56 hrs. @ $5. 79 = 324 . 24 Public Works 296 bra. @ $8' 61 = 2, 548 . 56 Attorney 24 hrs. @ $8 , 70 = 208 . 80 Finance 8 hrs . @ $7' 15 = 57 , 20 Print Shop 8 hrs. @ $6' 09 = 48. 72 Personnel $3 , 531. 92 (+ZU%) Employee Benefits 706. 38 (+65% ) Overhead 2 , 295. 74 Processing Subtotal $ 6 , 534 2' Additional Fire Service Costs (average) 45, 500 3 ' Additional Police Coats (average) 16 , 250 Total $68 , 384 s `I44W Fire Protection I'ht, Orange County Fire Department is presently responsible for providing fire prevention service to the unincorporated Bolsa Chica area . If large oil or brush fires occurred, the Huntington Beach Fire Department would provide manpower and equipment through a mutual aid agreement with the County. The Huntington Beach Fire Department indicated that such service can be provided at no additional cost to the City. Thus , for all practical purposes, the current fire service cost to the City of Huntington Beach is zero. After annexation, Lhe Huntington Beach Fire Department would become the responsible agency for fighting fires in the Bolsa Chica area. The City Fire Department foresees little or no need to expand fire facilities, equipment or manpower to service Balsa Chica until development occurs. Costs would probably be the same as before annexation. However , based on an estimation of number of fire incidents by land use, a maximum annual cost can be predicted. Approximately one percent of all fire incidents in the City are on vacant or oil lands at an estimated cost of $28 per acre. The total annual cost to service the 1625 acre Bolsa Chica area after annexation will be about $45, 500, or 1 . 37 percent of the Fire .Department budget. As the Bolsa Chica is developed an imbalance of community fire protection will occur. Increased construction and population in that area will require an Engine Company to be located on Talbert near Bolsa Chica. The Fire Department also indicated that an additional ladder company will be needed at this location y , within five to ten years. As a result , costs will increase but are as yet indeterminate. 2 . Police Protection The Bolsa Chica area is currently under the jurisdiction of the Orange County Sheriff ' s Department. The City of Huntington Beach Police Department provides little or no services to Bolsa Chica. Only on rare occasions would the City Police Department enter Bolsa Chica , such as an airplane crash from Meadowlark Airport, fires involving the Huntington Beach Fire Department, or the pursuit of suspects committing crimes within the city limits. The Police Department indicates that such activities do not hinder its overall capabilities or require an expansion of manpower and equipment. - As a result , the cost to the City is now considered zero. After annexation , the Huntington Beach Police Department would become the responsible agency servicin g the Bolsa Chica area. Annexation will not significantly affect police services and expenditures until development occurs. Approximately . 8 percent of all police calls in the City involve vacant or oil lands at an estimated cost of $10 per acre. Applying this criteria, the total annual cost to service the Bolsa Chica area after annexation will be about $16 , 250 or . 29 percent of the police Department budget. This indicates a maximum expenditure. In most years, costs would probably be closer to zero. As Bolsa Chica develops, police service and manpower requirements will be reevaluated. Development will necessitate regular patrolling activity and costs will probably increase. These costs will be unknown until the type of development is determined. BOLSA CHICA STUDY COMMITTEE Sub-Committee Report - Politics Members Ruth Bailey Bill Foster Ruth Finley A. REGIONAL IMPACTS CHANGE IF ANNEXED Orange County Transit Dist. Air Resources Metropolitan Water Dist. Regional Coastal Commission Cal Trans Flood Control Dist. B. AREA5 OF CONTROL NATIONAL Congress Army Corp of Engineers Energy Commission (Price of Oil) Coastal Zone Management Act E.P.A. - Offshore oil , On Shore Dev. STATE Legislature Fish and Game State Coastal Commission State Lands Commission Beach Division of State Lands Parks and Recreation ? Attorney General COUNTY Board of Supervisiors X Local Agency Formation Com. X Planning Commission X LOCAL City Council X would be lead agency Planning Commission X School Districts X ( Tax Revenue to City from Oil 3.08 taxes etc . $1 .62 BOL5A CHICA STUDY COMMITTEE Sub-Committee Report - Politics Page 2 Change in the chain of approvals for any development. Differences in Ordinances ie. , Archeological, Grading. If pre-zoned, must conform to General Plan. If Acquisition by the State took place, then the State would be the Lead Agency - Control of development , etc. Economic Benefits to the City of Annexation with or without Acquisition overlapping of our committee Haz ards Faults Flood Plain • SUB-COI UT'3 EE PbRT TIMINC 'OE ANNEXATION Central 'Question: . Would annexation have significant impacts on the'. State°s possible acquisition of lands on the Eolsa Chica? Would annexation increase appraised value of the property, and thus adversely affect State acquisition plans? Discussions with Mssrs . Mcloud, Whitcomb, and Samners of the. Orange County Assessors Office lead to the following generalizations : 1. . Assessed or appraised valuations are intended to mirror the market value of a property. Appraisals are raised when a property has an increased resale value due to, among other things , changes in laws , bounderies , or zoning which make the property more readily developable , developable- at increias'-e.d~ density, or-..developable for a restricted use , such as"commercial ." '2.; • Annexation per se probably would not alter the appraised valuation. 3. Changes in zoning, services available, or other factors affecting developability which may be inherent io annexation would influence the appraised valuation. Conclusion. .The impacts of each of these influential factors on a particular annexation must be considered to determine the effect of the annexation on the appraisal value. In a majority of the Eolsa Chica lowlands , where oil extraction precludes immediate development, annexation would have a small impact on appraised value. However, in developable low areas and the bluffs , annexation-would.-. . " (a) change the zoning from agriculture and resource removal-to residential , a "higher" use, and (b) provide the services necessary for development. Thus , the appraised valuations of these "developable" areas would be expected to significantly increase after annexation. To' tobt- the­above theory, comparisons wre made of the assessed valuations of' similar properties inside and outside • the city. In the low lands , near Talbert and Edwards , properties inside the city were valued 10% higher per acre than immediately adjacent parcenls not in the city. On the westerly bluff, near the end of Eolsa Chica Road, properties inside the city were assessed 14% higher than adjacent incorporated land. 'Timing ,of Annexation Page 2 Summary: It is possible that annexation would have little immediate effect on oil field areas. Annexation would significantly increase appraised values in the bluff areas and a developable strip along Talbert , from Edwards to the westerly bluff. k This commitee has also learned that passage of the "Hart Bill ," currently in the State Legislature, would place the acquisition bond issue on the State ballot in the Fall-of 1976 rather that 1977. OFFICE OF 11167�® CITY ATTORNEY g. P. O. BOX 190 HUNTINGTON BEACH cfc .Tr c�ot� CALIFORNIA 92648 DON P. BONFA TELEPHONE CITY ATTORNEY (714)536-W55 January 21, 1976 TO: Councilman, Henry H. Duke, Chairman, Bolsa Chica Annexation Study Committee FROM: John O' Connor, Deputy City Attorney SUBJECT: Legal Implications of the Bolsa Chica Annexation This memorandum responds to your request for an analysis of the legal implications of annexation of the Bolsa Chica area. The annexation process must include : (a) Preparation of a general plan of the area; (b ) Implementation of appropriate zoning consistent with the general plan; (c ) Approval of annexation by the Local Agency Formation Commission; (d) An environmental analysis ; and (e ) Compliance with the requirements for annexation of uninhabited territory . We will proceed to examine each of these requirements separately . 1 . Preparation of a, General Plan. Government Code Section 65300 provides : "Each planning agency shall prepare and the legislative body of each county and city shall adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and of any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency' s judgment bears relation to its planning. TO: Councilman Henry H. Duke FROM: John O' Connor, Deputy City Attorney SUBJECT: Legal Implications of the Bolsa Chica Annexation Page 2 Government Code Section 65301 further states : "The general plan shall be so prepared that all or individual elements of it may be adopted by the legislative body, and so that it may be adopted by the legislative body for all or part of the territory of the county or city and such other territory outside its boundaries which in its judgment bears relation to its planning. " The Bolsa Chica is presently designated as a Planning Reserve under the General Plan Land Use Element . This was an interim designation to meet the State deadline requiring a General Plan on or before December 31, 1973. Monica Florian of the Planning Staff has succinctly stated the General Plan status of the Bolsa Chica as follows : "As adopted by Council, Resolution :Jo. 3814 on December 19 , 1973, the Land Use Element of the General Plan (required by Government Code Section 65302a) designates the Bolsa Chica area as Ecological Reserve (that acreage proposed for state use ) and Planning Reserve. As defined in the Land Use Element, Planning Reserve is ' a broadly defined interim desig- nation intended for areas where long-term comprehen- sive planning and development is anticipated. ' Uses may include : 1. Land areas in a predevelopment phase that are not yet fully planned or ready for immediate development 2 . Land in transition ' to ultimate use that may be designated by a 'holding' zone (such as the 'RA ' District ) 3. Resource production areas including land in use for agriculture or oil extraction purposes . (Oil extraction may be combined with land designated as industrial, residential agricultural, or residential. ) The Element further states that ' the intent of this category is not to preclude development , but to identify such areas as deserving special attention and planning efforts . ' As an additional policy for the Bolsa Chica, the Element states : ' Certain problems and questions that are inherent in hey development of this area should be addressed and prior to proceeding with annexation. ' TO: Councilman Henry H. Duke FROM: John O 'Connor, Deputy City Attorney SUBJECT: Legal Implications of the Bolsa Chica Annexation Page 3 "The Open Space and Conservation Elements of the General Plan (required by Government Code Section 65536) adopted by Council Resolution No . 3813 on December 19, 1973, designate the Bolsa Chica as a First Priority Area in the City with greatest potential for preservation of open space and destined to serve as the core of the Open Space Program. "The Seismic-Safety Elements of the General Plan (required by Government Code Section 65355 ) adopted by Council Resolution No. 3964 , designate portions of the Bolsa Chica area as High Seismic Risk and Flood Plain areas making seismic safety and flood hazard policies applicable there . " The general plan for the Bolsa Chica must be integrated with the general plan of the City, and consistent with the policy and objectives of other elements of the general plan. 2 . Zoning of the Bolsa Chica in Consistency with the Adopted General Plan. Government Code Section 65860 requires that City zoning ordinances shall be consistent with the general plan. This has been a mandatory requirement imposed upon cities since 1974 . Government Code Section 65859 authorizes a city to prezone unincorporated terri- tery adjoining the city. This section reads : "A city may prezone unincorporated territory adjoining the city for the purpose of determining the zoning that will apply to such property in the event of subsequent annexation to the city. The method of accomplishing such prezoning shall be as provided by this chapter for zoning within the city . Such zoning shall become effective at the same time that the annexation becomes effective. " Government Code Section 65854 requires that prezoning procedures comply with the notice and hearing requirements of the Government Code. Section 65854 (c ) reads : " (c ) In prezoning, if the matter is before a city planning commission the notice shall be Published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the area TO: Councilman Henry H. Duke FROM: John O 'Connor, Deputy City Attorney SUBJECT: Legal Implications of the Bolsa Chica Annexation Page 4 to be prezoned, or if there is none, it shall be posted, in at least three public places in the area to be prezoned. In addition to notice by publication, a county or city may give notice of the hearing in such other manner as it may deem necessary or desirable . " Further, prezoning is authorized under Huntington Beach Ordinance Code Section 9823 which provides : "The City Council recognized that a city' s social and economic life is seldom limited to the area within its corporate limits; that a real need exists to consider zoning and physical planning on the basis of the existing and developing area rather than only the areas currently within the City limits; that State law recognized the existence of the close relationship between a city and the area contiguous thereto . In view of such policy and purpose and the possibility of annexation of adjoining lands the City undertakes to establish an expansion of a consistent land-use ,pattern that shall prevail if and when areas contained within such expanded plans to annex to the City. For that purpose prezoning maps may be developed and adopted in the same manner prescribed by this Ordinance Code, for the classification or reclassification of property within the City, including procedures for and concurrent consideration of variances, conditional use permits and site plans. " Huntington Beach Ordinance Code Section 9823 . 1 provides, in relative part, " . . . If a prezoning map for an area has not been adopted then such area shall , upon annexation, be deemed to be classified R1 . . . " . It is our firm legal conclusion that zoning procedures must comply with provisions of the Government Code and the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. Section 9ff23 . 1 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code to the extent that it purports to zone property R1 without the hearing and notice process is invalid. Therefore, we would suggest and recommend that the area be prezoned before anno at'ion into the City, or if 'a substantial amount of Planning TO: Councilman Henry H. Duke FROM: John O' Connor, Deputy City Attorney SUBJECT: Legal Implications of the Bolsa Chica Annexation Page 5 Department study is involved for appropriate prezoning, that the area be placed in a moratorium under Government Code Section 65858 until such time as the zoning studies are completed and appropriate zoning adopted. In addition, it is necessary that the zoning of the Bolsa Chica comply with any local open space plan in effect in the City . Government Code Section 65566 provides : "Any action by a county or city by which open- space land or any interest therein is acquired or disposed of or its use restricted or regulated, whether or not pursuant to this part , must be consistent with the local open-space plan. " 3. Approval by the Local Agency Formation Commission. Any annexation of the Bolsa Chica, in whole or in part , must be approved by the Local Agency Formation Commission. Government Code Section 35003 provides : "No petition seeking the annexation or transfer of territory to a city shall be circulated or filed, nor shall any public officer accept any such petition for filing, 'nor shall any legislative body initiate proceedings to annex or transfer on its own motion, until approval of the local agency formation commission is first obtained pursuant to Chapter 6 . 6 (commencing with Section 54773, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 • " The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) was created by State legislation in 1963, to regulate annexation of territory within each county in California. The Commission is given broad powers over annexation of new territory to cities (Government Code Section 54790) ; and has authority to adopt standard procedures for evaluation, incorporation and annexation proposals . LAFCO allows the County to follow a regional approach towards annexation and was designed to eliminate the haphazard and undesirable annexa- tion practices which existed in California prior to 1963 . Factors considered by LAFCO in reviewing an application for approval are set forth in Government Code Section 511796: "Factors to be considered in the review of a pro- posal shall include but not be limited to : (a) Population, population density; land area and land use; per capita assessed valuation; topography, TO: Councilman Henry H. Duke FROM: John O'Connor, Deputy City Attorney SUBJECT: Legal Implications of the Bolsa Chica Annexation Page 6 natural boundaries , and drainage basins; proximity to other populated areas ; the likelihood of significant growth in the area, and in adjacent incorporated and unincorporated areas, during the next 10 years . (b ) Need for organized community services ; the present cost and adequacy of governmental services and controls in the area; probable future needs for such services and controls; probable effect of the proposed incorporation, formation, annexation, or exclusion and of alternative courses of action on the cost and adequacy of services and controls in the area and adjacent areas . (c ) The effect of the proposed action and of alternative actions, on adjacent areas, on mutual social and economic interests and on the local govern- mental structure of the county. (d) The definiteness and certainty of the bound- aries of the territory, the nonconformance of proposed boundaries with lines of assessment. or ownership, the creation of islands or corridors of unincorporated territory, and other similar matters affecting the proposed boundaries . " Among its powers, LAFCO has the authority to require prezoning of territory to be annexed [Government Code Section 54793 (a) ] , and has authority to condition annexation Government Code Section 54790.1 ) . The complete provisions of the Government Code relative to LAFCO procedures are set forth as Appendix 1 to this memorandum. 4 . Annexation. Annexation of the Bolsa Chica would be under the procedures of Section 35300 et seq. of the Government Code, which set forth the requirements for annexation of uninhabited territory . The complete text of the annexation procedures are set forth as Appendix 2 to this memorandum. 5 . Environmental Analysis. The Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as construed by the courts, requires an environmental analysis be made by (a) the Local TO: Councilman Henry H. Duke FROM: John O'Connor, Deputy City Attorney SUBJECT: Legal Implications of the Bolsa Chica Annexation Page 7 Agency Formation Commission prior to a recommendation of annexation (Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Commission of Ventura, C.A. 2d No. 41498 Civil) ; (b an environmental analysis for the general planning and zoning of the area. An environmental analysis could . possibly be handled as a initial comprehensive analysis or on a step by step basis as the various agencies exercise their discretionary approvals . The type of environmental analysis , whether negative declaration, or EIR, will be determined by the public agency conferring discretionary approval . 6. Total, Partial or No Annexation. The determination of any annexation, whether total, partial or a denial of annexation rests with the Local Agency Formation Commission. Upon denial of an application, it cannot be considered for a subsequent period of at least one year unless LAFCO consents to refiling. (Government Code ,Section 54799 ) . It should be observed that annexation can be requested by any contiguous city, therefore, if the City of Huntington Beach desired not to annex, a request could be made by any public entity contiguous to the property, i . e . Seal Beach, and LAFCO would act on that request or any request of the applicant for annexation. ' We have not commented on policy considerations for or against annexation since these are within the expertise of the Planning Department . _ ✓JOHN O'CONNOR Deputy City Attorney JOC:er APPROVED BY: DON P. BONFA, City Attorney PROPERTY OWNERS ACRES F SIGNAL 5OLSA CORPORATION 119 ro (230 ACS. LEASED TO STATE) KENDALL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 41 DON GOODELL (o METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 36 OCEANVIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT 15 • •° STA?E OF CALIFORNIA 300 -w/ ; 'fir:;: � \ ><. ;:::.�:•,.. ,,Fyyy�,�;-''e • � �^� �.'��;.. '-� .::a�': :.F��\.,�:,'�:` 4'�`��:;.a rSR/�;.,yea: ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL 20(LEASED) POSSIBLE\ `„ � .'; fi/ANNEX�71Y1N !� � - •�� o =� ��✓.: ro0 ACRES k• \ i L F a-• . .,-ems.:., ""';^:::. �? t: ..:...::<.. • • • • • • • o • • .._,._-...: ---..,moo i.�. � �—,�,�� —•- — r:� • • •_•_ • • • • t->s;.<:x`_:>`:=sri:i>s,s .::::i:>�'s. . t wort :n+. �� a rz.z • • •wX.f,.::i?�;��,>_`� .'S�y.,.<_^_A�3c���. .� AgEtlk �, HLWMTON MUM `' UNINCORPORATED BOLSA CHICA -------------- 67. ------------ C-/ lJ�z�t�; .CT"S/, YC.0�.y 1 �-�-"L 1 (`�f/LQ_r,�' ' ` � The three alternatives supported by the 8OlIO ChiCd Advisory Committee have been ranked in order of preference, and reasons given for the Order. The sub-committee has approached these alternatives in tpMDS of what would be best for the ecological reserve, and not OD the basis Of political Or 2CODmniC considerations. l \ No Project. This alternative provides fOr the 150 acre Phase I development and d minimal channel or culvert to provide tidal flow to the remaining state-owned land. This "No Project" could be expanded to include the Coastal COD3erxdt1On Commission plan to purchase 1400 acres of the Bol5a Gap property. From 8 biological point Of view this alternative is a clear first choice. It creates least disturbance to the proposed ecological reserve. It provides aD0Cean oUtlete5S2Dtial for enhancement of water quality to the salt0arSh, but without harmful deep dredging. The land to which the state now has fee title could be re-established as a marsh ' and outer BOlSd Bay, an extremely important shorebird habitat, could be left uDdiStUrbed. The preferred site for the ocean outlet would be at Warner Ave, near where the water now enters the bay. The land agreement between the state and Signal Oil Co. would not be satisfied by ;this alternative, and the additional 8olSd Chfca lands would have to.be acquired in some other way. 2\ Boat Channel and 8ultmursh' This alternative provides for a 300 ft. wide Channel from Signal Properties to the ocean with the outlet near WiDterSbVrg channel . There would be no marina and the remaining area developed for a salt- marsh. This will satisfy the land agreement. � . The most positive feature Of this alternative is that it would satisfy the land agreement and guarantee the State 230 add-itional dCpeS for the re3erVe. It would eliminate construction of a state-owned marina and place the OC83n outlet at the southeast end of 80l5d Bay (across from the Winters-burg channel ) . Deep dredging of outer BolSd Bay would be avoided, but there would Still be severe disturbance of the bay from dredging at the southeast end. This alternative would Clear the Way for d private marine-oriented housing development Of probable serious negative impact On the reSerV8, It is thus d poor second choice. 3) Public Marina and 5�ltm�rsh' This alternative is similar to the State/5 own conceptual plan,-----' that the laC8ti0n of the outlet channel might be WlnterSburg channel , and the number Of boats for the marina was not specified. This alternative is least acceptable of the three. Its only positive feature is that it would satisfy the land agreement. It is only considered because at present the Army Corps of Engineers must have economic justification for a project such as dredging an OCedD outlet. Negative features include deep dredging of bay waters, construction Of d large state-owned marina, and eventual construction of another Huntington Harbour on Signal property. The opinion of the sub-committee is that the combined adverse effects Of this alternative could be catastrophic to the � eC0lOgiCal reserve. ` Barbara W. Massey & Stuart L. Warter � Sub-committee � ` ' 8OLGA CHICA STUDY COMMITTEE MEETING � ' F[' RUARv/ 11 , 1' �. REPORT FROM MEL CARPENTER - SOUTH COAST REGIONAL COMMISSION: � First of all, if any of you in this room have not seen it , or don 't know what the Coastal Plan is about , I brought copies of the Summary of the plan. This will give you the general gist of the plan. That is Section I of the plan itself reproduced in e definitive way so you can read and gat through it to see what the plan is all about. . Now, Balsa Chica° Since the inception of the South Coast Regional Commission, we 've always considered that the Balsa Chioa is THE most important remaining natural wetlands South of Elkhorn Slue in Monterey Bey. And above anything oIeo to moat the requirements of the law, the Balsa ChioA should be protected, enhanced and restored to its natural state. To protect all the wildlife that use it , all the flora and the fauna, the fish and the beginning of life in that natural marshland that would gradually go to the sea and produce the fish chain that would bring us back food results. We had no inclination of what the annexation problem was or what land was being considered until I sent one of my planners down hare the other day so we could get togeth |r and find out just whore this thing is. |The Plan Plan requires that the Coastal Commission submit to the State legislature a proposed recommended list of acquisitions along the State for recreational purposes , vista points , natural habitats , use for bike trails, use for support facilities oto° AND BOL5A CHICA IS THE #1 PRIORITY IN THE SOUTH COAST REGIONAL COMMISSION FOR ACQUISITION. . ' (Mr. Carpenter outlined on Map - area proposed for acquisition. ) The Plan speaks to the entire 1458 acres of Balsa Chioa including the Bluffs between the flood control channel and Warner Avenue and extending to Los patos. ! Our proposal is this, or I should say, the State Commission who is making its final recommended acquisition decisions newt week. We would like to procure 450 acres. (Top half of map shaded) In the triangle right at the foot of the Bluffs we want at least a 20 - 25 foot a000ao way that feeds into Central Park. The reason is that we want this whole area, when all the oil production and in kind is finished there, restored to a natural � wetland and we want to see nature trails in the area. Acquisition does not go to the Bluffs on the South side, it goes to the base of the base of the bluffs, just the wetlands, and the MWD strip are incorporated in the plan. The Canyon,--on the Newport fault ~ Bluff top park. Converting this area into a small regional park with nature and pedestrian trails and tieing into the rest of the Balsa Chioa° ' � � REPORT FROM MEL CARPENTER Page 2 Lower right of the map - 225 acres we will leave alone at this time. All tolled about 560 acres to be axquired. Using our figures , which we got from Dick Harlow 's office based on your assessment parcel , amounts to a little over 4 million dollars. Where as , before with the entire 1450 acres we had it assessed at 16 - 17 million dollars. Fair Market Value could be twice or three times as much , depending on what goes. The reason we 've drawn the lines there ( ref. to map) , and those parcels , I 'm sure you 're aware of it , along Slater Development has already pushed out into the upper reaches of the marsh and has already ruined part of the natural habitat. So the little triangle up there is not going to make that much difference if develop- ment goes on. There is a School site in the area. If that school ever goes in, and we have protected and been able to procure that area for the park, it ties in beautifully for taking the kids down into the preserve for nature trails and educational purposes. So that is what is being proposed by the State Staff to the State Commission at their meeting next Wednesday and Thursday in San Francisco on the acquisition of Bolsa Chica Bay. Mr. Prock - The 560 acres , does that include the leased lands? Mr. Carpenter - No. Mr. Harlow - Has the Commission taken a position on the outlet to the sea? Mr. Carpenter - No way for an opening to the ocean or a marina. Mr. Stringer - How do you plan to purchase the 230 acres (leased by state from Signal)? Mr. Carpenter - Outright purchase. It comes within the direct juristiction of the Coastal Commission, so we will be able to control development. Linda Moon - What do you think of Annexation. Mr. Carpenter - I don 't know anything about the annexation proposal myself. I was reading a piece of paper here (Herb Chatterton 's Report) on a Sub--'Committee report which is true. If the City Annexes the area and changes the Zoning on it to a higher use, that will increase the value of it. If you Annex it and Zone it Open Space that should not increase the value. If the City annexes it before we buy it from the County, then we would buy it from the City, or whoever owns it. The figure of 1450 includes the 300 acres the State already ownes and the 230 acres the State is leasing from Signal. I have a .breakdown of the figures from the HART BILL. Here are the figures I got from a briefing in San Francisco a couple of weeks ago just before the bill was introduced. REPORT FROM- MEL CARPENTER Page 3 150 million for State Coastal Acquisition in accordance with policy 155 of the Plan. 50 million to local governments for Coastal Acquisition in accordance with policy 155 of the Plan. 55 million to be split and I did not get the figures on the split, whether its even, 20-30 or what. Part of it would be for the State to use for restoration of Natural Habitats or Historical. Sites . Other portion to local governments for development and restroation of Histroical Sites. 25 Million to be set aside for Coastal Conservency, as proposed in the Coastal Plan. These are funds set asice for further acquisition and development of areas and restoration of Natural Habitats , minor ones. The HART BILL would give 200 million to the Coastal Plan. If the Hart Bill passes it should be on the November Ballot as § Bond Issue. Mr. Prock - If the Commission acts to buy that area and the Bond issue fails to pass , what will be the. status of that property? Mr. Carpenter - The Plan states , once the State Legislature approves the plan and the acquisitions approved, if those acquisitions are not purchased within 3 years , then normal development should be allowed to proceed. Another Clause says those areas approved for acquisition should be taken off the tax rolls. 1 5 8 65.0 R. // W ^.�• �t ^ ��� g$`�T N$ i0d0 8 JAB �•� �9 1d'8J"k1C \ y� / dzPDX � Vy ��....✓/ y A $�d� .per 1110 r 4 96,4C. 4i `+ 44 SCAB s sfOd1 \�•r'' .393/A�. .° ®•~?76C °+ \� 63 �4{ 42 '7dY?AC (284 79 a4a 2C1 AC POP 179AC r 9WAC 8Z 90A C t y*� / V�°'P ► .r.,, •- aei� ,os a . - AC p� TT 8?O.S1AC\ 0 36 1.09AC. 4/ is \ 83 M -- -- - { A� _. , 69 ?98AC. 130.O?AC c 39 13.AD/1 337TAL. .C"- .: .: 6� A - •-- --- - _ / a• ?33.O7A6. r' _ —. � 110 AG L14� 3t Joi„s $ d1 ?AC t 32Ar- A, 0" s -rno \ yeti 34 97eAC. - -� ,a, y i e525 AC ' S• •• w ' 63 " MARCH /968 , 1'LfARCt/ /974 -T5 NOTE•ASSESSOR'S BtQCK � ASSESSO — - - - - - `�— R. S. 3 • 28 PARCEL NUMBERS BOOK 110 PAGE 01 APPLICANTS FOR BOLSA CHICA STUDY COMMITTEE ® `�7C Henry Duke , Chairman Herh Chatterton - Friends of Bolsa Chica Bay Ruth Bailey or designee from League of Women Voters Mr. Stringer - Signal Landmark, Inc. Dr. Donald Shipley, Councilman Harriett Wieder, Mayor Pro Tem Richard Ribar, CSLB Student doing Masters Thesis on Bolsa Bay Sissel Andreassen, Student Cal Fullerton, Landscape Architect , B.A. Environmental Design James Foxx, H. B. Landowners rep , Chamber of Commerce rep. Jerry Falabella, School Teacher, Homeowner in area Lee Mossteller, Recreation $ Parks Commission Downtown Merchants Guild Burmah Oil & Gas Co . , Bill Woods Huntington Beach Company, Mr. Gunnard Johnson, Architect and land planner . H. B. F.V. Board of Realtors , Hal Tobin, realtor Donald Goodell , Builder , Land Developer , owns 64 acres on Bolsa Chica, south of Los Patos Planning Commission ? ! t 4 ' ]h CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH l � CITY COUNCIL ' COMMUNICATION ® m 1 TO City Council FROM Harriett Wieder SUBJECT My Introduction Of The Attached DAVE February 6, 1976 To The State Coastal Commission Public Hearing On Land Site ' Acquisition I submit the attached for your information to inform you that because I felt so very strongly that there should be some comments from a point of view of a resident of the City of Huntington Beach (inasmuch as the City Council had not taker. any action in time for this hearing, I submitted these comments) . I was not able to be there myself, but it was presented on my behalf by Mel Carpenter of the South Coast Regional Commission. I obtained this infomation from the Planning Department but have been in the process of working on' this , but did not get to the City Council in time .' I hope that you will be able to look at it again and consider it for this Monday°s agenda, so that we can take some official action. P I _ I i f t f 1 i I f' i CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH COTY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION o e o ,h11NffN0T0N 61AC►9 TO Honorable City Council FROVA Mayor Gibbs SUSJECT CITY POSITION STATEMENT ®EYE February 4, 1976 RE: BOLSA CHICA ANNEXATION Enclosed for your information is a copy of the position statement submitted by Council member Harriett M. Wieder acting as an indi- vidual and not as a representative of the City of Huntington Beach relating to the proposed acquisition of the Bolsa Chica area as recommended by the Coastal Commission. This statement was submitted to the State Coastal Commission on February 3 , 1976. If the City Council concurs with this position statement , I would suggest that action be taken by the City Council so that a formal position can be transmitted to the Coastal Commission indicating the City of .Huntington Beach' s stand on this proposed acquisition. I will be bringing this matter up under Council Comments at the Febru- ary 9, 1976 Council meeting for your consideration. Norma Brandel Gibbs Mayor I NBG :p i , ,. _ _ _-. _ ._ _ -'�.—zvY— - - .1^---,- '_i-T^'�r ... _ -.. vr�zb-¢c.-s.--^"'-^--• I 5 y ` °s e i i ty of i�untington Beach has cllo:se y folllotl(5�d t beF�-),fad 2rMPat' Q f' the Coasta I7 Kan and has utilized every .opporttlu pity to off r i. foritiation 'aAd constructive criticism toward. of > ,e plan f6k the Californian 'coast o I Irish to,a�ai.n' eNpres;s 'pV i e .po t i on, of the � plain. you are presently cons nd�-zIng fl.. na t �-tqp p-oft sedl r-CQU :sition list . : o r. prq06,s l out fines acquisition of over 1 ,500 acres w thin -the city, -bokari-ola,Tie aAd- sphere. ,of influence, and I am obviously cbAce�rzed wi.:fh tine a p�c,� s and Consequences., of your. plans for this . 4rde al'r kt. I: .; .roalli.ze that ho:.si0ject of property- acquisitioxi as etsai�,eol 21n Coastk�j'. Finn' is' e#tremely complex. in nature .innvolving its it noes qu's- t' ansi otsersaip9 .availability 'of- funds9 and ultimate usahrefo 'e I d4j...not eee k that the city in good conscience 'could ,either cot,)plletelly your proposals . I would , however 9. l to t,o' point' but saVdral i��iottaht ' `actors that must be cons ide: ed 'by th6. iCoastall cod- miss issfian. d .ul,i,iffiIttoly. ibe legislature before a final acquisi tion. a'nd, " use: paaa is' ,aptreci. The ��°opos;eo�, �cc��aisgtion of the Bolsa Chica area is of particMi.ar. concern. `., o borifee" i y outlined by 'the Coastal Commission in rol'ves not only the ( - a !. / y a e ': aACorpo.rated oil .field state owned, property'q. .biat -ai lso si-zeabl.e` accirporated City of Huntington Beach -on I which reside�ntiall profi t ' .h Ve already beC9 approved - Furtherior0a X teel that the pro 'posed .purIcha e price of ' the area ($16 ,000,000) ' is 'extreifiely low, . - La�fd : yp1ca1 law density residential property' in ��r city reuld ' be abbot 13 0�.6�00. pd� acre, and thus less_ than one quarter of the -propbsod, r for, . .cgi4i.si iion. could cost over $15 9000 ,000 alone d :f:: u nt ang can Beach has long ,been concei reed -wi:th' the fut iair�p : fY Ge:; 'Chi urea➢ the development potentials •.'of whio� are a prime aiail.'n;pC0SSary source .of revenues �sn future years. The Open .$puce 'and 61hs eiv. A ' lAAs`-have identified the environmental..cohst �nad b a .i sa: :, did "area; and I halve supported' the p airs' o$°.the S� 6 . e t.: o Figh and 'Game for marsh and wetlands restor�ktlon. and pub- , ' `1liC: x4e. On the 530 acres of .the area. under its. cor�trrolb' i fea' 16'ije'4 er, that• multiple- potentials exist in the Bo s .. h.i ca a 1 size, featukes,,. and topography are such that certain-portions of 010, ntrope ty coral d be 'px eserved while other sections 'could be corApa ibly, -developed into an economical I viable community. 'By .ci.ting ...the ;ex end'en : "Bolsfs CbAc'a area. ,for acquisition and preservation'Q I ..feell .th'At on, has acted without regard. for 'tile f seal A' 1 ''oux`.. itry� end I recomerno that the proposal :b�e: ' ° asi ':;.` co� 'e�its e • • . t. The proposed acquisition list also indicates for purchase properties •along Pacific Coast Highway. at Beach Boulevard and from the .Edison 1 Plant to the Santa Anal River. A small portion of this area has already been approved for development by the Council and is physically separated from the rest of the area proposed for acquisition. On the remaining acreage, the City has consistently considered recreation-. oriented uses and has recommended to Cal'Trans that the, area between Magnolia and the Santa Ana River be considered in conjunction. with planning for the State Beach south of Pacific Coast Highway. I appreciate this opportunity to comment on your plans which so directly affects the City of Huntington Beach and solicit your earnest consid- ekation of my comments. Harriett Ado W eder 3 { MINUTES BOLSA CHICA STUDY COMMITTEE Wednesday, January 21 , 1976 Room Bm7 Civic Center See attached sheet for those in attendance. The meeting convened at 5 :48 p.m. with Ruth Bailey acting as chairman in absence of Henry Duke. Additions and corrections to the minutes of previous meeting to read: Page 3, Mr. Stringer's comment about 2million dollars, Discussion was relevant to what Signal had already spent planning it , not what the cost to the City would be. Page 1 , vote retaken and Mr. Prodk accepted as voting member. Page 3, Ruth Bailey would like more information on oil dells in the area. Minutes stand approved as corrected. No new guests. REPORTS 1 . Economic o George Stringer, Chairman Passed out Tabulation Sheet of Taxes and explained. Costs to the City rather minimal except for planning if we are only talking about annexation for Balsa Chica, Mr. Harlow e We are going to look into the possibility of some 701 money for planning. Will be discussed next Planning Commission meeting. Usually involves Hatching with in kind services. Will require reprioritization with Council. Mr. Foster - Under grand total , these three figures are not added together. Mr. Stringer m No , these are three separate annexation figures. Mr. Harlow d Did you say you got your assessed value figures from our office? Mr. Stringer o Yes , but our figures are different because we excluded any public property that would not be paying City taxes. Assessed Market !Value =- 8 million. Linda Moon - According to the report from City Attorney several steps must be gone through for approval. How much would each of these steps cost? Even if it is a small amount I would like to see the figures. Ruth Bailey o Do you think we could get an estimate of what the City would be spending in time? It might make the figures seem more complete. Mr. Harlow m I 'll see what I can run down. Minutes, Jan. 21 , 1976 0 9 Bolas Chico Committal Pegg 2 2. Growth o Tom Cooper, Chairman Vsrbal Report Talked to Jam Pa,lin Monday. He _.s a member of the State Dept. of Fish and Game. Discussed Environmental Impact Study. He mentioned the Wintersburg Channel concern and The tremendous drainage area that is, and planning that will take place with ' regards to the County. Lee Rebman - Phase I of the Fish and Game Report. Relates to administration of the 300 acres State owns. 5709,000 cost. State presently has problems funding. Costal Commission wants preservation of marshlands with Duffer Zones around it. League and Amigos outlined it as a 3 Phase type of development. 9 . Parr on the order of Huntington Beach Central Park. 2. Marsh with Public access. 3. Marsh without Public access. Archeological Aspects of Area o Major Cog Stone site. Contains 40% of known Cog Stones in World. R. Bailey - Dad you relate this to what would happen in event of Annexation? Rebman - We related to possible development. Bulldozers and sites not a good combination. R. Finley - Does County have Archeological Ordinance? Rebman - I will Find out. Mr. Stringer - If development takes place it would have to be preceeded by and archeologist being ro quire d to clear any sates. Mr. Foster - Find out what County requires as opposed to the City. It may be that annexation would be a positive step in preservation of sites. City Ordinance requires 5 acres of parks for each 1 ,000 people. Mr. Stranger - Areas not to amenable to development Earthquake faults , gun implacements, that might much more useful as parks. It is possible we may and up dedicating more then would be required. Linda Moon o Participation by the School Districts might be important at this time even though annexation per se may not effect them, th@ implications would. They should have a say in whether or not it would effect the School Districts own planning. Duke - Motion to invite School Distracts to attend Committed meetings. Second Passed Minutes , Jan 21 , 1976 Bolsa Chica Committee Page 3 Secretary directed to invite Districts. Ruth Bailey turn meeting over to Henry Dube 6 :09 p.m. 3. Politics m Ruth Bailey, Chairman Regional Impact and Areas of Control What are they and would there be change if Annexation takes place? See attached outline, No Changes in regional impacts. This does not go into planning. Areas of Control - National, No Change, State, No Change. County, Board of Supervisors no longer in control, and LAFCO (which would have control of Annexation process ) would have no control after Annexation. City,`.'City Council and City Agencies would assume control. If it were pre-zoned there could be change. It would have to conform to the General Plan, also. School Districts m There mould be some changes. There would be changes in the chain of approval for any development. It would be important to know differences between County and City codes regarding Archeological ordinances and grading ordinances. Annexation would change Tax Revenues to the City. Would not change County °s revenues. State Acquisition would change annexation. State would be lead agency and would control development for area they control, Mr. Stringer e In other words the impact of annexation on acquisition is to be considered, not acquisition on annexation. Mr. Foster m Should you consider Annexation a small step towards development , or a sideways step taking it out of this path of review and putting it into another path of review. Duke If at any time you feel we are going no where with this thing speak out. Ruth Bailey e It sounded like that before I made the report. Duke - I think things will become clearer after we put all this material together. When we start looking at them in Black and White. We are these first few meetings trying to find where we are going, and what is or is not relevant. 4. Timing of Annexation Delayed to later in meeting. 5. Legal Implications - City Attorney °s Office provided interpretationo Minutes , Jan. 21 , 1976 Balsa Chica Committee Page 4 6. Ownership Identification Dick Harlow provided map showing location of property owners and poeoible annexation alternatives. Duke - Ownership Identification was for the purpose of determining who the property owners were. Alternatives for the committees to use as guidelines. 7. Obligations e Mr. Prock , Chairman Presented copies of a memo. Memo outlines City°s obligations, other than financial , incurred from annexation. See Attached. B. Alternatives - Planning - Jam Eblen, Chairman Brian Parkinson reporting. Presented Matrix prepared by Margret Carlberg, addressing herself to 3 zoning possibilities and relates them to annexation alternatives discussed at last meeting. See Attached. See also attached item presented by Mr. Parkinson. Duke - For the record and for clarification, an Environmental Impact Report is required period before development can take place. Duke - Mr. Goodell would you go after Mr. Tobin and Mr. Eblen and see if we can have a report. I 4 . Timing of Annexation - Herb Chatterton, Reporting Areas of Investigation 9 . Contacts with Costal Commission, timing from State °s pt. of view. 2. Gather alternative land values. I Duke - Anything else this committee should be going after? Stringer - I would like to sea all the reports together. COA5TAL COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 3 , 1976 Duke - How does committee feel about going to the Coastal Commission and asking what are you going to do? Foster o I think we should tell them we are considering the question of annexation, and we are anxious to find out what their druthers are and what impacts annexation would make on their plans, if any. Ask them to delineate what their plans are. Duke - I 'm going to ask approval of City Council to say something at the Feb. 3rd C.Commission meeting. Between then if when you receive this and if you feel that what was given to you is wrong, or you have something to add to it let me know right away. I will poll the committee so that anything added to it you will have the right to say yes or no. Then I will bring it up before Council on the 2nd this is the recommendation the committee wishes to take to the Costal Commission. ` Minutes , Jan. 21 , 1976 Balsa Chica Committee Page 5 Dube m Politics committee to clarify Costal Commissions authority with regards to annexation Pat Suter - The Department of Fish and Game °s Balsa Chica Advisory Committee meets here the 2nd Monday of each month. Duke - Will send Linda Moon as representative. Next meeting February 4 , 1976, 5: 15 p.m. Meeting Adjourned 7: 14 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Pat Suter, Secretary HD.ps ®� INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION TBEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH 4 To David D. Rowlands From Richard A. Harlow, Director City Administrator Planning & Environmental Resources Subject Bolsa Chica Annexation Date January 28 , 1976 The City Council requested information regarding the economic aspects of the Bolsa Chica annexation so that this information may be incorporated into their presentation to the State Coastal Commission on February 3 , 1976. I have attached a copy of the Planning Department' s letter of transmittal to the City Council dated December 4, 1975, which outlines significant factors relating to the annexation. As a matter of information the Bolsa Chica Annexation Committee, which is chaired by Councilman Duke, is currently investigating factors which relate to annexation. These factors are as follows: economic, growth, politics, timing of annexation, legal implications, ownership identification, obligations, and alterna- tives. I would suggest that someone from your office contact Councilman Duke to see if he would like any of the preliminary information gathered thus far included in your report. RAH: ja Enclosure �0 P.®. E®2L 9S0 cCAd.O(F'®RC.709 020'30 TO: honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Planning Commission and Planning Department DATE: December 4 , 1975 ATTN. David D. Rowlands, City Administrator RE: PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF A PORTION OF THE BOLSA CHICA AREA BY THE SIGNAL BOLSA CORPORATION. Transmitted herewith are the Planning Commission and Planning Staff recommendations for the proposed annexation of a 280-acre portion of Bolsa Chica. The City Council referred this request to the Planning Commission and Planning Staff for report and recommendation. The following is a listing of significant facts which relate to this proposal: 1. The unincorporated area of Bolsa Chica consists of approximately 1600 acres of land. Ownership is primarily controlled by Signal Bolsa Corporation. Other owners within the area are Oceanview School District, Metropolitan Water District, Don Goodell , Kendall Development Company, Inc. , State of California, and the Orange County Flood Control District. A map depicting the location and acreage of said parcels is attached. 2. The assessed value of Bolsa Chica is: Land - $3 , 047 , 920 Mineral Rights - $2 , 933 , 160 3. Oil production on the entire area is estimated to be approximately 6, 000 barrels per day. 4. County policy on annexation and how it affects Bolsa Chica is.- The County would like to see a development plan for the Bolsa Chica prepared jointly by the County, City, and Property Owners, prior to annexation of any portion of Bolsa Chica. (The City should serve as lead agency in this effort. ) This policy has not been spelled out on any adopted document, so the County would probably be in agreement with the City on more than one annexation or annexations prior to plan preparation provided a comprehensive planning effort of the entire Bolsa Chica Area would still occur and that the important resource area (Ecological Reserve) was protected. i 5. Bolsa Chica is within the City' s sphere of influence; therefore, it is appropriate for the City to take on this planning effort. Page Two 6. The City is currently providing limited police and fire protection to this area. The City does not receive additional compensation for this service. ,..� , 7. Any planning effort undertaken by the City for this area would be costly and the City would not receive any additional compensation for this effort. 8. The City has an adopted policy regarding annexation which essen- tially calls for complete environmental analysis and planning of an area prior to annexation (see attached policy adopted by City Council, September 4, 1973, Resolution No. 3760) . 9 . There are other portions of Bolsa Chica which may be available for annexation. They include: State Ecological Reserve, the Kendall Development Corporation Inc. , property along the common boundary between the Huntington Beach Company and Signal Bolsa Corporation and property located at the northwest corner of Edwards Street and Ellis Avenue. 10. In response to the statement that significant changes have occurred in Bolsa Chica since the Policy Plan ° s statement on annexation was •'c adopted, the following is offered: a. , The Metropolitan Water District is a public utility. The 400 foot wide strip to be maintained as open space; therefore, the physical separation caused by this strip of land in conjunction with the Flood Control District is not adequate separation to cause the parcels to be considered separate for planning purposes. b. The State° s acquisition of the ecological reserve has no bear- ing on the issue of annexation. If anything, this property should be incorporated as a part of the comprehensive plan, inasmuch as any surrounding development will have a definite impact on the ecological reserve. c> The increase in the price of crude and the extending of the expected economic life of the existing oil wells should not have any bearing on the planning effort. The life of the oil field does not mean that consideration should not be given to alternatives for development and the impact these uses may have on each other. d. - The different ownerships between the land and mineral rights should not preclude Signal Bolsa Corporation from preparing long-range plans and an environmental analysis. Areas which are designated for resource production for 15 to 20 years may be so designated, but consideration must be given to long- range alternatives. 11. There are essentially two issues : annexation and planning (in- cluding environmental analysis) . Technically, these issues may be separated but as a practical matter planning should be a total effort which should not be fragmented through piecemeal annexa- tion. The planning and environmental analysis of Bolsa Chica Page Three should occur with the entire Bolsa Chica area either totally within the City or within the County unincorporated area. This will assist in maintaining continuity throughout the planning process. 12. If this , parcel is annexed, it could have an adverse impact on the'State° s plan for acquisition in that it will increase land values and thus increase acquisition cost to the public. 13. Signal Bolsa Corporation has stated that their desire to annex the property does not mean that they will not follow through with their intent to plan and conduct an environmental analysis of Bolsa Chica. 14 . Signal Bolsa Corporation has stated that the City would receive approximately $29 ,155 per year by annexing subject property (property tax $22 ,030 per year, oil production $7 ,125 per year) . 15. A total planning effort would allow for a complete cost benefit analysis of the proposal , i.e. , opening to the ocean, the need for bridges, and other public improvements. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: No annexation should be permitted until a total plan along with the necessary environmental analysis has been complete. As an alternative , it is recommended that the City of Huntington Beach annex the entire Bolsa Chica Area and continue with the expressed policy for pre-planning and environmental analysis prior to development. The- minority opinion of the Planning Commission is as follows: Annexation should be permitted to proceed but a planning analysis, both economic and environmental , should be conducted before development occurs. This will allow the City to receive additional revenue as outlined in the report from Signal Bolsa Corporation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In view of the fact that the City is providing services, i.e. , Police, Fire and Planning, and because the County will not be the lead agency, nor will they take an active role in the planning process, it is recommended that the City of Huntington Beach annex the entire Bolsa Chica Area and continue with the expressed policy for pre-planning and environmental analysis prior to development. As an alternative, it is recommended that no annexation be permitted until the total plan along with the necessary environmental analysis has been completed. As a point of information, it should be noted that the revenue derived from annexing Bolsa Chica will assist in defraying those costs which are presently passed on to the City. In effect, the services being provided to other large vacant parcels of land within the City of Huntington Beach are currently being provided to Bolsa Chica. 'Page Pour Respectfully submitted, Richard A. Harlow Secretary RAHegc Annexation Objectives: Encompass within City boundaries only those areas with common interests and which can be efficiently and economically served by city facilities. Principles: 1. Approve and pursue only annexations which: a. Will contribute to the accomplishment of Huntington Beach Plaster Plan Objectives. b. Will "square off" city limits at the San Diego Freeway, Santa Ana River, Pacific Ocean, and the Naval Weapons Station. C. Will not dilute the existing tax base. d. Will not place a burden on existing City facilities. e. Will meet all municipal codes. f. Will not overload existing gas , electric and water resources. 2. Use pre-planning of unincorporated territory to assure that annexed areas : a. Are developed in compatibility with surrounding neighbor- hoods. b. Do not create unnecessary hardships on property owners in proximity to the annexed areas. c. Provide sufficient tax base to assure that the area will not cause tax increases for current residents within the City. d. That no area be permitted to be annexed to the City which is contrary to the previously accepted Master Plan of the area, of which the annexation is a part. 3. During pre-planning for annexation, developers of unincorporated areas should be required to show to the public all their ac- cumulated information on ecological impacts of the whole area, including those studies required by Federal, State, and County jurisdictions . 4. Historically important sites within an annexed area should be con- sidered for dedication to public use or public ownership. 5. Federal and State grants should be sought to develop property which is within the annexed area. 6. Discussions should be pursued with adjacent community leader- ship to integrate their goals with those of Huntington Beach. hunton ton beacol �anning depct t Stuff report. TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: August 30, 1976 RE: AUGUST 25, 1976 LETTER TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM AMIGOS DE BOLSA CHICA The attached letter, as signed by Linda Moon seems to reflect a general misunderstanding concerning the actual impacts of prezoning the Bolsa Chica. Confusion exists concerning why the -City is pre- , zoning, the authority of prezoning over potential land uses and the potential environmental impacts of the zoning designations. The following responses should shed some light on these concerns: Why is the City prezoning the Bolsa Chica? The City Council has indicated an interest in annexing the Bolsa Chica. According to City Ordinance, if the Bolsa Chica is not prezoned it would enter the City with R1 zoning upon annexation. Since Rl zoning is highly market- able, the Bolsa Chica would be under immediate development pressure. To rectify this situation, the Bolsa Chica is being prezoned with a transitional zone which would allow for a comprehensive plan to be prepared prior to deter- mination of . permanent zoning designations . What is the authority of prezoning over potential land uses? Without annexation to the City, prezoning will have no authority over land uses in the Bolsa Chica. Understanding this fact, the Environmental Review Board granted Negative Declaration 76-68 with the finding that prezoning of itself will not have a significant adverse effect upon the physical environment. On the other hand, the Bolsa Chica may be annexed and the proposed prezoning would become the zoning in the Bolsa Chica. Annexation, therefore, is actually the project in which there may be environmental impacts. An environmental impact report on annexation has been prepared in draft form and distributed for comments. Page Two What are the potential environmental impacts of the I zoning designations? Should annexation occur, the new zoning for the Bolsa Chica would be RA-02 , ROS-01 , and ROS , per the prezoning proposal . The ROS-01 and ROS zones reflect existing and proposed open space uses by the State of California in the Bolsa Chica and as such have no potential impact beyond those dis- cussed in the State Department of Fish and Game Environmental Impact Report on the marsh restoration. The RA-02 zone, on 4 the other hand, is a holding zone. According to Section 9600 of the Zoning Ordinance, the RA zone"is intended to provide a transition between the present agricultural activities and possible development to other uses. It is further intended that prior to development, any land in the RA zone will be rezoned to conform with the Master Plan of Land Use and said land shall not be subdivided for resi- dential, commercial or industrial purposes until it is rezoned. " Since subdivision of the RA zoned parcels in the Bolsa Chica i (some as large as 200 acres) would not be permissible, realistic- ally only 57 residential units could be developed in the Bolsa Chica. These would be placed on the 57 parcels zoned RA-02 . However, .for purposes of a worst case analysis in the negative declaration, 1, 424 residential units are assumed (one unit per acre) . This is in no way a realistic assess- ment of potential. development and the text of negative declaration repeatedly indicates this infeasibility. In response to the request by Amigos De Bolsa Chica that a new environmental document be prepared for the revised proposed prezoning we must point out that such documentation is unnecessary. The negative declaration on prezoning has been amended to correctly reflect the revision. As should be self-evident from the previous discussion, irrespective of any revisions to the proposed prezoning, prezoning of itself does not have a significant adverse effect upon the physical environment. TM:gc `1.,I I GMS Dli CII LCA S602 Ludl "w Circle lluntington Beach , CA 92649 August 25 , 1976 GZhCH PLANNING DEPT. AU G 2 G 1N City of Huntington Beach P. 0 Box 100 Planning Commission Huntington Beach, CA92G48 Huntington Beach, CA Planning Commission PIc.ml.,ers 0n August 17 , 1976 , the Huntington Beac4 Planning Commission held a public hearing to determine public opinion concerning the prezoning of 1603 acres of the Bolsa Chica , as outlined in Negative Declaration 76- 68 . At that time , a revised prezoning plan was presented and a new public hearing was scheduled for August 31 so that the public could respond to the new prezoning proposal . Because new prezoning boundaries have been proposed which greatly_ increase the total acreage of RA-02 zoning , Amigos de Bolsa Chica feels that the environmentalimpacts outlined in the negative declaration are no Longer correct and do not reflect the environmental impacts of the prezoning project as currently proposed. Also , statements made by members of the city staff and the planning commission on August 17 contradict statements regarding population density and environmental impact made in the negative declaration . For these reasons , and in order to protect the puhli_c `.s right to know the full implications of the revised prezoning proposal for the Bolsa Chica , we feel that it is obligatory that the City Planning Department prepare and submit a new environmental report which fully discloses the effects of the revised proposed prezoning on the Bolsa Chica and the surrounding community. We Hope that the Huntington Beach Planning Commission will require that the. City Planning Department meet its obligations to the citizens of our community by preparing; , publishing , and distributing for public scrutiny a candid and detailed environmental study of the revised Bolsa Chica prezoning proposal . Sincerely , Linda Moon Vice President cc : Don Bon.fa , Huntington Beach City Attorney �. TO: Environmental Review Board hROM: EIR Review Committee of the Environmental Council DATE: August 10 , 1976 SUBJECT: Negative Declaration No. 76-68 - Prezoning of the Bolsa Chica A few members of the Environmental Review Committee have reviewed and discussed Negative Declaration No. 76-68 on the prezoning .of the Bolsa Chica Area. The issues that follow have been raised. It has' long been our recommendation that an EIR be prepared for this area prior to annexation and unquestionably prior to any development. The ,proposed prezoning would allow some development -= 135 percent more than 'present County zoning would allow, though admittedly far less residential ' development than the "automatic R-1" zoning would. Although the Negative Declaration indicates in a number_ of places that the allowable one unit per acre is not economically feasible to pursue , the.- impact of that possible 1248 units with 4 , 499 residents should be assessed, especially the impact on the already overcrowded high schools , the at-capacity sewer , and the potential 73 , 022 vehicle miles traveled on the streets ( including Pacific Coast Highway, which is already over capacity in the summer) . It is recommended that the 230 acres leased to the State for 11 more years be added to the 300 acres proposed in the Negative Declaration to have ROS-02 zoning, as no other use than oil operations on that property is planned in that period of time . Reference should certainly he made (Section 3 . 1.) to the EIR prepared by the Department of Fish & Game for the State land . There are specific development plans underway for_ Phase I of the Ecological Preserve on 150 ' acres of that land, and conceptual plans for the yemaining 380 acres . Signal Properties has proposed conceptual plans for its remaining 1 , 059 acres (in the Colony by the Sea EIR and others) and these should also be referenced in the Negative Declaration. Has the State Lands Commission been informed about- the proposed annexation Government Code 35014 stipulates that this must be done prior to annexation of any tidelands or submerged lands which are owned by the State or its grantees in trust. MC:df 1 mow lr��El Huntington Beach Planning Commission P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council ATTN: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator FROM: Planning Commission DATE: September 1, 1976 RE: ZONE CASE NO. 76-20 APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach Planning Department P. O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 LOCATION: Bounded by Pacific Coast Highway on the west, Warner Avenue on the north, City boundary on the east and south. REQUEST: A prezone on 1603 . 12 acres of land to RA-02 , ROS-01 and ROS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: ON MOTION BY SLATES AND SECOND BYESHEA ZONE CASE NO. 76-20 _WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE : 1. The Bolsa Chica should be prezoned RA-02, ROS-01 and ROS in order that upon annexation the Bolsa Chica would not automatically enter the City with Rl zoning. This would provide a transitional zone that would allow for a comprehensive plan to be prepared for the Bolsa Chica prior to determination of permanent zoning designations. 2. The recommended zoning designations are consistent with the General Plan. AYES : Parkinson, Gibson, Slates, Shea, Newman, Boyle NOES: Finley ABSENT: None MINORITY REPORT: Commissioner Finley stated she voted negatively on approval of Zone Case 76-20 for the following reasons: 1. The prezoning cannot be separated environmentally from annexation. We should have an EIR to help prezoning decision and not a Negative Declaration. ZONE CASE 76-20 Page 2 2. The prezoning is not in conformance with the Open Space and Seismic Safety Elements of the General Plan which have been adopted by the City Council. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends approval of Zone Case No. 76-20; a prezone for unincorporated territory zoned A, Al (0) and AR, and a change from existing prezones of Rl, Rl-CD, RA and -CD, and a prezone of property which heretofore has not had prezoning to RA-02 , ROS-01 and ROS. SUMMARY ANALYSIS : The need to prezone the Bolsa Chica stems from the potential annexation of this property. Annexed property automatically enters the City as Rl unless it is prezoned. If the Bolsa Chica were to enter the City with R1 zoning, the property would be subject to immediate develop- ment pressures. In order to secure enough time to properly assess all interests in the Bolsa Chica, appropriate prezoning is necessary. There are three major concerns in determining appropriate prezoning in the Bolsa Chica. One is the existence of a major oil field. A second is the existence of the State Ecological Preserve. The third is the City Council' s and the Bolsa Chica Study Committee' s determination that the Bolsa Chica should be prezoned with a holding zone. The only zone specifically intended to be a holding zone under the Huntington Beach Zoning Ordinance is Residential Agriculture (RA) . According to 'Section 9600 of the Zoning Ordinance the RA zone is "intended to provide a transition between the present agricultural activities and possible development to other uses. It is further intended that "prior to development, any land in the RA zone will be rezoned to conform with the Master Plan of Land Use and said land shall not be subdivided for residential , commercial or industrial purposes until it is rezoned. " The overwhelming majority of oil land uses in the Bolsa Chica require the -02 suffix. Since this suffix can only be attached to Ml , M2 and RA base districts and since the RA district has been determined appropriate for portions of the Bolsa Chica, all property in oil use except a two acre site is proposed for RA-02 zoning. ROS-01 has been attached to the two acre site because the oil use is consistent with the -01 suffix and the property is in the State Ecological Preserve. The remainder of the Bolsa Chica is proposed to be prezoned ROS to reflect the character of the State Ecological Preserve. The following concerns have been expressed about the prezoning of the Bolsa Chica. Planning Department responses follow each concern. 1. Prezoning and annexation are not separable events, therefore a — Negative Declaration is not sufficient for prezoning. Response: Prezoning has no authority over land uses, therefore it has no environmental impacts. If the subject area is prezoned, the prezoning would become the zoning upon annexation. Since there are ZONE CASE NO. 76-20 Page 3 no environmental impacts without annexation, the appropriate act for which an Environmental Impact Report would be necessary is annexation. Such an Environmental Impact Report would include consideration of the prezoning. An Environmental Impact Report on annexation has been prepared in draft form and distributed for comments. 2. Since the original prezoning proposal was revised a new Negative Declaration is necessary. Response: Negative Declaration 76-68 was granted by the Environmental Review Board with the finding that prezoning of itself will not have a significant adverse effect upon the physical environment. Therefore, irrespective of any revisions to the proposed prezoning, the finding will stand because it is based on the lack of authority of prezoning on land uses rather than the data presented in the initial study. The initial study, however, has been amended to reflect the revision to the original proposal. 3. The proposed prezoning is not in conformance with the Open Space and Conservation and Seismic Safety Elements. Response: The ROS-01 and ROS prezones are consistent with the mentioned elements. The RA-02 zone has been determined to be consistent with every element of the General Plan by virtue of the fact that it is and acts as a holding zone until such time as permanent zoning can be de- termined. 4. All of the Bolsa Chica should be prezoned ROS. 4 Response: Under the City' s zoning ordinance, the existingoil uses in the Bolsa Chica require the use of the -02 suffix except one very small area which has been designated -01. The -02 suffix may only be attached to the RA, M1 and M2 base districts. As a consequence, prezoning the Bolsa Chica ROS would not be feasible. In addition, the ROS zone is intended to be a permanent zone and should not be used unless it is in fact the City' s intent that the area so designated be permanent open space. 5. The State of California, in the Coastal Plan, has identified portions of the Bolsa Chica as a high priority area for purchase of open space. RA-02 zoning of said area would eventually necessitate downzoning to ROS. Response: Downzoning is a legal activity. It also would be appropriate, as well as desired, by both the City and State for those properties determined to be permanent open space. . 6. The City ordinance requiring that annexed properties enter the City wil R1 zoning unless they are prezoned may not be legal. Y ZONE CASE 76-20 Page 4 Response: A test case would be necessary to prove this. If the City did not prezone and the ordinance was upheld, then the Bolsa Chica would be subject to Rl zoning. However, this issue is not to the point of prezoning since it is the intention of the City Council to place a holding zone on the Bolsa Chica until such time as permanent zoning is determined. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Zone Case No. 76-20 was assessed for environmental effects by the Environmental Review Board on August 10, 1976. The - Board found that the prezoning of itself will not have a significant adverse effect upon the physical environment and therefore granted Negative Declaration 76-68. Supporting Information: 1. Staff Report, August 24 , 1976. 2 . Staff Report, August 30, 1976. Includes August 25 transmittal to the Planning Commission from Amigos De Bolsa Chica. 3. Transmittal to the Environmental Review Board from the EIR Review Committee of the Environmental Council, August 10, 1976. 4. Transmittal to the Environmental Review Board from Amigos De Bolsa Chica, August 9, 1976. 5. Transmittal to the ,Planning Commission from Amigos De Bolsa Chica, August 16 , 1976. 6. Transmittal to the Planning Commission from Amigos De Bolsa Chica, August 30, 1976. 7. Transmittal from Environmental Review Board to the Planning Commission declaring Environmental Review Board action in Negative Declaration No. 76-68 , August 10, 1976. Respectfully submitted, E4wa Oe c h Acting Secretary EDS:TM: ja Enclosures huntingt®n be\ planning department f s tuft _ TO: PLANNING COMMISSION 1 FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE : August 24 , 1976 ZONE CASE NO. 76-20 APPLICANT: City of Huntington .Beach DATE FILED : July 30, 1976 Planning Department P. 0. Box 190 MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 LOCATION: Bounded by Pacific Coast Hwy. on ZONE: COUNTY - A, AIM and AR west, Warner Ave. on the north, City boundary on the east and CITY - Prezone: Majority south• of the property is undesignated, a REQUEST: A prezone on 1603.12 acres of portion is Rl, land to RA-02, ROS-01 and ROS Rl-CD, RA, and -CD 1. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS : Negative Declaration 76-68 was granted August 10 , 1976 by the Invir_onmental Review Board . The Negative Declaration detailed the potential impact of development under the requested;, prezoning classifications . The text emphasized that develop- ment of the requested prezoning standards was economically infeasible and not possible at all unless the Bolsa Chica was annexed . The Board concurred in its finding that the prezoning of itself will not have a significant adverse effect upon the physical environment. Ultimately, the Bolsa Chica may be annexed and the proposed prezoning would become the zoning in the Bolsa Chica . Consequently, annexation is actually the project in which there may be significant environmental impacts . An environ- mental. impact report- on -annexation has been prepared in draft form and distributed for continents. 2. 0 GENERAL INFORMATION: This zone case has been originated by the Planning Department in response. to City Council direction on May 24 , 1976 to initiate prezon- ing in the Bolsa Chica under the RA-02 zone. According to Section 9600 of the Zoning Ordinance the RA zone is "intended to provide a transition between the present agricultural activities and possible development ZONE CASE NO. 76-20 Page 2 to other /uses. It is further intended that,"prior to development, any land in the RA zone will be rezoned to conform with the Master Plan of Land Use and said land shall not be subdivided for resi- dential, commercial or industrial purposes until it is rezoned. " Since May 24 , 1976, further consideration was given to prezoning portions of the State Ecological Preserve with Recreational Open Space Zoning. In fact, this proposal was presented to the Planning Commission on August 17 , 1976, with the State owned properties proposed for ROS-02 zoning. However, the -02 oil use suffix may only be attached to the RA, M1 or M2 base districts. Since the existing oil uses in the Bolsa Chica are for the most part compatible only with the -02 suffix, the prezoning proposal for those areas within the State Ecological Preserve supporting -02 oil uses has been altered from ROS-02 to RA-02 . The RA-02 zone is reflective of the Bolsa Chica Study Committee recommendation that "If any annexation takes place prior to planning (the Bolsa Chica) , the Committee agrees it should come in as a Holding Zone, Zoned RA-01 or RA-02 . " prezoning presently exists in the Bolsa Chica including Rl, Rl-CD, RA and -CD. In each case, the existing prezoning would be changed to RA-02 . Only a portion of the Bolsa Chica is proposed for ROS . This is the portion of the State Ecological Preserve which abuts the Pacific Coast Highway. In addition, a small section of the Preserve is proposed for ROS-01. 3 . 0 SURROUNDING LAND USES: A majority of the Bolsa Chica is not prezoned. Small portions in the northeastern and eastern sections are prezoned RI. , Rl-CD, RA and -CD. The properties to the north of the Bolsa Chica are primarily residential and zoned R1 and Rl-PD-14 . Some ROS zoning exists in Huntington Harbour and a small commercial center (C4) i_s located to the northwest. The properties to the east are zoned Rl, Rl-CD and R2 . Uses include residential, agriculture and. vacant property with some oil production. To the south are located major oil production uses on RA-0 , R3-0 , R4-0 , M1-02 , M2-0 and M2-02 zoning. Bolsa Chica State Beach is located on the west and zoned CF-R. 4. 0 ANALYSIS : The need to prezone the Bolsa Chica stems from the potential annexation of this property. Annexed property automatically enters the City as Rl unless it is prezoned. If the Bolsa Chica were to enter the City with R1 zoning, the property would be subject to immediate development pressures. In order to secure enough time to properly assess all interests in the Bolsa Chica, appropriate prezoning is necessary. ZONE CASE NO. 76-20 Page 3 There are three major concerns in determining appropriate prezoning in the Bolsa Chica. One is the existence of a major oil field. A second is the existence of the State Ecological Preserve. The third is the City Council' s and the Bolsa Chica Study Committee ' s determination that the Bolsa Chica should be prezoned with a holding zone. The only zone specifically intended -to be a holding zone under the Huntington Beach Zoning Ordinance is Residential Agri- culture (RA) . The overwhelming majority of oil land uses in the Bolsa Chica require the -02 suffix. Since this suffix can only be attached to Ml, M2 and RA base districts and since the RA district has been determined appropriate for portions of the Bolsa Chica, all property in oil use except a two acre site are proposed for RA-02 zoning. ROS-01 has been attached to the two acre site because the oil use is consistent with the -01 suffix and the property is in the State Ecological Preserve. The remainder of the Bolsa Chica is proposed to be prezoned ROS to reflect the character of the State Ecological Preserve. 5 . 0 RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends approval of Zone Case No. 76-20 based on the following findings: FINDINGS: 1. The Bolsa Chica should be prezoned RA-02 , ROS-01 and ROS in order that upon annexation the Bolsa Chica would not automatically enter the City with R1 zoning. This would provide a transitional zone that would allow for a comprehensive plan to be prepared for the Bolsa Chica prior to determination of permanent zoning designations. 2 . The recommended zoning designations are consistent with the Phase I Land Use Element. TM:gc AMIGOS fit; BOLSA CHICA ,-.., 5602 Lud_l.ow Circle Huntington Beach, CA 926• August 9 , 1976 City of Huntington Beach Environmental Review Board. Huntington Beach , California RE : ND76-68 , ZC 76- 20 Bolsa Chica Environmental Review Board Members : Amigos de Bolsa Chica has been an active supporter of plans to ' publicly acquire a majority of the Bolsa Chica property for restoration and preservation. We feel that the Bolsa Chica is an invaluable resource to the people of California which has tremendous potential for recreational and educational use . Legislation is currently before the State Legislature which would allow the addition of the Bolsa Chica to the California State Park System.. Because the state park/open space alternative would be highly beneficial to the city , in addition to being a regional asset , we believe that the City of Huntington Beach should encourage maintenance of this property as open space by prezoning the entire 1603 acres ROS-02 . Section S . 0 of the Preliminary Environmental Description asks , "Are there alternatives to the project which may result in a lesser adverse environmental impact?" Total ROS- 02 zoning clearly would generate fewer adverse effects than either the R-1 or the ROS-o2 alternatives discussed in that section. In the event that the Bolsa Chica property is annexed to the City of Huntington Beach , the ROS- 02 zoning designation would also minimize escolation of market value which could hinder the State ' s ability to acquire the property for public use . Sincerely, Herb Chatterton President HC/lm AMIGOS DI.; BOLSA CIIICA ! 5602 Ludlow Circle Huntington Beach , Ca. 92649 August 16 , 1976 TO: City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission Huntington Beach, Ca. FROM: Amigos de Bolsa Chica Herb Chatterton, President RE : ND76- 68 ,. ZC 76-20 Bolsa Chica Planning Commission Members : Amigos de Bolsa Chica has been an active supporter of plans to publicly acquire a majority of the Bolsa Chica property for restoration and preservation. We feel that the Bolsa Chica is an invaluable resource to the people of California which has tremendous potential for recreational and educational use . Legislation is currently before the State Legislature which would allow the addition of the Bolsa Chica to the California State Park System. Because the State Park/open space alternative would be highly beneficial to the city, in addition to being a. regional asset , we believe that the City of Huntington Beach should encourage maintenance of this property as open space by prezoning the entire 1603 acres ROS-02 . Section 5 . 0 of the Preliminary Environmental Description asks , "Are there alternatives to the project which may result in a lesser adverse environmental impact?" Total ROS-02 zoning clearly would generate fewer adverse effects than either the R-1 or the ROS- 02/P.A-02 alternatives discussed in that section. In the event that the Bolsa Chica property is annexed to the City of Iuntington Beach , the ROS-02 zoning designation would also minimize escalation of market value which could hinder the State ' s ability to acquire the property for public use . AMI GUS M, 6OLSA (" l i CA 5602 Ludlow Circle untington Beach, CA 92645 August 30 , 1976 To : Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach From: Amigos do Bolsa Chica Herb Chatterton , President Re : ND 76- 68 , ZC 76- 2.0 Bolsa Chica Amigos de Bolsa Chica is compelled to object to the proposed prezoning of the Bolsa Chica for the following reasons : I . The negative declaration accompanying the prezoning proposal is not the appropriate environmental document for this project . The negative declaration fails to evaluate the impacts of alternative zones which could be applied to the Bolsa Chica property, including those alternatives which would be in closer conformance to the Huntington Beach General Plan . Because the particular prezoning applied to this area of extreme environmental sensitivity is crucial to the assessment of impacts , it is imperative that a complete Environmental Impact Report be prepared which carefully evaluates the impacts of alternative zoning plans . II . The. negative declaration which has heen publicly distri- buted has been essentially invalidated by the recent modification of the prezoning plan. As currently proposed, we 'do not believe that ND 76-68 fulfills the requirements of the California Environmental. Quality Act or the City of Huntington Beach ' s own policy of "open government. " III . The Z011ing currently proposed :is not. appropriate to the Bolsa Chica area . '['he RA zone is idcnti f:i cd as an interim zone which would facilitate the transition of property from agricultural use to development . The vast majority of the Bolsa Chica has never been in agricultural use , and there is substantial. information that indicates that the area should not be significantly developed. A. The adopted Open Space and Conservation Element of the Huntington. Beach General. Plan i.dentifi.es the Bolsa Chica as a high priority area for open space planning. B. The State of California currently maintains a S30 acre ecological preserve on the Bolsa Chica lowlands . C. The State of California has identified the Bolsa Chica as the largest restorable marshland area in Southern California and is moving toward the acqui- sition of the vast majority of the Bolsa Cliica property for addition to. the State Park System. The Bols�Chica property has been d"_gn.ated as a ;.•fit: ' top priority parcel for such acquisiuion. Legislation p which would provide Fond funding for the land acqui- sition has been passed by the legislature and will be presented for voter approval in the November , 1076 election. D. The Seismic Safety Element of the Huntington Beach General_ Plan designates a large portion of the Bolsa Chica as a seismic high risk area. Also , much of the property is included in the Alquist-Priolo Geologic hazard Zone . E. Most of the Bolsa Chica property is subject to severe flooding and large areas could be innundated in the event of a tsunami (tidal wave) . IV. The proposed zoning would allow a low level of development and target the area for rezoning to more inte nsive develop- ment later. however , as general and specific planning . occurs in the near future , it is very possible that substantial areas will be planned as open space . If annexed now with a developable zone (even RA) , the conver- sion to open space zoning later would amount to substantial down- zoning and subject the city to the risks of inverse condemnation proceedings . For the above reasons , it is clear that the only zoning which would be appropriate for the 1603 acres of the Bolsa Chica is a non- developable open space zone (ROS) which will allow full flexibility at the completion of the planning phase . Additionally , the existing negative declaration is totally inadequate as a public disclosure document to accompany the prezoning proposal and should be replaced by a detailed Environmental Impact Report which completely assesses the ,effect.s of prezoning alternatives . The City of Huntington Beach has long ]told that the Bolsa Chica is the most environmentally sensitive area remaining in its sphere of influence . As such , this area deserves a careful and detailed environmental assessment . Huntington Beach cannot afford to take . poorly planned short cuts in the evaluation of a project of such high significance to the citizens of our community. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MUN TINGTONBEACH Post Office Box 190 • City of Huntington Beach • California 92648 .y •a TO: Planning Commission A FROM: Environmental Review Board DATE: August 10 , 1976 SUBJECT: Negative Declaration No. 76-68 (ZC 76-20) APPLICANT: City Planning Department REQUEST: Prezoning of the Bolsa Chica wp - LOCATION: Proposed annexation area of the Bolsa Chica The Environmental Review Board; at its meeting of August 10, 1976 , granted the above negative declaration, having found that the prezoning of itself will not have a significant adverse effect upon the physical environment. .3 No environmental impact report has been prepared for this project, although an EIR has been prepared for the actual annexation proposal. Findings are predicated upon the information contained in the preliminary environmental description, the public input process, and review by the Environmental Review Board. Melt' n A. ooker, Acting Secretary Environmental Review Board :df Attachments: ERB Minutes of 8-10-76 EIR Review Committee of the Environmental Council { comments :. Communication from Amigos de Bolsa Chica dated 8-9-76 • CITY OF HUnTInGTOn BEACH DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-5271 ff If . TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Planning Department DATE: October 20, 1976 ATTN: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator RE: BOLSA CHICA PREZONE (ZONE CASE NO. 76-20) At the September 20, 1976 City Council meeting, second reading of this ordinance was withheld pending clarification of Councilman Siebert' s concern that the proposed pre-zoning was not in conformance to the General Plan. A subsequent meeting was held with Councilman Siebert, Assistant City Administrator Dick Harlow, City Attorney Don Bonfa, and Acting Planning Director Ed Selich and the question was resolved. As an additional point, the Planning Staff initiated and the Planning Commission approved the creation of a new zoning district, the Limited Use District, to be applied to Bolsa Chica immediately upon annexation to the City. Also, the Commission approved an amendment to the zoning code which would allow the 02 designation to be combined with ROS and the new LU District. These proposed amendments were based on the City Council' s direction at the September 7 , 1976 meeting. Also, the thirty-day additional posting period on the Bolsa Chica Annexation Environmental Impact Report will expire on October 21, 1976 and will be transmitted to the City Council for the November 1 , 1976 meeting. RECOMMENDATION: Approve Ordinance No. 2112 for second reading. Respectfully submitted, Edward D. S*1ich Acting Director ORDINANCE NO. Z-- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 9061 THEREOF TO PROVIDE FOR PREZONING ON REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN UNINCORPORATED PROPERTY REFERRED TO AS THE BOLSA CHICA (ZONE CASE NO. 76-20 ) WHEREAS, pursuant to the state Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have had separate public hearings relative to Zone Case No. 76-20 wherein both bodies have carefully considered all information presented at said hearings , and after due con- sideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all evidence presented to said City Council, the City Council finds that such prezoning is proper, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows : SECTION 1 . The following described real property located in the Bolsa Chica is hereby prezoned RA-02, "Residential Agricultural District Combined with Oil Production: " Beginning at the intersection of the easterly line of the northwest quarter of said Fractional Section 4 with the northeasterly line of Pacific Coast Highway (90 feet wide) as shown on said map of Record of Survey; thence along said northeasterly line by the following courses : north 43°35141" west 532. 97 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave northeasterly and having a radius of 5592 . 02 feet; thence northwesterly along said curve through a central angle of 6029 ' 50" , an arc length of 634 . 12 feet; thence tangent to said curve, north 37°05 ' 51" west 8990. 56 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave southwesterly and having a radius of 5879. 30 feet; thence northwesterly along said curve through a central angle of 5121 "28", an are length of 549. 78 feet; thence tangent to said curve, north 42027 ' 19" west 2493 . 25 feet; thence JOC ; er leaving said northeasterly line, south 47032 , 41" west 90. 00 feet to the northeasterly line of the Pacific Electric Railway Company right of way as per deed recorded in book 92, page 306 of Deeds, records of said County; thence along said last mentioned northeasterly line, north 42027 ' 19" west 1816. 48 feet to a point in the centerline of Warner Avenue as shown on said map of Record of Survey; thence along said centerline, south 89012' 50" east 386 . 46 feet to a point in the continuation of said northeasterly line of Pacific Coast Highway, said northeasterly line being a curve, .concave southwesterly and having a radius of 3053 . 51 feet, a radial line of said curve from said point bears south 50°16105" west; thence southeasterly along said curve through a central angle of 0144' 11", an arc length of 39 . 24 feet to a point in the southerly line of said Warner Avenue, a radial line of said last mentioned curve to said point bears north 51100116" east ; thence along said southerly line and the southerly line of Los Patos Avenue (vacated) , as shown on said map of Record of Survey, south 89,"12150" east 3872 . 88 feet and south 89021140" east 2001 . 25 feet to an angle point in the boundary of the "Signal Bolsa No . 1" Annexation to the City of Huntington Beach, certified by the Secretary of State of the State of California on September 10, 1971; thence along said boundary by the following courses ; south 34002121" east 604 . 70 feet; thence north 89°58117" east 773 . 00 feet; thence south 0'10116" west 600 . 00 feet; thence south 45035 ' 11" east 4026 . 59 feet; thence south 48037102" east 2605 . 00 feet; thence south 55022102" east 978 . 60 feet; thence north 0116' 56" east 46 . 93 feet; thence north 51043156" east 1676 .16 feet; thence south 75043104" east 508 . 26 feet to the centerline of Edwards Street as shown on said map of Record of Survey; thence along said centerline, south 0016 ' 56" west 1401 . 39 feet to a line parallel with and 20 . 00 feet northerly of the centerline of Ellis Avenue as shown on said map of Record of Survey; thence along said parallel line, north 89030 ' 55" west 20 . 00 feet to a line parallel with and 20. 00 feet westerly of said centerline of Edwards Street ; thence along said last mentioned parallel line south 0°16 ' 56" west 20 . 00 feet and south 0'16141" west 329 . 97 feet to the northerly line of Parcel 1, as shown on map filed in book 42, page 25 of Parcel Maps, records of said County; thence along said northerly line, north 89032115" west 968 . 55 feet to an angle point 2 . in the southeasterly boundary as shown on said map of Record of Survey; thence along said southeasterly boundary by the following courses : south 0018 ' 37" west 1321. 75 feet; thence north 89040121" west 726 . 01 feet; thence continuing along said southeasterly boundary and the prolongation thereof, south 26050 ' 08" west 1107. 59 feet to the northerly line of the north- west quarter of said Section 3 ; thence along said northerly line, south 89041 ' 32" east 231 . 56 feet; thence south 0'16105" west 329. 03 feet; thence north 89141132" west 660 . 63 feet to the westerly line of said northwest quarter of Section 3; thence along said westerly line, south 0016 ' 05" ' west 329. 04 feet to the easterly prolongation of that certain course in said southeasterly boundary shown as having a bearing and length of north 89038 ,14" west 180 . 03 feet; thence along said prolongation and along said boundary by the following courses : north 89038 '14" west 330 . 03 feet; thence south 0019 ' 55" west 329. 66 feet; thence north 89140, 44" west 660 . 20 feet ; thence south 0018' 57" west 330. 21 feet; thence north 89038115" west 1650 . 67 feet; thence south 001714011 west 884 . 38 feet to the point of beginning. Except that property described as follows : Beginning at a point in the northeasterly line of Pacific Coast Highway, as shown on said map of Record of Survey, lying north 37005 ' 51" west 1790 . 56 feet from the northwesterly terminus of that certain curve in said northeasterly line, shown as having a central angle of 6029150" and a radius of 5592 . 02 feet; thence north 52054109" east 1353 . 00 feet; thence north 45030 ' 00" west 4006. 00 feet to the true point of beginning; thence north 37020100" west 500 . 00 feet, thence south 52040 , 00" west 200 . 00 feet; thence south 37020100" east 500 . 00 feet; thence north 52040100" east 200 . 00 feet to the true point of beginning. And that property described as follows : Beginning at a point in the northeasterly line of Pacific Coast Highway, as shown on said map of Record of Survey, lying north 37005 ' 51" west 1790. 56 feet from the northwesterly terminus of that certain curve in said northeasterly line, shown as having a central angle of 6029 ' 50" and a radius of 5592. 02 feet; thence north 52054109" east 395 . 00 feet to the true point of beginning; thence continuing north 52°54109" east -958 . 00 feet; thence north 45030 ' 00" west 2504 . 00 feet; thence south 44030 ' 00" west 490 . 00 feet ; thence north 3 . 45030 ' 00" west 326 . 00 feet; thence north 44°30 ' 00" east 490 . 00 feet; thence north 45°30100" west 1176. 00 feet; thence south 52040 ' 00" west 200 . 00 feet ; thence north 37120100" west 500 . 00 feet ; thence north 52040 , 00" east 200 . 00 feet; thence north 3°12 ' 07" east 552 .47 feet; thence south 72030 ' 10" , west 381. 00 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave 'northeasterly and having a radius of 750 . 00 feet; thence northwesterly along said curve through a central angle of 84015140", an arc length of 1102. 98 feet; thence tangent to said curve, north 23014 ' 10" west 1125. 00 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave southwesterly and having a radius of 1500 . 00 feet; thence north- westerly along said curve through a central angle of 16018120", an arc length of 426. 88 feet; thence tangent to said curve, north 39°32 ' 30" west 2790 . 00 feet; thence north 32008 ' 30" west 955. 00 feet to the southerly line of Warner Avenue as shown on said map of Record of Survey; thence along said southerly line, north 89112' 50" west 980 .54 feet to the continuation of the northeasterly line of Pacific Coast Highway, said northeasterly line being a curve concave to the southwest having a radius of 3053 . 51 feet, a radial line of said curve bears north 51000116" east ; thence northwesterly along said curve thru a central angle of 0° 44111" an arc distance of 39 . 42 feet to its intersection with the centerline of Warner Avenue as shown on said map of Record of Survey ; thence along the westerly extension of said centerline north 89012150" west 386. 46 feet to the northeasterly line of the Pacific Electric Railway Company right of way as per deed recorded in book 92, page 306 of Deeds, records of said county; thence south 42027119" east 1816 . 48 feet along said last mentioned north- easterly line; thence leaving said northeasterly line north 47032141" east 90 . 00 feet to the before mentioned northeasterly line of Pacific Coast Highway; thence south 42027119" east 2493 . 25 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave southwesterly and having a radius of 5879. 30 feet ; thence southeasterly along said curve through a central angle of 5121128", an arc length of 549 .78 feet; thence tangent to said curve, south 37005 ' 51" east 6045. 56 feet ; thence north 52054109" east 195. 00 feet; thence south 82005 ' 51" east 282 .84 feet ; thence south 37005' 51" east 954 . 44 feet to the true point of beginning. SECTION 2. The following described real property located in the Bolsa Chica is hereby prezoned ROS-01, "Recreational Open Space District Combined with Oil Production: " 4 . Beginning at a point in the northeasterly line of Pacific Coast Highway, as shown on said map of Record of Survey, lying north 37°05 ' 51" west 1790 . 56 feet from the northwesterly terminus of that certain curve in said northeasterly line, shown as having a central angle of 6129 ' 50" and a radius of 5592 . 02 feet; thence north 52° 54109" east 1353 . 00 feet; thence north 45030' 00" west 4006. 00 feet to the true point of beginning; thence north 37120100" west 500 . 00 feet thence south 52040100" west 200 . 00 feet; thence south 37020100" east 500 . 00 feet; thence north 52040 , 00" east 200. 00 feet to the true point of beginning. SECTION 3 . The following described real property located in the Bolsa Chica is hereby prezoned ROS, "Recreational Open Space District : " Beginning at a point in the northeasterly line of Pacific Coast Highway, as shown on said map of Record of Survey, lying north 37005 ' 51" west 1790 . 56 feet from the northwesterly terminus of that certain curve in said northeasterly line, shown as having a central angle of 6129 ' 50" and a radius of 5592 . 02 feet; thence north 52° 54109" east 395. 00 feet to the true point of beginning; thence continuing north 52° 54109" east 958 . 00 feet; thence north 45030 ' 00" west 2504 .00 feet; thence south 44030 ' 00" west 490 . 00 feet; thence north 45030 ' 00" west 326 . 00 feet; thence north 44030 ' 00" east 490 . 00 feet ; thence north 45°30 ' 00" west 1176 . 00 feet; thence south 52040 , 00" west 200. 00 feet; thence north 37020100" west 500 . 00 feet; thence north 52140100" east 200 . 00 feet; thence north 3012107" east 552 . 47 feet; thence south 72030 ' 10" west 381 . 00 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave northeasterly and having a radius of 750 . 00 feet; thence northwesterly along said curve through a central angle of 84°15140" , an arc length of 1102 . 98 feet; thence tangent to said curve, north 23014110" west 1125 . 00 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave southwesterly and having a radius of 1500. 00 feet; thence north- westerly along said curve through a central angle of 16018120", an arc length of 426 . 88 feet ; thence tangent to said curve, north 39032 ' 30" west 2790 . 00 feet; thence north 32° 08 ' 30" west 955 . 00 feet to the southerly line of Warner Avenue as shown on said map of Record of Survey; thence along said southerly line, north 89012 ' 50" west 980 . 54 feet to the continuation of the northeasterly line of Pacific Coast Highway, said northeasterly line being a curve concave to the southwest having a radius of 3053 . 51 feet, a radial line of said curve bears north 51000116" east ; thence northwesterly along said curve thru a central angle 5 • of 00441l1" an arc distance of 39. 42 feet to its intersection with the centerline of Warner Avenue as shown on said map of Record of Survey; thence along the westerly extension of said centerline north 89°12150" west 386 . 46 feet to the north- easterly line of the Pacific Electric Railway Company right of way as per deed recorded in book 92, page 306 of Deeds, records of said County; thence south 42127119" east 1816 . 48 feet along said last mentioned northeasterly line; thence leaving said northeasterly line north 47°32 ' 41" east 90. 00 feet to the before mentioned northeasterly line of Pacific Coast Highway; thence south 42127' 19" east 2493 . 25 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave southwesterly and having a radius of 5879. 30 feet; thence south- easterly along said curve through a central angle of 512112811 , an arc length of 549 . 78 feet; thence tangent to said curve, south 37°05 ' 51" east 6045 . 56 feet; thence north 52154109" east 195 . 00 feet; thence south 82° 05 ' 51" east 282.-84 feet; thence south 37005151" east 954 . 44 feet to the true point of beginning. SECTION 4 . The Planning Director of the City of Huntington Beach is hereby directed to change District Map 3 (Sectional District Map 3-5-11) , District Map 4 (Sectional District Map 4-5-11) , District Map 33 (Sectional District Map 28-5-11) , District Map 34 (Sectional District Map 29-5-11) , District Map 35 (Sectional District Map 30-5-11) , District Map 36 (Sectional District Map 32-5-11) , District Map 37 (Sectional District Map 33-6-11, ) and District Map 38 (Sectional District Map 34-6-11) to incorporate the prezoning described in Sections 1, 2 and 3 hereof, and as said district maps shall have been amended, the same shall be in full force and effect " and be a part of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. Copies of said district maps, as ' amended hereby, are available for inspection in the office of the City Clerk. SECTION 5. Section 9061, District Maps 3, 4, 33, 34 , 35, 36, 37 and 38 thereof, are hereby amended by Zone Case No . 76-20 . SECTION 6. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and cause same to be published within fifteen days after adoption in the Huntington Beach News , a weekly news- paper of general circulation, printed and published in Huntington Beach, California. 6. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular adjourned meeting- thereof, held on thfe .2--6-th day-, .of..,Qctober, 19 76 . ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk ° APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM: 4C ' y Administrator City At orney ' APPROV D, INITIATING DEPARTMENT: NO FISCAL IMPACT -AU FISCAL IMPACT -- BUDGETED FISCAL IMPACT =- NOT BUDGETED REQUIRES FINANCIAL IhAPACT REDORT 7 . C No. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-offi.cio Clerk of the City Council of the said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of member$ of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the _ day of 19 and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 19 and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Councilmen: NOES: Councilmen: ABSENT: Councilmen: City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Submitted by James W. Palin Department Development Services Date Prepared February 20 , 19 81 Backup Material Attached ® Yes No Subject BOLSA CHICA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT City Administrator's Comments Discretionary with Council Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The Planning Commission at its meeting of February 18 , 1981 , voted to request that the City Council transmit a recommendation on one or a com- bination of the alternatives for the Bolsa Chica General Plan Amendment being considered by Orange County. ANALYSIS : The Orange County Environmental Management Agency will be making a recommendation to the County Planning Commission at its March 10 , 1981 meeting on one of the proposed General Plan amendment alternatives for the Bolsa Chica. At that time, the Planning Commission may make its recommendation and transmit the amendment to the County Board of 'Super- visors for consideration on March 25, 1981 . The City' s Planning Commission recommends that the City Council transmit a recommendation on a City-preferred alternative prior to the March 10 County Planning Commission meeting. However, this would necessitate, a Council decision at its meeting of March 2, 1981 . EMA staff indicates that a more appropriate time for a recommendation may be after the County Planning Commission has selected an alternative. This would enable the Council to transmit its recommendations or comments on the County Planning Commission's recommendation directly to the Board of Supervisors, which is scheduled to consider the Bolsa Chica amendment on March 25, 1981 . This would allow time for an EMA briefing to Council , if it ,so desires, at the Council meeting of March 16, 1981 . At that time EMA could explain the Planning Commission action and answer questions from Council . An EMA staff report has been attached outlining the various alternatives. Pio 31fa Page 2 FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1 . Recommend one or a combination of the alternatives outlined in the attached EMA staff report and transmit it to the Orange County Planning Commission. 2 . Make no recommendation. 3 . Request EMA staff to brief the City Council at its meeting of March 16, 1981, on the alternative selected by the County Planning Commission and decide at that time on a recommendation, or no recommendation, to be made to the County Board .of Supervisors at its meeting of March 25, 1981 . RECOMMEND: Planning Commission Recommendation: Recommend one or a combination of the attached alternatives for transmittal to the Orange County Planning Commission. Respectfully submitted, James W. Palin Director JWP:JWC:df Attachment I i i • CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH F INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUN FINGTON BEACH To Planning Commission o James W. Pa' in, Director, Development services a Subject BOLSA CHICA GENERAL PLAN to February 13, 1981 AMENDMENT Attached is the latest information from the Orange County Environ- mental Management Agency concerning, the Bolsa. Chica General Plan Amendment. if you would like any additional information, please let me know at the Commission meeting on February 18th. I I f FE8 '1 0 1981 P. 0. sox 190 �fry�ton%&0,CA.9269 . BOLSA CHICA LOCAL COASTAL PROGRA"t REPORT ON WORK IN PROGRESS COUNTY OF ORANGE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY PLANNING FUNCTION PROJECT PLANNING DIVISION Revised February 10,- 1981 r t I b CONTENTS Pa€e I. Local Coastal Program Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. Bolsa Chica Study Area Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 III. Bolsa Chira History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . j . . . . . . . 6 IV. Progress to Bate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 V. Key Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 VI. Land Use Plan Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 1. LOCAL COASTAL PROCRA?t REOUIRDIF.NTS A. California Coastal Act The Orange County Environmental Management Agency is preparing the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program in compliance with the California Coastal Act of 1972. That Act passed as proposition 20 declared that: "the permanent protection of the remaining natural and scenic resources of the coastal zone is of paramount concern to present and future residents of the state and nation. . . (and that) i it is the policy of the state to preserve, protect and where ` possible, to restore the resources of the coastal zone for the enjoyment of the current and suceeding generations:" The Coastal Act of 1972 did not provide a permanent program but j did establish commission. to plan the future of California's coast and to oversee development of the coast for a temporary period. Efforts of the 1972-1976 Coastal Commission resulted in passage of the California Coastal Act of 1976 which rcrnaains in force and declares that basic goals of the State for the Coastal Zone are to: "Protect, ,maintain, and where feasible, enhanct� and restore the overall quality of the coastal, zone envi.ronnicht and its natural and manmade resources." "Assure orderly, balanced utilization ;and. consorvat icon of coastal zone re>ources .taakirip .into account the social. ind economic needs of the people of the state.01 t 1 of 33 "Maximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public recreational opportunities in the coastal zone con- sistent with sound resources conservation principles and constitutionally protected rights of private owners." "Assure priority for coastal-dependent and coastal-re- lated development over other idevelopment on the coast . " "Encourage state and local initiatives and cooperation in preparing procedures to implement coordinated planning ,and development for mutually beneficial uses; including educational uses, in the coastal zone." The Coastal Act requires each Local government located in whole or in part within the coastal zone to prepare a "Local Coastal Program" for that part of the coastal zone located within its jurisdiction. Each local coastal program is to be prepared in accordance with Coastal Act policies and is to consist of a Land Use Plan phase (LCP Phase II) and an Implementation Actions phase (LCP Phase III) . The Land Use Plan phase is to be comprised of a land use plan. indicating Location and intensity of land and water uses and applicable resources protection, a resources cofnponant, a transportation component, a coastal access component , and development policies to accomplish Coastal Act objectives. The Impl.einentati.on Actions phase includes methods necessary to realize policies , and provisions for the Land Use Plan. The purpose of Orange County's Local Coastal Program is to implement Coastal. Act policies by ensuring conformance of existing county plans and regulations related to the coastal zone with statewide Coastal Act policies. 2 of 33 . Aft B. County of Orange Local Coastal Program The County of Orange commenced its Local Coastal Program planning activities in 1977 when County staff accomplished administra- tive and organizational tasks necessary to .perform the extensive Local Coastal Program process. In 1978, County staff initiated preparation of a segmentation request and two-year work program for its Local Coastal Program. Due to varying characteristics of land with the County's Coastal Zone (an area which varies from, 1,.000 yards. from shoreline in urbanized communuities to ihe.San Joaquin Hills ridgeline in undeveloped areas) and concomitant need for different types of an'alyses, County staff divided the zone into four segments: North Coast , South Coast, Irvine Coast and Aliso Creek. These four segments were in turn divided into 12 distinct geographic areas for purposes of resource inventory analysis and policy/issue identification. The subareas of the Aliso, Creek and South Coast segments are part of one large continuous area. The six subareas of the North Coast se,-ment are non- contiguous and consist of Newport Dunes, Santa And Heights, Sunset Beach, Sunset Aquatic Regional Park, Santa Ana River Mouth and Bolsa Chica. During February, 1978 County staff held public meetings to in- form interested residents about the scope, and intent of the Coastal Act and its implications for the County coastal- .zone. In addition, staff solicited community comments on the Draft Local Coastal Program issue identification and work program for the Nofth Coast, Aliso Creek and South Coast segments and on the Irvine Coast Issue Identification and Land Use. Plan. A work program for the' North Coast , Aliso Creek and South Coast segments was approved by the Orange County Board of Supervisors 3 of 33 i in May, 1978. The segment:.at ion and modified work program for the three planning; units was approved (with one modification) by the South Coast Regional Commission in .January 1979, and was approved by the State Commission in February 1979 (subject to approval of a schedule or priorities and milestones) . The State .Coastal Commission approved the work program schedule i May 1979. The Orange County Local Coastal Program consists of three major phases: Phase I: Issue identification and Work Program Preparation Phase II: Work Program Task Performance & Land Plan Prepara- tion. Phase III: Zoning and Other Implementing Device Preparation Phase I is comprised of four parts: 1) Coastal Act Policy Groups, 2) Issue Identification, 3) Work Tasks, and 4) Products. . The Coastal Act Policy Group section identifies Coastal Act develop- ment and resource protection policies designed to implement State goals for planning and management of resources within the coastal zone. Policy groups related to the County coastal zone are: Shoreline Access; Recreation and Visitor-Serving Facilities; Housing; Water and Marine Resources; Environmenta,ll, Sensitive Habitats; Diking, Dredging, Filling and Shoreline Structures (low priority) ; Commercial Fishing and Recreational Boating (low priority) ; Public Works; New Development; Visual Resources; and, Hazards. The Issue Identification section briefly identifies policy provi.sioiis of the Coastal Act applicable to the various planning units. The Work Tasks section defines investigative procedure.; necessary to devt:lop policies for the planning units which wi>uid facilitate .attain- ment of Coastal Act policies. The Product sectioil attempts to define the nature of products to be developed from the work tasks. 41 4 of 33 To achieve a more organized and effective planning effort, the format of the original work program was reorganized. Products and work tasks to be developed for the LCP were organized into five components: Resource, Transportation, Access, Recreation and New Development, and Energy facilities. Phase II consists of Work Program Task Performance and Land Use Plan Preparations. Work Program Task Performance is facilitating development of products (policies and programs) which will . assist in bringing current County policies and programs into conformance with the Coastal. Act. Land Use Plan Preparation involves the following: o Analysis of current Land Use Element designations to ascertain consistency of designations with the Coastal Act. o Development of additional land use designation categories if necessary. o Analysis of Land Use Element alternatives and selection of an alternative. i o Integration.of products and the land use alternative into a land use plan. Phase III of the work program will involve possible .amendment of the County zoning ordinance and district map and preparation of area plans, specific plans and other implementing actions neces- sary to implement the intent of the Land Use Plan. Where neces- sary other County Ordinances may require revision. II. RnLSA CHICA STUDY AREA I)PSCRTPTTON -The Bol.sa Chica study area occupies approximately 1,609 acres of I 5 of 33 , unincorporated land surrounded by the City of Huntington Beach. The predominantly open space project site is bordered on the northwest by the Huntington Harbor residential development and Warner Avenue, on the northeast by residential development , on the southeast generally by open land .supporting oil production facilities, and on the southwest by Pacific Coast Highway and Bolsa Chica State Beach. Signal Landmark Inc. is the major landholder in the Bolsa Chica, with fee title to 1,200 acres. W. R. Grace Properties, Inc. owns 42 acres in the Bolsa Chica. Approximately one hundrod acres is owned by other interests. The State of California olds 327.5 acres in addition to conditional ownership status of an additional 230.acres subject to the provisions of the 1973 Boundary Settlement and Land Exchange Agreement. Under the Boundary Settlement and Land Exchange Agreement between the State and the Signal Companies approved by the State Lands Commission on January 25, 1973, the :state acquir^_d title to a 300-acre parcel in the B61sa Chica Gap. Under that Agreement, the State also will acquire a lease for an additional 230 acres adjacent to the 300-acre parcel for a period of 14 years. The State has an option to acquire title to the 230-acre lease parcel if (among other conditions) within the 14-year period an ocean entrance system is constructed. Such system is to consist of a navigable waterway between the Pacific Ocean and Signal lands that will accommodate small craft . III. BOLSA CHICA HISTORY The Bolsa Chica was formed by an ancient stream that flowed through the Huntington Beach area to the Pacific Ocean. Archaeological evidence indicates the first inhabitants of the area i 6 of :33 I 1 ' were California Indians who occupied the mesa overlooking the Bolsa Gap for several thousand years. Predominance of shell material recovered from their -middens suggests .that the Bolsa Gap at that time was a broad, shallow coastal bay or estuary. As alluvial. sediments from the river slowly filled the estuary, salt marshes developed_ which were then succeeded by freshwater marshes farther inland. At the advent of European colonization of Southern California, the Santa Ana River drained through Anaheim Bay and the Gap and emptied (at least partially) into the Pacific Ocean through the Los Patos Channel near existing Warner Avenue. The area remained an estuary, ranging .from salt marsh to freshwater marsh extending inland from the ocean. During the floods of 1825 the River changed course to a location near the current river and no longer flowed through Bolsa Gap. However, rising groundwater (artesian springs) and freshwater drainage from smaller watersheds such as Freeman Creek maintained the extensive inland swamplands and estuarine system of the Gap. Throughout this period and much of the 1800's, extensive tracts of land in the region (including Bolsa Chica) were used primarily for cattle ranching and sheep grazing. In the 1880's the Ranchos began to experience economic problems precipitated by declining beef prices and severe drought years. By the 1880's most, of Bolsa Chica's fresh- water marshlands had been sold off as worthless swamps. Settlers in the area soon constructed ditches to drain the swamps and convert much of the inland freshwater marshes of Bolsa Chica to, agriculture. These agricultural drains continued the freshwater input to''B'olsa Bay which at that time emptied into the soa through the Los Patos channel . However, due to the agricultural conversion, only tidal marshes of the coastal strip (including the study area) remained unaltered by tho late 1890's. Alteration of the salt marshes soon followed. Hunting clubs were attracted by large numbers of game birds which utilized the remain- ing marshes of the Orange County coastline. The largest was the tf 7 of 33 y Bolsa Chica Gun Cluh which applied to the State in 1895 for a con- cession to reclaim the tidal marshes of Bolsa Bay. In order to reclaim the marshlands, in 1899 the Gun Club constructed a dam with tide gates extending from the southwest tip of. Bolsa Chica Mesa to the coastal sand dunes. The primary purpose of the Jam and tide gates was to restrict entrance of saltwater into Bolsa Cap at high tide and to permit drainage of fresh water out during low tides. As` a result, the Los 'Patos ocean channel filled with sand and a new channel was constructed through Bolsa Chica Mesa. This new channel routed the Bolsa Bay tidal system through Sunset (now Huntington Harbour) and Anaheim Bays (the current configuration) . this restriction of tidal influence in the Bolsa Gap resulted in significant changes •in the natural. ecosystem in the study area. Further changes occurred as the Gun Club constructed access roads and dikes to create waterfowl ponds in some areas. At that time freshwater input to the Bolsa Gap remained. considerable from such sources as Freeman Creek which was fed by runoff from. a relatively small watershed and artesian springs. This water con- tinued to flush the alter6e system of shallow,-,meandering remnant sloughs behind the tide gates. However, in the 1920's groundwater extractions for domestic and agricultural uses began to progessively reduce the water supply from artesian sources. ` Urbanization of the area occurred in the early 1.900's. Small resort com- munities were established which would eventually become the cities of Seal Beach and Huntington Beach. The area was linked to Los Angeles and other inland areas by the Pacific Electric Railroad Line, constructed along the beach in 1904. In that year the extensive Huntington Beach oil field was discovered; and, in 1925 oil was discovered beneath the study area. In the early 1940's, construct- tion of drilling pads and well access roads began in the Bolsa Gap. At first, these modifications were. limited to the south- eastern areas adjacent to the Huntington Beach Mesa; but, by 1949 a grid of access roads and drillpads extended over the entire eastern half of the Cap. r'v` 8 of 33 Construction of these oil facilities further altered the environment of the Bolsa Gap. The extensive roadway and dike network and as- sociated excavations for fill resulted in a compartmentalized system of impoundments, which collect rainwater to form ponds. Remnants of previous drainage channels such as Freeman Creek (channelized prior to 1933) and portions of the historic Bo" .sa Bay system were segmented somewhat but still can be recognized. Rapid urban.development in Southern California had little impact on Bolsa Chica until the 1960's. In the 1960's and early 1970's the State acquired land comprising Bolsa Chica State Beach, the East Garden Grove Wintersburg flood control channel was constructed I through the site within an easement acquired by ,the County of Orange, and the Ocean View School District acquired a site on the Bolsa Chica Mesa. In 1972, the Metropolitan Water District acquired approximately 88 acres north of' the flood control channel associated with a then proposed off-shore seawater desalinization project. The adjacent tidal. inarsh of Sunset Bay was .dredged for the develop- ment of the large marina residehtial ,complex of Huntington Harbour. To the north and east, housing tracts were. developed which today abut the study area boundaries. Planning for Bolsa Chica began in the 19601s. In 1964, the United States Army Corps of. Engineers (COE) was authorized by Congress to study the feasibility of a small craft harbor at Bolsa Chica., This study (in cooperation with the County of Orange) co.ntin.tied until August 1972, at which time the California Department of Navigation and Ocean Development (DNOD) assumed project sponsorship. In the late 1960's (anticipating eventual cessation of oil. 'production at -Bolsa Chica) the property owners began preparing plans for a marina- residential. complex. These plans drew opposition from conservationists and from the State Resources APenc.y (SRA) primarily due to possible adverse impacts upon Bolsa Chica State Beach. I 9 of 33 In' 1970, Signal Landmark Properties, Inc.. acquired title to a major portion of the Bolsa Chica and continued conceptual land use plan- ning which included a marina-residential complex. However, the State of California contested the title to those areas of the Bolsa Gap which comprised historic tide and submerged lands. This contention resulted in two years of studies and negotiations between the State and Signal concerning the nature and extent of State ownership. An interagency task force involving the. State Lands Commission, Attorney General, and Department of: Dish and i . Game was organized to conduct and review these studies. Results of the 'task force effort included identification of 526.4 acres of sovereign tide and submerged lands in Bolsa Chica in which the State has an interest and identification of the State's objectives for these lands. These objectives included the following: Reestablishment and maintenance of a saltwater marsh ecosystem for improvement of bay and surf fisheries and provision of wildlife habitat (including en- dangered species); provision of expanded recreational opportunities for Bolsa Chica State Beach; and provision of a public waterway system available for small craft recreational use. Due to the task force determination that the irregular configuration and narrowness of some State lands were not conducive to achieving its objectives, a land exchange agreement with Signal (the "1973 Boundary Settlement") included the following major provisions: 1. Fee title to a 300-acne plot and 27.5 acres beneath Pacific Coast Highway (both of which are adjacent to the. Bolsa Chica State Beach) was confirmed or received by the State. The State determined that the lands within the 300-acre parcel were equal or greater in value than its interests outside the 300-acre area. 2. Clear fee title to the remainder of the Bol.sa Chica area was confirmed or conveyed to Signal Landmark. Properties, Inc. �' 10 of 33 3. Signal. would lease, without cost to the State, and additional 230 acres of land adjacent to the 300-acro plot for a period of 14 years. This was considered an offset for the effect of an ocean entrance system on theState's 300-acre parcel as well as being a contribution for the establishment of 'tich a system by Signal, 4. The State would receive fee title to the 230-acre plot upon construction of an ocean entrance system within the fourteen year. period, thus reopening Bolsa Bay to the Ocean to. ,provide a variety of public benefits and water access to Signal lands. 5. The Department of Fish and Came (DFG) received 66-year, leases for the lands described in points 1 and 3 from the State Lands Commission for the purpose of marsh reestablishment with the qualification that the lease of the 230-acre area would terminate at the end offourteen years should an ocean entrance system not be constructed. In association with and toward implementation of this Land Exchange Agreement, the State DFG began preparing a conceptual master plan for development of Bolsa Chica in 1973. Completed in 1974, the plan included a two-phase project. Phase I involved reestablishment of a marsh encompassing approximately 150 acres of the State's 300-acre parcel (added to approximately 50 acres in Outer Bolsa Bay) . Plinse 11 would involve expansion of the 300-acre marsh, and construction of a public marina, and a navigable ocean entrance system to provide tidal waters for the marsh and marina. The State would thereby gain fee title to the additional 230 acres of leased land. Phase I of the plan has been completed. Subsequent to the 1973 Agreement, numerous government jurisdictions and agencies and environmental groups have become involved with Bolsi Chica. The Depirtment of Fish and Game, Department of Navigation and Ocean Development and the Army Corps of Engineers 11 of 33 IV continue to study the feasibility of both marina and marshland devolop- ment. Local environmental groups and such agencies as the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service contend that implementation of Phase II of th<. 1973 agreement would be detrimental to the resources of Bol.sa Chica . In 1977, the County of Orange (in response to a proposal by 'Ale City of Huntington Beach) completed . a feasibility study for a linear regional park in Bolsa Chica that would include portions of both the'Huntington and Bolsa Chica Bluffs and a connection along the northeasterly periphery of the study area. By early 1978 the need for coordinated efforts became apparent . Interested agencies and groups met and eventually formed the Bolsa Chica Study Group (BCSG) . EDAW, Inc. was selected as the lead con- sultant to the BCSG and charged with the responsibility of collecting available data, coordinating efforts of expert subconsultants, ex- ploring pertinent issues, and compiling land use concepts which re- flected the expectations of BCSG members. These efforts resulted in the Report to the Bolsa Chica Study Group / submitted by EDA14 in 1979. The report presented characterizations of the physical, social and economic environment of the study area, discussions of important issues and considerations, and numerous land use concepts produced by BCSG members. The various land use plans included in the report varied considerably, ranging from complete public acquisition for marsh restoration and 'other open space to predominantly urban development. Subsequent to the BCSG effort, planning and analysis efforts for Bolsa Chica have con- tinued by many of its members (e.g. , DFG, U. S. fish and Wildlife Service, Army Corps of Engineers, Orange County and Slgnil. Landmark) . 1V. PROGRE.SS To DATE To data, Fnvironmcntal Miniagemom Agency staff has conducted four public workshops in Huntington Beach which occurred on November 20, 1980, December 2 and 9, 1980 and January 22, 1981. A Planning Commission workshop was held in Santa Ana on December 16, 1980,. 12 of 33 1 A: Workshop 1 (20 November 1980) Attendance: 70-80 Purpose: To provide those in attendance with an introduction to the Orange County Local Coastal Program and to the LCP efforts for the Bolsa Chica study area. It was the intention of EAfA staff through a slide presentation and oral presentation of material to inform the public of LCP work completed, LCP work planned and to elicit input from those in attendance pertaining to any matters covered in LCP work. Result: It was apparent that most of those attending the 'I workshop were generally opposed to concurrent processing of a Local Coastal Program and General Plan Amendment for Bolsa Chica, to the information the County was using to formulate the LCP, to the deadlines for completing the LCP, and particularly to any development on site and to any less extensive determination of wetlands than the preliminary determination made by State Coastal Commission. B. Workshop 2 (2 December 1980) Attendance: 11.5-130 Purpose: To provide a foruin for representatives of groups/ agencies/companies and for individuals to express and discuss their p.irticular position regarding "wetlands." The format was altered to provide a roundtable" atmosphere. County staff asked repro- schtatives from tho following agoticies/interests to matte brief presentations; l� 13 of 33 ^ -- California Departsont of Fish and Came � -- D. S. Fish and Wildlife Service � -- D. S. Army Corps of Engineers -- California Coastal Commission -- Armigoa de Doloa Chica -- Signal Landmark -- Phillips Brandt Reddick (Consultant to Signal) Only Fish and Game, Coastal Conuniae]oo, Amigos de Bolmu Cbicu, Signal, and 9BK spoke. The public . was offered u atmosphere in which to hour and to | present lnformutioo. At the meeting's conclusion, � EM\ staff asked that interested parties to submit i «oomitimn papers" and comments on "wetlands. " / Result: Generally, public opinion/interest group opinion remained polarized: opposition to Orange Coonty,a ! preliminary "wetlands" mapping remained. | ) | / | . C. Workshop 3 (9 December 1980) | ' | Attendance: 190 f Purpose: To add "wetlands" information to the "wetlands" mu� to receive public input; and, to outline basic � issues pertaining to the five components of the LCp for the public. Public comment was invited. � � Result: Increased written public comment via a questionnaire | given �o public and 1 additional letters d � p c a via u o e ero and a | putitition from public (on file with Planning Com- mission Secretary) . Only general results can be ' inferred from the questionnaire and they are summarized below. 14 of 33 \ ' . / | | 1 Opinions regarding land use on the site are very much polarized. The majority of those attending the workshops favor preservation of the entire site (benches and gap), although almost 30% prefer the development of a marina. Those in favor of preservation were generally concerned with that issue exclusively. Although a clear majority of the "preservation" group prefer to see no development on site at all, a significant proportion are in favor of low intensity recreational •• uses, such as view parks and hiking and riding trails. Fewer people desire bikeways. People desiring a marina, on the other hand, are usually: 0 interested in other issues; 2) in favor of additional development, and 3) inclined to restrict development on a limited basis to preserve some open space resources. Approximately 221 of the respondents favor an expanded arterial highway system. These people are almost exclusively from the group desiring a marina. The opinions expressed on this questionnaire were representative of comments received in each of the three workshops held thus far. D. Orange County Planning Commission Study Session--ktorkshop 4 (16 December 1980) o purpose: 1. Introduction to Local Coastal Program process 2. Report on Workshops and Public Input. 15 of 33 3. Discussion of Iseucs 4' Report on Future Work Schedule i E. Workshop 5 (22 January 1981) / o Purpqae: Present alternative Land Use Plans and receive public comment. 2RN^ staff and CDJUW, Inc, ,, special consultant to the County" made presentations and were available for questions. ^ o Result : Tblsmeetiotl occurred after completion of this report. ' ` . . � , 16 of 33 l^ � I - V. KEY TSSUF:S a. The following have been identified as the key issues to be addressed in preparing any plan for the Boisa Chica area: A. The .1973 State/Signal Boundary Settlement: and Exchange Agreement . The agreement is described above in Section ITT on Pagel . The questicrs raised here are: 1. Should the aoi�cernen- �,e to have Hof property oure?rehip? The Amigos de Bolsa Chica and others have contested the propriety and validity of the agree.nient and have brought a lawsuit against Signal and the State seeking to set aside the agreement .and gain judicial recognition of their position that the rights of the public to tidal and submerged lands cannot be "bargained away" by the State. The LCP has taken cognizance of the suit and the basic Issues. However, it has been assumed that unless there is some other ultimate judicial determination to the con- trary, the agreement is valid and that accordinagly the plan for the area must recognize the ownership and property rights of Signal, Grace, et, al. 2. How does the agreement year u;.?on the Preparation of tho LC,'? The UP must respect the property rights of the private property owners and cannot therefore assume that their land will be available for public purposes without dedication or purchase. However, it is also assumed that the 1976 Coastal Act requirements and policies apply to the property and that the landowners' land use expectations arising from the a rooment must now be subjected to any use limitation that the Coastal Act imposes on other property owners similarly situated. 17 of 33 During the course of the studies and interaction with interested parties in the preparation of the LCP, an attempt has been made to explore whether the USO concept embodied in the 1973 agreement and expanded ecological preserve, marina and new navigable ocean connection to serve both is still valid for the area. Clearly there is dis- pute among individuals, agencies and acknowledged authori- ties about the impacts and compatibility of the uses. It has been concludedthat, on balance, the mixed use con-- cept still has merit, deserves consideration. B. WETLANDS DETERMINATION 1. What does the 1976 Coastal Act say about wetla-,-ds? Section .30121 of the Coastal Act provides a definition: "Wetland means land within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mudflats, and fens." ' Section 30200 provides ' that the policies in the following sections of the Act selected as applicable constitute "the stan dards ndards by which the adequacy of local coastal programs . and the permissibility of proposed developments—are deter- mined. . ." Section 30233: "(a) The diking, filling, or dredging of. . . wetlands. . .shall be permitted in accordance with other ap- plicable provisions of this division, where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative, and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects, and shall be limited to the following: 18 of 33 i 11(1) New or expanded port , energy, and coastal-depen- dent industrial facilities, including commercial fishing facilities." 11(2) Maintaining existing, or restoring previousl dredged, depths in existing navigational channels, turning basins, vessel berthing and mooring areas, and boat launching ramps. " "(3) In wetland areas only, entrance channels for new or expanded boating facilities; and in a degraded wetland, identified by the Department of Fish and Game" (pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 30411) ". . . for boating facilities if, in con- junction with such boating facilities, a sub- stantial portion of the degraded wetland is re- stored and maintained as a biologically produc- tive wetland; provided, however, that in no event shall the size of the wetland area used for such boating facility, including berthing space, turning basins, necessary navigation channels, and anv necessary support service facilities, be greater than 25 percent of the total wetland area to be restored." "(5) Incidental public service purposes, including, but not limited to, burying cables and pipes or inspec- tion of piers and maintenance of existing intake and outfall lines." "(6) Mineral extraction, including sand for restoring beaches, except in environmentally sensitive areas." ."(8) Nature supply, acquaculture, or similar resource- dependent activities. w 19 of 33 (c) ". . .diking, filling, or dredging in existing estuaries and wetlands shall maintain or en- hance the functional capacity of the wetland cr the wetland or estuary. . ." Section 30607. 1: "Where any dike and fill development is perr;itte'd in wetlands in conformity with this division, mitigation measures shall include, .at a minimum, either acquisition of equivalent areas of equal or greater bio- logical productivity or opening up equivalent areas to tidal action; provided however, that if no appropriate restoration site is available, an in-lieu fee sufficient to provide an area of equivalent productive value or surface areas shall be dedicated to an appropriate public agency, such replacement site shall be purchased before the dike or fill development may proceed. . ." 2. What has the' CoastalCbnm'ssion said about the wetlands ios:.,�-: The State Coastal Commission has made a.preliffiinary deter- mination that there are approximately 1260 acres of degraded wetlands in the Bolsa Chica Gap. The Commission is also currently considering Wetlands Guidelines for use in re- viewing coastal development permits. 3. What has the Board of Supervisors said about the wotzan'2s Loe:w,: In offically commenting to the State Coastal Commission on the draft Wetlands Guidelines, the Board adopted Resolution No. 80-1545 on'September 24, 1980. A copy of the Resolution is attached. C: Other Planning Issues. 1. How much of the lowlands can be preserved/restored? 2. Should there be a now oce,-ai connection for tidal f'lushing^ 20 of 33 3. if so, should the ocean connection be oon:.st121u'UCC.i 0 navigable channel? 4. Should there be a navigable channel connection tc Harbor? S. Should there be boating facilities? R marina? Suo ,crt 6. What additional land uses should be aZlowod inc az., 7. . What configuration should the HoZsa Chica Linear fie :i.cn.a7. Park take? 8. Should there be a "cross-gap" arterial highway? Oher�:? what connections? 9. Should Pacific Coast Highway be rerouted? 10. What Uses should be allowed on the bluffs: with a ma:=ina? wit%t- out a marina? 11. What should be done with the East Garden Grove-WinteVSburC: C,.annel? 12. What is the feasibility of implementing various prorosa?s? 13. What should be done about continued oil operations? y 21 of 33 VI , LAND USE PLAN ALTERNATIVES k ALTERNATIVE 1 See attached Exhihit . This alternative assumes Phase II of the Master Plan for the 1973 Boundary Settlement Agreement will not to completed and a method will be found for public acquisition, marsh restoration and maintenance in the Bolsa Gap by the California .Department of Fish and Game. As a result, the emphasis of this alternative is on open space and medium- high density residential development within Bolsa Gap and on medium- high density residential on the Bolsa Chica bluff. Alternative 1 proposes 208 acres of 'medium to high density residential development (LUE designations 1.3 and 1.4) on Bolsa Chica Mesa (common to all alternatives) with 1,105+ . acres of restored salt marsh and 110 acres of medium and high density residential development immediately along the northeasterly boundary of the .property in Balsa Gap. Total unit yield is expected to be approximately 2,550 dwellings. An appro- priate number of these would conform to Orange County inclusionary housing requirements, with the majority likely to occur on the inland portions of the Bolsa Chica Mesa. r Circulation would focus upon the 4-lane Bolsa Chica Road extending from Los Patos Avenue across Bolsa Gap on a raised roadbed to connect with Ellis Avenue on Huntington Mesa. Pedestrian and bicycle access would be .provided. In addition, Graham Street, Talbert Avenue and Springdale Street would be extended to terminate at `the Bolsa Chica Road at the northeasterly edge of the Gap. The marsh restoration program would include a non-navigable tidal in- let approximately 530 feet wide through Bolsa Chica State Beach generally opposite the existing terminus of the East Garden Grove-Wintersburn flood control channel. Pacific Coast Highway would bridge the inlet via a 630-foot causeway with 12-foot vertical c?,_arance. 22 of 33 The East Garden Grove-Wintersburg flood control charnel, within tilt study area would be substantially altered. Tile Alternative One concept envisions removal of existing levees and tide gates, and replacement of these with a variable width, natural edge channel that would accom- modate 100-year flood flows, provide a brackish water ecosystem, and would protect the bulk of the Reserve from potentially damaging flood flows, siltation and heavy metal pollutants from the urban watershed of the channel. Seawater intrusion will be minimized in the flood control channel upstream from the Bolsa Chica Road extension through the construction of tide gates where that roadway bridges the channel. Debris and sediment control facilities would be situated upstream of this area. i Remaining areas in the 5.4 category would accommodate preservation and enhancement where feasible., or desirable, of the existing Bolsa Chica Mesa eucalyptus groves and scenic bluffs. In addition, open. space on and adjacent to the Huntington Mesa bluffs would be dedicated or sold for public uses to be determined at more specific planning levels. Land along Pacific Coast Highway would retain whipstock oil wells and related petroleum facilities for. the useful life of the offshore oil resources being extracted from that location. ALTERNATIVE 2 See attached Exhibit . This alternative reflects a condition in which the 1973 Boundary Settle- ment Agreement is not implemented and title to the 230-acre State lease area remains -with Signal Landmark, Inc. for development. This al.terna- tive represents a maximization of urban development within the Balsa Gap, emphasizing "residential land use with small areas designated as tourist recreational and other commercial uses. i I Alternative 2 would provide medium and high-density residential de- velopment on Bolsa Chica Mesa. In the Bolsa Gap, residential designa- tions would yield medium, high and heavy-density housing types; overall, I 23 of 33 t IL } r. Alternative 2 proposes approximately 6,800 dwelling units, including ti an appropriate response to inclusionary housing requirements. In r Addition, the Gap development plan would include approximately 10 acres of local commercial, 17.5 acres of tourist recreation/commercial (TR/C), 24 acres of petroleum facilities, 300+ acres of restored marsh- land (corresponding to the land currently under State ownership) and 140 acres of other open space devoted to bluff protection; flood control, and recreational amenities. Bolsa Chica Road would be extended from its present terminus at Los Patos Avenue (on the north) into the central Gap toward. an eventual connection with Garfield Avenue on the southeast. Ellis Avenue would be extended along the northeasterly periphery of the Cap to intersect with Bolsa Chica Road and to connect with Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) south of the Bolsa Chica Mesa. Springdale Street would be extended through intersections with both cross-Gap roadways to a connection with PCH. In the Gap, inedfum-rdensity residential would predominate landward of Bolsa Chica Street and would have a character similar to the immediately adjoining residential areas. Between the eastern side of the Spring- dale Street extension and the base of the Huntington Mesa bluffs, medium density residential dwellings would predominate with high and heavy- density residential occurring near the bluffs. Ultimate development would probably be characterized by density clustering surrounded by open spaces in the 1.51 designation areas. Immediately west of Springdale Street, north and south of the Bolsa Chica Street intersection, land use designations include high and heavy- density residential, with local commercial, and TR/C located in relatively small clusters. Surrounding the intersection of Bolsa Chica Road and Ellis Avenue, similar designations would occur except for mediuin-density adjacent to the restored marsh area. The residential character intended for these areas would be primarily water-oriented with a diversity of product types. Much of the 1.41 and 24 of 33 1 .41-designated areas would, in fact, be tidal waterways, sailing basin~ (no ocean access) , and other open spaces, particularly where. requirements for marshland buffering prescribe setbacks and/or barriers. In Alternative 2, marsh restoration would take place only within the 300 acres currently owned by the State of California and would include the following components: Non-Navigable.-Tidal Inlet through Bolsa Chica State Beach - Uhile the basic land use components of Alternative 2 could be 'implemented, without an ocean entrance, such an entrance would be necessary in order to pro- vide water orientation for urban land uses and the tidal prism necessary for any marsh restoration area over existing conditions. The ocean entrance required for Alternative 2, if these goals are to be achieved, would be similar in configuration -to that previously described for Alternative 1. 300-Acre Restored Salt Marsh - Salt marsh restoration for Alternative 2 would essentially include the approxiihately 150 acres in the Department of Fish and Game's existing "Phase I Restoration:" area with sufficient modifications to restore the remaining 150 acres of State land to tidal flow from the ocean- inlet and produce a fully-integrated typical salt marsh system. Creation of wildlife habitats for resident endangered species would receive special consideration in design of the marsh. Productive oil well operations would continue within the restoration area. The stretch of the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg flood control channel within the study area would receive the following modifications in Alternative 2. The existing channel and its levees would be removed to accommodate the Bolsa Chica Road extension. As a replacement, a wider, possibly deeper, natural edge channel would be constructed along the base of the south-facing Bolsa Chica Mesa bluffs to allow for public access and potential for creation of a brackish water ecosystem within the area. Tide gates at the Bolsa Chica Road crossing and upstream 25 of 33 desalting facilities would al:o be provided similar to Alternative 1. The bluffs themselves would be protected as necessary by use of set- backs, riprap or other measures. The channel would be designed to accommodate '100-year flood flows, to protect surrounding urban develop- ment and principal Reserve areas from both flood flows and urban pollutant influx. Also, the location of the channel outlet would be designed to be compatible with the proposed tidal inlet and water regime of the entire: Gap. Other Areas designated as Natural Resources and Other Open Space cor- respond to areas designated as such in Alternative 1. ALTERNATIVE 3 See attached Exhibit . This alternative represents implementation of the 1973 Boundary Settle- ment agreement and Phase II concepts of the 1974 Master.Plan including a navigable ocean entrance, public marina .and conveyance of the 230- acre 14-year lease area in fee to the State. The alternative repre- sents wide-range and mixed-use designations for the Bolsa Gap. Residential development remains a significant component in the south and northeastern areas.; recreation occupies a stronger emphasis. than in Alternative 2. A proposed realignment of Pacific Coast Highway would begin at the westernmost extent of the Huntington Mesa bluffs, proceed along the northeastern periphery of the Gap, then follow the base of the south- facing Bolsa Chica Mesa bluffs, and finally cross the reserve area with a 45-foot ,vertical clearance bridge which would join the existing high- way parallel to Outer Bolsa Bay. Bolsa Chica Road, -Graham Street and Talbert Avenue would be extended to connect with the realigned highway. In this configuration, Bolsa Chica Road would serve as an important regional access route to PCH. An interior roadway connecting Bolsa Chica Road with Ellis Avenue would also he provided. Warner Avenue alignment tars been revised so that Warner procceds Macros-s the Mesa from a point starting hear Los Pcatos Avenue to connect with the realigned Pacific Coast Highway on Bolsa Chica Mesa. 26 of 33 The existing Pacific Coast Highway right-of-wav along Bolsa Ch ica State Beach would provide access from the relocated PCH, would be avail- able to serve beach traffic and parking needs and wuul.d terminate at a proposed navigable ocean entrance. In the Bolsa Cap, residential areas to the northeast of the Pacific Coast Highway realignment would be medium-density and would be generally similar to adjacent residential .areas. It is,, however, contemplated that many of these homes would front on controlled water lagoons and thus would take on a considerably different character than their landward counterparts. Residential densities between the southeast side of the new Pacific Coast Highway route and Huntington Beach.Mesa would be medium, high and heavy-density. Those residential areas having the heaviest allowable density would be primarily land-oriented and might occur in clusters, some of which could contribute to proposed compliance with inclusionary housing requirements with considerable surrounding open space. In the central portion of this area, medium density water-oriented housing is envisioned. Under proposed designations, privately owned land seaward of and sur- rounded by the realigned Pacific Coast Highway would allow predomina:itly marina and boating-oriented high and heavy-density residential with relatively minor amounts of community commercial and tourist recreation/ commercial. A variety of uses would occur on the 530 acres which would be held in fee title by the State of California under this alternative. These include a. navigable ocean inlet with connections to the proposed Bolsa Chica marina and to Huntington Harbour through Outer Bolsa Bay, an 1,800+ - boat public marina and a 330+ - acne restored slit marsh.. The proposed navigable channel connection to Huntington Harbour would have an important effect upon vehicular circulation by necessitating the closure of Warner Avenue. Warner Avenue would be relocated to join Pacific Coast Highway just bast of the new channel. and the present Warner Avenue bridge would be removed. Di►e to physical requiromentS 27 of 33 f for -approach length and curve radius and probable adverse effects on adjacent development, a navigable bridge is not considered feasible at the old location. The channel connecting this entrance to Huntington Harbour through Outer Bolsa Bay would be 400 feet wide and would have soft or gently sloping stabilized edges. A 500-foot navigable channel is proposed to connect the ocean inlet to public (1,800+ slip) and private marinas in Bolsa Gap. The channel would run next to and parallel with the northern boundary of the exist- ing 300-acre state fee lands. The 500-foot width would be required to provide guitable conditions for .sailboat tacking against the prevailing westerly winds. To .the east of the current state lease lands (which would be state fee lands under this alternative) and public marina, considerable acreage would be devoted to deepwater channels, bulkheaded private marinas and sailing basins which would be part of the water-oriented development area described earlier. The East Garden Grove-Wintersburg flood control channel modifications would be similar to those outlined in Alternative 2. However, the total acreage allocated to flood control would be .somewhat less than in Alternative 2 due to space limitations imposed by the Coast Highway f realignment and the public marina. Given these conditions, plus a navigable channel and bridge in Outer Bolsa Bay, a more structured flood control design may be required. Other Areas designated as Natural Resources and Other- Open Space are similar to corresponding areas in Alternative 1 . At.TERNATiVE_4 See attached Exhibit. Upon review of Alteinativca 3 and biological information provided to the County by its consultant, EDAW Inc. , it was found that some adjust- ments in. the plan could be made which would accommodate sensitive habitat 1 29 of 33 areas existing on site. F.DAW's study produced a map categorizing habitats into three groups: high, moderate, and low sensitivity. Moderate sensitivity areas primarily act as buffers for the ecolo- gically valuable high sensitivity areas. The low sensitivity desig- nation was applied to upland areas and areas of generally low eco logical value. Consolidation of the many.scattered areas- of high sensitivity into A "core area" is the basis for Alternative 4. This consolidation is accomplished by a one-for-one- replacement on site of highly sensitive areas displaced by development. Approximately 455 acres of ,h3.ghly sensitive areas exist on the site. After locating 300 acres of this habitat in the marsh restoration de- picted in Alternative 3,. 155 acres remain to be provided for. heaping, Outer Bolsa Bay in' its present state will account for approximately 50 acres, leaving 105 acres 'to be relocated around the periphery of the Alternative 3 marsh. In Alternative 4, however, approximately 120 acres have been added to the marsh periphery for a total of. 470 acres of marsh restoration. The deep water channel serving private boat slip areas has been re- located to a somewhat more inland alignment adjacent to the realigned PCH. Residential uses between PCH and the channel have been eliminated. In lieu of residential, the land remaining between PCH and the marina will be occupied by Tourist Recreation/Commercial uses which will support and complement the public marina. As mentioned above, Outer Bolsa Bay will remain in its present .state under this alternative. A consequence of this feature is that,Warner Avenue would remain as a through route to PCH, in contrast to its dead- end terminus under Alternative 3. In comparison to Alternative !, some residential acreage has been re- placed by marsh restoration, a navigable channel, and some TRC uses. "�' 29 of 33 The basic elements of Alternative 3, such as the real.ignmont of PCH, the basic size and configuration of the marina, and all uses inland of PCH have remained the same. ALTERNATIVE Sec attached Exhibit . Alternative 5 is based on Section 30233 of the Coastal Act of 1976 which provides that marina and marina-related uses may occupy degraded wetland areas provided that three times as much area (as in the marina, etc.) is restored to wetland status (see Section V, Key Issues) . The premise behind this section of the Coastal Act appears to be that in providing� a tradeoff, funds can be made available for wetland restoration. In Alternative 5, approximately 940 acres (including the Phase I salt water marsh restoration area and Outer Bolsa Bay) are designated as restored. Approximately 730 acres would be new restoration. The Bolsa Chica Linear Regional Park is depicted as extending along the southeastern boundary of the site. Existing oil production facili- ties (off-shore drilling operations) remain generally in the south- western corner of the site with the area to be buffered from proposed wetland restoration areas by a greenbelt. Residential uses are proposed for those areas adjacent to the northeasterly inland boundary of the site to be compatible with existing residenti ,l development within Huntington Beach adjacent to that project boundary. A water buffer is proposed to divide the proposed- residential uses within Bolsa Gap from the restored wetland acreage. The width of such a buffet has not yet been determined. A public marina (1,750+ slips) and marina-support facilities are proposed within the Bolsa Gap. These uses, combined with marina-support facili- ties in the Bolsa Chica Cap occupy approximately 225 acres. Marina- support fac i 1 i t ic:; may include parking; areas, rest r0cmf/maintonance areas, boat fueling;;/repair/sali�s :'rc.•as, boat storage facil-ities, .restaurants, commercial shops, day-use and overnight visitor-serving facilities. 30 of 33 �f Proposed uses on Bolsa Chica Mesa include both non-marina and marina- Aukk related tourist-recreation/visitor-serving/commercial - recreational facilities, a greenbelt/park system accommodating passive recreational uses and trails, and residential uses. Access to facilities on Bolsa Chica Mesa would be via an extension of Bolsa Chica Road and via an arterial extending between Warner Avenue and the Bolsa Chica Road extension. The Bolsa Chica Road extension would extend from its present terminus, across the Bolsa Chica Mesa. and existing East Garden Grove-Wintersburg flood control channel and across that portion of the Bolsa Chica Gap proposed to be occupied by marina-support 'facilities. Bolsa Chica Road would terminate at the boundary of the marina-support facilities. ALTERNATIVE 6 See attached Exhibit. This Alternative reflects the dual concerns of its initiators, the Bolsa Chica Committee for Clean Water and Ocean Access. The Alternative was submitted on January 27; 1981 to the Orange County Planning Commission for inclusion among other alternative land use plans for consideration. The proponents feel that in order to provide for clean water in , Huntington Harbour and Outer Bolsa Bay, the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel should be aligned with the navigable ocean outlet. The proponents .believe this would funnel debris and pollutants from the channel dir. ctly out to sea. Additionally, this Alternative depicts channelization of Outer Bolsa Bay between the ocean outlet and Huntington Harbour across what is now Warner Avenue to provide additional navigable access from Huntington Harbour to the Ocean. Warner Avenue would be re-routed to intersect with a r::aligned Pacific Coast Highway at a point on the Bolsa Chica ctesa approximately 1/2 - 3/4 mile inland of the present alignment. of Pacific Coast Highway. The actual relocation of Pacific Coast Highway is in a .location similar to that in Alternatives 3 and 4. Pacific Coast Highway would cross the ,flood control channel via a low-level bridge. 31 of 33 The alternatives as presented by the committee is sil.ent on land uses in the remaining Bolsa Chica area. ALTERNATIVE 7 See attached Exhibit. This Alternative was also submitted. by Mr, William Ficker to the Orange County Planning Commission on January 27, 1981. The emphasis of this Alternative is maximization of a variety of land use opportuni- ties on the site. A major feature involves reconstruction of the entire 3.5 mile coast- line line adjacent to Bolsa Chica; The beach would- be relocated and re- modeled to form a peninsula extending at an angle southeasterly from approximately the northern boundary of Bolsa Chica Stare. Beach. A a,,ir.ina of approximately 1,500 slips would, be provided within that peninsula. The peninsula would contain fishing piers, quiet-water swimming beaches and trails. Access would be via a road proceeding southeasterly from a point at the existing intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Warner Avenue. The entire Bolsa Chica Mesa is designated for commercial, hotel and high-density residential uses. Access to beach areas would be via .'a relocation of Pacific Coast Highway in .a manner similar to Alternatives 3, 4 and 6. Hcwever, the relocation would proceed farther inland than in those Alternatives. Paci.fic.Coast Highway would cross a navigable channel from Huntington ljarbour via a 60-foot high bridge. The Bolsa Gap is designated for residential, marina and wetland restora- tion uses. The wetland area would be surrounded by a water buffer that also would extend inland along the southern boundary of the site between the Bolsa Chica Linear Regional Park and residential areas within the Bolsa Cap. Trail systems would be provided along beaches and rccrvrttion :areas. 32 of 33 � ALTERNATIVE 8 See attached Exhibit. This Alternative provides for a continuation of existing uses with some development in non-sentive areas. The Alternative responds to previous public comments. Residential and Commercial uses would be allowed on Bolsa Chica Mesa in a manner similar to Alternative:s4 and 5. No realignment of Pacific Coast Highway or Warner Avenue would occur. No navigable channel between the gap and Huntington Harbour would be constructed. No marsh restoration wo.uld occur other than, completion of restoration efforts within the State-owned 300 acre parcel. [dater for marsh restoration likely would occur via underground conduits to the ocean or via the existing tidal connection through Huntington Harbor. The Bolsa Chica Linear Regional Park would be developed in its pro- posed location along the Huntington Beach Mesa and around the Gap. The East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Flood Control Channel would remain at or near its current location. Existing and expanded oil production facilities would remain until economically infeasible. i 33 of 33 LEGEND . � REb'OWU Ss.IT'MU,RSH t. ommom - 1 � :... .} . . .. ..; 1 1, _ �-• -•'r`. _ _ _-- :.: ..::-{-- .7!/ '�,-=ma`s`-�`". �-J l.. �- •J - �• •� % / C•ti. w% LTERNA' IVF LEA CHi A M uAo" v-Kv L"MTUTM Pe.iwsts ON.T N o/so k�]J is LEGEND NO"d9MTP1'PIE90k7fML ! .rEsmAM slut WASH ta -' � '-.-• ::�:�:;��:.:. ., .:_:., - - _ -G...a�;,J.t.�.�r -' yam- ALTERNATIVE 2 ff2lSJMWMv-fON LliJ$tgAiSVE P,i7vU'iCS OKv�9-16 EO� �wu�,:�•G'.>,... v. V J f�.* �'�., tI• "l. j ^'/ •A>>Iti�y`i� 'tky,r3 1 �W'i •:; tr:eri .i.. Ail Y, pl :,'.:r°r •rq,,,.�w i:�. j,.. .� � 1 ?yam ':�''� �;• ,:f . m :,::. .lei.!? ``44ai?r— 11)� .. .'?a-y, 0000 Ce) Alt ;' r :,uj. 4 } LEGEND � �RDRIMI�8M9Ft'I�ICBf41RL � _ � '�, /•.�'^�•�`: ,f�_.. /•�c � :_-'�'�'.:,.''+''.�'_;.'' .f�pdp�T9'118.'lgEliffAi a•. ,.�' -4 •�, •.,!`1•s � , / •NI, '�•* MET- WAVY ODG"MMOEM PEWMIED SALT MAMM - l�,y '\''•- ` . . �' •t ` '. ..{,. ,..,,s�2 Fes•..-s.+r"✓"' _ - % it� ..r.. _'':.-' "�,.,�,'..oE•'ra -.1 : �' :c,, i:J -'?�. q'f r :1„�1 • 0 O _ t Xi r . .i t • ti y: ALTEMATWE A BOLSA I e 0 , t cl Cdtq�of Nia+tir*ton_ Beach �� �•°^, j � , r`Si .✓4 sr �� � �� ALTERNATIVE 5 ` bolsa chica figure o i -G. V. V !% - .+ City of Huntington Beach 4 sty ; L • ,f+,� • �• ... `J►0 PEROM PACM COAST HMM)ty• HUN'fYdLTTON a d \IOW LEVEL: HARBOUR �� Ao BRIDGE V. a .i FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL �s TUNNEL ti «a� 71JRPt'AROUND BOLSA CI•IICA.STATE BEACH BOLSA CHICA STATE BEACH ____--- NAVIGABLE `"Jt I I it's CHANNEL COaorrrtEE Fotr CtFAM WATER a OCEAN A:cEss ``-= ` BREAKWATER. ALTERNATNE 6 NAVIGABLE - OCEAN ENTRANCE (t� botsa chica figure N NORTH COAST PLANN*4'LW. 1'•1200' LOCAL C STAL i'ftOGttO" ,'" ' 6 m ` ~kEGbNAL :h, i' Y �" • ♦ PARK .r:•",�. � i :� 'way° i♦ ��• •, '' • - <J - .fir.. � ' _ �0j, t +• •Cily of Huntington Beach ♦ }. a A WHWAY p T�a�s HIGH DENS", 1 '' �•^ �� � � COMMERCIAL a •" y 40. a RESsD RESIDENTIAL. 01 _ _ 1 60'CLEAR 'BRIDGE COMMERCIAL&HOTEL _ *` BRIDGE TO BED WETLANDS ,PRESERVE NOW � c REMOVED .M BR a ACCESS HtlNTlNGTON,` LIMITED ' HARBOR �` Pacific Coy:t H a ACCESS 4 ' ; PENINSUA� s~��► .w TRAIL FISHING,PiER BEACH -_OCEAN i ACCESS wuxurr�ce�a^qpq�®�V'AT.,q■v//F s _ S�INGBEACHES OCEAN ALTEboisa chica figure BEACH NORTH COAST PLA)#AhlG LUT�_ BOAT SL6'S LAIItJCt tact, JETTIES 1'41200' LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM,t1i A� 8 RELATED DL-` -LOPMENT YAI 01 V� ` .City o4 Huntington Beach ,^ RESIDENTIAL 4 2 NATURAL RESOURCE" Zo w OL/, RA-CTK3t�/PRODUCTION RESIDENTIAL + � - —BIKE TRAL PROPOSEbMARSH _ E ARESTORATION{STT ) v � `. P RESTOREp SALT MARSH i ya JTER BOLSA BAY OL PRODUCTION TDE GATES ALTERNATIVE 8 bolsa cNca figure M NOM COAST PLANNNG UNIT 1,-12wl LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM t 444000 i® REMARKS BY DON MACALLISTER, HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES, TO HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL ON SEPTEMBER 7, 1976 On behalf of the 21,000 students about to enter our five high schools and one elementary school next Monday, and our Board of Trustees, I most strongly protest the annexation of the Bolsa Chica by the City of Huntington Beach. Within your City limits are three high schools with a fourth one under construction.' Edison and Marina were built for 3,000 students, yet for the foreseeable future, they must continue to house 4,000+ teenagers. Huntington Beach High on our smallest site of 35 acres must also be overloaded with 3,500+ students. Ocean View, our smallest and newest school , can house but 2,000 students when completed in 1977, yet has over 3,000 high schoolers within its current boundaries. Incredibly, in a City already faced with 3,000 more students than their high schools can house, you tonight are contemplating the rezoning of 1,200 more acres from non-residential to residential zoning during an annexation. Three ,years ago our Board requested that the City Council be asked to adopt not the growth restrictive Petaluma ordinance, but rather the much milder San Diego Policy which, while permitting growth, assisted in the housing of new students. We were told that Petaluma's ordinances were probably illegal and that San Diego was also in danger of court action. We all know that both of these predictions were false, yet today our city' s problem of continued = residential growth despite overcrowded high schools not only remains but will become intolerable with any type of Bolsa Chica residential development. There is new leadership in both the City and our District, plus there are many new faces on our Board and this Council . Both agencies have established an outstanding program of City-School sharing of Library and Recreational facilities which should indicate that by careful planning and mutual Board-Council action, the school housing problems posed by 1,200 acres of new residences can be resolved. - We have forwarded to your Environmental Review Board a letter outlining our concerns with the Bolsa Chica EIR and I believe that members of the Council have a copy before them. I would also like to offer for your reconsideration (attached to a copy of these remarks) a copy of the City Zone Change Proposal made three years ago to the City of Huntington Beach. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Council , I strongly urge you to work with us and our staff to solve this critical problem before you annex and rezone the Bolsa Chica. ilb for DM PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED Assuming the willingness of the City of Huntington Beach to accept input regarding the adequacy of the schools in a particular development neighborhood, the actual procedures utilized by the school personnel and planning department in San Diego were also obtained. All of the paper work from the original request for a 16-lot subdivision to the final concurrence with the proposal have been enclosed in this report so the sequence of steps might be followed and the types of documents exchanged might be examined. Exhibit A The initial March 9, 1972, memorandum is a request by the Planning Department from the City schools regarding input with dates of Review Board established. Exhibit B The second report is prepared by the owner or developer and simply reports to the school district the total numbers of dwellings and the relevant information regarding bedrooms, date of first occupancy, etc. This is a standard form completed by developers for the gathering of information regarding their plans by the school district. Exhibit C The third document is an internal communication wherein the estimated numbers of elementary and secondary students based on current demographic information is established and the availability of schools for housing deficit is determined. Signatures are representative of those school personnel who researched the materials and will be prepared to testify if needed in this connection. Exhibit D The March 14, 1972, letter by Charles Glenn is the first formal communication between the school district and the planning depart- ment advising of the school housing inadequacy for this particular PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED Exhibit D (continued) tract. The developer was also copied and asked to "work out a solution" in conjunction with the city school district at his convenience. Exhibit E Clearly such a contract was made and on April 4, an agreement entered into and ratified by the School Board which contained the details of the developer's willingness to assist in a school housing situation. Of particular interest is the final letter by the developer wherein the City Council was requested to consider ". a letter from the San Diego Unified School District stating that the subdivider has performed all terms . . . " prior to final. subdivision approval. This step is precisely the "cooperative developer attitude" described by the Huntington Beach City Attorney. Exhibit F A copy of the bank draft which consummated the contract with the City School District is included and, of course, the August 29 final letter indicating the "district has no objection to the approval of the final map " completes the procedure. GHD:j lb 7/18/73 COUNCIL POLICY SUBJECT: ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH DEVELOPKIENT PROPOSALS NUMBER: 600-10 BACKGROUND In considering development or redevelopment proposals for areas within the City , the City Council_ has , in order to insure the public health, safety and welfare , evaluated reports from City Departments , School Districts and other agencies regarding the adequacy of public services required to serve the developments expected to occur within such areas . In many cases , however, the required public services have not in fact been installed by tE..e time the development shows a need . The result has been that residents in the newly developed areas have been inadequately served with access , parks , schools , libraries and other p,tblic services . PURPOSE To. establish a policy to insure that needed public services will be available concurrently with need . P:)1,1.CY Before giving approval to rezoning, development or redevelopment proposals , the public health and safety and the general welfare of the community and all i:.s citize ns rec;uire thug provisions be made by the proponent of- the rezonin , develc)cr:ient or redevelopme•�� t in conjunati_on w;_th aopropria.te governmen':al a eneieS to insure : 1 . That the development, redevelcnment or rezoning be consistent with a master development plan for the general area which has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and adopted by the City Council . 2 . That the development plan includes an implementation section which sets forth in detail measures which will be taken to insure that needed public .services are provided concurrent with need in the development . 3. That the proponent of the rezoning development or redevel- opment present evidence satisfactory to the appropriate body or agency that the required public services will in fact be provided coricvr ent with the need . j FCC :pIm 1) 4-J2 -71 CITY OF SAN DIEGO.CALIFORNIA COUNCIL POLICY SUBJECT POLICY EFFECTIVE PAGE NUMBER DATE RESIDENTIAUC01%2iMRCTAL/INDUSTRL4L DEiIELOPIMNE TT 600-18 7/6/72 1 of 2 BAC-KGROUND The issue of residential/commercial/industrial development, particulary its timing and location, is of crucial importance to the long-range future of San Diego. The City's Progress Guide and General Plan recognizes this issue. Since its adoption in 1967, the General Plan has numbered as one of its principal objectives the Prevention of Sprawl. The accompanying e:,:planatory paragraph in the General Plan tent reads as follows: The Plan contemplates that during the next two decades urban growth will be directed in an orderly i g y ;ranner, and that new suburban , communities, will be properly related to the patterning and phasing i of greater San Diego's development. The Plan does not contemplate f the creation of isolated, noncontiguous communities dependent upon the uneconomical and premature extension of governmental facilities I� and services for great distances . f Another principal objective of the General Plan has been Development of a Yore Compact City. The Plan will foster a greater intensity of land use development j in and rear the central area. For example, there are projected sig- nificant increases in residential densities in a broad arc around Centre City. in addition, buildups of lesser magnitude in land use j intensity and function. are proposed surrounding the City's major urban subcenters. The need for a clear City policy is essential if future residential/co=.. ,ercial/ industrial development or redevelopment is to take place in a reasonable time phase and in logical geographical locations which are based upon the best interests of the City as a whole. There is a need for a City policy which will lead to programs 1) to regulate i new residential, co=ercial, and industrial development in the largely un- developed areas and more intensive development or redevelopment of areas pre- them urbanized so as to bring them into closer correspondence with the City's financial capability for providing the facilities and services needed to properly sustain suz-h "evelopment; and 2) to assist the private sector in more intensive developrmanc and redevelopment in areas previously urbanized. 1 ,-c. ca t7.ti9} CITY OF SAN DIEGC. CALIFORNIA COUNCIL POLICY SUBJECT POLICY EFFECTIVE PAGE NUSIBER DATE I RESIDENTLA.L/COM.%ERCIAL/INDLSTRUL DEVELOMMENT 600-13 7/6/72 2 OF 2 POLICY ! It shall be the policy of the Council to permit phased growth in undeveloped areas and more intensive development and redevelopment of areas previously urbanized only after a total cost/revenue analysis. The City Council shall +1 establish growth priorities among the various areas now largely undeveloped. I It shall be the policy of the City Council to assist the private sector in y more intensive development and redevelopment of areas previously urbanized i after a total cost/revenue analysis. The execution of this policy shall call for the City Council to establish growth j priorities among the various areas now largely undeveloped as well as areas to be used for more intensive development or redevelopment. In establishing such j priorities , the City Council shall utilize the following criteria: fI 1. The General Plan as hereinafter amended; 2. The inclusion of an area within an adopted community or master development plan. The City Council shall establish a program jfor phased development. i 3. An analysis of the cost/revenue of the proposed development or redevelopment based cn objective studies and to cover total i expenditures, both capital and operating, by all governmental agencies, including but not limited to school districts. These j studies shall also include the financial capability of the govern- mental agencies to render their services within the areas under consideration for development or redevelopment. 4. The results of environmental impact studies for the various areas under consideration for development or redevelopment. Such impact studies shall be based on standards imposed by law or adopted Council Policy. 5. The extent to which the proposed development or redevelopment accomplishes ott �ar physical, social and economic oals of the City I as expressed in adopted Council iolicv, ordinances, and resolutions . I _ , 6. The City Council will support and adopt legislation necessary to I carry, out t -e urpose of Council Polici,s . 1 ' > j , i Adopted by Resolution No. 20:;002 7/6/72 L F011 CITY of SAN DIECO IN EM ^A�li��A 'ILE NO. 72-64 'ATE March 9 1972 o See Below > `--4 ao�a City Planning Department 7- ,+;+ 6 ,UBJECT% Tentative Map OLVERA ESTATES i Coord . Map No.194-1737 Parcel Map - - May we please have your recommendation on the above named map, a 16-lot, one-unit, sub, of portion of Lots 44 and 45 Las Alturas Villa Sites ,. loc. , ely. of Euclid Avenue, southerly of Olvera Ave, in the R-1-5 and C zone. To be considered by the Subdivision Advisory Committee on 3-ZO-72 To be considered by the Subdivision Review Board on 4-3-72 To be considered by the Planning Commission on Your recommendations are requested no later than the Wednesday prior to the Subdivision Advisory Committee meeting. ,'COTE: Please do not return the map unless there are changes thereon! Subdivision Section, ac Planning Department Community Development Dept . , Sub.Sec. (5 bll , 1 bri) --402 Health Dept . Assessor City Schools (or School District) Park & Rec. , L . Lowrey (500) C. Ab 1 es (500) Fire Prevention (235) New Services (302) Bldg. I nspee. Director (85) - LjA; t•'' n,, rnY.,_-r�' Comm. Plan - Herb Wilkinson - via Max Schmidt " "5" •• State Div. Hwys, W.R.Dotson (BB) Zoning Administrator (300) * S .D .G .& E. , 2nd it Ash ,Attn.Tom Nutt Asst . to Community Dev.Dir. (7A) * Pac. Telephone Police Dept . (K. Bankhead , inspector) F.H .A. (10 lots or'more) Parcel Map Distribution Exhibit A NO. �— `a�. DATE: INFORMATION PERTINENT TO SUBDIVIDER Request for FEB 2 21972 SUBDIVISION OR REZONE Subdivision: Olvera Estates City File No. Location: North side of Olvera Street - East of Euclid Avenue - San Diego Developer: City Wide Homes Existing Zone: R-1--5 Proposed Zoning: Proposed Use: 16 single family homes Govt. Subsidized Program: Yes No ?� Total Number of Dwelling Units: 16 1. No. of 1 bedroom dwelling units 2. No. of 2 bedroom dwelling units - 3. No. of 3 bedroom dwelling units 4. No. of 4 bedroom dwelling units 16 S. Other Date of First Occupancy: Anprox - 12/1/72 Date of Last Occupancy: Approx - 12/1/72 I certify that the information furnished above is correct to the best of my knowledge. CITY IP E HOMES F �I � Date: 2-21-72 By: Owner- or Developer Address: 4500 Imperial Avenue San Diego, California 92113 Telephone: 262-0861 RETURN TO: San Diego Unified School District wT Education Center - Annex #2 4100 Normal Street San Diego, California 92103 Telephone: 298-4681 (Ext. 206) Exhibit B DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRIC"'� Business Services Division OLIVER Operations Division: Information on Availability of Schools G - Date; 2/23/72 Date Rec'd. by Planning Dept. : L u �4 Subdivision: 16 Lot Subd. on Olvera Ave at Euclid (City Wide Homes) G Sent Rec'd. Rezone No. : y �' Elementary: Fru C. s G Secondary: O T- U .G G G a Location: Olvera- Ave. at Euclid (roan arrac,hed) 0 a H G Date of Committment of Construction: Sept. 1972 w Date of First Occupancy: Vic. 197? Estimated Date of Completion: Estimated Number of Children: _ v �.O U .a Q U Elementary z Research Knox o a. a cn 8 Bell W. ° T Secondar y G Lincoln v .a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ELEMTARY -SCHOOLS) AVAILABLE: Yes No X a If "Yes", what school(s): Knox School already has over 50% portable classrooms. G I L GS o Signature: � , G� ,��,,,- (- �,A. Date: 2-24-72 Asst. Supt. or Offici lly Designated Representative .o SECONDARY SCHOOL(S) AVAILABLE: Yes No u If "Yes", what school(s): Jr. High: C. " Sr. High: a .a o Signature: - Date: E' Asst. Supt. or Officially Designated Representative DIRECTIONS: Comolete appropriate portion of form within 24 hours. Return original to Building Planning & Construction Dept., - Annex #2 Retain a copy for Operating Division files. Additional facilities, if any 6 portable classrooms - toilets o.k. Confirmed by Fry via Carol Hunter 2-24-72 i - Exhibit C - 1 ' "T DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT • J. Business Services Division PETERSEN ✓ Operations Division: Information on Availability of Schools 0 ° Date; F'2 2/23/72 Date Rec'd.� by Planning Dept.: 0I ; Subdivision: lb lot Subd. on Olvera Ave at Euclid (City Wide Homes) Sent Rec'd. •o o Rezone No. : u U u Elementary: a ' o ,r_ Secondary: u .0 c Location: Olvera Ave. at Euclid (map attached) 0 a H c� Date of Committment of Construction: Sept. 1972 `c Date of First Occupancy: Dec. 1972 Estimated Date of Completion: � Estimated Number of Children: GJ O U U u Elementary / Research 26 Knox o r- I Bell H � � 0 T Secondary (, Lincoln .o - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ELEMENTARY SCHOOL(S) AVAILABLE: Yes No If "Yes", what school(s) : G O O o Signature: Date: Asst. Supt. or Officially Designated Representative A 0 SECONDARY SCHOOL(S) AVAILABLE: Yea No lJ If "Yes", what school(s): Jr. High: �. 0 U Sr. High: fir" / I i(I 7 0 Signature: (, ., + I I,�, _ Date: _ Asst. Supt. or Officially Designated Representative DIRECTIONS: Complete appropriate portion of form within 24 hours. Return original to Building Planning & Construction Dept. - Annex #2 Retain a copy for Operating Division files. ' Exhibit C - 2 l March 14, 1972 OLVE"iA ESTATZS T.M. No. 72-064 City of San Die-o Planning Department Co=unity Concourse Mail Station 4A --- San Diego, California 92101 - Attention: Mr. Fred Kno4-,=n Information has been requested concernirzg the availability of schools to serve the proposed subject subdivision. Please be advised that schools are not available to serve the area. The serving schools are operating at capacity.' _ By copy of this letter the developer is requested to contact this office to work, out a solution to the classroom shortage - (accord-ing to the current district policy on school availability). Sincerely, Charles T. Glenn Assistant Superintendent CTG:SJM:ja cc: Arthur Burgess (City Wide Homes) Exhibit D 1. April b, 1972 GLVUA EST:%TZS SUBDIVISION T. M. 72-64 City of San Diego PlannirC D;rartreat Cor'lunity Concoursa 1,L--il Station San Diago, California 92101 Attention: Mr. Fred nostman Information has been requested concerning the availability of schools to serve the subject subdivision. On April 4, 1972 the Board of Education approved an a-reewant With City Wide Homes in compliance with current district policy for Che financing of public elementary school facilities. A copy of this a rem ent is attached. Also encloacd is a letter from the developer to the City Council doted .March 1-0, 1972 requesting the inclusion of certain conditions in the reaolution approvi:4,; the tentative crap for the subject subdivision. Based on the aforementioned aSreecent and provided that the approval of the tentative nap includes tha conditions requested by the davel- oiler, schools are considered to be available. Sincerely, (Miarle$ T. Glern Assistant Superintendent ' CTG:SJM:ja cc: City Wide Homes 77), o. AGREE: NT B=M-,--N THE SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AND CITY WIDE HOMES FOR FINANCING PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SERVICES TiiIS AGREE:—ENT is entered into this 4th day of A-pri1 1972 by and between the SAIN DIEGO UNIFIED SCI700L DISTRICT OF SAIN DIEGO COUNTY , CALIFORNIA, a political subdivision in the State of California (hereinafter referred to as DISTRZCT) , and CITY WIDE IIO:IES , a joint venture consisting of Joe Binswanger, Arthur Burgess , and Richard A. Tuthill, individuals , having its principal business office 1OCaLed at 4500 Imperial Avenue, San Diego, California, (hereafter referred to as DEVELOPER) ; W I T N E S S E T H: WI"IEREAS , DEVELOPER contemplates building residential dwellings within the DISTRICT where no public elementary schools are conveniently located in an- area--- -- more specifically described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS , the location of convenient public elementary schools near DEVELOPER'S proposed residential development would substantially enhance the possibilities of selling the dwcilingc in such.residential development ; and I,THEREAS, DISTRICT is willing to cooperate with DEVELOPED. in locating and staffing convenient public elementary school buildings and facilities in or near DEVELOPER'S proposed residential development for the benefit of the children - assi`ned by DISTRICT to attend school in such public school buildings and use such Le-mporary facilities ; NOW; THEREFORE, the parties to this Agreement do mutually agree as follows: I RESPONSIBILITIES OF DEVELOPER A. DEVELOPER shall pay to DISTRICT prior to approval of the final subdivision map for Olvera Estates , the sum of Eight Thousand Four Hundred and no/100 Dollars ($8,400.00) , which sum is mutually agreed upon as that necessary to provide facilities for tl;e cwelve (12) elementary school-age children anticipated irr DEVELOI'I.I:'S residential development at a cost of Seven hundred and no/100 Dollars ($700 ,00) per child . B . I:LOPER shall, concurrent with requesting- the written assurances froin DISTRICT ri-[orred to in Paragraph II .D, below, request in writing that The City of San llicl;o include in iLs approval of DEVELOPER'S tentative map a stipulation Ch. the DZV1.LOP ERN provide evidence of compliance with the terms of this Agreement prior Exhibit E - 2 to approval of the final subdivision map. ZI RESPONSIBILITIES OF DISTRICT A. DISTRICT shall provide suitable public elementary school buildings and facilities which, in the discretion of: DISTRICT, are deemed adequate to serve the needs of the residents of DEVELOPER'S residential development on a site in the Olvera Estates area as determined by DISTRICT, insofar as possible at law. B. DISTRICT shall provide teachers and administrators as it deems necessary to conduct, and shall actually conduct, an elementary educational program in the buildings and with the facilities described in Section 'I.A, above , for the ter„ of this Agreement , unless this Agreement is terminated earlier pursuant to Section VI, below. C. DISTRICT shall maintain the land, buildings and facilities referred to in Section II.A, above, in a serviceable condition for the DISTRICT 'S use and carry its usual fire, property damage , and public liability insurance to cover such buildings and facilities and DISTRICT'S activities at such school site. - —D . DISTRICT shall not interpose any objection to DEVELOPER'S residential development on grounds that public school buildings and facilities are not adequate to serve the residents of such residential development concurrent with their need for such buildings and facilities, and upon request of DEVELOPER, will provide written assurances to any public agency that schools are adequate and available to serve the residents of DEVELOPER'S residential development . CONSIDERATION Good , valuable and adequate consideration exists in the mutual benefit which DEVELOPER and DISTRICT hereby agree results from entering into and fulfilling this Agreement. IV TITLE TO LAND, BUILDINGS , AND FACILITIES Legal title to the buildings and facilities described in Section II.A, above, shall remain in the DISTRICT or its successors or assigns. V CALIFORNIA LAW CONTROLS It is expressly understood and agreed by DEVELOPER and DISTRICT that the law of the State of California sliall govern them and the interpretation of tho. A rcoment and that any litigation brought because of , or involving, this Agreement shall be -z Exhibit E - 3 initiated exclusively in the Courts of the State of California. VI TERX, AYENDNIENT, RENET,AL, AND TEIL` NATION OF AGREE,-!E:.1T A. The term of this Agreement shall extend from April 4 , 1972 to and including April 3, 1976. This Agreement may be amended or renewed in writing by Mutual consent of DEVELO!'LR and DISTRICT as permitted by law, B . In the event that , subsequent to execution of this Agreement, State or local. law requires developers to donate land or pay fees or taxes for co, truct>ra.1 of Schools , the obligations of DEV.-1.'LOPER to DISTRICT herein shall be offset to the extent any amounts paid by DEVELOPER are received by DISTRICT, or the value of lard which it is required to donate to DISTRICT, insofar as permitted by law. C. In the event that DEVELOPER'S tentative subdivision map is not approved by the appropriate governmental body, all obligations of DEVELOPER and DISTRICT herein shall cease . D. This Ayracment may be terminated at any time in writing by mutual consent of DEVELOPER and DISTRICT. VII SUCCESSORS-IN-INTEREST AND ASSIGNS All terms , conditions and provisions hereof sliall inure to and shall bind the parties hereto, their respective successors-in-interest and assigns , IN WITNESS [ti'l1ERE017, DEVELOPER and DISTRICT have caused this Agreement to be signed in their names and on their behalf by their duly authorized representatives . DEVELOPER: DISTRICT : CZiY 1•1,1IDE l?0:•.rrs SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 4500 imperial ',venue 4100 Normal Street Sar, Die ,� Cal-if or a 92113 San Diego,�l'r,, lif-or la 9 3 / By i Individual President , Board of Education By: LLOALITY A:�ror1M APfllcl)Vca By i1WMA$ A '' i;1' ;UfIJ I'i r•i'j�y1'y' `1'L�V•.a1.1, VL'L�.s'mwl.t yy j �•�,.j�.S/�.'i,���.'r,�.\s:��� 4,r, •�1 �'••�1.1 (� U��Qi2 MCj lllly J _� CI F 1%IAL SEAL �^+ I1 U CCIu tn; 'N`i JI L+c 1. A]ol...l r \ S T LVE m. DATO :n Dia^o Urnlwil Ul�ln�: r .i�<� •I\,=. t• I^1OiP11;'( PUUL;C CAUi0RNL1 •iiQ ��olmil 111c�� . C�• ...... .......... S 1�". PRINCIPAL MICE I'V ',' ��n Uir,o. Cahloinia 9:10) _ CAN WECO COUNly .�-�.-� . Nly Cornmusion �:J ;,larch 15, 19/3 j�QTI i IK� J 1r CQ(J rl:y .... Vv /1 - �I ro. it�tc of caki(karml Exhibit E 4 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OLVERA ESTATES i':u.CEL 1: � I of Lots 44 and 45 of Las Alturas Villa Sites, in the City of San Diego, County of San Diego, State of California, according to :Sap thereof No. 501, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County. E::CEPTING therefrom any portion thereof lying within the boundaries of that Subdivision known as "Euclid Manor," according to Map thereof No. 2752. ALSO EXCEPTING therefrom that portion described as follows: 2eginning at the intersection of the center lines of Euclid and Olvera ,:venues as Shown on Map No . 2852 of Donna Estates, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County; thence North 00*26 '30" East , along the center line of Euclid Avenue, 156 .09 feet ; thence South 89°33 '30" East, 30.00 feet ; thence North 5i°43 '40" East , 12.S2 feet to the Southwesterly corner of Lot i of iuCiid Manor, according to the ,,ap thereof No . 2752 , as filed in said County; thence 'North 00°26 '30" East along the West line of said Lot 1, a distance of 76 .03 feet; thence South 63°30'00" East , 12 .24 feet: to a point on a line that is parallel with and 11.00 feet East of the West line of said Lot 1, this line being the future widening line of Euclid Avenue and said point being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence South 63°30 '00" East , 136 .96 feet to the Northwesterly right of way line of Olvera Avenue; thence South 52°33 '00" West, 115 .00 feet along said Northwesterly right of way line to a point of tangent of a curve concave to the Northeast ; thence Northwesterly along said curve 44 .64 feet , through a cental angle of 127°53 '30" a radius of 20.00 feet and a tangent of 40.91 feet to a point; thence along the widening Tina of Euclid Avenue, North 00°26 '36" East, 115 .00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING . PARCEL 2: The Southerly 10 .00 feet of Lots 3, 4, 5 , and 6 of Euclid Manor, in the City of San Diego, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 2752, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of said San Diego County, February 9, 1951. ..ITY '.:I:;. HOI;CS 0 o74 y fir/ .r r.i' .,✓V/ir' i. PHONE 2 G 2.08 G 1 1 P. O. E30X 13123 SAN DIEGO. CALLIi-ORNIA 92113 March 30, 1972 San Diego City Council City Administration Building Community Concourse San Diego, California 92101 Re: Clvera Estates Subdivision Centlemen: The undersi4ned hereby requests and authorizes the City to include in its approval of the Tentative Subdivision f�"ap for subject development, a stipulation that the subdivider shall provide to the City, as a condition to approval of T,ne Final 'rap, a letter from the San Diego Unified Schocl District statinq that the subdivider has performed all terms and conditions of the 1+yreement for Financino_ public Elementary Schocl Services, approved on April 4, 1972, on its part to be performed. Such letter shall be filed concurrently with the executed subdivision agroement. Very truly yours, Arthur Burgess, aartn r r 'c v , _ GROSS --z O11/EN l OArE l:l{Fc'.0 NO 1" olsco�,r,r �4.or.tE AMOUNT CCL UC71 Ut:5 i�i5c CHECK _.__..-_,.__.,_..-,__-,.--,.-,._..-,�-..-.._..- -•--.._..--,._,LL-,.-., .,--•--,._.. -.--r_,.__„-.._,.._�__.._.__--.--c-..._.:_� _ 0-2653 , r T Y 1i 7 V 1 i jy -- ---- ----- ` Sa't D!ego P.1aln Offico ( r;rvolck ;to. 10.+ 7o iI At.roUNT— ,r , 41- p C0 Imerial Avenue - Phone 262-0861 , -- ---` -- - - -' ----- - -- I HAN K ANK Of- CALIFORNIA N.A. i P. O. fox 13128 i -- --- - — San Diego, C-li(omla San Diego, California 92113 l... 1970 —Il-! i)nY 'D,>TE A!.tOUtiT I -- — TO T14E ur� Scn Diego Unified School District 13-24- 72 JA00.00 , j --`---- - City l:l�e lien es ( • 1 7 e r- -�-`�- 1. ., 2 2 7 �111 2f� 53(. G ,IIIOU7 � ,111 �i11 r ;w - I ® CITY OF HUnTmGT ® n BEACH DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES _402- P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-5271 � G TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council �� V ATTN: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator FROM: Planning Department DATE: October 26 , 1976 RE: BOLSA CHICA PREZONE (ZONE CASE NO. 76-20) ADDENDUM TO STAFF REPORT (AGENDA ITEM J-2A) For the past several months the Planning Staff has pursued the prezoning and annexation of Bolsa Chica to the City. In the public hearings that have been held on prezoning and annexation there has been evidence of considerable community concern over the prezoning designation. This resulted in the City Council directing Staff to initiate a new zoning district to alleviate these concerns. Now that the new district has been approved by the Planning Commission and will be before the City Council shortly, it is logical to ask the question of why proceed with the prezoning as proposed in Zone Change No. 76-20. Would it not be more logical to amend the prezoning to include the new zoning district (LU) and the amendments to the oil districts that allow the 02 to be combined with ROS. The answer to this question mainly involves timing. The goal Staff has been working toward, from Council direction earlier this year, was to have annexation completed by January 1, 1977. The recent decision to repost the Environmental Impact Report for 30 days all but fore- closed that goal. The only way that this can now be done is to receive 100% concurrence from all property owners which includes mineral or oil interests. Letters seeking concurrence went to all such parties. To date, the City has not received complete concurrence, and it is probably unlikely that it will come in time, if at all. Thus , it appears most unlikely that the January 1, 1977 deadline can be met. Since it now appears that the January 1, 1977 deadline cannot be met, if that is still a valid goal, and that this issue is of great concern to the community and that such concern could be alleviated by amending the prezoning as outlined, the Planning Department feels that the best interests of the community would be served by amending the prezoning to include the new LU Zoning District in place of the RA District and com- bining ROS with 02 on the portion of the State owned and leased property designated for RA-02 (refer to attached sketch) and preparing an Environmental Impact Report to cover both the prezoning and annexation activities. This would effectively delay annexation until March of 1977. The Planning Department stands behind the propriety and adequacy of the work done to date, but feels this new course of action would be most responsive to community concerns. Page 2 RECOMMENDATION Table adoption of Ordinance No. 2112 and instruct Staff to initiate recommended prezoning. and Environmental Impact Report. Respectfully submitted, anAa D. Seli Wh Acting Director Attachment: Proposed Amended Prezoning Ij 1 \ NORTH l t , A a ® ANNEXATION LIMITS CITY LIMITS _ SIGNAL• BOLSR 1 .._C�� GARHELD ANNEXATION 1 XN v ..- ,P Imo— -- I — --- — GARFIELD O GARFIELD 2 ' "POINT=OF BEGINNING EASTERLY 386.46';THENCE 39.24' SOUTH EASTERLY— s :,. --= -- " INCORPORATION '- - H W Y ------ ---- :°� BOLSA CHICA STATE PARK _R%C�S-01 R up"ROP40"SED BOMA CHICA A E ATIV �1 T® THE CITE F HH TI GT BEACH (1602.12 ACRES) Affidavit of Pvif*lication State of California County of Orange ss pt City of Huntington Beach George Farquhar, being duly sworn on oath, says: That he is a r citizen of the United States, over the age of twenty-one years. That he is the printer and publisher of the Huntington Beach ! News, a weekly newspaper of general circulation printed and pub- I lished in Huntington Beach, California and circulated in the said County of Orange and elsewhere and published for the dissemination of local and other news of a general character, and has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, and said paper has been established, printed and published in the State of California, and County of Orange, for at least one year next before the publication of the first insertion of this notice; and the said newspaper is not - ,. devoted to the interest of, or published for the entertainment of any xPublished:�H'unt'YngtonE� eah'fV cews,=septa;. particular class, profession, trade, calling, race or denomination, or s, 1976 - s any number thereof. rN;oTI,C 1.E OF, PUBLIC HEARING The Huntington Beach New was adjudicated a legal newspaper ENVIP.ONMENTAL-IMPACT REPORT 76-3 of general circulation by Judge G. K. Scovel in the Superior Court NOTC"E IS HEREBY GIVEN that a pub- of Orange County, California August 27th, 1937 by order No.A-5931. Rc hearng will be held the ch, Council•of ,the,City of Huntington„Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic That the ENVIRON. IMPACT REPORT 76-3 Center, Huntington 'Beach,,at the ,hour of 7:00.P.M., or, as 'soon thereafter as possible, on 'Monday, the 20th day oP, September,_ 1976, for the purpose of- considering adoption" of Environmental of which the annexed is a printed copy, was published in said news- Impact Report 76-3. 'Said EIR assesses the potential environmental impacts of city annexation of the Bolsa Chica. The paper at least One Issue Bolsa Chica is•;bounded by Pacific Coast Highway on 'the"west, Warner Avenue on the north, City,Boundary won the east 9th day of September and south. Maps,an ani"nial descriptions commencing from the y are on fide in the .P,l`aomrig,*Department f Office. �Z All interestgd persons are invited to 19 ( V y and ending on the 9 th day of September attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against adoption of said 'Environmental Impact Report 76-3: 19�6, both days inclusive, and as often during said period and Further- information may be' obtained times of publication as said paper was regularly issued, and in the from the Office 64 the City Clerk. regular and entire issue of said pewspaper proper, and not in a DATED:-September 7, TIN GTONsupplement, and said notice was published therein on the following ciTy OF HU.Wentworth BEACH p dates, to-wit: �C y Clerk M Wentwoorth Sept._. 9 , 1976 ublisher Subscribed and sworn to+before me this 10th day of September �19Z�J�/���/� •,�11��'1ir-R rGJs XJs,Y� Notary Public Orange County, California --------------------------------r THOMAS Q. WYLLIE Notary Pu6lic-California r r a� Orange Count i 9 I My Commission Expires r September 12, 1978------ ---� r My of Huntington Beach County of Orange State of California Affidavitof Publication of GEORGE FARQUHAR Publisher Huntington Beach News l I Filed Clerk By i Deputy Clerk Publish 9/9/76 Postcards -°- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 76-3 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the . City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7:00 P.M. , or as soon thereafter as possible, on Monday, the 20th day of September , 19 76 for the purpose of considering adoption of Environmental Impact Report 76-3. Said EIR assesses the Potential environmental impacts of city annexation of the Bolsa Chica. The Bolsa Chica is bounded by Pacific Coast Highway on the west, Warner Avenue on the north, City boundary on the east and south. Maps and legal descriptions are on file in the Planning Department Office. All interested person are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against **U adoption of said Environmental Impact Report 76-3. Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk . J� DATED: September 7, 1976 CITY OF- HUNTINGTON BEACH ~~ BY: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk • CITY OF HUnTmGTOn BEACH ,� DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-5271 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council ATTN: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator FROM: Planning Department DATE: September 15, 1976 RE: Bolsa Chica Annexation #7 Final Environmental Impact Report i Attached for your adoption is Final EIR 76-3 . The Environmental Review Committee met on Monday, September 13, to review the Draft EIR 76-3 . The Committee caused Final EIR 76-3 to be prepared and transmitted to the City Council for adoption. I Adoption of Final EIR 76-3 should occur on the September 20 meeting if annexation is to remain on-schedule toward the January 1, 1977 com- pletion date. Adoption of Final EIR 76-3 is needed prior to the City' s act of annexation because the Local Agency Formation Commission will utilize in their proceedings Final EIR 76-3 to fulfill the requirements of CEQA. The City Council should adopt a Resolution of Intent to annex October 14, subsequent to LAFCO approval of the annexation. Respectfully submitted, EDWARD D. SELICH Acting Dire for Monica Florian Senior Planner EDS :TM:ja V I Environmental @ouncil 13 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH Post Office Box 190 o Huntington Beach, California 92648 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From : Environmental Council, Keith Lewinger`?,�,Chairman,;;.,.;-', , w Date r September 24, 1976 Topic: Bolsa Chica Annexation EIR f 1 Environmental Council members have reviewed the comments of the many agencies and groups, and the staff response to those comments, as well as the September 2 Addendum to the Bolsa Chica Annexation "Final" EIR. We discussed this matter at the September 23 Environmental Council meeting. At the request of Councilman Pattinson we make the following recommendations on the Bolsa Chica Final EIR. Considering the extent as well as the content of the comments and response (comprising 62 pages, as compared to 38 pages in the Draft EIR itself) the Environmental Council strongly urges that the report be rewritten prior to City Council action on it or submitting it to LAFCO in order to incorporate the large volume of this "addendum" information into. the text of the report where it properly belongs. It is difficult if not impossible with the report as it is now to identify the errors and cor- rections, and to keep many facts in the proper perspective. The Environmental Council and others still feel that there has not been proper address in this Final EIR to the growth inducing impact of annexation. We therefore also urge that this section be expanded to properly address the adverse impacts on the community i A _ i �J ;7 [;;J:9ij3 nvi l CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH . HUNTINGTON BFACN Post .Office Box 190 • Huntington Beach, California 92648 � To' Honorable Mayor and City Council Members � 2 From s tnViromental Council Keith Lewingere Chairman Dates September 24, 1976 Topics Bolsi Chica Annexation EIR. Environmental Couazcil helsvre i ta of the many,, agencies and groups, - staffs� �e to those comments s as wall as the..Sept ber a Addendum to the Balsa Chic& Annexation Final°° EIR �� discusser! this matter at the Sapteaaber, 23 Environmental Council meeting, Atrequest of C ©ilman .Pattinson we make the f01loAng, rpeammendations on the Balsa Chiea 'Final EIR• Considering -the extent of the c tints anci ro espnse (comprising;° 6. ®s, as .cftpa to 38. Mae in the .Draft EIR. it0ilf the EnAkonmental .Council strongly urges than the: report be r ttan prior to City Council -action on it or submitting ;it to LAFCO in order to. incorpota the, :forge Volume of. this Naddend+ w' info .information into the t t. 'of rt rah® c it prop rly t»lorr�'s• It .ie difficult if not im"sssible with. the ' kaport ag it ,is now to identify the .®rrars and, oor� rections, and. to kdep many facts6 in the proper perspective. The Environ�tontel. Council others atill feel that there has§ I been proper address" in this Final EIR .to the growth inducing impAct .of .annexAtidhi We therefore also ur�g that this section, be e p nded t:o properly address the adVerse impacts 'oh the . community 1- Bud Belsito . i 1 - Harlow i 7 - Council April 21, 1976 To: Bolsa Ch ica Annexation Study Committee Dear Committee Members: ° Less•than 24 hours ago some of the important,people,the residents,affected by the upcoming discussion to annex part or all of,the Bolsa properties became aware of your study group's meeting. Today was spent canvassing my neighborhioo ,the outstanding homes built by W. R. Grace known as the.Landing where my family.resides. If this s'udy.group were to look at the Grace homes.at.the Landing the opportunity for our.tot o munity.to benefit further from this kind.of environmentally sound,tAklrevenue producing, prime residential development in.the requested 41 acre annexation would be obvious and a sound investment in our future. This group of only about 150•homes is in total concert with tlie:goals and objectives of all of us. Not quantity,but quality residential construction that can be looked at with home town pride, as part.of the Huntington Beach beautification project: When most people come to town they can take their ownership of their individual lot as their . licerrse•to:prohibit anyone else,from enjoying the natural beauty of our'community..Many of us not only,want to share what we have but to help create an environment in which we'can share it,with other homeowners who also_take pride in their residences like the homeowners in the Landing: Open space is not the issue in Huntington Beach. We have hardly the resources to manage acid- maintain the volume already off the.tax scrolls. The issue really is how do we encourage rather than discourage the leadership demonstrated liy the Landing both•inalie integrity of their homes and ttie.people themselves. We can look,at many areas of our community to,see how easy,it is to abuse land as many developers have.' In very,few".cases in my almost ten years•in Huntington Beach can I point with pride what Grace has done on their'own: Just imagine what they could do if they had our cooperation and support with the simple.annexation of the non-oil.producing 4-t.acres they are.requesting for consideration: 1Vlosi of you on this study group,know me and I pledge my name.to the fact that at least 100 signatures could be presented,all of whom live in the immediate area,.who would support this proposal because the Landing home benefits the individual resideiits.and families of the area. iSignal properties and marinas are separate issues from this 41 acre parcel. This is not a blanket endorsement because there are several developers who could not have this j kind of-letter written for them with as many husbands, wives and children behind it. R°espectfu ly, David P. Garofalo; Pat Suter s,ta.t.ed- that_ Mr.. Robert F. Prock, Grace Properties requested_tfiat -Council be provided with DPGAw copies of this letter. "5 ��{r�':�y�; Sr°�'.at:rat'rp'°,cm`mt�$1'k�;Fo-1y�&�a.+:re�x�+Ta.;'�L>"rce�aua.rxr.s�.'.$a-:a.�Onepei;u.2°k.Ms:a:`xa•+a5�iroa�t:.a"I�rr§u¢,',.vvx:,.rr.Os^+41.=a cvf.=-p,:wr^r..ra3a'Ga:•<4'<iCw SW?�..r h»r`r«+-=w:_t.tr.ynu4�.,wr.,..ynr.. F.n�,*5cr...c+�zea--au.RG-'�.*s•.•emxwnn.�..w«ws.,.. f i Attachment Reasons for annexation of this 41 acre-parcel. a � l:) It is finishedresideritial property — not wet lands. 2.) Price,per acre of this parcel is so high that probably the State could not afford these few acres of dry.lands. 3.) ***If.thi_s.44t acres.w' ere incorporated'now,,removing this high priced premium property from the total package of hundreds of acres, that would make the per acre purchase price of the remaining land by the State more reasonable�,'realistic and attractive for the proposed' recreational purposes. i I U 1 I 1 i t (ITY OF HunflnGTon BERICH i ®® P.O. BOX 190, CALIFORNIA 92648 nn PLANNING DEPT. (714) 536-*5271 . TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council } FROM: Planning Department I . DATE': -May 12, 1976 ATTN: Floyd G. Belsito, Acting City Administrator SUBJECT: Bolsa Chica Annexation f . Attached for your information- is a previously - issued -transmittal regarding annexation of the Bolsa Chica. This document summarizes significant ;.facts"-regarding the' area andpresents recommendations from the Planning Commission and the Planning Department. Please note the. revised figures in #2 and #3 . Additional investi- gation by Staff since the original transmittal has identified total .as'sessed value to be: land/mineral $6, 052 , 700 bldgs. - 500 other. than bld_gs. '99, 850 inventory - 1, 520 other - 600 $6,155, 620 Oil production in the area not already generating City revenue equals 3, 500 barrels per day. We trust this information will be useful in your deliberations. Respectfully submitted, Richard °A. Harlow, Director Planning & Environmental Resources RAH:MF:gc i r A. F Huntington Beach Planning Commission P.O. BOlt 100 CALIFORNIA 6264 j TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Planning Commission and Planning Department DATE : - December A , 1975 ATTN: David D. Rowlands, City Administrator i RE: PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF A PORTION OF THE BOLSA CHICA AREA !, BY THE SIGNAL BOLSA CORPORATION. Transmitted herewith are the Planning Commission and Planning Staff recommendations for the proposed annexation of a 280-acre portion o.f Bols`a Chica:,: - The City Council referred this request to the Planning Cgminission and Planning Staff, for report and recommendation. The foll,owing 'is a listing -of significant. facts which relate to this proposal,:,.: 1,. The unincorporated area of Bolsa Chica. consists of approximately 1600 acres of '-land,. Ownership is primarily controlled by- Signal Bolsa Corporation. - Other owners within the area are Oceanview School District; Metropolitan Water District, Don Goodell , Kendall Development Company, Inc. ; State of 'California, and the Orange County Flood Control District. A map depicting the location and i; acreage of said parcels is attached. 2. The assessed value of Bolsa Chica is: Land - $3 , 005a, . '700 Mineral Rights - $2, 93 , 3 . Qi1 production on the entire area is estimated to be' approximately -fr,$46- barrels per day. 4 . County policy on annexation and how it affects Bolsa Chica is: The County would like to see a development plan for the Bolsa Chica prepared jointly by the County,, City, and Property Owners, prior to annexation of any portion of Bolsa Chica.. (The City should serve as lead agency in this effort. ) This policy has not been spelled out on any adopted document, so the County v would probably be in agreement with the City on more than one annexation or annexations prior to plan preparation provided a comprehensive planning effort of the entire Bolsa Chica Area would still occur and that the important resource area (Ecological Reserve) was protected. 5. Bolsa Chica is within the City' s sphere of influence; therefore, it is appropriate for the City to take on this planning effort. Page Tiro 6 . The C, ty is currently providing limited police and fire protection r` to .this area.. The C.ity does not receive additional compensation for this service. 7 . Any planning effort undertaken by the ' City for this area would be costly and the City would not receive any additional compensation for this effort. 8 . The City has' an adopted policy regarding annexation which essen- j . t.iall'y calls for complete environmental analysis and. planning of an area prior to annexation (see attached policy adopted by City Council , September 4 ; 1973, Resolution No. 3760) . 4 . TheYre :,re other portions of Bolsa Chica which:-may -be available for annexation. They include: State Ecological Reserve, the ,Kendall Devczlopinent Corporation Inc. , property along . the -common boundary between the Huntington Beach Company and Signal ,Bolsa Corporation' and property located at the northwest corner of Edwards Street and F 11 i,s Avenue. 1-0. ]'n rf-sponse to the statement that significant changes have 'occurred in Bolsa Chica since the Policy Plan' s statement on annexation was adopted , the following i.s offered: a. - The Metropolitan Water District is a publ.ic . utility. The 400 foot wide strip to be .maintained as 'open, space; therefore,, the physical separation caused by this strip..of land in conjunction . . with the Flood, Contr.ol' District is riot adequate separation to cause the parcels to be considered separate for pl*anninq .purposes . f _ b. The State ' s acquisition of the ecological reserve has no bear- ing on the issue :of annexation. If anything, this propperty., .:. should be incorporated as 'a part- 0 the comprehensive `plan, inasmuch. as, any surrounding development will have a defihte impact on the ecological, reserve,.` c The increase in the rice of crude and the extending of the P 9 expected economic life of the existing oil wells should -not have any .bear.ing on the planning effort. The life of the. oil field does not mean' that consideration should not be given - to , 61-tern.atives for development and ;-the impact these uses may have . on each other:. d. The differeh.t' owner ships between the land' and mineral rights should not. preclude Signal Bolsa Corporation 'from 'preparing long-range,-plans and an environmental analysis. Areas -'which `are designated for resource production for'."l5 to 20 years' May be 'so designated ,., but consideration must be given to -long range alternatives 11 . There are 'essehtia'lly. two issues : annexation and planning (in cludi.ng environmental analysis) . Technically, these issues maybe separated but as a practical matter planning should be a total. effort which should .not be fragmented through piecemeal annexa- tion . The planning and environmental analysis of Bolsa .Chica G Page Three shou Id. occur with the .entire Bolsa. Chica area either totally r ' withi.n -the•- City or' within the County unincorporated area. This !. will assist in maintaining continuity throughout the planning process. 12 . 1"f this parcel is 'annexed, it could have an adverse impact on the State' s plan for, acquisition in that it will increase land values and 'thus increase acquisition cost to the public. 13 . Signal Bolsa Corporation has. stated that "their desire to "annex ttte 'property does not mean that they will not .follow through with their intent to plan and conduct an environmental analysis of Bolsa ,Chica.- 14 . signal Bolsa Corpor`a,tion has" stated that the ,C,i;ty would receive apf>r.oxim-ately $29 , 1,55 ,per year by annexing subject property (property tax ;22 , 030 per year, - oil production $7 , 125 per year)'.. 15'. A total planning effort would allow for a complete cost benefit analysis of the proposal , i.e. , opening to the ocean, the need Forbridges , :and other "public improvements: ` PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: No annexation should be "permitted until a total plan along with ,the necessary environmental analysis has been complete: As. an alternative , it is recommende'd 'that the City of Huntington BeacH annex the entire :Bolsa Chica Area and continue with the expressed policy for pre-planning and env ironmental. analysis, prior. to "development. The, m1nority. opinion= of the Planning Commission is as" foilows': Annex ation' should be permitted to proceed but a' planning analysis , both economic and environmental , should be conducted before development occurs . This will allow -the City- to receive additional' revenue 'as outli1.0d in the report from Signal Bolsa' Corporation.' STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In view of the fact that the City is providing services, i .e". , Police , Fire and Planning, and because the County will not be -the lead agency, nor will. they take an active role in the planning process, it is recommenc-led that the City of Huntington Beach annex the entire Bolsa Chica Area and .continue with the expressed policy for pre-planning and environmental analysis prior, to-' development. ' As an alternative , it i,s recommended that no annexation be permitted until the total plan along with the necessary environmental analysis has been ,completed. ' As a point. 'Of information;' it. should be noted that the revenue derived from annexing Bolsa Chica will assist in defraying those costs which are presently passed 'on to the City. In 'effect , the- services being provided to" other large vacant parcels of land within the- City of Huntington .Beach" are currently being provided to Bolsa- Chica. J i Page Four RespeCt.fully submitte 2 ., �:.� 11�cll and A,. Harlow i Secretary j RAII :gc I . . I i I . I F i J j . i 'EXCERPTS FROM THE POLICY PLAN SEPTEMBER 1973 Annexation i Objectives: Encompass within City boundaries only those areas with common interests and which can be efficiently and economically served -by city facilities. i Principles: 1 . Approve and pursue only annexations which: a. Will contribute. to the accomplishment of Huntington Beach Master Plan Objectives. b`. Will "square off" .city limits at the San Diego Freeway, Santa Ana River, Pacific Ocean, and the Naval Weapons Station. C . Will -not dilute the existing tax base. d . Will not place a burden on existing City facilities. e . Will meet all municipal codes. ff . Will not overload existing gas, electric and water resources. 2 . Use pre-planning of unincorporated territory to assure that n. annexed areas : a. Are developed in compatibility with surrounding neighbor- hoods. b.. Do not create unnecessary hardships on property owners in proximity to the annexed areas. C. Provide sufficient tax base to assure that the area will not cause tax increases for current residents within the City. d. That no area be permitted to be annexed to the City which is contrary to the previously accepted Master Plan of the area, of which the annexation is a part. 3 . buring pre-planning for annexation , developers of unincorporated areas should be required to show to the public all their ac- cumu'lated' information on ecological impacts of the whole area, including those studies required by Federal , State, and County jurisdictions . 4 . Historically important sites within an annexed area should be con- sidered for dedication to public use or public ownership. 5 . Federal and State grants should be sought to develop property which is within the annexed area. 6 . D scussions ' should be pursued with. adjacent community leader- ship to integrate their goals with those of Huntington Beach. i PROPERTY OWNERS ACRES SIGNAL B OLSA CORPORATION 119 60.(230 ACS. LEASED TO STATE) KENDALL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 41 .5.:.. pnN GOnDE:LL fo ® METRf FMITAN WATER 01ST2lCT 36 CKEANVIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT 19 • • STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 300 ORANlGf COUNTY FLCXM CONTROL 20(LEA5ED} �'•; �: « �:. /.i,, �;.r. ANAZ�xATEOPB 60 ACRES yAl ` • �� • • o • o e s • o 0 0 `� ,. ohs°•°e°o°•°•°s®•••°e°°°•s•• • • e°Oo • • o s • • s e e e ° • o �• e • • o o • • e e e • 9 • s o • • e a' • • ° • • ° • • • • • • ...� ... cr R ... . - • O • foe UNINCORPORATED BOLSA CHICA Dick Harlow, To Planiting Director Date 12/9/75 STGNAL POLL A ANNEXATION The City Council established a committee consist ng of Councilmembers, Planning Commission members , Environmental Council members , Lea2ue of Women Voters and Amigos Del Bolsa Chica to work with Sign& B01-sa Corporation on recanmia�dat.jons J71— regard to future development on the property. x This committe is to r P&A bac! to the City Council by the second meeting in February 1976. Plcase inform Connie Bauer , City Council Secre- tary, as to who the representatives from the Planning Commission an Enviropmental Council will be. This office will coordinate the initial, meeting. MURA] SQned�' V David D. Rowlands City Administrator Date Signed Redill rm 4S 465 SEND PARTS I AND 3 WITH CARBONS INTACT. Poly Pak 150�tsl 410465 PART 3 WILL BE RETURNED WITH REPLY. Madam Mayor, Council members : I am Herb Chatterton, Chairman of Amigos, do Bolsa Chica. I reside at 5602 Ludlow Circle , Huntington Beach . Amigos is a coalition of persons interested in protecting the irreplaceable resources within the almost 2000 acres of the Bolsa Chica. This area is the most , significant undeveloped area in Western Orange County. There are a host of reasons why annexation at this time , without adequate planning would, in our opinion, be a serious mistake . In the interest of time , I will address only two points that are of prime interest to all taxpayers : First, in November of 1972 , the people of the State of California voted that "the protection of the remaining natural and scenic resources of the coastal zone is a paramount concern to present and future residents of the state and nation;" and "It is the policy of the state to preserve , protect, and where possible , to restore the resources of the coastal zone for the enjoyment of the current and succeeding generations ." Since 1972 , substantial research has been done to determine which areas of the coast are most in need of protection. One result of these studies is a series of recommendations for public acquisition of certain critical parcels along the coast. Included in a list of properties recommended for immediate acquisition by the state , are 1450 acres of "Bolsa Chica wetlands and buffer areas . " This would bring all the land outside the present city limits under public ownership for restoration and preservation. During the coming months , Amigos de Bolsa Chica, the League of Women Voters , and many other groups will be working with the State Legislature to implement this plan through a state-wide bond issue . Annexation now would raise the market value and force the taxpayers to pay an artificially inflated price to acquire the property. For this reason, .we request that the city delay annexation for one year to allow the state an opportunity to establish the mechanism to buy the Bolsa Chica. Under public ownership, the area could become a tremendous environmental asset to the city , at no cost to the city. The second point is purely local . The proposed annexation would bring almost one-third of the privately owned Bolsa Chica land into the city as R-1, single family residential property. City studies have shown that, on the average , R-1 areas cost the city substantially more to service than they generate in tax revenues . For many years , the city has based its direction on the assumption that needed tax revenues could be obtained by annexation and development of adjacent areas . During the decade of the sixties , Huntington Beach earned the distinction of being the fastest growing city in the country. If the annexation logic were correct, the city would now be financially secure . And, if you do annex the Bolsa Chica, what' s left? Do you subdivide Central Park? Do you sell the beach for high rise? Of course not. The city has matured from the go-go days of the sixties . Unending , piecemeal annexations are no longer a viable alternative . The city must now concentrate not on making Huntington Beach a bigger place to live, but to make it a better place to live . Amigos de Bolsa Chica requests that the city postpone annexation until the state has had an opportunity to acquire this unique coastal resource. Huntington Beach Planning Commission P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 62640 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Planning Commission and Planning Department DATE: December 4 , 1975 ATTN: David D. Rowlands, City Administrator RE: PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF A PORTION OF THE BOLSA CHICA AREA BY THE SIGNAL BOLSA CORPORATION. Transmitted herewith are the Planning Commission and Planning Staff recommendations for the proposed annexation of a 280-acre portion of Bolsa Chica. The City Council referred this request to the Planning Commission and Planning Staff for report and recommendation. The following is a listing of significant facts which relate to this proposal : 1. The unincorporated area of Bolsa Chica consists of approximately 1600 acres of land. Ownership is primarily controlled by Signal C Bolsa Corporation. Other owners within the area are Oceanview School District, Metropolitan Water District, Don Goodell , Kendall Development Company, Inc. , State of California, and the Orange County Flood Control District. A map depicting the location and acreage of said parcels is attached. 2. The assessed value of Bolsa Chica is: Land - $3 , 047 , 920 Mineral Rights - $2, 933 , 160 3. Oil production on the entire area is estimated to be approximately 6, 000 barrels per day. 4. County policy on annexation and how it affects Bolsa Chica is: The County would like to see a development plan for the Bolsa Chica prepared jointly by the County, City, and Property Owners, prior to annexation of any portion of Bolsa Chica. (The City should serve as lead agency in this effort. ) This policy has not been spelled out on any adopted document, so the County would probably be in agreement with the City on more than one annexation or annexations prior to plan preparation provided a comprehensive planning effort of the entire Bolsa Chica Area would still occur and that the important resource area (Ecological Reserve) was protected. 5. Bolsa Chica is within the City' s sphere of influence; therefore, it is appropriate for the City to take on this planning effort. Page Two 6. The City is currently providing limited police and fire protection to this area. The City does not receive additional compensation for this service. 7 . Any planning effort undertaken by the City for this area would be costly and the City would not receive any additional compensation for this effort. 8 . The City has an adopted policy regarding annexation which essen- tially calls for complete environmental analysis and planning of an area prior to annexation (see attached policy adopted by City Council, September 4 , 1973, Resolution No. 3760) . 9. There are other portions of Bolsa Chica which may be available for annexation. They include: State Ecological Reserve, the Kendall Development Corporation Inc. , property along the common boundary between the Huntington Beach Company and Signal Bolsa Corporation and property located at the northwest corner of Edwards Street and Ellis Avenue. 10. In response to the statement that significant changes have occurred in Bolsa Chica since the Policy Plan' s statement on annexation was j adopted, the following is offered: I a. The Metropolitan Water District is a public utility. The 400 foot wide strip to be maintained as open space; therefore , the physical separation caused by this strip of land in conjunction with the Flood Control District is not adequate separation to cause the parcels to be considered separate for planning purposes. b. The State' s acquisition of the ecological reserve has no bear- ing on the issue of annexation. If anything, this property should be incorporated as a part of the comprehensive plan, inasmuch as any surrounding development will have a definite impact on the ecological reserve. C. The increase in the price of crude and the extending of the expected economic life of the existing oil wells should not have any bearing on the planning effort. The life of the oil field does not mean that consideration should not be given to alternatives for development and the impact these uses may have on each other. d. The different ownerships between the land and mineral rights should not preclude Signal Bolsa Corporation from preparing long-range plans and an environmental analysis. Areas which are designated for resource production for 15 to 20 years may be so designated, but consideration must be given to long- range alternatives. 11 . There are essentially two issues: annexation and planning (in- cluding environmental analysis) . Technically, these issues may be separated but as a practical matter planning should be a total effort which should not be fragmented through piecemeal annexa- tion. The planning and environmental analysis of Bolsa Chica Page Three should occur with the entire Bolsa Chica area either totally within the City or within the County unincorporated area. This will assist in maintaining continuity throughout the planning process. 12. If this parcel is annexed, it could have an adverse impact on the State° s plan for acquisition in that it will increase land values and thus increase acquisition cost to the public. 13. Signal Bolsa Corporation has stated that their desire to annex the property does not mean that they will not follow through with their intent to plan and conduct an environmental analysis of Bolsa Chica. 14 . Signal Bolsa Corporation has stated that the City would receive approximately $29, 155 per year by annexing subject property (property tax $22 ,030 per year, oil production $7 , 125 per year) . 15. A total planning effort would allow for a complete cost benefit analysis of the proposal , i. e. , opening to the ocean, the need ,for bridges, and other public improvements. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: No annexation should be permitted until a total plan along with the necessary environmental analysis has been complete. As an alternative, it is recommended that the City of Huntington Beach annex the entire Bolsa Chica Area and continue with the expressed policy for pre-planning and environmental analysis prior to development. The minority opinion of the Planning Commission is as follows : Annexation should be permitted to proceed but a planning analysis, both economic and environmental , should be conducted before development occurs. This will allow the City to receive additional revenue as outlined in the report from Signal Bolsa Corporation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In view of the fact that the City is providing services, i.e. , Police , Fire and Planning, and because the County will not be the lead agency, nor will they take an active role in the planning process , it is recommended that the City of Huntington Beach annex the entire Bolsa Chica Area and continue with the expressed policy for pre-planning and environmental analysis prior to development. As an alternative , it is recommended that no annexation be permitted until the total plan along with the necessary environmental analysis has been completed. As a point of information, it should be noted that the revenue derived from annexing Bolsa Chica will assist in defraying those costs which are presently passed on to the City. In effect, the services being provided to other large vacant parcels of land within the City of Huntington Beach are currently being provided to Bolsa Chica. Page Four t Respectfully submitted, �i Richard A. Harlow, Director Planning and Environmental Resources RAH:gc Annexation Objectives: Encompass within City boundaries only those areas with common interests and which can be efficiently and economically served by city facilities. Principles: 1. Approve and pursue only annexations which: a. Will contribute to the accomplishment of Huntington Beach Master Plan Objectives. b. Will "square off" city limits at the San Diego Freeway, Santa Ana River, Pacific Ocean, and the Naval Weapons Station. C. Will not dilute the existing tax base. d. Will. not place a burden on existing City facilities. e. Will meet all municipal codes. f. Will not overload existing gas, electric and water resources. 2. use pre-planning of unincorporated territory to assure that annexed areas : I a. Are developed in compatibility with surrounding neighbor- hoods. b. Do not create unnecessary hardships on property owners in proximity to the annexed areas. C. Provide sufficient tax base to assure that the area will not cause tax increases for current residents within the City. d. That no area be permitted to be annexed to the City which is contrary to the previously accepted Master Plan of the area, of which the annexation is a part. 3. During pre-planning for annexation , developers of unincorporated areas should be required to show to the public all their ac- cumulated information on ecological impacts of the whole area, including those studies required by Federal , State, and County jurisdictions . 4 . Historically important sites within an annexed area should be con- sidered for dedication to public use or public ownership. 5. Federal and State grants should be sought to develop property which is within the annexed area. 6 . Discussions should be pursued with adjacent community leader- ship to integrate their goals with those of Huntington Beach. 0 5_;�a_ 3^.sa �2P72ATICN II9l0 '�30 acs :ASE-0 TO STATE - CE ,>o' °_VE.7?�,EtiT. OM?ANY 41 DlS(RtCT 36 _ 's 07-^,N3E y ;op ACRES .; . y - �. r- \ M • • • • • • • • • • • • • UNINCORPORATED BOLSA CHICA PL1N-^G^DEPARTMENT `I ,.76WWin#6n eWF'A A-il1 l f'Al JAI A .4U`47 Statement to the Huntington Beach City Council in opposition to the Bole& Chloe Annexation By Huth Baileys President Dec. 8. 1975 a� I an Huth Bailey. President of the League of Women Peters of the Huntington Beach.Seal Beach Area, I appreciate the opportunity.tc speak on the very Important issue of the Bela& Chios annexation. I feel fortunate that the League had the foresight and recognized the need for a study of the Balsa Chico area and has reached a pos- Ition in which we can be specific in taking action. The future of this vital land resource is of concerns not only to the over 200 , members of the HB-SB League. but also to the 1.000 Orange County Lea y g ppertet j' League members. As a�resuit of Its stud the League su The preservation of Bolas, Chios as an, ecological preserve surroun- del by open space to prevent further degradation of unique coastal resources One of the obleotives for action stressed by our members was the formation of a coalition of Huntington Beach citizens to work for protection of the Bolsa Chic&. The response to a call for 4; participation, even in this early stage of its formation. indicates a broad base of support. In addition questions regarding Boles, Chica were Included in a questionnaire circulated by the League at the City Festival last May. Of the variety,of topics covered the Bolas CLies drew one of the highest response rates, in favor of preservation. ' Hundreds of the responses showed that people of the community were deeply aware of the area and concerned about the development that E, might occur there. This fall the League surveyed its members on topics of concern to them and--even in this period just before the election when the unification issue was hot--the concern for Balsa Chios outranked unification. The League would urge you not to allow premature and piecemeal am- , exatien of the Balsa Chico. Annexation of the bluff area could pre- olpitats decisions that would bypass the total planning for the areas that good Judgement calls for. Before any decisions are made, the i City should be able to look at alternative proposals for the Bolas Chi" that will allow it to best judge its future use in terms of long range benefits to the city and to the people of the State. That Judgement should be based on all consideration including not only finiancial benefits to the city but also coats to all levels of government, of development alternatives and the value of this vital area to future generations. We urge g you to hold off on annexation of any portion of Balsa Chica (' •. , landc until decisions in terms of the future use of the whole area son be made based on adequate planning and assessment. Thank you, N "7 ., ; •\,�`,;l'ram:�:' f�•��i \ F ' .sia�suW.'.:.,,.,_,lii�.at::i,:,..,,._e»...u.,,..u>:,tn.�.�..,_.v,..;",�.,•�5::,.�:°5.n.«,,.a..,..w...u.;,.....ma...,s......�.u...du.....x,u�..uy.+,x+d.ur'..x,kttl:.-.mx.,'..4..,�.''�tu ✓b.�"-�i , ' n y f ® Huntington Beach Planning Commission F .O. SOX 990 CALIFORNIA 92648 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council ATTENTION: David D. Rowlands, City Administrator FROM: Planning Commission a DATE: January 5, 1976 { SUBJECT: BOLSA CHICA ANNEXATION COMMITTEE The Planning Commission at their December 16, 1975 meeting considered the City Council' s request to appoint a member to serve on the Bolsa Chica Annexation Committee. It was the unanimous opinion of the Planning Commission that formation of a Committee for further investigation of the proposed annexation would not reveal any significant new information nor would it likely change attitudes toward annexation. Therefore, the Planning Commission respectfully requests that the proposed Committee not be formed and that the City Council base their decision on annexation on the in- formation previously submitted. Respe fu ly submit ed, Richard A. Harlow Secretary S;IG A'iE-"OBOLSA CORPORATION 17890 Skypark Circle, Irvine, California 92707 Telephone: (714) 979-6900 ` i � 1 39 December 30, 1975 Honorable City Council RE: Bolsa Chica City of Huntington Beach File 7004 2000 No. Main Street Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Attention: City Clerk At the City Council meeting of December 8, 1975, our request for annexation of the westerly bluff area of Bolsa Chica was referred to a committee of "interested citizens", with a report to be returned to the City Council in February of 1976. It is our opinion that such a committee would serve no useful purpose at this time. Since the date of our request for annexation of the Bluff area, we have reviewed our goals for Bolsa Chica, and we believe that it might now be appropriate to consider annexation of all of Bolsa Chica. We are con- vinced that the planning of Bolsa Chica can best be accomplished by R existing responsible agencies of the City. Such a planning effort is obviously costly to conduct; however, the revenues generated by the annex- ation of all of Bolsa Chica should be more than sufficient to fund the effort. It is respectfully suggested that annexation of the entire Bolsa Chica area be discussed between Signal Bolsa Corporation representatives and either the City Council or a committee composed of City Council members. Once the annexation is accomplished, the many environmental, economic and planning issues can be addressed in the normal manner by the various existing commissions, committees and City Staff, and all interested parties can then express their opinions at open public hearings. Very truly yours, SIGNAL BOLSA. CORPORATION By , George If. Stringer Vice President :crm i 0 ORANGE COUNTY AMAINISTRATION BUILDING F. O. B O x 637 SANTA k*!A, CALIFORNIA 92707. TELEPs ONE: 834-2239 AREA CODE 714 LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION December 3, 1975 CHAIRMAN DONAL D A. MCINNIS COUNCILMANTo: All Cities and Special Districts WPORTBEACH CITY OF NE'N PO RT I From: Richard T. Turner, Executive Officer — VICE—CHAIRMAN STAN NORTHRUP Subject: Local Agency Formation Commission 1976 REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERAL PUBLIC filing and hearing schedule I ROBERT W. BATTIN Su PERVISOR FIF„T DISTRICT The attached schedule has been prepared for your convenience I in filing proposals with the Local Agency Formation Commission during the 1976 calendar year. THOMAS F. RILEY SUPERVISOR FIFT'i DISTRICT The dates listed in the left-hand column represent the latest dates material may be filed with the Commission in order to be heard on the corresponding date shown in the right—hand DONALD J. S;LTAR.ELLI column. CDUWZ�i .IAN CITY ^=" TUSTIN It should be pointed out that pursuant to Bylaw No, 40 the ` Executive Officer shall set as many matters for a meeting ALTERt:ATF as can be heard within a three hour period, Any additional LAURENCE J. SCHWT SUPERVISOR matters eligible to be set for hearing shall be set for the SECOND DISFRICT next succeeding regular meeting, or special meeting, The Commission meetings v!ill be held in the Board of Supervisors ALTERNATE Hearin Room Count Administration strati on Building,di n , 515 North Sycamore RE:E B(.RNAP g y 9 Y REPRESENTATIVE OF Street, Santa Ana at 2:00 o' clock P.M. GENERAL PU3LIC I ALt'ERNATE ALICE FRANKIEWICH C DUNC IL'N OM AN 'CITY OF CYPRESS RICHARD T. TURNER EXECUTIVE OFFICER LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION FILING AND HEARING SCHEDULE January through December, 1976 FILING DATE HEARING DATE December 19, 1975 January 14 January 2 January 28 January 16 February 11 January 30 February 25 February 13 March 10 February 27 March 24 March 19 April 14 April 2 April 28 April 16 May 12 April 30 May 26 May 14 June 9 May 28 June 23 June 18 July 14 July 2 July. 28 July 16 August 11 July 30 August 25 - August 13 September 8 August 27 September 22 September 17 October 13 October 1 October 27 October 15 November 10 October 29 November 24 November 5 December 8 November 26 December 22 ®® M y OF [1 IJ U M LJ U `t`1 YO t1 IJ B A ®/ P.O. BOX 190, CALBPORMOA 92648 CH TO: David D. Rowlands, City Administrator FROM: Richard A. Harlow, Director of Planning and Environmental Resources DATE: November 14, 1975 RE: Signal Bolsa Corporation - Request for Annexation On October 31, 1975 Signal Bolsa Corporation submitted a request for annexation of the 260 acre westerly bluff portion of the Bolsa Chica area. This issue was previously brought before the City Council and Planning Commission in 1973 . At that time the City took the position that no further annexations to Bolsa Chica would be permitted until a comprehensive plan was developed. Since that time a number of events have taken place which suggest that the City reevaluate its annexation policy on Bolsa Chica. Significant among these was the Tidelands settle- ment between Signal and the State, the Marsh Restoration Project, sale of the utility corridor to Metropolitan Water District, reactivation of the Army Corps of Engineers Study, and the evolution of the Coastal Plan, including acquisition proposals. With these events the development or non-development of Bolsa Chica has now become an issue of Regional and Statewide concern. In addition to the Signal request, other Bolsa Chica landowners have expressed interest in annexation to the City. Also, there has been discussion of annexation of the Marsh Restoration Project are and a portion of the easterly bluff adjacent to Huntington Central Park at Edwards Street. Considering these factors it would be the Planning Department' s recommendation that this item be deferred to a Study Session where the City Council could reevaluate its annexation policy on Bolsa Chica in light of changes that have occurred over the past three years. Res tf 11 submi to , Richard A. Harlow Director of Planning and Environmental Resources RAH:ES: ja I 4�� R SIGNAL BOLSA CORP. le, Irvine, California 92707 Telephone: (714) 979-6900 l;l i�+ CLERK 17890 Skypark Circ CITY OF iUN i iKc,ibli } j October 30, 1975 Honorable City Council RE: Signal Bolsa No. 2 Annexation City of Huntington Beach J.N. 0040 2000 No. Main Street File 7004 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Attention: City Clerk Gentlemen: Request is hereby made that the City Council initiate proceedings to annex, to the City of Huntington Beach, property known as Signal Bolsa No. 2 Annexation. The limits of the land referred to in this request are shown on the enclosed two (2) sepias of the map thereof, and described in the enclosed two (2) sepias of the legal description. Please note, that there are two other owners of land included within this annexation (The Ocean View School District, and the Metropolitan Water District). I believe neither of these agencies will oppose the annexation. We will be pleased to assist your staff with any of the paper work involved in this annexation. I attach a copy of our letter to Planning Director Harlow, written earlier this year, for your information, and also enclose our estimate of the City revenues which would be generated by this annexation. Very truly yours, SIGNAL BOLSA CORP. B - -_ George Stringer Encl. Vice resident c rm. cc:-RAHarlow w/encl. i :x1'Rr,NGER COMPANY (714) 979-7539 `f1(1lllh� 17890Skypark Circle Irvine,California 92707 J June 12, 1975 City of Huntington Beach RE: Bolsa Chica Bluff 2000 No. Main St. J.N. 0040 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 File 7004 Attention: Mr. R.A. Harlow Planning Director Gentlemen: As a follow-up to our recent meeting concerning the possible annexation of the westerly bluff of Bolsa Chica to the City of Huntington Beach, we offer the following comments: 1) The westerly bluff area is the only remaining parcel of any significance within Bolsa Chica that is physically ready for development. 2) Development of this area can probably best be accomplished by annexation to the City of Huntington Beach. 3) Signal Landmark, therefore, desires to commence annexation proceedings in the near future without pre-zoning. (Resulting in an automatic R-1 zoning). 4) Signal filed a petition for annexation and pre-zoning of this parcel in 1972, with a concurrent request for pre-zoning of R-2 PD10. This request was not well received by the Planning Commission or the City Council, and a policy adopted at that time that no annexation would be approved until a general plan for all of Bolsa Chica was approved. The feeling beipg, at that time, that the westerly bluff was not readily severable, from a planning stand- point, from the balance of Bolsa Chica. The Commission then directed the staff to prepare a general plan for Bolsa Chica for Commission review in late fall of 1972. (continued. . . . ) -S T R,l,W G E R COMPANY (714) 979-7538 014 Etv��If_'PJ(A 1789OSkypark Circle Irvine,California 92707 ' City of.Huntington Beach Attn: Mr. R.A. Harlow June 12, 1975 , Page -2- 5) Since the "no annexation without an overall general plan" policy was adopted, significant changes have occurred. in Bolsa Chica. These changes are summarized as follows: a. The M. W. D. has acquired fee title to a 400 foot wide strip along the easterly portion of the bluff and to nearly all of Signal's holdings lying easterly of proposed Bolsa Chica Street and northerly of the Garden Grove-Winte rsburg Channel. b. Through a land exchange agreement, the State has acquired fee title to 300 acres along Pacific Coast Highway and a lease on an additional 230 acres. This lease converts to a fee if a new ocean opening exists by August, 1986. C. The State and other agencies are now in the process of planning the re-establishment of the Bolsa Chica Marsh and are studying the possibilities of constructing a public marina. d. The value of crude oil has increased substantially, thus extending the expected economical life of the existing oil wells. e. Signal Companies sold all its interests in Signal Oil and Gas Company to Burmah Oil and Gas Company, thus the oil operation in B61sa Chica is no longer an in-house operation though common ownership. V ST R I N G E R COMPANY (714) 979-7538 �ill�U1P1)lA 17890Skypark Circle Irvine,California 92707 i .. City of Huntington Beach Attn: Mr. R.A. Harlow June 12, 1975 Page -3- f. The bluff therefore, is now separated from the balance of undeveloped Bolsa Chica by intervening ownerships and a flood control channel, but additionally, there is a substantial time separ- ation, i. e. , Bluff is physically ready for develop- ment, but most of the unincorporated Bolsa Chica lowlands are not available due to oil field operations for at least 15 years, and possibly longer. Because of these changes, we believe there is no longer a compelling need to plan the bluff area and the balance of Bolsa Chica concurrently. Anticipating, however, that the City may not agree, we suggest the following as a suitable course of action. A. Annexation of the bluff without pre- zoning. ( Mr. Turner of L.A. F. Co. informs me that `,. we may be able to process the annexation through L.A. F. Co, with a negative declaration). B. Concurrently therewith, but independent of the annexation, the City solicit proposals from consultants for an environmental assessment of the bluff and all other remaining unplanned Bolsa Chica areas. The assessment to be funded by Signal Land- mark. We anticipate this assessment will be primarily a compilation of the substantial amount of environmental work accomplished todate. C. With the environmental assessment available, the City and Landmark work jointly toward a general plan for all of Bolsa Chica, This plan to emphasize the bluff area, and to generally consider the other areas of Bolsa Chica. 'STRI'NGER COMPANY (714) s7s-75.,39 Er tt9Clt(�P)(A 17890Skypark Circle Irvine,California 92707 City of Huntington Beach Attn: 'Mr. R. A. Harlow June 12, 1975 Page -4- D. Upon completion of, or perhaps even during the general planning, Landmark to commence processing of precise plans, etc. , for the annexed bluff area with all interested governmental agencies. (Pursuant, of course, to appropriate E. I. R. 's). E. During the above, Landmark will study other areas of Bolsa Chica offering possibilities for relative early development, and, hence, early annex- ation. As suggested, I believe one or two more informal meetings involving Council Members, Planning Commissioners and/or appropriate staff members would serve the useful purpose of establishing a mutually agreeable course of action. I will be prepared to present maps and other pertinent information at such time as these meetings can be arranged. Very truly yours, THE STRINGER COMPANY B George D.)Stringer Civil Erigineer :crm JSTR'1NGER COMPANY (714) 979-7538 liU En�(n�jA 17890Skypark Circle Irvine,Caiifornia 92707 BOLSA CHICA WESTERLY BLUFF HUNTINGTON BEACH TAX INCOME SUMMARY May 21, 1975 Assessed Value = $1, 376, 858 @ $1.60/$100. 00 = $22, 030/yr. Oil Production - 244 barrels/day @ $. 08/barrel = 244 x 365 x . 08 7, 125/yr. TOTAL REVENUE $29, 155/yr. F.N. 7004 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Dick Harlow From Alicia M. Wentworth Planning Director City Clerk Subject Letter from Signal Bolsa Corporation Date October 31, 1975 Re: Signal Bolsa #2 Annexation 'Attached is a letter from Signal Bolsa Corporation requesting that Council initiate proceedings to annex to the City the property known as Signal Bolsa #2 Annexation. He has requested that his letter appear on the 11/17/75 agenda. If you have any material on the matter you wish to go to the Council, please transmit it by 11/12/75. cc: Bill Hartge Bud Belsitok/ i I i I ®� Environmental Council CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH T� HUNTINGTON BEACH Post Office Box 190 . Huntington Beach, California 92648 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Environmental Council DATE: December 5 , 1975 SUBJECT: ANNEXATION OF BOLSA CHICA ATTENTION: David D. Rowlands , City Administrator The following is a minute extract from the Environmental Council' s called meeting of December 4 , 1975: The Environmental Council opposes the proposed annexation of such an environmentally sensitive area as the Bolsa Chica without prior master planning. We believe that the City is seriously delinquent on preparing a Master Plan as requested by the Planning Commission in 1972 . The Environmental Council requests that the City Council direct staff to prepare a Master Plan for the approximately 1600 acres within the Bolsa Chica within the next 12 months , beginning immediately with the preparation of a comprehen- sive environmental assessment. The Environmental Council vote on the above was 7 ayes , 4 opposing. seph Valin✓G , Chair an JV:MAT:df i r b lJ CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACI-P DEC 5 1975 INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE To D. D. Rowlands From R. C. Picard I Subject EMERGENCY, RESPONSES Date December 5, 1975 BOLSA CHICA AREA I Pursuant to our conversation regarding Fire Department response to the Bolsa Chica area, the following information is submitted. ! 1972 Oil transfer equipment fire - Burmah Oil Co. - Second alarm I i 1973 Oil refinery fire - Burmah Oil Co. - First alarm I 1974 Brush fire - Bolsa Chica Gun Club Helicopter crash/fire - Burmah Oil Co. Lease Medical aid - Pacific Coast Hwy. , So. of Warner Grass fire - Standard Oil Co. Lease 1975 Oil refinery fire - Burmah Oil Co. - Second alarm I In addition to these incidents, there were approximately 10 or 12 traffic accidents/medical aids in the vicinity of Warner and PCH that were re- ported as being in the City, but could have been in that 1800 ' section of PCH that is in the County. Raymond C.-PT-card RCP:en I V CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEAC D E G 1975 INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACHHUNTINGTON BEACH ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE To David D. Rowlands From H. E. Hartge City Administrator Subject Bolsa Chica Annexation Date December 8 , 1975 The Department of Public Works has not experienced any expenses in the Bolsa Chica properties , however, from the standpoint of engineering planning we would be in a much better position to contribute to. the Master Plan if that area were annexed to the City. Specifically two agencies, the U.S . , Corps of Engineers and the State of California Fish and Wildlife, are performing some planning. However, in view of the fact the area of work they are involved in is not .in the City., we are not consulted to any great extent in the preparation of the report. H. E. Hartge Director of Public Works HEH:ae r Huntington Beach Planning Commission P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Planning Commission and Planning Department DATE: December 4 , 1975 ATTN: David D. Rowlands, City Administrator. RE: PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF A PORTION OF THE BOLSA CHICA AREA BY THE SIGNAL BOLSA CORPORATION. Transmitted herewith are the Planning Commission and Planning Staff recommendations for the proposed annexation of a 280-acre portion of Bolsa Chica. The City Council referred this request to the Planning Commission and Planning Staff for report and recommendation. The following is a listing of significant facts which relate to this proposal : 1. The unincorporated area of Bolsa Chica consists of approximately 1600 acres of land. Ownership is primarily controlled by Signal Bolsa Corporation. Other owners within the area are Oceanview School District, Metropolitan Water District, Don Goodell , Kendall Development Company, Inc. , State of California, and the Orange County Flood Control District. A map depicting the location and acreage of said parcels is attached. 2 . The assessed value of Bolsa Chica is: Land - $3 , 047 , 920 Mineral Rights - $2, 933 ,160 3 . Oil production on the entird area is estimated to be approximately 6 , 000 barrels per day. 4 . County policy on annexation and how it affects Bolsa Chica is: The County would like to see a development plan for the Bolsa Chica prepared jointly by the County, City, and Property Owners, prior to annexation of any portion of Bolsa Chica. (The City should serve as lead agency in this effort. ) This policy has not been spelled out on any adopted document, so the County would probably be in agreement with the City on more than one annexation or annexations prior to plan preparation provided a comprehensive planning effort of the entire Bolsa Chica Area would still occur and that the important resource area (Ecological Reserve) was protected. 5. Bolsa Chica is within the City' s sphere of influence; therefore, it is appropriate for the City to take on this planning effort. Page Two 6. The City is currently providing limited police and fire protection to this area. The City does not receive additional compensation for this service. 7 . Any planning effort undertaken by the City for this area would be costly and the City would not receive any additional compensation for this effort. i 8 . The City has an adopted policy regarding annexation which essen- tially calls for complete environmental analysis and planning of an area prior to annexation (see attached policy adopted by City Council , September 4 , 1973 , Resolution No. 3760) . 9. There are other portions of Bolsa Chica which may be available for annexation. They include: State Ecological Reserve, the Kendall Development Corporation Inc. , property along the common boundary between the Huntington Beach Company and Signal Bolsa Corporation and property located at the northwest corner of Edwards Street and Ellis Avenue. 10. In response to the statement that significant changes have occurred in Bolsa Chica since the Policy Plan' s statement on annexation was adopted, the following is offered: a. The Metropolitan Water District is a public utility. The 400 foot wide strip to be maintained as open space; therefore, the physical separation caused by this strip of land in conjunction with the Flood Control District is not adequate separation to cause the parcels to be considered separate for planning purposes. b. The State ' s acquisition of the ecological reserve has no bear- ing on the issue of annexation. If anything, this property should be incorporated as a part of the comprehensive plan, inasmuch as any surrounding development will have a definite impact on the ecological reserve. C. The increase in the price of crude and the extending of the expected economic life of the existing oil wells should not have any bearing on the planning effort. The life of the oil field does not mean that consideration should not be given to alternatives for development and the impact these uses may have on each other . d. The different ownerships between the land and mineral rights should not preclude Signal Bolsa Corporation from preparing long-range plans and an environmental analysis. Areas which are designated for resource production for 15 to 20 years may be so designated , but consideration must be given to long- range alternatives. 11 . There are essentially two issues : annexation and planning (in- cluding environmental analysis) . Technically, these issues may be separated but as a practical matter planning should be a total effort which should not be fragmented through piecemeal annexa- tion. The planning and environmental analysis of Bolsa Chica Page Three should occur with the entire Bolsa Chica area either totally within the City or within the County unincorporated area. This will assist in maintaining continuity throughout the planning process. 12 . If this parcel is annexed, it could have an adverse impact on the State' s plan for acquisition in that it will increase land values and thus increase acquisition cost to the public. 13. Signal Bolsa Corporation has stated that their desire to annex the property does not mean that they will not follow through with their intent to plan and conduct an environmental analysis of Bolsa Chica. 14 . Signal Bolsa Corporation has stated that the City would receive approximately $29 , 155 per year by annexing subject property (property tax $22 , 030 per year, oil production $7 , 125 per year) . 15 . A total planning effort would allow for a complete cost benefit analysis of the proposal , i.e. , opening to the ocean, the need for bridges, and other public improvements. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: No annexation should be permitted until a total plan along with the f necessary environmental analysis has been complete. As an alternative, it is recommended that the City of Huntington Beach annex the entire Bolsa Chica Area and continue with the expressed policy for pre-planning and environmental analysis prior to development. The minority opinion of the Planning Commission is as follows: Annexation should be permitted to proceed but a planning analysis, both economic and environmental, should be conducted before development occurs. This will allow the City to receive additional revenue as outlined in the report from Signal Bolsa Corporation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In view of the fact that the City is providing services, i.e. , Police, Fire and Planning, and because the County will not be the lead agency, nor will they take an active role in the planning process, it is recommended that the City of Huntington Beach annex the entire Bolsa Chica Area and continue with the expressed policy for pre-planning and environmental analysis prior to development. As an alternative, it is recommended that no annexation be permitted until the total plan along with the necessary environmental analysis has been completed. As a point of information, it should be noted that the revenue derived from annexing Bolsa Chica will assist in defraying those costs which are presently passed on to the City. In effect, the services being provided to other large vacant parcels of land within the City of Huntington Beach are currently being provided to Bolsa Chica. Page Four Respectfully submitted, Richard A. Harlow, Director Planning and Environmental Resources RAH:gc i Annexation Objectives: Encompass within City boundaries only those areas with common interests and which can be efficiently and economically served by city facilities. Principles: 1. Approve and pursue only annexations which: a. Will contribute to the accomplishment of Huntington Beach Master Plan Objectives. b. Will "square off" city limits at the San Diego Freeway, Santa Ana River, Pacific Ocean, and the Naval Weapons Station. C. Will not dilute the existing tax base. d. Will not place a burden on existing City facilities. e. Will meet all municipal codes. f. Will not overload existing gas, electric and water I resources. 2. Use pre-planning of unincorporated territory to assure that annexed areas : I a. Are developed in compatibility with surrounding neighbor- hoods. b. Do not create unnecessary hardships on property owners in proximity to the annexed areas. C. Provide sufficient tax base to assure ' that the area will not cause tax increases for current residents within the City. d. That no area be permitted to be annexed to the City which is contrary to the previously accepted Master Plan of the area, of which the annexation is a part. 3. During pre-planning for annexation, developers of unincorporated areas should be required to show to the public all their ac- cumulated information on ecological impacts of the whole area, including those studies required by Federal, State, and County jurisdictions . 4 . Historically important sites within an annexed area should be con- sidered for dedication to public use or public ownership. 5. Federal and State grants should be sought to develop property which is within the annexed area. 6. Discussions should be pursued with adjacent community leader- ship to integrate their goals with those of Huntington Beach. PROPERTY OWNERS ACRES SIGNAL BOLSA CORPORATION I I q(o (230 ACS. LEASED TO STATE) KENDALL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 41 DON GOODELL G ® METROPOLITAN WATER DIST2ICT 36 OCEANVIEW SCHOOL DIS72ICT 15 STATE OF CALIF02NIA 300 ,• .'.�, ram_>__'� ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTZOL r ;: POSSIBLE ¢�' 1 ANNEXATION .. ✓`J gN y`� _ --;� t � tF�`* ,K, j�F'�k.* i! i►.-lM_i 4 y[ #+k� -_ � — • e i�1•• ••e°e••°e°••e s •°s�i�i �!��°•t• ••••°••••yam • • • • • • - - ® HIYNTiNGTON BE4CH (Z4UF0QNtA UNINCORPORATED BOLSA CHICA PLANNfNG DEPARTMENT Yea yce `lW"nel" lydeu d6m&n#m Jgea�4 - Yea Jgea4 December 3,1975 City Council 200 Main Street`. • 3 6 Huntington Beaeh, Ca.. Dear Council Members : The League of Women Voters of Huntington Beach - Seal Beach would like to request a time at the Council meeting on December 8th to speak on the Bolsa Chiaa annexation request by Signal Bolsa Company. The League has been studying this area for a few years and would like, to make the Council and the public aware of our position an,this matter. Thank you for your consideration of our request* Sincerely, v Ruth Bailey, Presid nt �21L. eve/ 5602 Ludlow Circle ' Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 1 �rj<<f December 2, 1975 u r Delivered by messenger City Council Civic Center 200 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Dear Council Members: A request for annexation. of 280 acres of the Bolsa Chica has been made to the City by the Signal Bolsa Company. During the November 17th Council meeting it was decided that a discussion. on this annexation would be held at the December 8 Council meeting. i The Amigos de Bolsa Chica request permission. to have a repre- sentative speak to the Council regarding this annexation request at the December 8 .meeting. As the meeting is less than a week away , we would appreciate confirmation. of our request by tele- phone at 846-4057. In the event that the Council moves this agenda item to a future meeting, we would also appreciate being notified by telephone of the change in schedule. Very /trul.�yc�.yours, Herb Chatterton, President Amigos de Bolsa Chica Madam Mayor, Council members : I am Herb Chatterton, Chairman of Amigos de Bolsa Chica: I reside at 5602 Ludlow Circle , Huntington Beach. Amigos is a coalition of persons interested in protecting the irreplaceable resources within the almost 2000 acres of the Bolsa Chica. This area is the most significant undeveloped area in Western Orange County. There are a host of reasons why annexation at this time , without adequate planning would, in our opinion, be a serious mistake. . In the interest of time , I will address only two points that are of prime interest to all taxpayers : First , in November of 1972 , the people of the State of California voted that "the protection of the remaining natural and scenic resources of the coastal zone is a paramount concern to present and future residents of the state and nation;" and "It is the policy of the state to preserve , protect, and where possible , to restore the resources of the coastal zone for the enjoyment of the current and succeeding generations . " y Since 1972 , substantial research has been done to determine which areas of the coast are most in need of protection. " One result of these studies is a series of recommendations for public acquisition of certain critical parcels along the coast. Included in a list of properties recommended for immediate acquisition by the state , are 1450 acres of "Bolsa Chica wetlands and buffer areas . " This would bring all the land outside the present city limits under public ownership for restoration and preservation. During the coming months , Amigos de Bolsa Chica,sthe League of Women Voters , and many other groups will be working with the State Legislature to implement this plan through a state-wide bond. issue . Annexation now would raise the market value and force the taxpayers to - Page 2 pay an artificially inflated price to acquire the property. For this reason, we request that the city delay annexation for one year to allow the state an opportunity to establish the mechanism to buy the Bolsa Chica. Under public ownership , the area could become a tremendous environmental asset to the city, at no cost to the city. The second point is purely local . The proposed annexation would bring almost one-third of the privately owned Bolsa Chica land into the city as R-1 , single family residential property. City studies have shown that, on the average , R-1 areas cost the city substantially more to service than they generate in tax revenues . For many years , the city has based its direction on the assumption that needed tax revenues could be obtained by annexation and development of adjacent areas . During the decade of the sixties , Huntington Beach earned the distinction of being the fastest growing city in the country. If the annexation I logic were correct, the city would now be financially secure . And, 14 1 if you do annex the Bolsa Chica, what ' s left? Do you subdivide Central Park? Do you sell the beach for high rise? Of course not. The city has matured from the go-go days of the sixties . Unending, piecemeal annexations are no longer a viable alternative . The city must now concentrate not on making Huntington Beach a bigger place to live , but to make it a better place to live . Amigos de Bolsa Chica requests that the city postpone annexation until the state has had an opportunity to acquire this unique coastal resource. ,r r: Y � �/.w I Statement to the Huntington Beach City Council in, opposition to the Bel®a Chica Annexation By Ruth Bailey. President Dee, 8, 1975 I sa Ruth Bailey, President of the League of Women Voters of the Huntington Beaeh.*Seal Beach Area, I appreciate the opportunity to speak en the very important issue of the Bolsa Chica annexation* I feel fortunate that the League had the foresight and recognized the need for a study of the Boles. Chica area and has reached a pos- ition in which we can be specific in taking action. The future of thix vital land resource is of concern, not only to the over 200 members of the HB-SB League, but also to the 1 ,000 Orange County League members. As atresult of its study the League supports : The preservation of Bolsa Chica as an, ecological preserve surroun- ded by open space to prevent further degradation of unique coastal resources. One of the objectives for action stressed by our members was the formation of a coalition of Huntington Beach citizens to work for protection of the Bolsa Chica. The response to a call for participation, even in this early stage of its formation, indicates a broad base of support* In addition questions regarding Bolsa Chica were included in a questionnaire circulated by the League at the City Festival last May. Of the variety of topics covered the Bola& Chica drew one of the highest response rates , in favor of preservation* Hundreds of the responses showed that people of the community were deeply aware of the area and concerned about the development that might occur there. This fall the League surveyed its members on topics of concern to them and--even in this period just before the election when the unification issue was hot--the concern for Bolsa Chica outranked unification. The League would urge you not to allow premature and piecemeal ann- exation of the Bolea Chica. Annexation of the bluff area could pre- cipitate decisions that would bypass the total planning for the area, that good judgement calls for. Before any decisions are made, the City should be able to look at alternative proposals t-or the Bolsa Chica that will allow it to best judge its future use in terms of long range benefits to the city and to the people of the State. That judgement should be based on all consideration including not only finiancial benefits to the city but also costs to all levels of government, of development alternatives and the value of this vital area to future generations. We urge you to hold off on annexation of any portion of Bolsa Chica lands until decisions in terms of the future use of the whole area can be made based on adequate planning and assessments `. Thank you, -��, , 3/ Environmental council ep CITY" OF HUNTINGTON BEACH HUN TING TON®EACH Post Office Box 190 • Huntington Beach, California 92648 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM. Environmental Council DATE: December 5 , 1975 SUBJECT: ANNEXATION OF BOLSA CHICA ATTENTION: David D. Rowlands, City Administrator The following is a minute extract from the Environmental Council' s called meeting of December 4, 1975: The Environmental Council opposes the proposed annexation of such an environmentally sensitive area as the Bolsa Chica without prior master planning. We believe that the W � City is seriously delinquent on preparing a Master Plan as .-•- requested by the Planning Commission in 1972 . The Environmental Council requests ,that the City Council direct staff to prepare a Master Plan for the approximately 1600 acres within the Bolsa Chica within the next 12 months, beginning immediately with the preparation of a comprehen- sive environmental assessment. The Environmental Council vote on the above was 7 ayes, 4 opposing. NsephV Valin Chair an JV:MAT:df L11-4 J& CITY OF tit,NTINGTON BEACH 0 E C 51975 INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION CITY OF HUWTINGTON BEACNI MWINGTON BEACH ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE To D. D. Rowlands From R. C. Picard Subject' EMERGENCY, RESPONSES Date December 5, 1975 BOLSA CHICA AREA Pursuant to our conversation regarding Fire Department response to the Bolsa Chica area,. the following information is submitted© 1972 Oil transfer equipment fire Burmah Oil Co. ® Second alarm 1973 Oil refinery fire ® Burmah Oil Co. First alarm 1974 Brush, fire ® Bolsa Chica Gun Club Helicopter crash/fire ® Burmah Oil Co. Lease Medical aid Pacific Coast Hwy® , So® of Warner Grass fire Standard Oil Co. Lease 1975 Oil refinery fire ® Burmah Oil Co. ® Second alarm In addition to these incidents, there were approximately 10 or 12 traffic accidents/medical aids in the vicinity of Warner and PCH that were re- ported as being in the City, but could have been in that 1800' section of PCH that is in the County. Raymond C. card RCP-.en FOE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEAC DEC u,1975 INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNnNGTON BEACH ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE To David D. Rowlands From H. E. Hartge City. Administrator Subject Bolsa Chica Annexation Date December 8 , 1975 The. Department of Public Works has not experienced any expenses in the Bolsa Chica properties, however, .from the : standpoint of ,engineering• planning we 'would' be: in a much . better position' to. contr.ibute to. the Master Plan if that area. were 'annexed to., the City. Specifically two agencies, the :U.S. Corps 'of Engineers. and the State of California Fish and Wildlife, . are. 'performing some planning. However, ,in view :of the. :fact .the area of, work they are :involved in is not .iri the City.,. we Are not . consulted to. any great .exte.n.t .in the 'prepara.tion of the report.. H. E. Hartge Director of Public Works HEH:ae f n a N 3 CITY OF H UNTINGTOR BEACH CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION • • • • n HtlNTINCTON BEACH •� TO City Council. FROM Henry Duke SUBJECT Bolsa Chica Study Committee DATE January 9 , 1976 These are the minutes of the committee as well as the action taken. Please go over very carefully as I will be asking your approval of said action. HHD:PS: cb attachment C { BOLSA CHICA STUDY COMMITTEE MEMBERS ORGANIZATIONS City Council Reps . Henry Duke Harriett Wieder Don Shipley Amigos ,de Bolsa Chica Herb Chatterton League of Women Voters Ruth Bailey Signal Landmark George Stringer H.B. Landowners will appoint Chamber of Commerce Jim Foxx Recreation and Parks Commission Tom Cooper Downtown Merchants Bob Terry Burmah Oil Corp. Bill Woods Huntington Beach Co . Bill Foster Board of Realtors Hal Tobin Planning Commission Ruth Finley Landowner Donald Goodell Economic Advisory Commission will appoint Environmental Council Lee Rebman Home Council Flint Morrison Friends of Bolsa Chica Dr. Hayden Williams MINUTES BOLSA CHICA STUDY COMMITTEE Wednesday, Jan. 7 , 1976 Room B-7 Civic Center Those is attendance were : Ruth Bailey, League of Women Voters , Ruth Finley, Planning Commission, Tom Cooper , Recreation and Parks Commission, Don Goodell , Property Owner, George Stringer , Signal Landmark, Margaret Carlberg, Environmental Council , Lee Rebman, Environmental Council , Brian Parkinson, Planning Commis- sion, Dick Harlow, Planning Commission , W.E. Foster, Huntington Beach Company, Herb Chatterton, Amigos de Bolsa Chica, Hal Tobin, H.B. -F.V. Board of Realtors , Jim Foxx, Chamber of Commerce , Pat Suter, G.W. C. , Friends of Bolsa Chica for Hayden Williams , Flint Morrison, Home Council , Harriett Wieder , City Council , Henry Duke , City Council . The meeting convened at 5 : 55 p.m with Mayor Pro Tem Harriett Wieder presiding in the absence of Henry Duke. Mrs. Wieder reaffirmed her intention to resign from the committee . Reason for the formation of the committee was the original 262 acres of Bolsa lands for annexation. Now take a look at the annex- ation of the whole area. Make recommendations to Council-Citizens only. Those individuals not representing a group will be observers only. Representative from Economic Advisory Commission should be asked. There was a discussion of Goals . Specifically consider proposal of total annexation.. Essential areas to be covered: A. Fact, Finding B. Areas of Understanding C. Timing of Annexation D. Zoning 6: 15 p.m. Chairman Duke arrived Duke views position of Chairman as that of steering the committee towards goals for the Council . Duke does . not wish .to see this become a"Word Heavy" committee , but prefers it become a body capable of objective decision making , report- ing- immediately to Council to avoid misunderstandings . Chairman Duke asked that discussion return to issue of membership from designations already made by Council . Motion made by Jim Foxx that all applications be accepted. Discussion . that followed pointed out that broad spectrum represent- ation was necessary, but that some limits should be imposed to avoid repetiative introduction of the same material . Minutes Bolsa Chica Study Committee January 7 , 1976 Page 2 Bill Foster stated that membership should not be too loose due to the necessity for clarification of issues for purposes of voting. Jim Foxx' s motion was withdrawn. List of Groups wishing to be represented: City Council Amigos: De Bolsa Chica League of Women Voters Signal Landmark Corporation Huntington Beach Landowners Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce Recreation and Parks Commission Downtown Merchants Association Burmah Oil Corporation Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Board of Realtors Don Goodell Planning Commission Economic Advisory Commission Home Council Friends of the Bolsa Chica Each group would be allowed only one vote . Bill Foster made 'the motion that representatives of these groups be accepted as voting members of this committee and that additional information and input be accepted from anyone .who wishes to attend the meetings . Motion 2nd by Dick Harlow. Passed unanimously. Chairman Duke expressed the opinion that he believed committee should deal primarily with agenda items at meetings , BUT, anyone may speak at the meetings . He stated that , "WE ARE .HERE TO LEARN,. NOT TO TEACH. " Chairman Duke called for guidelines for meetings . Consensus of the members established the following 'guidelines : 1 . Meeting time to be set up at each meeting. 2 . Meet every week until first report filed with Council . 3 . Meet for approximately two hours . 4. Tenatively set for every Wednesday. Duke called for return to discussion of goals . Bill Foster suggested that the committee list factors relevent to annexation. It is not essential to make recommendations - just alternatives . Chairman Duke suggested that the committee just present facts - let the Council decide. Ruth Bailey suggested that the committee set a date or deadline for filing a report with the City Council . She believed one month realistic . x. Minutes B61sa Chica Study Committee January 7 , 1976 Page 3 Duke stated that he felt we should be able to determine in one month what the State is going to do regarding the ballot issue that may affect Bolsa Chica. Question arose on whether the issue will go on ballot in September or in two years . Dick Harlow will compile information already received from various groups . Chairman. Duke will report to the City Council on Monday, January 12 , 1976 on actions taken at this meeting regarding membership , meetings to be held and the goals of the committee . The first formal report of this committee to be. filed with the City Council the third Monday in February. The committee , outlined the fact finding relevent to annexation: 1 . Economic Tax Benefits Cost of Municipal Services 2 . Growth and Resource Production Ecology Recreation and Parks 3. Politics Regional Impacts Areas of Control 4 . Timing of Annexation Relevent to likelihood of State Acquisition S. Legal Implications Liability 6 . Ownership Identifications 7 . Obligations (other than financial incurred by City) State mandated requirements 8 . Alternatives Total Annexation ? Partial Annexation ? The next meeting' set for Wednesday, January 14 , 1976 at 5: 06 p.m. Room B-7 of the Civic Center. Meeting adjourned at 7 : 3S p .m. Respectfully submitted Pat Suter , Secretary PS : cb STATEMENT OF THE ACT10N OF THE CITY COUNCIL. O Council Chamber, City Bail. Huntington Beach, C:al.i !'ornia Monday. ,Mayor Wieder called the regular gdio d meeting of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach to order at 7:00 P.M. Vrfnicnt: Bartlett, Pattinson, Coen,, Siebert, Shankman, Wieder Ab:3erit: Gibbs r,r,r**,r**�*,r,►*r**,t,r*,r**,t*,►,r*,r,r*****it*****+t*****,t,r**,t**,r************,r*,r,t*,r*******,r****** INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS FOR TOTAL ANNEXATION - BOLSA CHICA WETLANDS On motion by Pattinson, second Coen, Council directed that proceedings be immediately initiated for total annexation of the Bolsa Chica wetlands with the Planning Commission directed to initiate a prezoning designation of RA-02 on the property and that the Acting City Administrator be directed to pursue the matter with the land owners. The motion was passed by the following vote: AYES: Bartlett, Pattinson, Coen, Shankman, Wieder NOES: Siebert ABSENT: Gibbs On motion by Pattinson, Bartlett the regular adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City. of Huntington Beach adjourned a to ues ay, May 25, 1976 at 7:30 P.M. in WW Room B-8, Civic Center The motion was passed by the following vote: AYES: Bartlett, Pattinson, Coen, Siebert, Wieder NOES: None ABSENT: Gibbs, Shenkman Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City ATTE:ST.: f Huntin ,tfon Beach, lifor is Connie Brockway, 'Deputy Alicia M. Wentworth Harriett M. Wieder B Cit y C e r k_/ Mayor y—Conn a Brockwayy; Denaty STATE: OF CALIFORNIA County of Orange ) SS: City of Huntington Beach) 1, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected and qualified City Clerk of the City of H witington Beach, California, do hereby certify that the above and foregcing is a true and correct Statement of Action of the City Council of. said City at their regular adjourned meeting held on the 24th' day of May 1976 WlT MISS my hand and seal of the said City of Huntington Beach this the 28th _day of May 19 76 A1_tcia..M. -Wentwor0i City C,lexk -and ex--off icio Clerk •of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California BY Deputy STATEMENT OF THE ACT10N OF THE CITY COUNCIL, Council Chamber, city liall. Huntington Beach, Cali+:'ornia Monday, May--, 1926 .--- Mayor Wieder called the regular adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach to order at 7:00 P.M. 1're.sent:�Bartlett, Pattinson, Coen, Siebert, Shankman, Wieder Absent: Gibbs INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS FOR TOTAL ANNEXATION - BOLSA CHICA WETLANDS On motion by Pattinson, second Coen, Council directed that proceedings be immediately initiated for total annexation of the Bolsa Chica wetlands with the Planning Commission directed to initiate a prezoning designation of RA-02 on the property and that the Acting City Administrator .be directed to pursue the matter with the land owners. The motion was passed by the following vote: AYES: Bartlett, Pattinson, Coen, Shankman, Wieder NOES: Siebert ABSENT: Gibbs On motion by Pattinson, Bartlett the regular adjourned meeting of th,� City Council of. the City s of Huntington Beach adjourned St to ue ay, May 25, 1976 at 7:30 P:M. in 9W Rom - , Civic Center The motion was passed by the following vote: AYES: Bartlett, Pattinson, Coen, Siebert, Wieder NOES: None ABSENT: Gibbs, S enkman Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City ATTEST: Qf HuntincLion Beach, lifornis Connie Brockway, Deputy Alicia M. Wentworth Harriett M. Wieder By L2City C erk Mayor Connie roc kwayy, a ty` STATE OF CALIFORNIA County, of Orange ) SS: City of Huntington Beach) 1, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected and qualified City Clerk of the City of H witington. Beach, California, do hereby certify that the above and foregcing is a t.ruc and correct Statement of Action of the City Council of. said City at their regular adjourned meeting held on the 24th day of May 1976 WIT NiISS my hand and seal of the said City of Huntington Beach this the 28th day of May 19 76 - i Alicia M. Wentworth _ City Clerk and ex-officio Clark of the City Council o-f the City of Huntington Beach, California BYi lbZt Deputy �41e�enme fn ` THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH OVERSIZED DOCUMENT ON FILE WITH CITY CLERK BOLSA CHICA STUDY COMMITTEE PRESENTATION TO HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL To the Council : 4. „ The positions. and/or proposals presented, herein are . listed in alphabetical order, not in .order of preference. They are cataloged under the headings : No Annexation, Partial Annexation , Total Annexation. This was done in, an effort to fairly represent the diverse points of view existing on the Committee. The Areas of Agreement are for the most part self-explanatory and represent those areas in which the Committee could reach a consensus. The ;Bolsa Chica Study Committee has compiled , a considerable I amount o.f relevent material during the_ months it has been i meeting.. - The Council .is welcome at any ,time .to. call. upon the: ,Committee. for any :of the, information it has -acc,umulated. Respectfully 'submitted,' Henry H. duke•, Chairman; BOLSA CHICA STUDY COMMITTEE II , } • i I i PROPOSALS AND POSITIONS FOR NO ANNEXATION I i FA ION (?F A 14N I KAT I t)^l 11, f {? i 1V1:.`.� A;ui.gos de. Ilols,t Cliiva Amigos (ie Bolsa Cli.ica has evaluated tiiu ajiac.\atiou alternatives determined by the Ro-Is,1 Chica Annexations Ci)rnnittoe and has reached the following 'couclusions . I . Partial Annexation 1 proposals except "no annexation". or "total annexation'' represent a piecemeal approach which would violate the city ' s expressed policy. We feel that the city' s .policy of requiring master planning of the entire area prior to annexation and development is not only correct but essential to orderly growth. ` The following concerns regarding "total annexation" would also apply in the case of "partial annexation. " II . Total Annexation A. Annexation would provide the Bolsa Chica with city servicgp and move it one step closer to development. This would rgig® the market value of 'the property and inflict an increased burden on the people of California in their efforts to acquire the land for open space and restoration. If 'z6nin1J for the area were changed to a developable zone , the impact on the State would be even more severe . B. Annexation could lead to unfavorable impacts on the city unless the area is carefully planned with thorough considera- tion given to the effects development of the Bolsa Chica would have on existing portions of the city. 1. Since no public services are now provided to the more than 1500 acres of the Bolsa Chica, development would place heavy burdens on adjacent areas . Many arterials which would naturally service development in the Bolsa Chica are already at capacity or will reach capacity with continued development of areas already in the city. 2. There is substantial evidence to indicate that continued growth within the city would lead to a more than propor- tional rise in the costs of providing public services . Growth tends to increase expenses faster than the tax base expands , thus , increasing the .cost of services on . a per capita basis . III . No Annexation f A. e State s proposed acquisition, restoration, and preservation, of open space in the Bolsa Chica will have substantial benefits for the entire South .Coast .area and I especially for the residents of Huntington Beach. The value of open space , recreational facilities , ecologically productive habitats , and educational opportunities , although difficult to assign dollar values , are unquestion- ably beneficial. A state park and preserve in the Bolsa Chica would be a tremendous asset to tiie city, substantially raising the values of nearby properties without the necessity of increased city costs . Through implementation of the State ' s acquisition plan , the city , of Huntington Beach can realize substantial benefit , improving .the aesthtics of the city , the (lua.lity of life )' and the tax Lase , with 'no direct and little indirect costa Because of the considerations noted above , the only annexation alternative that we feel is in the best interest of the residents of Huntington Beach is ."no annexation. " i PROP05AL FOR NO ANNEXATION Presented by: Margaret Carlberg March 17 , 1976 (Personal Opinion) I would recommend this be the line of action taken while there are at this point so many indefinite characteristics of the land with respect to the Coastal Commission and possible regrouping of even the Coastal Commissions requests for acquisition on the basis of the strange shape they are proposing to take up. DATE: April 1, 1916 TO: Bolsa Chica Study Committee Members SUBJ: Bolsa' Chica Annexation Position Paper The annexation of the B61sa Chica area does not initially have any substantial economic impact upon the city. In relationship to. total revenues the projected secured tax and barrel tax revenues will increase city income by about 1/2 of one percent (approximately $176, 000) . The initial variable cost to the city is negligible since this acquisition should not add any new personnel to the city payroll. There may be, however, some initial sunk cost (capital outlay) and some fixed expenses which at this time is difficult to pinpoint with any degree of accuracy. In matching revenues with expenses , it appears sufficiently safe to say that the financial gain . to the city is favorable. The long range plans for this area, however, require deeper analysis not only from the city` s point of view, but from a taxpayer' s point of view. We are presently experiencing crowded conditions in our. high schools. Further growth in this area , or any area of Huntington Beach, will only compound the existing problems. Other taxing agencies may experience similar problems in providing the necessary services without increasing capital outlay. and operating expenses accordingly. Certainly other considerations (i .e. , environmental) should take precedence over any financial consideration. In the Bolsa Chica area, we were told, we can conceivably expect a population increase of 20, 000 new residents. The ability of Southern California to continue supporting this kind of growth (in numbers) is questionable. We should ask ourselves if we can provide for increased usage in roads, water, power, sewage .facilities , etc. , without increased cost and discomfort to the consumer. Just how much adjustment in our lifestyles are we willing to accept? Are the immediate financial gains (next 5 years), worth it or will. there be any gains? These are questions which have ,been asked before but ones ,for which few solutions have been sought except for the, Petaluma decision of limiting .urban sprawl. . There are no foreseeable technological breakthroughs in the near future that will support continuing growth, at least none that can be considered satisfactory to everyone. r , I i Bolsa Chica Study Committee Members April 1, 1976 I Page 2 of 2 , i i A good example of a stifled technological breakthrough is the j nuclear power plants. We are told that with it we can have i more power, more radioactive waste, and more danger. Without it, we cannot support growth and we can expect our cost for this jl servi-ce to increase even though we might have to reduce our consumption. The ultimate decision of supporting or not supporting any annexation rests with the city council. I As a member of the Bolsa Chica Study Committee, I take a position of non-support. The Economic Advisory Commission, whom I represent, has not been advised Formally of this position, but if their opinion is different from mine, the council and the B.C.S.C. will be advised. I l I i Don Datko, Member Bolsa Chica Study Committee . i I i I i i E I s i NO ANNEXATION I Friends of the Bolsa Chica Support the position 'of the Amigos de Bolsa Chica presented by Herb Chatterton to the Bolsa Chica Study Committee March 17, 1976 . ' o I I PROPOSALS AND POSITIONS FOR PARTIAL ANNEXATION. i I I f i j f March 31 , 197E i i Per, pick Harlow i Director of Planning City of Huntington Beach 2000 "gain Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re: Approximately 41 Acres Located Adjacent to Existing Subdivision - Tract 8894 Gear Dick It is W. R. Grace Properties , Inc. 's (formerly known as Kendall Development Co. , Inc. ) desire to have our existing 41 acres which is described in Exhibit "A" annexed to the City of Huntington Beach as expeditiously as possible. We would request that zoning on said property be R-1 to allow us to develop it in a similar manner as our existing Tract g893 and 8894, W. R. Grace Properties , Inc. feels very strongly that this particular 41 acres is a natural extension of our current subdivision, Tracts 8R93 and 8P,94. This is borne out by the fact that the Planning Commission in approving the tentative map for 8630 required that the future extensions of the street systems into this 41 acres be shown on the tentative map. A copy of said j map is, included for your review. We recognize that the 3ol.sa Chica Annexation Study Committee is currently reviewing the properties in which property owners have requested annexation to the City of Huntington Beach. W. R. Grace Properties , Inc. would welcome the opportunity to make a presentation before this committee, staff, Planning i Commission and/or City Council if ,you feel this would be appropriate in order to make our position known, and to clarify the issue. Very truly yours , i td. R. GRACE PROPERTIES. INC. ; John L. Downey Director of Planning I i JLD:sep cc: . Golsa Chica Study Committee Henry nuke I � i To 1666 C. (12 /3)Aowncan Land Title,'� iauon I,oan Policy AU/u vvnn At_I A t-:ndorsemenI coorrm I Coverage or Amerr,can Law If ue ASSocratlon Owfim's Policy form li 1970 or Calilorm, and Title Association Standard Coverage Policy-197r 1 I Schedule C The hand Ieforred to in this policy is described as follows: PA9CrL 1 : i TIIA'C PORTION OF THE SOUTii'•'!f=ST QUART LER OF SECTION 28, TOW-NSHIP 5 SGUTHI RANGE 11 WEST, IN T11E RA`ICl-10 LA ftOLSA CHICA, CITY OF HUNTI NGTO-7: BEACH, C,::U.ITY OF ;RA�rt„=, STATF_ OF CALI F(,r:IIIA, AS P'-R j MAP IN 1i00K 51 ['AG:" 13 OF tAISC`N'-LA?-.'-7flUS t-;APS, IN Tlitr OFFIC:: OF THE COU!4TY t-ZCCO D."R. OF SAID COUNTY. j RCGIh!NUNG AT Tii' VIESTFR'LY CO[ ,Ts R. OF TRACT NO. 7634, AS SHOWN ON MAP RECORD.'_D Ito 130::Y. 330 PAC,EG 2G TiIROUCli 29 OF SAID I1IS CELLANCOOS PAPS; Tl',F1.1CL ""LJ`�G THIS PROLONGATION OF THE I' ORTH- 11F5'!'� (:F SAID TRACT NO. 7634, SOUTH 540 401 0 5" l!"—f--ST 360 . 00 FEET; TH i,C#i 1,„�F;' H 470 18' 30" 21ST 530.00 Fi:�T; THE14C NIORT11 570 'Of1 ' 00" b•;E:5T 1142. 36 F `..7'; Tl1 t-;CI;: t.ORTH 400 00 ' 00" WEST .340. 00 TO T!HE ':r`I)THE :ST =RLY LI>4' OF THE COUNTY FLQ C1 CC`"lTRC:L DISTRICT i�i('i"lT—OF-4lAY, DLE!SCRIBEED AS PAPZC''L CS-101 IN' [)t !' [) G;: CORD":D I I'i?:)i: 71$1. ['F!(, 748 w i FFICI L RECORDS., iN THr OF'FA CE nF SAID K :C,C RV--R; Tr-l-N'C! ALONG SAID SUOT11FASTE RLY LINC, 63° /40 ' 141' 'AST 600 .00 FEFT 1'0 THE' "ORTIV!,::STL'RLY PROL0,,.''(',ATI01—,, OF Tf!'' 51%)UT:-It: :5TERLY LI10ir OF SAID TRACT !vO. 7634; THEP'CE= ALC:NG SAID PR•OLC:,G<710td, SOUTH 450 35! 1111 -AST 1904.63 Fi�-;—T 70 THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT A.L.t_ OIL, CAS, !?YCi[?i�CP,RE3()'dS 11ISD MINERALS OF EVFF2Y t'IND WID CHARACT 4R I cti OR 04D5-.:R ANID SUCI i WHICH h'.AY [:E PRODUCED FROM SAID LA;•�0'x 1'CG'"3!!; [t UIT11 T11�.: RIGHT TO EXTRACT THE SAVE- FROM ALL Ti I)_ SAID LA,l s, "UT UI TI"1 NO RIGHT TO USE =1F ANy PORTION THEkt.'.O[' A",C'VF? A PLAN"` 500 FEEET BEL011 Tilt SURFACE OF SUCH LANDS FOR Tit:; P.R.ODUCTiON CIF SAID HINEIRALS, RUT WITH TH PERPETUAL RI('i-IT OF I`�GR-'5SS AND GP"S'_' 'BELOW A DEPTH OF FIVE: HUE:DRE-D (500) FEET BEN!"ATI1 THE SU`:F-AC!�- OF ALL OF SUCH LANDS FOP: THE PURPOSE OF DRILLING, INTO, U::{7 :h AND THROUGH THw LANDS FROM TH7 SURFACE OF j GTtIEwR L�t.C:D", T13Gi TII R 11IT![ THE R1(-,HT TO POOL -AI[) RIGHTS AJND INTER:::.rT`i Ilt SAID LAND �!ITH JZIGHTS AUND INTIE. RE•STS Ike OTHER LANDS; SAID RIGHTS At-J) I NT:-RCSTS IN SAID LA`T'S SHALL Il CLUD�: ALL SUn— ! TE:RRAtrFAti RIGHTS A DIEPTt-1 OF FIVE' H(1;4DR`ED (500) FEET BENEi.TH THE SURFACE' OF SAID LA;>[,S NECE:SSARY, INCID'.:uTAL OR CO`EV!=NIFNT TO I THE PULL -!!-X;-RCI :? OF SAID FXCrPT�`D RIGHT-5 .Ni liITE'RESTS, AND SHALL INCLUO'' THE' Ric.li'C TO DRILL, -0.PEr:t•.T;::, IHAIt;TAIN', REPAIR AND R-PLl,C-, TUi X.-L, COR2 '* li^Li:ri, I30-k"S A,.-,D V*4&-, CTTQN 1'ELLS INTO SAID LAND TO OR THROUGH GT!i -'E2 L/:.kl[" S FCR viF ['U zPU=% CF 'R 110VINIG• OIL, GAS, HYDRQ— t S °'" `" " � r9.I[ RA!_`• FROM SAID "• f)S OR FROM OTH'8R L dPS Cl�,RrGE Ut.; ,1'�,•,YCi: R�.I) , ,,. AI Lt�,. r �? :,! FOR TIT" PURPO"t 'LS OF C^N1'V,10L OR PR_VC-,NTION OF SALT '!ATFR INTF,'t1-'* j01q, A'- D''SC!:IPED AS tl :Ir-G ":I'll C;`PTCD 'AN , Dt"D FROM SIGNAL PROPE%TI75, INC. , A CALIF'ORN-I A CORPORATION, TO SIGtiAAL [iGLS•A COR PORATI O"o, A CALIF'?l\'NI rt r0rZ.P0RATIr`:'I, ,V!D. 1I G'NAL Oil- X-ID GAS . CUMI''r•l!.Y, A fl: CCRt'( RATI01'1, DAVif) AUGUST 9, 1973, AND RECORDED AUGU.'.,T 17, 1973 IN t1COV' 10855 PAC,' 340, OF OFFICIAL RLCORDS. l i j I:X[[IBIT "All it 5405141), SC)i~D. C PAGE 2 . PARCEL 2 : THOSE MZ IONS OF SECTIC•i',S 23 SiND 33, 1'O:•INSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 11 WEST, Xs,, THE CITY i)f 11U;'•7'I!:G'T''it'I iiEACH, COUNTY "OF Of-,A`:'G3, STATC OF CA.t_I FG';r^III,, AS ',HtDli:'a 0;i 4J A' i SAP FiL _t) IN UUCi: 92 PAGES' 19 7��r;�UGii 23 X(:C;LU:,IV� OF OF SURV;�Y, IN THE C,FFIC: OF T'1i' COUNTY i:- CGRDGZ-P OF SAID C-'.:t;;i'0'Y; DESCRIBED AS FCLLOWS: BFGlt:tlIt.:, AT ,TH-: S:.!UT)ls-f?LY COf NHR :`F TRACT NO. 7634, AS SHMIN GIN 1 C. [) Ii.. f,>';;_K 330 flG H 5 26 Tt .;i;UG±! 29 0,F14I C�ELLA."..EOU5 , 'C ZCR ? :'; 3i �CF iL < T1ik. C1TH— lAPS: IC_ F L: . S ., 4 F ' ID TRACT t . 7G TI1 4S° 02" ;IL'STt �S1' FEY � , . 74.r12, F, T TC At ' .''. :GL_ r,,:%�;1' Tl i` I Ai-),�D NiOR11i 450 35 ' 11" tl 1- 1588.; 5 Fi.:.tl TO "T;,... t:!ES7"' s;t_Y C('R,"._:R ..,F SAID T' {=.CT; TFi7.'CE ALOic c, T)IM PRC. L:;`.Gr,TI0:` OF Ti-!" !_I'-!E OF `,:AID TPs:CT, SOUTH S4° 4!1 T n511 t.1 T ,! 0 .00 F -:s 1'; TiiF;;Cr: �iGUTIt 350 10 ' 55" =AST 300 . n0 F17''.T; TH.:(•.C" `_ ^UTH 321 13' 43" FAST 13�b- .611 F::-ET; T)iENC " F -RTH 51" 471 ;nor '.=;:.ST 305 , 0f) F :r'T; T11C:".CE 'NCRTH 420 19 ' 1}511 AST +3n.00 f=f.=1� Ti) THE PJI!;T OF GI t?I. +;NIIMl G. EXCEPT ALL OlL, HYDR^CARRC,"oS ANt) 1,11 t•',:ALS OF 'lVE^Y KIND A';D CFI.1i<:'S.CT?'a I1•+ C!" U. D::[Z A'•s'D StJCH IIi;1C)t 1•'3!Y flE P^l.;DUC':-D FROM SAI D Ll,::W; MITI; ?'1;;-, i:ICHT TO �:XT,%RACT ' H'-- SAF-.: FROM ALL T!i!7; `.4 D LI':`'D", MJT . !!I TH r!p RI('HY 1'0 USE OF A!':Y PORTION A r'JV�: A Pt_,^'" 500 FLl T t'fEL.(N-1 THT SURFAC. . OF SUCH LkNDS FOR TIi:, f't±O[)UCf'' t ! OF' SAID i';k;--RAL>, rUT 47'H T ir: Pr'RP 'TUAL ^:IctiT :)F I.,�,r•:::: .+.�D : C,R.. Ss , -LCJ A DEPTH (IF FIVf' H, .0 ,DR' U (500) F_.J [:;-1`JZA'f•li T1 ':; ,U►i ,".C'x= OF- ,SILL. OF SUC 1 LA:?11;DS FOR TH-- PURPOSE OF DRILLING iNTC', U`i0c-R AN`[) TIt;,;�UGIl TIiF LANDS FPC';1 THE , SURFACE OF OTH-V LA';D", TrG .1';i'F VJ TH THE RIGHT TO POOL SAID RIGHTS AND I A' SAID LA:, ) t+I l'I1 RIGHTS A�JU 111MERS :TS. M :THF�-P LAN'DS; ':;JD t !"('•'tr7"',: tit:t) 1':1":..:h'FriT� IN SAID LA',:DS SHALL a.!CLt1DH ,'kLL SUi3— TE12 R1;r,'',�d t:IC,l1T5 LM,' A D,: P T I I OF F1!r:.: [IU'tDRE.D (500) F:'T CFi;�:.raTF3 i"I1F 5ORFAU.' QF SAID F! CS'SS.ARY, 1:v(;ID; ':';TAL OR CONV-"NIENT TO Ti;c FUl_t_ °`X:. ::CI,; ::?( SAID 'Y.C' PTa D :cICt:11''S, A:�f) I; Tr!. S�f'S, A=1D t;l)AL!_ I:;CLUD.'. TI'.':: RIGHT TO (.)RILL, Cl's:RAT'--- IIAINTAI^;, , PAIR li"[) REPLAC�:' H*Lt-*S, !?f) ;` Cti A;;D I P;-t;:CTI :)'j t%L"LLS ?i1iTO SAID LANID TO : R THR,.)UC,I{ T'H" PURPC*'JJ OF s;::N,OVING OIL, GAS, HYDR,"- C;,R11J`; RALS FPOtl 5;i.Ir) LAI.,"DS OR FRO,'l 'OTHER Lhi':I)S F;;R TiI:. 1'oJ P,0577S CF SUS` SII;:.:::;CC C-O!'-ITRCL 'JQ 1'f?uVr.'T.IO:t OF SALT 11.ATFIR - r 7 S !-, 1 X. i i It"T^USIi.i•:, GrS D::JCi-.I..i:D l�,� �It-G ::i:C :l'�t'f:D I� f:�: "i") FirCr�S ;iI(=>dAL PF?Op:=.Z T?", IP'C. , ,1 C.'.LTf-C::t Ili CC,':P=I R•;TIO.N, TO 'j(';�AL FOLSA Cf�,:{'L`1�ti1'I:r"d, AC! LIf"G :P:i:-, Cr:�R;,riQ�,7'Ii' ', :;N+D SI(;^i�,L OIL ::;D GAS C0i",P ','Y, ;i D`.:L��';:r1. CC:;:{'C�(:r;TIOir`, Ur11'a=?? .AUGU Y ('•, 1973, R�C:`i<.f?:vD AUGUST 17, 1973 It; fIG'K 10855 PAGE 340, OF 3FFICIAL RECORDS. 1 24 �a . � � � 1 �' �-• �r.4pn ? St Al Clt Ck1ANiv1'l• ] e! ... ..,..{_..:.�_ 1 ' Nw rVn nwlY ..tl y4e4 /AAA I]' ' 17.. �, i=M rr]nN." :la,'I.K•�i'j}iEO�k�"�5"''i�' i d M r w °>• r ° �1 6F3r J pV nen 4uli�rh^..pA .96(t,$.3 24 ]er/.fe'( Na of li 4•ep) � Na "' . 1' eM14° e,AAArrwibr+INri """�' � tk (( EXHIBIT "Bn Isr,', iff I PROPOSAL FOR PARTIAL ANNEXATION Presented by: George Stringer for Signal Landmark March 10, 1976 a Annexation of the westerly bluff, including the Goodell property. Bring it in under a Holding Lone RA. Environmental assessment of the bluff to proceed. Planning to proceed. Some planning to include the gap. The City and the landowner will jointly fund the planning (Total ) of the Bolsa Chica. Signal Landmark will work with the Staff in deciding who the Planner will be. ' Presented March 24 , 1976': Another proposal. Annex the triangle (See map attached) at Edwards and Talbert. The City cannot accept a park dedication unless it is in the City. We could dedicate to the City some 15 acres to complete the Central City Park over to where Edwards would ultimately curve around the bottom of the bluff. Dedicating the park site accomplishes the State 's, proposal for that piece of property by providing access to Central City Park from the Bolsa_ Chica. Standard Oil does have some surface rights in the area. I PROPOSAL FOR PARTIAL ANNEXATION Presented by: Bill Woods March 31 , 1976 for Burmah Oil. Favors Mr. Stringer 's ,Partial Annexation proposal, because Total Annexation would impose additional costs. on Burmah without any additional benefits derived from the City. Does not disagree with Mr. Foster 's statement, referring to Total Annexation. However, Burmah must -be allowed to come in under a zoning that would allow for oil production to continue. I r.w PROPERTY OWNERS ACRES SIGNAL $OLSA CORPORATION I t 9 ry (230 ACS. LEASED •TO STATE KENDALL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 41 •••••• DON GOODELL (o ® METROPOLITAN WATER D1S-MCT 36 MEANVIEW SCHOOL DtSTRiCT 1:5 • •♦ STATE OF CALIFORNIA 300 �, - •� tea; s,. a a ( `` � 4 /`•.• f I` \-/ <{_.�•-•.-.�.'f ', r�i, ,t, tip' 'i ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD? CONTROL 2'd(LEASED) Nol •a ANNEXATION IbC)ACRE, .aRJ.7�R 17 r �6' Z. - •��� i"- • • • •s w o,-w••�i ��4�y '#�ate'.• aw =.v-".ram - - - __ - -- „ - • • • • • • • • • •.-_.._At::e.,,'_ •� ry a3, . '® I°~ � UNINCORPORATED BOLSA CHICA �' Ck FARII.IBJT RECREATION AND PARK5 COMMI55ION Mr. Tom Cooper on March 24 , . 1976 announced support for Mr. Stringer 's partial annexation proposal referring to park dedication; however, the statement enclosed refers to Costs relative to either Partial or Total Annexation. i FLA CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 'L INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION M INTIN1.TUN RIM 11 To Mr . Tom Cooper From Mr. Norm Worthy, Director Recreation f, Parks Commissioner. Recreation, Parks and Human Services Subject BOLSA CHICA ANNEXATION/IMPACT ON Date March 24 , 1976 RECREATION f, PARKS SERVICES In, response to your request for some estimated figures on the financial impact the total annexation or partial annexation of Bolsa Chica would have on Recreation and Parks services , I sub- mit the following : TOTAL ANNEXATION (1460 acres) l ssesse clue :,. $ 14 ,600, 000. 2) Market Value : $ 58 ,400, 000 ($40, 000 per acre) 3) Income to City Recreation & Parks Department per year (20¢ per $100 A.V. ) = $29, 200 4) Park acquisition acres or cash (if totally developed R-1) : a) 1460 acres x 5 (homes per acre) = 7 , 300 homes x 3. 5 (people per home) = 25 , 550 people b) 25 , 5S0 : 1000 x 5 = 127 . 75 acres (required dedication) or x $42 , 700 = $5 , 454 , 925 (cash) S) Park development cost : 127 . 75 acres @ $25 , 000 per acre = $3 , 193 , 750 6) Park maintenance cost : 127 . 75 acres @ $1 ,800 per acre (per yr) _ $229 , 950 PARTIAL ANNEXATION 264 ac 18 . 8% 336 ac (230) 600 ac 41 . 09% 1162 ac (79. 59%) _iT $ 2 , 639 ,680 3 , 3S8 , 000 1 5 , 999, 140 $ 11 ,620,140 2) $ 10 , 5S8 , 720 $13 , 432 , 000 $23 , 996 , 560 $ 46 ,480 , 560 3) $ 5 , 279 $. 6 , 716 $ 11 , 998 $ 23, 240 4) Park acquisition acres or ,cash (if totally developed R-1) : a) 4 , 619 S , 877 10,498 20 , 335 b) 23 . 1 ac 29 . 38 ac 60 ac' 116 . 2 ac or or or or $986, 156 $1`, 2S4 , 740 $2 , 561 , S73 $4 , 961 , 740 5) $ 577 , 500 $ 734 , S00 $1 , 500, 000 $2 ,905 , 000 6) $ 41','S80 $ 52 , 884 - $ 108 , 000 $ 209 , 160 orm Vorth�y, rector Recreation, P rks and Human NW: ac Services cc : City Administrator Recreation f, Parks Commission PROPOSALS AND POSITIONS FOR TOTAL ANNEXATION PROPOSAL FOR TOTAL ANNEXATION Presented by: Jim Foxx March 31 , 1976 Favors Total Annexation. Feels it would be a source of immediate- revenue to the City in oil barrel taxes and property taxes. Does not feel Total planning necessary for development to begin: I i TOTAL ANNEXATION League of Women Voters Position presented by Ruth Bailey March 24 , 1976 to the Bolsa Chica Study Committee. The League supports Total Annexation with. Total Planning. . The League supports the preservation of Bolsa Chica as an ecological preserve surrounded by open space to prevent further degradation of this unique Coastal resource. i TOTAL ANNEXATION Huntington Beach Company Position presented _by .W. E. Foster March 24 , 1976 to the Bolsa Chica Study Committee. Why do we' have spheres of influence? Here we have 2000.02 acres completely surrounded by the City of Huntington Beach with very small exception. We have announced that we want. ,it .to be a part of the City of Hunting.trnn Beach. We want to control the planning of it. So when it is time that it be considered for planning, and certainly development is closing in around all the edges of it , what is going to happen in there is going to impact many other areas of the City. Concerns about transportation were mentioned. My concerns are much greater that if we don 't plan Bolsa Chica and plan it now the impacts are going to be much greater and very adverse on many areas of traffic throughout the City. We need to decide where the streets are going in and around the Bolsa Chica. In any case , when the property owners , and we are owners, think that it is time for Annexation what should a City's response be? They have announced they want it to be part of the City. They have announced they want to do the planning. It has been designated officially by LAFCO to be in their sphere of influence. The only rational reasons I can find for a city not annexing under these circumstances are : 1 . People residing in the area do not want to be annexed. This does not apply here because there are not any people residing in- the area. 2'. The City is unable to provide the services that would be required after annexation. ' That is not true here either because the area will not require any City services beyond planning and a few very minor services that will be more than offset by the revenues to the city that will be generated by annexing the Bolsa Chica property. I can find no reason for the City not to proceed when the planning of this area is so important to everything from traffic flow to how the property is going to be used. I do not consider the effect that it might have on State acquisition to be relevant to the question of Annexation. 1 . I do not think it will have any effect if it comes in as a Holding Zone. I see absolutely not a single shred of evidence pointing to the fact that it would change it. I do not think the value would change. I think the State would have anywhere from 3 to 5 years to firm up their plans and complete the acquisition. 2. Even if we felt that there would be a lowering of value or a holding of value by precluding annexation, I do not think that is equitable. I certainly do not think it is legal. There have been too many court cases on that point and if the City Council starts talking about it very much and too many of these kinds of things get in evidence, I think the property owners would have a clear cut legal remedy if annexation TOTAL ANNEXATION Huntington Beach Company Position (Continued ) i i was refused. You cannot use the power of a City indirectly to drive down the value of property for public acquisition. The courts have held many times that doing something for a good purpose does not justify doing something inequitable or placing burdens where they do not belong. 1 . I am making the argument that it would not raise the value. ,2. I am making the argument that even if it did it is irrelevent to the City of Huntington Beach 's decision to annex. I can see .no reason and really no disadvantage to anyone State , County, City, Property owners or. residents ( 'cause there ain 't any) in proceeding with annexation , because that is what it takes to get the planning off the ground. Presented to the Bolsa Chica Study Committee , March 24 , 1976. i 4 AREAS OF AGREEMENT I i I I 4 � ' BOLSA CHICA STUDY COMMITTEE AREAS OF AGREEMENT 1 . There should be TOTAL GENERAL PLANNING of the Bolsa Chica. 2. Total General Planning should take place before development begins. No development without Total General Planning. 3 . (This is an offer made by Mr. Stringer for Signal Landmark) Signal Landmark would be willing to finance a portion of the Total General Planning, but must have some assurance Annexation will take place. 4 . If any annexation takes place prior to planning the Committee agrees it should come in as a Holding Zone, Zoned RA-01 or RA-02. 5. The City .Council should move toward a timely decision on: A. Not to Annex or B. Delay Annexation for a finite period of time or C. Initiate proceedings necessary for Annexation. j Self ch., To acting Planning Director Date /8/76 RRF,7 F--RQ SA CHI1CA AREA The ri yv r-pun al At its regular teeting of 9/71 6 rerjues pl your De-part ert recomenc. another car the RA property that will al l ow oil, drilling: -possibly a planning reserve. RETURN TO —$I' Signed Floyd G. Belsito, City Advinistratpr Date Signed Redif?rm 45 465 SEND PARTS 1 AND 3 WITH CARBONS INTACT. • Poly Pak(50 sets)4P465 PART 3 WILL BE RETURNED WITH REPLY. Affidavit of P kation State of California County of Orange ss City of Huntington Beach George Farquhar, being duly sworn on oath, says: That he is a citizen of the United States, over the age of twenty-one years. That he is the printer and publisher of the .Huntington Beach � �� News, a weekly newspaper of general circulation printed and pub- lished in Huntington Beach, California and circulated in the said County of Orange and elsewhere and published for the dissemination of local and other news of a general character, and has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, and said paper has been v established, printed and published in the State of California, and _ Count of Orange, for at least one year next before the publication Y g , P ublished Huntington Beach News, Aug. of the first insertion of this notice; and the said newspaper is not 26, 1976. devoted to the interest of, or published for the entertainment of any NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING particular class, profession, trade, calling, race or denomination, or ZONE CASE NO. 76-20-PREZONE _ any number thereof. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a pub- The Huntington Beach New was adjudicated a legal newspaper is hearing will be held by the City s of general circulation by Judge G. cove our K. Sl in the Superior Court If ouncil of the city of Huntington Beach, i -n the Council Chamber of .the Civic of Orange County, California August 27th, 1937 by order No. A-5931. ;enter, Huntington Beach, at the hour :)1 7:00 P.M., or as soon thereafter as That the ZONE CASE NO 7'6--20 -� Pt'�-E ZONE September, le, on Tuesday,. the 7th day of � September, 1976, for the purpose of considering a .Prezone,on .1603.12 acres of land to RA-02 (Residential Agricultural District .combined -with oil production) published In sold news- to ROS-O.(Recreational Open Space com- of which the annexed is a printed copy, was p bined with oil production) and ROS (Rec- [ eational Open Spacei, as initiated by oriP issue ithe Planning Department. The subject paper at least ]pIroperty is bounded' by Pacific Coast Highway on the vest, Warner Avenue on rthe north, City boundary 'on the east commencing from the 26th day of August land south.-Maps•-and- legal- descriptions are on file in the Planning Department +7�, Office. This property is commonly re- 19 ` " and ending on the � day of Augu9t erred to as Bolsa Chico area. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for'.or against said proposed, 19-7-6_ both days inclusive, and as often during said period and Zone Case No. 76-20 - Prezone. times of publication as said paper was regularly issued, and in the Further information may be 'obtained regular and entire issue of said pewspaper proper, and not in a from the Office of the City Clerk. supplement, and said notice was published therein on the following DATED: August 23, 1976 dates, to-wit: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By:Alicia M. Wentworth Aug, 26, 1976 City Clerk -S P�,'ublisher Subscribed and sworn to before me this 27th day of 6 s l9 A u u; s t , 19-2-6—. r1�1_Gd/y -i r Notary Public Orange County, California �_ --THOMAS D.WY LLIE� I Notary Public-California i f Orange County My Commission Expires i September 12, 197i i ----------------------------- L City of Huntington Beach County of Orange State of California Jf idavitof Publication of GEORGE FARQUHAR Publisher Huntington Beach News Filed Clerk By Deputy Clerk Publish 8/26/76 Postcards 750 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Zone Case No. 76-20 - Prezone NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public ,hearing will be held by the . City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7:00 P.M. , or as soon thereafter as possible, on Tuesday, the 7th day of September 1976 , for the purpose of considering a Prezone on 1603.12 acres of land to RA-62 (Residential Agricultural District ,combined with oil production) to ROS-O (Recreational Open Space combined with oil production) and ROS (Recreational Open Space) , as initiated by the Planning Department. The subject property is bounded by Pacific Coast Highway on the west, Warner Avenue on the north, City boundary on the east and south. Maps and legal descriptions are on file in the Planning Department Office. This property is commonly referred to as Bolsa Chica area. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said proposed Zone Case No. 76-20 - Prezone. Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk. DATED: August 23, 1976 CITY OF. HUNTINGTON BEACH BY: Alicia M. Went-worth City Clerk Published Huntington Beach News, Aug. 19, 1976. LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ZONE CASE NO. 76-20— PREZONE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a pub- lic hearing will be held by the City Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, for the purpose of considering a Prezone on 1603.12 acres of land to RA-02 (Resi- dential Agricultural District combined with oil production) to ROS-O (Recrea- tional Open Space combined with oil production) and ROS (Recreational Open Space), The subject'property is bounded by Pacific Coast Highway on the west, Warner Avenue on the north, City boun- dary on the east and south. Maps and legal descriptions are on file in the Planning Department Office, This pro- perty is commonly referred to as Bolsa Chica area. }(c Said hearing will be held at the hour 7 of 7:00 P.M., on August-sr 1976, in the G ' Council Chamber Building of. the Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against the proposed Zone Case rNo. 76-20 Prezone. Further information may be obtained from the City Planning Department. Telephone No. (714) 536.5271. DATED this 19th day of August, 1976. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION i 1 By Edward D. Selich Acting Secretary r r 1 Published Huntington Beach News, Au.-. 26, 1976. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ZONE CASE NO. 76-20-PREZONE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a pub- lic hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7:00 P.M., or as soon thereafter as possible, on Tuesday, the 7th day of September, 1976, for the purpose of considering a Prezone on 1603.12 acres of land to RA-02 (Residential Agricultural District combined with oil production) to ROS-0 (Recreational Open Space com- bined with oil production) and ROS (Rec- reational Open Space), as initiated by the Planning Department. The subject property is bounded by Pacific Coast Highway on the west, Warner Avenue on the north, City boundary on the east and south. Maps and legal descriptions are on file in the Planning Department Office. This property is commonly re- ferred to as Balsa Chica area. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said proposed Zone Case No. 76-20 - Prezone. Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk. DATED: August 23, 1976 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By:Alicia M.Wentworth City Clerk x �o1m�19itheaspcon s B1S�stage i 163-232-13 163-232-22 163-233-06 Russell E Orpet Christopher Mino Roger Goossens 5811 Grimsby Drive 5731 Grimsby Drive 5752 Grimsby Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 ' 92649 163-232-14 163-232-23 163-233-07 William A Hawkins John A Squires John E Wilbert 5762 Grimsby Drive 5901 Grimsby Drive 5711 Grimsby Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-232-15 163-232-24 163-233-08 Julian 0 Wright Jr Michael H Noon Keun T Kim 5791 Grimsby Drive 5701 Grimsby Drive 5772 Grimsby Drive Huntington Beach,Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach,. Calif 92649 92649 92569 163-232-16 163-232-25 163-233-09 Lee Schochet BAyani 0 Austria Stig B Nilsson 5781 Grimsbjr Drive 5691 Grimsby Drive 5776 Grimsby Drive' Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-232-17 163-233-01 163-233-10 Joseph C Damasius James J Kallal Gary L Sarka 5775 Grimsby Drive 5682 Grimsby Drive 18011 Starmont Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 52649 163-232-18 163-233-02 163-2333:11 Erminio PietroMaAeco Kenneth P Caldwell Gus Lodder 18021 Starmont Lane 5771 Grimsby Drive 17832 Cardiff Circle Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, CUif Huntington Beach, Calif. .92649. 92649 92649 163-232-19 163-233-03 163-233-12 Gary If Horne Emiko k Young Kenneth M ,Healey 5761 Grimsby Drive 5702 Grimsby Drive 18031 Starmont Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach; Olakfx Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 Calif 92649 92649 163-232-20 163-233-04 161-233-13 Kendall Development Co Mary M Mason Margaret A Gordon Thomas P Haley 5732 Grimsby Drive 18041 Starmont Lane 5151 Grimsby Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif . Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 163-232-21 163-233-05 163-233-14 Steven C Millet David L Perrin Nat H Aycox 5741 Grimsby Drive .5742 Grimby Drive 18032 Hartfield. Circle Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-233-15 163-233-24 163-231-01 Stanley J Buck Christopher Baier Harold D Williams 18022 Hartfield Circle 17962 Whiteford Lane 17962 Shoreham Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-233-16 163-233-25 163-231-02 Theodore C Casement James E Whitridge William D Hill 18012 Hartfield Circle 17952 Whitford Lane 17942 Shoreham Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-233-17 163-234-01 163-231-03 James R Harris Wen-Shang Pau George W King 18002 Hartfield Circle 18012 Starmont Lane 17932 Shoreham Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-233-18 163-234-02 163-231-04 Nich&las D Broussard Margaret A Stoll Jason K Yordy 17991 Hartfield Circle 18022 Starmont Lane 4240 Cheshire Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Cypress, Calif 92649 92649 90630 163=233-19 163-234-03 163-231-05 George L Lutz Eddie E Bozarth Joel E Cincotta 18001 Hartfield Circle 18032 Starmont Lane 17912 Shoreham Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-233-20 163-234-04 163-231-06 Mark D Fieger Charles R Hulen Albert P Basye 18011 Hartfield Circle 18042 Starmont Lane .17902 Shoreham Lane Huntington Beach,Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-233-21 163-234-05 163-231-07 Dale J Rankin Paul W Martin Terry A Dolton 18021 Hartfield Circle 18052 Starmont Lane 17892 Shoreham Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-233-22 163-234-06 163-231-08 Richard L Lunden William B Marvin Frank G Eckert 17982 Whiteford Lane 18062 Starmont Lane 17901 Whitford Lane. Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-233-23 163-239-01 163-231-09 Henry C Matzen Signal Companies Inc Neal R Harward 17972 Whiteford Lane Attn: D G Nahin 17911 Whitford Lane Huntington Beach, Calif 17890 Sky Park Circle Huntington Beach, Calif',, 92649 Irvine, Calif 92714 92649 163-231-10 163-222-04 163-222-13 David A Bastian Robert N Erickson Robert Cobos 17921 Whitford Lane 5512 Maryport Drive 5602 Maryport Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-231-11 163-222-05 163-222-14 Charles H Finn Richard A Zanussoe Jaime G Arcellana 17931 Whitford Lane 5522 Maryport Drive 5612 Maryport Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-231-12 163-222-06 163-222-15 Charles L Olson Chris F Bowen Harry M Truax 17941 Whitford Lane 5532 Maryport Drive 5622 Maryport Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-231-13 163-222-07 163-222-16 Walter L Gregson Roger M Pearson Robert M Ervin 17951 Whitford Lane 5542 Maryport Drive 5632 Maryport Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-231-14 163-222-08 163-222-17 Thomas R Anthony Neil A Conrad James F 0 Dell 17961 Whitford Lane 5552 Maryport Drive 5631 Selkirk Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-231-15 163-222-09 163-222-18 Michael H Simons Louis E Gill Robert F Gremel 17971 Whitford Lane 5562 Maryport Drive 5621 Selkirk Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-232-1 163-222-10 163-222-19 Tommy D Garland Matt A Paulson Hassan Nosratf 5482 Maryport Drive 5572 Maryport Drive 5611 Selkirk Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-222-02 163-222-11 163-222-20 Tze-Hsin Woo Byron D Hirsch Richard L Newfield j492 Maryport Drive 5582 Maryport Drive 5591 Selkirk Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-222-03 163-222-12 163-222-21 Michael F Dereszynski Frank P Perrotte Larry E Fornia 5502 Maryport Drive 5592 Maryport Drive 5581 Selkirk Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-222-22 163-222-31 163-223-01 Robert V Johanson Thyronne J Millaud Marvin L O Brien 5571 Selkirk Drive 5481 Selkirk Drive 17822 Falkirk Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-222-23 163-222-32 163-223-02 Mitsugu Kohatsu George V Kaplan Michael F Knapp 5561 Selkirk Drive 5471 Selkirk Drive 17812 Falkirk Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-222-24 163-221-01 163-223-03 Allen M Morishige Francis M Fiorillo Douglas E McCracken 5551 Selkirk Drive 17741 Falkirk Lane 17802 Falkirk Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-222-25 163-221-02 163-2231-4 Catherine A Corcoran Witold Czajkowski Karl M Schuttenhelm 5541 Selkirk Drive 17751 Falkirk Lane 17811 Alfawn Circle Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-222-26 163-231-03 163-5231- 05 John F Deatrick John H Moser William M Jakway17821 Alfawn Circle 5531 Selkirk Drive 17761 Falkirk Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-222-27 163-221-04 163-223-06rd R Mundell Ronald C Unbedacht Noel W Ross Richard Alfawn Circle 5521 Selkirk Drive 17771 Falkirk Lane 17831 Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-222-28 163-221-05 163-2231-7 Benward I John M Pitrei Wong Robert D Sanchez 17852 Alfawn Circle 5511 Selkirk Drive 17701 Falkirk Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif g2649 92649 92649 163-222-29 163-221-06 163-223-08 Ronald I Ogawa Keiji Yoshida Dennis S De La Paz 5501 Selkirk Drive 17791 Falkirk Lane 17842 Alfawn Circle Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-222-30 163-221-07 163-2231-09 Daniel Mircheff G Wayne Elwyn Gerald A Lanich 5491 Selkirk Drive 17801 Falkirk Lane 17832 Alfawn Circle Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 22649 92649 92649 163-223-10 163-223-19 Fred J Locarnini Antal Lener Occupant 17351 Felson Circle 17921 Denvale Circle 5472 Neargate Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-2231-11 163-223-20 Robert E Doornbos Richard L Fenzi Occupant 17871 Felson Circle 17922 Denvale Circle 5462 Neargate Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-223-12 163-223-21 Occupant L Brandt Peterson Paul R Kreipl 5442 Neargate Drive; 17881 Felson Circle 17912 Denvale Circle Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-223113 163-223-22 Occupant Jerry D Yacher Jim E Whitaker 5432 Neargate Drive 17892 Felson Circle 17902 Denvale Circle Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-223-14 163-223-23 Occupant Wilmer H Parker John F Juarez 5422 Neargate Drive 17882 Felson Circle Dolores W Juarez Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 17921 Shoreham Lane 92649 92649 Huntington Beach, Calif 163-223-15 163-223-24 Occupant Gerald L Blain John V Hartleib 17682 Rainglen Lane 17872 Felson Circle 17931 Shoreham Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92G49 92649 163-223-16 163-223-25 Kenneth C Cho Edgard W Logan Occupant 5451 Bankton Drive 17891 Denvale Circle 17941 Shoreham Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-223117 Occupant Duane 11 Maddux 5492 Neargate Drive Occupant 17901 Denvale Circle Huntington Beach, Calif 5461 Bankton Drive l Huntington Beach, Cal Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 ' f 92649 92649 163-223-18 Occupant George N Saitta 5482 Neargate Drive Occupant 17911 Denvale Circle Huntington Beach, Calif 5471 Bankton Drive Huntington Beach, Ca if Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 a� � Occupant Occupant 5482 Bankton Drive Occupant Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Rainglen Drive 17615 Rainglen Lane 92649 Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Ca 92649 92649 Occupant Occupant 5476 Bankton Drive 17675 Rainglen Drive Occupant Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Rainglen Lane 92649 92649 Huntington Beach, Ca 92649 Occupant Occupant 5472 Bankton Drive 17671 Rainglen Lane 17602 Occupant Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Rainglen Lane 92649 92649 926ngton Beach, Ca 49 Occupant Occupant 5466 Bankton Drive 17661 Rainglen Lane Occupant I�Iuntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 1 Rainglen Lane 92649 92649 Huntington ington Beach, Ca 92649 Occupant Occupant 5462 Bankton Drive 17651 Rainglen Lane Occupant Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Hun Crown Circle ' 92649 92649 Huntington ington Beach, Ca 92649 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5456 Bankton Drive 17645 Rainglen Lane 17581 Crown Circle Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Ca 92649 92649 92649 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5452 Bankton Drive 17641 Rainglen Lane 5391 Barwood Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Ca 92649 92649 92649 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17701 Rainglen Lane 17631 Rainglen Lane 5411 Barwood Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, C4 92649 92649 92649 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17691 Rainglen Lane 17621 Rainglen Lane 5421 Barwood Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, C; 92649 92649 92649 a � Occupant Occupant Occupant 17652 Putney Circle 5401 Neargate Drive 17572 Beckwall Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17561 Backwall Lane 5411 Neargate Drive u t Beckwall Lane H Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach,Calig 92649 92649 92649 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5442 Barwood Drive 5421 Neargate Drive 17602 Beckwall Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach,. Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 I Occupant Occupant Occupant 5432 Barwood Drive 5431 Neargate Drive 17612 Beckwall Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 Occupant Occupant 5422 Barwood Drive 5441 Neargate Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach,Calif 92649 92649 Occupant Occupant 5412 Barwood Drive 17611 Beckwall Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 Occupant Occupant 5402 Barwood Drive 17601 Beckwall Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntingt®n Beach, Calif 92649 92649 Occupant Occupant 5392 Barwood Drive 17581 Beckwall Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 Occupant Occupant 5382 Barwood Drive 17662 Beckwall Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 i Occupant Occupant Occupant 4002 Aladdin Drive 4042 Aladdin Drive 3949 Warner Avenue Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 Occupant Occupant Occupant 4006 Aladdin Drive 4046 Aladdin Drive 3953 Warner Avenue Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 Occupant Occupant Occupant 4010 Aladdin Drive 4050 Aladdin Drive 3957 Warner Avenue Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 Occupant Occupant Occupant 4014 Aladdin Drive 4058 Aladdin Drive 3961 Warner Avenue Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 Occupant Occupant Occupant 4018 Aladdin Drive 4062 Aladdin Drive 3965 Warner Avenue Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 Occupant � � Occupant 4026 Aladdin Drive 3969 Warner Avenue Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 Occupant Occupant Occupant 4030 Aladdin Drive 4066 Aladdin Drive 3977 Warner Avenue Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach,Calif 92649 92649 92649 Occupant Occupant Occupant 4034 Aladdin Drive 4070 Aladdin Drive 3981 Warner Avenue Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 Occupant Occupant Occupant 4038 Aladdin Drive 4074 Aladdin Drive 3985 Wanner Avenue Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 r �O 159-074-04 159-073-02 1:59-073-09 Glenn G Thurken Harold L Graves 18092 Wellbrook Circle James Enna 6292 Glenfox Drive Huntington Beach, Calif 6232 Newbury Drive Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 92647 Haritin;ton Beach, Cali Kenneth 159-074-05 92ci47 K L Ronald J zawistowski Kenneth L Hedge 18082 Wellbrook Circle 6302 Glenfox Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 9�6 Hunt 92647 47 1�9-073-02 159-073-11 159-074-06 James Enna Frank S De La Torre Samuel S Lewis 6232 Newbury Drive 18081 Wellbrook Circle P.O. Box 2101 Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Seal Beach, Calif 92647 92647 90740 159-073-03 159-073-12 159-074-07 Viola J Steward James T Chang Gary L Gattucio 6252 Newburty Drive 18091 Wellbrook Circle 18001 Fieldburry Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Cali9 92647 92547 92647 159-073-04 159-073-13 159-074-08 Donald D Hastings Theodore L Szuba Willis R Lunt 6272 Newbury Drive 18101 Wellbrook Circle 18101 Fieldbuty Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, C alif Huntington Beach, Cali; 92647 92647 92647 159-073-05 159-073-14 159-074-09 William J McClarin James A Stringer Edith C Walker 18051 Heathpoint Lane 18121 Wellbrook Circle William A Vickerman Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 18111 Fieldbury Lane 92647 92647 Huntington Beach, Cili. 159-073-06 159-074-01 159-074-10 Raymond B Dirling Jr Charles H Bunten Ivan B Smith 18061 Heathpoint Lane 18132 Wellbrook Circle 18121 Fieldbury Laae Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Cali 92647 92647 92647 159-073-07 1590074-02 159-074-11Robert J Cassens Harvey J Dixon Thomas M Bacon Robert Fieldbury Circ1� 18071 Heathpoint Lane 18112 Wellbrook Circle Huntington Beach, CalO Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 92647 92647 159-073-08 159-074-03 165-193-01 Poe R Torres Frank S West Joel W Anderson 6282 Glenfox Drive 18102 Wellbrook Circle 17901 Fernpomnt Circle Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Cal: 92647 92647 92649 1�9-073-09 Harold L Graves 6292 Glenfox Drive. HUnf-znat-r)n fF-6 7 165-193-02 165-194-05 165-194-14 Frederick P Katzer John M Burdette Stephen J Hoeffner 17911 Fernpoint Circle 17962 Fernpoint Circle 17901 Bleugate Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Cali 92647 92647 92647 165-1903-03 165-194-06 165-19 6-01 Robert McMackin Donald A Wolf Margaret Thomas 17931 Fernpoint Circle 17972 Fernpoint Circle 15503 Gracebee Street Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Norwalk, Calif 92647 92647 90650 165-193-04 165-194-07 165-196-02 Engin M Uralman Larry E Lewis David E Roberts 17941 Fernpoint Circle 17982 Fernpoint Circle 17972 Bluegate Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calm 92647 92647 92647 165-193-05 165-194-08 165-196-03 Don G Cook Clifford E Kendrick Robert M Litrich 17961 Fernpoint Circle 17981 Bluegate Lane 17982 Bluegate Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Cali! 92647 92647 92647 165-193-06 1650194-09 165-196-04 William E Backstrom Richard Smith Jack M Arrington 17971 Fernpoint Circle 17971 Bluegate Lane 17991 Larcrest Circle Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 92647 92647 165-193-07 165-194-10 106-196-05 Mark Wimer Jr Robert J Mikolajczak David A Eitman 17981 Fernpoint Circle 17961 Bluegante Lane 17981 Larcrest Circle Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calm 92647 92647 92647 165-194-02 165-194-11 165-196-06 Charles D Criswell Howard C Waters William A Radig 17912 Fernpoint Circle 17941 Bluegate Lane 17971 Carcrest Circle Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calm 92647 92647 92647 165-194-03 165-194-12 165-196-09 William A Sunstrum Robert D Schaefer Lawrence J Bindner 17932 Fernpoint Circle 17931 Bluegate Lane 17961 Larcrest Circle Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calm 92647 92647 92647 165-194OUS 165-194-13 165-195-01 Signal Landmark Inc Elmer C Haggins Arthur K Luczynski Paul H Jackle 17911 Bluegate Lane 17902 Bluegate Lane 6702 Lawn Haven Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 92647 f 163-241-07 163-241-15 165-I92-15 j Tomi Kawamoto James E Toung James R Brockman A 17922 Bolton Circle 5831 Lancefield Drive 17962 Hallcroft Lane � Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 1 92647 92649 92649 . 165-192-16 163-241-08 163-241-16 Patrick M Jewett JOhn P Hoefler Audun Oynebraaten 17972 Hallcroft Lane 17941 Oldglen Lane 5841 Lancefield Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 92649 92649 165-192-17 163-241-09 163-241-17 Jerry L Heidemann Harry J Carlson James W Brotm 17982 Hallcroft Lane 17921 Oldglen Lane 5851 Lancefield Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif I 92647 92649 92649 163-241-01 163-241-10 tARX:RAtXt2 Ronald Glickman Hedley J Philp Jr 163-241-19 17901 Bolton Circle 17901 Oldglen Lane Orval F Hoaglan Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 5871 Lancefield Drive 92649 92649 Huntington Beach, Calif 163-241-02 1+63-241-11 163-241-18 Larry S Jepsen Joseph L Jernegan Gerald L Chapman Gerald Bolton Circle 17891 Oldglen- Lane 5861 Lancefield Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-241-03 163-241-12 163-241-20 Richard A Swingle Janes W Cox Mike L Haddock 17881 Bolton Circle 17881 Oldglen Lane 5881 Lancefield Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-241-04 163-241-13 163-241-21 Richard A Gerow James D Boucher Park A Williams I7l3ti2 Bolton Circle 5811 Lancefield Drive 5891 Lancefield Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 i 163-241-05 163-241-14 163-241-22 Jarrett E Webb John F Parodi Esther Boyer 17892 Bolton Circle 5821 Lancefield Drive 5901 Lancefield Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-241-06 163-241-15 163-241-23 Haig N Boghosian 2R2tx XEH.2*NtdxRxiXNx Edward J Pelochino 17902 Bolton Circle 5911 Lancefield Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach,Calif 92649 92649 165-195-02 165-197-04 165-198-03 1 John T Kobe Neil D Campbell James G Caringella 6122 Hamshire Drive 17992 Larcrest Circle 17982 Dellglenn Circle Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 92647 92647 165-195-03 165-197-05 165-198-04 Paul H Jackle John M Savidan Howard R McAuley ` G702 Lawn Haven Drive 18002 Larcrest Circle 17992 Dellglenn Circle Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach,C&&if 92648 92647 9267 165-195-20 165-197-06 165-198-05 William J Soty Jr Richard A Whitehouse Roger V Millett 18011 Dellglen Circle 18012 Dellglenn Circle 6131 Foxshield Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 92647 92647 165-195-21 165-197-07 165-198-06 William Powers Douglas A Harley George J Tisler 6121 Foxshield Drive 17991 Dellglen Circle 18022 Dellglenn Circle Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach,Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 92647 92647 165-195-22 165-197-08 165-198-07 Earl V King Yoshihisa Kohara Michael A Butler La Ea111 Lakepoint Lane 17981 Dellglen Circle 17991 Hallcroft Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 92647 92647 165-195-23 165-197-09 165-198-08 Fate Saint Richard G Browning Edward B Nye Sr 1336 Gaylord Street 17971 Dellglen Circle 17981 Hallcroft Lane Long Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 90813 92647 92647 165-197-01 10IB-197-10 165-198-09 Lawrence Brademeyer Paul W Smith Erlando D San Miguel 17962 Larcrest Circle 17961 Dellglenn Circle 17971 Hallcroft Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 92647 92647 165-197-02 165-198-01 165-198-10 Rplland E Boepple Thomas J Watkinson t229:kxNn:kIzxOftxE;UNOx 17972 Larcrest Circle 17962 Dellglenn Circle Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 22AA:Rx 92647 92647 165-197-03 165-198-02 165-198-10 James R Gill Divid R Tamo fancy E Glick 17982 Larcrest Circle 17972 Dellglenn Circle 17961 Hallcroft Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, C&Jif Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 92647 92647 a � 163-241-24 163-242-01 163-242-10 Gary I Teague Larry L Stoneburner Peter L Greco 5931 Lancefield Drive 17902 Oldglen Lane 17931 Shamley Circle Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-241-25 163-242-02 163-242-11 David B Czinger H James Roberts Robert E Tyndall 5941 Lancefield Drive 17901 Portside Circle 17932 Shamley Circle Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-241-26 163-242-03 163-242-12 Gary L Robertson Bruce P Steiner Jr Uwe K Hansen 5951 Lancefield Drive 17911 Portside Circle 17912 Shamley Circle Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-241-27 163-242-04 163-242-13 John R Hoefler Thomas Harmna Hugh Mangham 17882 Wellbank RJR Ln 17931 Portside Circle 17902 Shamley Circle Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-241-28 163-242-05 163-242-14 Richard A Benvenuti Herman T Ganz William L McCoy 17902 Wellbank Lane 17932 Portside Circle 17901 Wellbank Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-241-29 163-242-06 163-242-15 Robert N Wilcox Walter W Milem Walter S Jones 17912 Wellbank Lane 17912 Portside Circle 17911 Wellbank Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-241-30David P Garofalo 163-242-07 163-242-16 17932 Wellbank Lane David L McDonald Charles P Dugas Huntington Beach, Calif 17902 Portside Circle 17931 Wellbank Lane 92649 Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 163-241-30 163-242-08 163-242-19 David P Garofalo Ergul M Bakkaloglu Peter Lo Bello 17932 Wellbank Lane 179-01 Shamley Circle 5901 Woodboro Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-241-31 163-242-09 163-242-20 Kendall Development Co Dino Vlachos Edward H Thompson 4463 Birch Street 17911 S Hamley Circle 5891 Woodboro Drive Newport Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92660 92649 92649 _. 7 163-242-21 163-243-01 163-232-04 Rolf Fi Frank John Chepo Gary D Roeck 5881 Woodboro Drive 5842 Woodboro Drive 5768 Woodboro Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Cali! 92649 92649 92649 163-242-22 163-243-02 163-232-05 Nancy G Randolph Donald J Murr William J Feltman 5871 Woodboro Drive 5852 Woodboro Drive 5772 Woodboro Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-242-23 163-243-03 163-232-06 Roy C Cook Gong Y Wong James M Anderson 5861 Woodboro Drive 5862 Woodboro Drive 5778 Woodboro Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-242-24 163-243-04 163-232-07 Joe W Page Jr Gary R Hahn C Ray Lockhart 5851 Woodboro Drive 5872 Woodboro Drive 5782 Woodboro Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-242-25 163-243-05 163-232-08 Earl W McDonald John G Bell 3rd James L Thorp 5841 Woodboro Drive 5882 Woodbor Drive 5792 Woodboro Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-242-26 163-243-06 163-232-09 Carrol R Ellerbe Terry D Nelson Glenn L Robinson 5831 Woodboro Drive 5892 Woodboro Drive 5802 Woodboro Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-242-27 163-232-01 163-232-10 Richard A Foster Lory E Larson William G Lance 5821 Woodboro Drive 5742 Woodboro Drive 5812 Woodboro Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-242-28 163-232-02 163-232-11 Gary Greenberg Brad Perrin Cambiz Meraj 5811 Woodboro Drive 5752 Woddboro Drive 5822 Woodboro Drive Huntington Beach,Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 163-242-29 163-232-03 163-232-12 Robert L Atkins Edwin L Kidd Paul S Doyle 5791 Woodboro Drive 5762 Woodboro Drive 5832 Woodboro Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif . 92649 92649 92649 �7 I t 110-024-06 110-024-18 110-022-05 Pearl O Hawley Norman Milkes Gary S Hoffman 108 S Crescent Hights 9776 W Katella Avenue 17171 Sams Street Los Angeles, Calif Anaheim, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 90048 92804 92649 110-024-07 110-024-19 110-022-09 i Franklin H Kark Charles F Steel Gary D Potter 17232 Marina View Place 17201 Sandra Lee Lane 17202 Sandra Lee Lane ' Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 110-024-20 110-022-10 4-08 Melvin Siegel Winifred A Dowding Laarryrry E Freeman 17171 Sandra Lee Lane 17192 Sandra Lee Lane i 8545 E Fontana Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Downey, Calif 92649 92649 90241 i 110-024-09 110-024-21 110-022-11 Anthony S Bartoli Louise S Fitzegerald Gary W Fuller 1ntho Marina View Place 2500 Q ST NW 3802 River Avenue Washington, D.C. Newport Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 20007 92660 110-024-10 110-024-22 110-022-12 William R Winn Art M Nerio Brian Wilson 17192 Marina View Place 7795 Westminster Avenue 17172 Sandra Lee Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Westminster, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92683 92649 ' 110-024-24 110-022-13 110-024-11 'I William E R Halpin Joseph L Glenon John P Olson �O Connor Agency 10011 Barbara Circle 17142 Sandra Lee Lane %00 Ocean IIvdo Buena Park, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Long Beach, Calif 90802 90620 92649 49:2ft2x 110-024-25 110-022-15 110-024-12 Charles P Haber Shojun Yukawa Robert J Conway 17161 Sandra Lee Lane %Stewart, Doug 17172 Marina Vie Place Huntington Beach, Calif 6973 Warner Avenue Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 110-024--13 110-022-09 110-022-16 John R Westermeyer Charles F Steel Luigi Volta 343 Oswego Street 17202 Sandra Lee Lane 17122 Sandra Lee Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92e48 92649 92649 110-024-15 110-022004 110-022-17 Abraham Henderson James E John Joel H Gunter 17142 Marina View Place 17161 Sims Street 8384 Dory Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92646 i 110-152-04 110-152-22 110-153-13 J F Frederickson Samuel C Shenk Exec Elmer E Brown Dorothy F Jacoby Adm. 2226 Russ Bldr) 524 S 9th East 1946 Custer San Francisco, Calif Salt Lake City® Utah Laramie, Wyo 82070 94104 84105 110-152-05 110-152-23 110-153-14 R F Herzog Waldo E Bemis George Cantor 16251 Woodstock Ln Muriel W Ensign 310 33rd Street Huntington Beach, Calif 116 W Las Palmas Drive Newport Beach, Calif 92647 Ful&erton, Ca 92632 92660 110-152-06 110-153-01 110-153-15 Esther Marow Orville W Carter Corder W Wattenbarger 272 S Rexford Drive P.O. Box 1080 6202 Cornell Drive Beverly Hills, Calif Hawthorne, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 90212 90250 92647 I 110-152-07 110-153-03 110-153-17 Leona Harlin Juliet Kohlbush Brittain, F. L. 1126 Pac Mutual Bldg 360 S Burnside Ave Apt 9C 1509 Waldeheim Bldg Los Angeles, Claif Los Angeles, Claif Kansas City Mo. 90014 90036 64141 110-152-08 110-153-04 110-153-19 Richard W Meyer Lewie P Derigo B A Baker 16102 Mariner Drive 807 Main Street S A Miller Huntington Beachjd�Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 14731 Adams Street 92649 92648 Midway, City, Calif 9265 110-152-09 110-153-05 110-153-20 Bayley, W. R. Charles P McKenzie D A Johnson 4060 Chapman Place P.O. Box 477 5106 Monte Bonito Riverside, Calif Sun City, Calif Los Angles, Calif 92506 92381' 90041 110-152-11 110-153-06 110-153-21 Elizabeth W Chapman Emil Grandjean Est Clyde L Benge Jr 510 Palm Drive G V Grandjean Rt 3 5561 Heil Avenue Oxnard, Calif Freeport, Texas Huntington Beach, Calif 93030 77541 92649 110-152-17 110-153-10 110-024-01 Evelyn Hayes Arthur E Waybourn Peter M Clark Box 506 1840 Pine Street 17001 S. Pacific Ave Bancroft, Idaho Huntington Beach, Calif Sunset Beach, Calif 83217 92648 90742 110-152-19 110-153-12 110-024-02 John Gustafson Joe M Anderson Donald H Roberts 5161 Pearce Drive 1111 Main Street 14909 Nokomis Rd Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Apple Valley, Calif 92649 92648 92307 Ilu-200=03 110-200-15 110-151-04 Four Seasons Isms Arika Ishibashi Mildred K Armstrong 19352 Scenic Bay Lane 23909 S Pennsylvania Ave 56 S lst West St Huntington Beach, Calif Torrance, Calif Bountiful, Utha 92648 90501 84010 110-200-04 110-200-19 110-151-05 Virginia M DeNubila Lucille J talker Charles D Woodford Security Pac Natl Bank 430 N Main Street 2040 El Arbolita Drive Tax Div 402-5-00790-0 Rushville, Ind. Glendale, Calif P.O. BOx 60802 46173 91208 Term Annex 110-200=20 110-151-06 Los Angeles- Calif Helen F Henderson R F Herzog 90060 389 Desert Lakes Dr 16251 Woodstock Ln Palm Springs, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92262 92647 110-200-06 110-200=21 110-151-07 Jessie F Smyth Alice O McKenna Frank R Keller Anne Gordon Dorothy M Blasgen 16801 Blanton St 9221 Sunglow St 13481 Fairfield Apr 59J Huntington Beach, Calif Pico Rivera, Calif 90060 Seal Beach, Calif 90740 92649 110-200-08 110-200-22 110-151-10 John H Gordon Grace M Barnes Gary B Turman Vivian L Frey J M Neill 5112 Briarhill Dr 609 E Hermosa St 169 W 1900 N Sunset Yorba Linda, Calif Santa Maria, Ca. 93454 Clearfield, Utah 84015 92686 110-200-09 110-100-01 110-151-15 Doris C Leggett Julian I Hathaway Crocker Natl Tr Bank Elmer J Wolter Jr Atty P.O. Box 2124 TR #2-00229-00-Brooks 11222 Weddin ton Street Santa Fe S P.O. Box 1550 g pings, Calif No. Hollywood, Ca 91601 90670 San Diego, Calif 92112 110-200-10 110-190-02 110-151-17 Stephen L McElrath Gerald B Richardson Pacific Amer. Oil Co.Corp 16041 Goldenwest St Muriel F Johnson 1241 E Burnett St Huntington Beach, Calif 10129 Toluca Lake Ave Long Beach, Calif 92647 No. Hollywood, Ca 91602 90806 110-200-13 110-190-05 110-152-01 William J Dillingno Honor D Dunscomb J Maag Nettie T Walker 299 Hermosa Way 2260 Park Newport Drive 5410 California Ave San Luis Obispo, Calif ##103 Long Beach, Ca 90805 93401 Newport Beach, Ca 92660 110-200-14 110-151-03 Harriet T Shea 110-152-03 Robert C Sunderland Harriet American Oil Co Ivaleen Alton P.O. Box 497 P.O. Box me 4000 Michigan Rd eM99 Halley Cneter, Ca Ca 90806 Dimonddale, Michigan 92082 48821 178-184-17 178-282-10 110-014-09 William R Wood Stewart L Nichols Signal Properties Inc 17226 Courtney Lane 17152 Westport Drive Attn: D G Nahin Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 17890 Sky Park Circle 92649 92649 Tnii.np, Calif. 9271.4 178-284-18 178-282-11 110-014-78 Robert D Woodard Dennis A Rhyne Metropolitan Water Distr. 650 Linden Ave #2 17132 Westport Drive of Southern California Long Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif P.O. Box 54153 90812 92649 Los Angeles, Calif 90054 178-283-09 178-282-12 110-014-21 Michael E Thaxton Harry Kuraoka Signal Bolsa Corp 17141 Westport Drive 17122 Westport Drive 1010 Wilshire Blvd Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Los Angeles, Calif 92649 ' 92649 90017 178-283-10 178-282-13 �� HHx Julia F Maben Donald A Moyers Robert Baily 17112 Westport Drive 17151 Westport Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 r 178-'283-11 178-282-14 110-014-88 Jay H- Jeffries Jr Jorge Del Toro Kendall Development Co Inc 17161 Westport Drive 12302 Garden Grove Blvd. 4463 Birch Street Huntiv'gton Beach, Calif #2 Newport Beach, Calif 92649 Garden Garden Grove, Ca. 92643 92660 178-3t.3-12 173-301-01 110-014-63 Henrianne A Slattery Huntington Harbour Corp Dept. of transportaitogn 17171 Westport Drive 4241 Warner Avenue 120 So Spring Street Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Los Angeles, Calif 90052 92649 92649 Attn: Staff Assistant -B 178-283-13 178-301-04 110-014-55 Harry P Burford F J B Holdong Corp Huntington Beach Co. 17181 Westport Drive %Joseph E Bertoli Prpperty Tax Div Huntington Beach, Calif 4151 Trumbull Drive 225 Bush Street 92649 Huntington Beach, Calif San Francisco, Ca 94120 178-282-08 178-651-07 Huntington Beach Co. Gd�&n C Mahoney Exxon Corp 2110 Main Street 17101 Courtney Lane P.O . Box 53 Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Houston, Texas 77001 92648 92649 178-282-09 178-651-O8 110-200-01 Billie Morrison Jewell Lane Co Reymond F Albrecht 17121 Courtney Lane 21188 Hawthorne Blvd 1030 E Las Tunas Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Torrance, Calif San Gabriel, Calif 02649 90503 91776 � co Occupant Occupant Occupant 3989 Warner Avenue 4029 Warner Avenue 4069 Warner Avenue Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 Occupant Occupant Occupant 3993 Warner Avenue 4033 Warner Avenue 4073 Warner Avenue Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 Ocean View School Distrtq Occupant Occupant 7972 Warner Avenue 1.5!� 3997 Warner Avenue 4037 Warner Avenue Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Attn: District Supt 92649 92649 Occupant Occupant 4041 Warner Ave Dept of transportation 4001 Warner Avenue Huntington Beach, Calif 120 So. Spring Street LOs Angeles, Calif 90052 Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 Attn: Staff Assistant Design B 178-284-12 Occupant Occupant Edward L Caustin 4006 Warner Avenue 4045 Warner Avenue 17192 Courtney Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 178-284-13 Occupant Occupant William A Sosnowski 4009 Warner Avenue 4049 Warner Avenue 17198 Courtney Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 178-284-14 Occupant Occupant Gerald D Stephens 4013 Warner Avenue 4057 Warner Avenue 172-6 Courtney Laney Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 Occupant 178-284-15 Occupant 4017 Warner Avenue 4061 Warner Avenue Allen J shafran Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach Calif 17214 Courtney Lane , 92649 92649 Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 Oc6upant 178-284-16 Occupant 4065 Warner Avenue Joseph C Scheitzach 4025 Warner Avenue Huntington Beach, Calif 17220 Couftehy Lane Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 Huntington Beach, Cal:ff 92649 92649 Dolsa Chica df 7-29-76 178-292-04 df 178-292-13 df 178-284-03 d Clifford G. Raab George N. Garrett Anthony lvicexr*c 17148 Edgewater Lane 17163 Roundhill Dr. 17130 Courtney sane Huntington reach, CA 92649 'Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 9264 178-292-05 df 178-292-14 df 178-284-04 e Tdward A. Devlin Joseph A. Falcon Donald E. Michaelis 17156 Edgewater Lane 17155 Roundhill Dr. 8732 St. Andrews Ave. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Westminster, CA 92683 173-292-06 d£ 178-292-15 df 178-284-06 i Stuart H. Mann Patrick W. Sileo William E. Archer 4051 Figaro Circle 17147 Roundhill Dr. 17142 Courtney Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 'Huntington Beach, CA 9241 178-292-07 df_ 178-292-16 df 178-284-06 B. Joan Buttram Jack C. Smiley William M. Boldon 17172 Edgewater Lane 17139 Roundhill Dr. 5 Redwood Drive Huntington .Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Chappaqua, N.Y. 10514 i 178-29-2-08 df 178-292-17 df 178-284-07 Ernest R. `Williams W. W. Prestid e Larry D. .Tones P.O. Box 5031 17131 Roundhill Dr. 17158 Courtney Lane Hacienda Heights, CA 91745 Huntington Beach, CA 92.649 Huntington Beach, CA 9264 178-292-09 df_ 178-292-18 df 17$-284-Q8 Joseph L. Schwartz Theodore C. Patten Charles C. Bennett 17188 Edgewater Lane 17127 Roundhill Dr. 17164 Courtney Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 9264 178-292-10 df 3.78-292-19 df 178-284-09 H;rian M. Moriarty Leonard C. Wood Jack W. Winds 17187 Roundhill Dr. 17123 Roundhill Dr. 17170 Courtney Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 9264 173-292-11 cif 178-285-01 df 178-284-10 Henry R. Stidum George A. Armstrong Francis B. Geroge 17179 Roundhill Dr. 16562 Cotuit Circle 17178 Courtney Lane Huuntington Leach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 926A 178-292-12 df 178-285-03-04 df 178-284-11 Jobs&pt M. Butts James R. Doeman 17171 Roundhill Dr. CITY OF 'HUNT]CPJrTON BEACH 17186 Courtney Lane HlunincTton Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 926, 178-292-13 df George N. Garrett 17 3i 3 Round Occupant Occupant Occupant 4U53 Aladdin Drive 4089 Aladdin Drive 3962 Aladdin Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 Occupant Occupant Occupant 4057 Aladdin Drive 4093 Aladdin Drive 3966 Aladdin Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 Occupant Occupant Occupant 4061 Aladdin Drive 4097 Aladdin Drive 3970 Aladdin Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 Occupant Occupant Occupant 4065 Aladdin Drive 4101 Aladdin Drive 3978 Aladdin Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 Occupant Occupant Occupant 4069 Aladdin Drive 4105 Aladdin Drive 3982 Aladdin Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 29649 92649 Occupant Occupant Occupant 4073 Aladdin Drive 4109 Aladdin Drive 3986 Aladdin Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 292649 92649 Occupant Occupant Occupant 4077 Aladdin Drive 3950 Aladdin Drive 3990 Aladdin Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 Occupant Occupant Occupant 4081 Aladdin Drive 3954 Aladdin Drive 3994 Aladdin Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 Occupant Occupant Occupant 4085 Aladdin Drive 3958 Aladdin Drive 3998 Aladdin Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Bead; Calif 92649 92649 92649 � T Bolsa Chica Area Occupant Occupant Occupant 3941 Aladdin Drive 3977 Aladdin Drive 4013 Aladdin Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 Occupant Occupant Occupant 3945 Aladdin Drive 3981 Aladdin Drive 4021 Aladdin Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 Occu ant Occupant Occupant P 3949 Aladdin Drive 3985 Aladdin Drive 4025 Aladdin Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 Occupant Occupant Occupant Occupant 3989 Aladdin Drive 4029 Aladdin Drive 3953 Aladdin Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 Occupant Occupant Occupant 3957 Aladdin Drive 3993 Aladdin Drive 4033 Aladdin Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 Occupant Occupant Occupant 3961 Aladdin Drive 3997 Aladdin Drive 4037 Aladdin Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 Occupant Occupant Occupant 3965 Aladdin Drive 4001 Aladdin Drive 4041 Aladdin Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif , 92640 92649 92649 Occupant Occupant Occupant i 3969 Aladdin Drive 4005 Aladdin Drive 4045 Aladdin Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calik 92649 92649 92649 r Occupant Occupant Occupant 3973 Aladdin Drive 4009 Aladdin Drive 4049 Aladdin Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 159-071-06 159-071-13 159-072-09 Dept of Vets Affairs of Robert G Schwing Daniel A Niedringhaus State of California 6351 Newbury Drive 6331 Glenfox Drive Arthur F Collins Jr Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Cal 6271 Newbury Drive 92647 92647 Huntington Beach, Calif 159-071-14 159-072-10 92647 Dennis A MacArthur Paul S Larkin 6361 Newbury Drive 6361 Glenfox Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Cal 92647 92647 159-071-07 159-072-02 159-072-11 Steven Paczko Wiliiam J Green Dale B Hagey P.O. Box 2329 Joan Green 6351 Glenfox Drive Huntington Beach, Calif 17301 Beach B*vd Suite 1 Huntington Beach, Cal 92647 Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 159-07108 159-072-03 159-072-12 Donald J Zander John W Stafford Brian C Cowie 6291 Newbury Drive 6312 Newbury Drive 6341 Glenfox Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Cal 92647 92647 92647 159-071-09 159-072-04 159-072-13 Thianthong Kompor Ronald E Beard Daniel A Niedringhau-s 6301 Newbury Drive 6332 Newbury Drive 6331 Glenfox Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Ca'j- 92647 92647 92647 159-071-10 159-072-05 159-072-14 Bruce L Meston Gertrude W Teo Randolph M Papke 6311 Newbury Drive 6342 Newbury Drive 6311 Glenfox Drive Huntington Bdach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Cal: 92647 92647 92647 159-071-11 159-072-06 159-072-15 Dept of Vets Affairs of Curtis J Chivers Lester C Brown State of California 6352 Newbury Drive 6301 Glenfox Drive Ronald L Nolan Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach* Cal, 6331 Newbury Drive 92647 92647 Huntington Beach, Calif 159-072-07 159-072-16 92647 Larry G Munro Jakc L Osteen 6362 Newbury Drive 6291 Glenfox Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Cal, 92647 92647 159-071-12 159-072-08 159-073-01 Thomas L Finken Herbert S Arakaki Joseph A La Monica Sr 6341 Newbury Drive 6372 Newbury Drive 6222 Newbury Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Cali 92647 92647 92647 159-085-02 159-084-08 H James Roberts ERml v King 18091 Brentwell Circle 18111 Lakepoint Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 159-085-11 92647 159-085-03 Glen H Moeller 159-084-05 Brian J Ellerbroek 18122 Fieldbury Lane l 18101 Brentwell Circe William A Edwards Jr Huntington Beach, Calif 9,.2 6 4 7 18111 Lakepoint Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 159=085-12 92647 William C Miesch 159-085-04 18112 Fieldbury Lane 159-084-06 Paul H Jackle Huntington Beach, Calif Signal Landmark Inc 6702 Lawn Haven Drive 92647 17390 Sky Park Circle Huntington Beach, Calif Irvine, Calif 92648 159-085-13 92707 Charles H Manley 159-085-05 18102 Fieldbury Lane 159-084-10 Leroy T Stickel Huntington Beach, Calif Talmadge A Burks 18121 Brentwell Circle 92647 18152 Brentwell Circle Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 159-085-14 92647 Jefferson Y Yang 159-085-06 18092 Fieldbury Lane 159-084-11 Clayton W Ahrens Huntington Beach, Calif Harry W Madosky 18131 Brentwell Circle 92647 18142 Brentwell Circle Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 159-071-01 92647 Leslei L Skelly 159-085-07 6211 Newbury Drive 1590084-12 Richard A Buccola Huntington Beach, Calif Michael A Butala 18141 Brentwell Circle 92647 18132 Brentwell Circle Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 159-071-02 92647 Ger&&d W Hatley 159-085-08 6221 Newbury Drive 159-084-13 Stave A 0 Keefe Huntington Beach, Calif David T Binkley 18151 Brentwell Circle 92647 18122 Brentwell Circle Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 159-071-03 92647 Ronald Fox 159-085-09 6231 Newbury Drive 159-084-14 Thomas P Hughes Huntington Beach, Calif Ronald T Wootton 18152 Fieldbury Lane 92647 18112 Brentwell Circle Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 159-071-04 92648 6241 Newbury Drive 159-085-01 159-085-10 Huntington Beach, Calif David L Brinton Gerald D Baker 92647 18081 Brentwell Circle 18132 Fieldbury Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 92648 159-071-05 Gordon L Carpenter 6251 Newbury Drive i Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 2� 110-066-43 110-045-26 110-045-35 Ronald L Hagman Douglas New Ruth D Attwater 10126 Wisner Avenue 4143 Devon Circle 13922 Lipkin Dr Mission Hills, Calif Cypress, Calif Westminster, Calif 91340 90630 92693 110-046-44 110-045-27 110-045-36 Sarah 0 Martineau Gary K Coon Jeffrey L Beck 209 Baltimore Avenue 20121 S Gridley Rd 450 E Bixby Rd Huntington Beach, Calif Cerritos, Calif Long Beach, Calif 92648 90701 90807 110-046-46 110-045-28 110-045-37 Walter Swift Donna D Coon Arno F H Kohler 4771 Los Patos Dr 606 E 6th Street Apt is 14702 Adams Street Huntington Beach, Calif Corona, Calif Midway City, Calif 92649 91720 92655 110-046-47 110-045-29 110-045-38 Robert M Armstrong Clifton W Reed Margaret T Concolino 6461 Camille Drive 1508 N Valley St 3855 Radnor Ave Huntington. Beach, Calif Burbank, Calif Long Beach, Calif 92647 91505 90803 110-045-21 110-045-30 110-045-39 Corinne E Williams* Myron D Hamm Stanley A Crna 360 W Ocean Blvd. #304 Leota B Patterson Exec 16434 Chicago Ave Long Beach, Calif 777 E Valley Blvd. #57 Bellflower, Calif 90802 Alhambra, Calif 90706 91ROI 110-045-22 110-045-31 110-045-40 Lillian R Anderson Richard M Riedman Justin D Bartlow Star Rt Box 35 10604 Noakes Rd 1880 College Circle Inyokern, Calif La Mesa, Calif Long Beach, Calif 93527 92041 90815 110-045-23 110-045-32 110-045-41 Jane Mazzotta Frank A Richmond Arthur W Arlin 12908 Wilshire Rd 18163 Beach Blvd Don H Thatcher 44hittier, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 32422 Angeles Forest Hwy 90602 92648 Palmdale, Calif 93550 110-045-24 110-045-33 110-045-42 Mary Schuesler Irma Colvin Theodore H Weber 16121 Marjan Lane P.O. Box 61 5322 Kenilworth Drive . Huntington Beach, Calif Rough and Ready, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 95975 92649 110-045-25 110-045-34 110-051-05 George A Strempel Robert A Schoemaker The Cambridge 5872 Pavo Street A Reymond Martin 2035 E Ball Rd Long Beach, Calif 2137 Eucalyptus Ave Anaheim, Calif 90808 Long Beach, Calif 90806 92806 90806 110-O3'G-20 110-036-33 110-046-31 Daniel J Kemp Harry E Elliott Herbert F Bramley 17141 Lynn Street 17438 Coke Avenue 4102 Pine Avenue Huntington Beach, Calif Bellflower, Calif Long Beach, Calif 92649 90706 90807 110-036-22 110-036-35 110-046-32 Bardanal Engineering Co. Eileen M Sies Jacqueline F Miller 11109 S Santa Gertrude Ave W O Dickenson 911 Electric Avenue Whittier, Calif 35165 Ave E Seal Beach, Calif 90604 Yucaipa, Calif 92399 90740 ARAR21 110-036-24 110-036-37 110-046-33 Harry Ii Iiargrave , Rt 1 Marvin C Sies Douglas New Alta Lomb, California 17171 Bolsa Chica Apt 121 4143 Devon Circle 91701 Huntington Beach, Calif Cypress, Calif 92649 9063.0 110-036-25 110-046-25 110-046-34 Charles R McComb Stephen Olah Arthur L Tillesen 21851 Newland Street 321 Geneva St Apt 12 7742 Wonderland Blvd. Space 247 Glendale, Calif Reddings, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 91206 96001 110-036-27 110-046-26 110-046-37 Robert W Crain George A Strempel Justin D Bartlow 6451 Sundance Circle 5872 Pavo Street 1880 College Circle Huntington Beach, Calif Long Beach, Calif 90808 Long Beach, Calif 92647 90815 'ttiki:inmxjkx okx 110-036-28 MRx2:kjRiRxXHyx 110-046-88 Grace I Mason &XiXdXXx9U*i9x Donald DeBoer 505 Fair Oaks Ave Apt A 2A:Rfi2 Box 36 SRO. Pasadena , Calif Moorhead, Minn 91030 56560 110-036-29 110-046-27 110-046-39 Robert Elliott William F Noh Clarence N Nelson 12105 Hallwood Drive 122 Stein Way 6851 Roxanne Way E1 Monte, Calif Orinda, Calif Long Beach, Calif 91732 94563 90815 110-036030 110-046-28 110-046-41 N Vergie Elliott Eve Lemke Victor L Quennel Robert Elliott 1506 E 5th Street 5701 E 2nd Street 121U5 Iallwood Drive Long Beach, Calif Long Beach, Ealif El Monte,Calif 91732 90802 90803 110-036-31 110-046-29 110-046-42 842 S Bonnie Brae Street Sarah O Martineau Gary W Mills Los Angeles, Calif 209 Baltimore Ave 219 14th Street 90057 Huntington Beach, Calif Seal Beach, Calif 92648 90740 110-022-18 110-037-11 110-037-52 Edith D Knight Test F Merrill Frank H Green 9138 Larke Ellen Circle P.O. Box 4396 4621 Los Patos Ave Los Angeles, Calif 313 E Beach Ave Huntington Beach, Cali.! 90035 Inglewood, Calif 90302 92649 110-022-19 110-037-42 110-037-53 MeeD Specht Weldon 0 Cronkite George A Strempel 4603 Los Patos 1777 Bellflower Blvd 5872 Pavo Street Huntington Beach, Calif Long Beach, Calif Long Beach, Calif 92647 90815 90808 110-022-20 110-037-44 110-037-54 Perlin C Smith Richard M Riedman Robert X Hardesty 4062 Morning Star Drive 10604 Noakes Rd 309 E Magna Vista Ave Huntington Beach, Calif La Mesa, Calif Arcadia, Calif 92649 92041 91006 110-022-21 110-037-46 110-036-13 Brian G Wilson Donald DeBoer David Poppin 17172 Sandra Lee Lane P.O. Box 36 16692 Sims St 04 Huntington Beach, Calif Moorhead, Minn Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 56560 92649 110-022-22 110-037-47 110-036-14 Chester Osgood Jr Robert L DeFault Richard M Riedman P.O. Box 107 1389 Arrowhead Dr 10604 Noakes Rd Sunset Beach, Calif Placentia, Calif La Mesa, Calif 92041 90742 92670 110-022-23 110-037-48 110-036-15 Colleen Gaskey Transpac Petroleum Inc Clifford W Chapman Jr 17242 Sandra Lee Lane P.O. Box 5413 Joyce Holve Huntington Beach, Calif Tong Beach, Calif 21020 NE 78th Street 92649 90805 Redmond, Wash 98052 110-022-24 110-037-60 110-036-16 Ralph J Morrow Jr Thomas H Gripp Stephen B Smith P.O. Box 1495 17198 Suns Street 216 S Delano St 02 Avalon, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Ahaneim 90704 92649 , Calif 92804 110-037-99 1107037-50 110-036-18 Michael J Skibba Bernard L Wodd D P McDonnell 9891 Dragon Circle 17200 Sims Street 6301 Greenleaf Ave Huntington Beach , Calif Huntington Beigach,Cafif Whittier, Calif �Q046 92609 90601 110-037-40 110-037-51 110-036-19 Roger E Boucher Richard R Donner Marjorie W. Collins 16841 Lynn Street 433 S Piimrose Dr 396 25th Street Huntington Beach, Calif Anaheim, Calif San Bernardino, Calif 92649 92804 92405 BOLSA CHICA AREDA D2 i July 29, 1976 178-291-01 df 178-291-10 df 178-291-19 John E. Swain Peter H. Young Neal Wells 17013 Edgewater Lane 17057 Edgewater Lane 17109 Edgewater Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92E 178-2.91-02 df 178-291-11 df 178-291-20 William Ii. Thompson Dick Kagasoff Henry E. Hartge + 17017 Edgewater Lane 17065 Edgewater Lane 17121 Edgewater Lane IIuntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92 i 187-291-03 df 178-291-12 df 178-291-21 j Neland E. Sprik Rob ert P. Calhoun Kbn Kanter 17019 Edgewater Lane 17069 Edgewater Lane 17131 Edgewater Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92c 179-291-04 df 178-291-13 df 178-291-22 Donald W. Altig Lyn W. Bowling William M. Lansdale Edgewater Lane 17073 Edgewater Lane 17141 Edgewater Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92.649 Huntington Beach, CA 2264.9 Huntington Beach, CA 9; 178-29+-05 cif 178-291-14 df 173-291-23 I Paul L. Sullivan Thelma W. Perkins Huntington Harbour Corp 17027 Edgewater Lane 17077 Edgewater Lane 4241 Warner Ave. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 9 178-291-06 df 178-291-15 df. 178-291-24 John A. De La Haye James V. Andrews FJB Holding Corporatiox ! 17033 Edgewater Lane 17081 Edgewater Lane 4151 Trumbull Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92.649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 9: c/o Joseph Bertoli 178-291-07 df 178-291-16 df 178-292.-01 Lyle IT. Cain Willard L. Sprague James R. Lytle j 17039 Edgewater Lane 17085 Edgewater Lane 1712.4 Edgewater Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 12649 IIuntington Beach, CA 178-291-08 df 178-291-17 df 178-292-02 Charles Foulger Donald L. Watson Jay S. Snelson 17045 Edgewater Lane 17091 Edgewater Lane 17132 Edgewater Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Brach, CA ! 178-291-09 d£ 178-2.91-18 df 178-292-03 Kelly Snow William B. Ogden Mari L. Webster 17051 Edgewater Lane 17099 Edgewater Lane 17140 Edgewater Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA .. � • f�le-�z AA-11 je*941oN- f no poSe D �615,9. Chica CITY OF HUnTInGTOn BEACH e� DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES • P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-5271 TO: City Council Attention: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator FROM: James W. Palin, Acting Planning Director DATE: March 14 , 1979w.. N SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR BOLSA CHICA �OT 0A4,M -------- ------ STATEMENT OF ISSUE: �N.y �tiL/T ------------------------------------------- On P4arch 5, 1979 the City Council determined to pursue a comprehensive plan for Bolsa Chica prior to prezoning in lieu of prezoning Bolsa Chica with the Limited Use District. The following analysis summarizes the impact of that decision on the City. ANALYSIS: The major impact of the decision to do a comprehensive plan prior to prezoning is the use of City Staff time and money to do a plan in an area where the County has been given the legal obligation to do a comprehensive plan by the Coastal Commission. Consequently the City' s planning effort will not produce a comprehensive plan with legal status . In fact, not only will the plan not have legal status, but the City will be responsible for all costs of developing such a plan whereas the County planning effort will be subsidized by the Coastal Commission. An additional impact of pursuing a comprehensive plan prior to prezoning is to effectively delay annexation beyond any point of hope that the Coastal Commission would give the responsibility for the Local Coastal Program in Bolsa Chica to the City. By the time the City were to annex after comp- letion of a comprehensive plan, the County will be well along in its LCP planning effort. Consequently, Coastal Commission commitment in terms of time and money to the County will be too great to overcome. L - +40 0 Comprehensive Plan fcBolsa Chica March 14, 1979 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: The following are possible alternative actions : 1) Pursue a comprehensive plan for Bolsa Chica prior to prezoning and annexation but with the understanding that the County LCP effort will take precedence and will be the plan approved by the. Coastal Commission and furthermore that cost incurred for the City planning effort are a city liability for which the Coastal Commission has no responsibility. 2) Do not pursue a comprehensive plan, rather wait until the County has completed the LCP for .Bolsa Chica, then prezone according to that plan prior to annexation. 3) Prezone Bolsa Chica, LUD, pursue annexation immediately in an attempt to acquire responsibility for the LCP. 10 -o a JWP/TM/dc ,YJ � "' z CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 76-154 COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION 1 HUNTINGTON BEACH ID�' " v l�E�ti'�tD 'w j0h,,0 To The Honorable Mayor and From Richard A. Harlow City Council Members Acting City Administrator Subject BOISA CHICA PLANNING Date September 29, 1976 Attached is a letter from Signal Bolsa Corporation requesting that the City Council take appropriate action to assure them that the City will be pursuing, the adoption of a General Plan for the Bolsa Chica area. As a result of recent action, the Council apparently desires to proceed with the planning of Bolsa Chica. The Planning Department will place it as a high priority project. The Planning Department will be submitting alternative ways to accomplish this task. RECOMMENDATION Place the General Plan for Bolsa Chica as a high priority item and to diligently pursue the adoption thereof. Re M ctfully submitted, AL, R' chard A. Harlow Acting City Administrator RAH:bb Attachment I -w SIGNAL BOLSA CORPORATION 17890 Skypark Circle, Irvine, California 92-782- Telephone: (714) 979-6900 92714 September 23 , 1976 Honorable City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 No. Main Street D Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ( 6 Attention: City Clerk CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Gentlemen: CITY COUNCIL OFFICE Signal Bolsa Corporation, the major land owner within the proposed Bolsa Chica annexation area , is concerned that the substantial amount of testimony and discussion concern- ing this annexation may tend to cloud the basic premise under which Signal Bolsa decided to not oppose such an annexation. As a result of meetings of the Bolsa Chica Annexation Committee, it became obvious that this annexation was the most appropriate method to provide revenues sufficient to enable the early preparation, by the City, of a general plan for Bolsa Chica . Based upon the understanding that such planning would proceed in a timely fashion, Signal Bolsa determined not to appose the annexation of the Bolsa Chica area under its control. It is respectfully requested that the City Council take some appropriate action, formal or informal, to assure us that it is the intent of the City to diligently pursue ' the preparation and adoption of a general plan for the Bolsa Chica area . Very truly yours SIGNAL BOLSA CORPORATION By George JDZStr"ingerZ5�V�itce President pc : Edward Sellich Huntington Beach Planning Dept. T.tl7id:�.'I;1 ".�(�C1 12rs:•:;', C"ri.'.`:;:3i1? (_�1' C,Oi,;i'7iS:i;;; R1.3:�L'J ION 1S76 - i WKBRRAS: tM annoxmisn of the Bolsa Chic& propertleG into the City of Hmntingt" $each at this tiiee iUs be AM Mom>n "td, fog' economic TeaSons, by the Chamber of CowneKS Resolution No. 1976 - 5, daktG4 Tuna 21 , 19 7 6; *toot, WHEREAS: prezonin of, the rsppmvimately 1 ,600acres is.a necessary rotated activity; anal WHERTAS: the Ptannin Commission his affivved x Plan spelled out in Tone Case No. 76-2-', compotihle ft i►ho Genwai Plan of the Clt'f; THMPORE BE It RSSOLVBD.VHAT ; #ha Hun*-inj+a, 'Beach Chamber of Commerce doer hereby urge the City Council to approve }his plan to evpedi.l:i and conSuw+ate the Werly ath>i e-cation of these properil"' Pmased and adoPted this 7th day of Sept&nber; 1076. �i �---- I i I I i v� Y June 21, 1976 HUNTINGTON BEACH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE RESOLUTION # 1976 e 5 WHEREAS, the Bolsa Chica remaining 1500 acres (approximately) is in the City of Huntington Beach, Influence Area, pre-assigned for annexation, surrounded on three sides by that city.and the ocean on the fourth side; and WHEREAS, the Bolsa Chica represents a potential high economic factor to the city as a marina-type homes development, similar to Huntington Harbour; and WHEREAS, its development is the key to a new channel outlet to the sea; and WHEREAS, an immediate economic advantage of oil revenues to the city will result; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors does commend the City Council°s action in voting to move ahead with the actions necessary to annex the property into the city. Passed and adopted this 1 day of June, 1976 SIGNED: r G. Darrell E. Ward, President i Cy I Ralph Kiser, Ex cutive Manager pig HUNTINGTON BEACH CHAMBER of COMMERCE18582 BEACH BOULEVARD,SUITE 224 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92648 TELEPHONE(714)962-6661 HUNTINGTON BEACH July 7 , 1977 OFFICERS President WILLIAM S. PETERSON Bank of America First vice President TO: Mayor Ron Pattinson and City Council by JACK FE:EHAN 4owthein Calif.Gas Co. FROM: Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors 5ecnnd Vice President JERRY SHEA Huntington Beach Co. Treasurer WILLIAM COMP'TON RE: .Annexation of the Bolsa Chica Sourbern Calif. Edison Co. Executive Manager RALPH KISER 011RECTORS: Attention is respectfully called to our formal Resolutions of JEROME M. BAME Attorney at Law June 21 , 1976 and September 7, 1976, urging .that the City proceed ANITA BELSITO 'Womcn's Division President with annexation of the remaining Bolsa Chica acreage; copies at- AIITEN CHAMBERS Crocker National Bank WALT CLEVELAND tached. McDonnell Douglas JIM DE GUELLE Subsequent news and facts developed in this connection DSc Guelle&`ions(;lass(b. JIM FOXX Foxx Incveopment Co. causes us to recommend again that you proceed; and that immediate DAVEGAROFALO Union Carbide RICHARDGRUNDY annexation moves be completed. Ilunnokton Ititercommu'nity Hospital ORVILLE HANSON Aminoil, U,S.A,Inc. JACK R. HIGLEY 1111itcd Caldorna Bank S'I'EVE HOLDEN South Simms Insurance AL KLINGENSMITH Attorney at I.aw JIM LARK IN \=--- Red Carper Real Estate Ralp Kiser LEONARD LINDBORG Executive Manager Lions Lnroted, Inc. 1SA SMASHEY R(SGERs(o,atit Dcvelopmrnt(it. By authority of the Board of Directors JOYCE ROLLINGS Western Mutual Escrow R(X;ER D. SLATES Scacliff Realty R11// hg ROBE'RT TERRY Terry Buick RICHARD TOM 1'oat & Trn»kter Architects,AIA DON WALTER Pacific City Bank DARRELL E,WARD Pacific View Memorial Park STANLEY A. YOUNG Huntington Brach Co. HUNTINGTON BEACH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE (Proposed) RESOLUTION #1977-8 BOLSA CHICA ANNEXATION WHEREAS, the natural balance of all life systems is important to each of us and we understand that the 300-500 acres of Bolsa Chica which is already under State control as a marine and wildlife sanctuary is adequate to protect and ensure the continuation of the marine life cycle to which Bolsa Chica contributes so greatly; and WHEREAS, the remaining portion of Bolsa Chica is of extreme importance to each citizen of Huntington Beach as one of the last remaining areas which, when proper- ly planned and developed,* will greatly contribute substantial tax revenues to our city; effectively reduce the need to increase our present taxes and thereby be of great benefit to each resident of Huntington Beach. NOW THEREFORE, the Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce reiterates its pre- vious Resolutions that the City of Huntington Beach should proceed at once to annex Bolsa Chica thereby receiving additional oil tax revenue immediately and furthermore the Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce recommends and urges tha the proper planning for the development of Bolsa Chica as a marine and marina- oriented development be done at an early date so that the City and each resident may look forward to not only an attractive water-oriented development and a physical asset to the City, but even more, can look forward to the day when the Bolsa Chica property becomes an important contribution to City tax revenues to the ultimate benefit and savings of each Huntington Beach resident. Passed and adopted this day of July, 1977 . William Peterson Ralph Kiser President Executive Manager * + f DATE : .April 5, 1976 TO: Huntington Beach City Council FROM: Henry H. Duke, Chairman, Bolsa Chica Study Committee 1 _ The final response of the Bolsa Chica Study Committee to the City Council was prepared Wednesday, March 31 , 1976. As per the decision of the Committee on March 17th, the response is now being reviewed by the Companies, Groups and Organizations represented on the Bolsa Chica. Study Committee. The Committee will meet again on April 21st Pnd at that time will officially vote to present the final response to the Council. September- 7, 1J9�76Q '�/ HUNTINGTON BEACH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE RESOLUTION # 1976 - 7 WHEREAS: the annexation of the Bolsa Chica properties into the City of Huntington Beach at this time has been recommended, for economic reasons, by the Chamber of Commerce Resolution No. 1976 - 5, dated June 21, 1976; and, WHEREAS: prezoning of the approximately 1 ,600 acres is a necessary related activity; and WHEREAS: the Planning Commission has approved a plan spelled out in Zone Case No. 76-20, compatible to the General Plan of the City; - . THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ; the Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce does hereby urge the City Council to approve this plan to expedite and consumate the orderly annexation of these properties. Passed and adopted this 7th day of September, 1976. Da rell E. Wa .d, President Ralph Kiser, Executive.Manager ° HUNTING-I-ON BEACH UNION S HIGH SCHOOL-- )ISTRICT 5201 bolsF `'ve. (714)898-6711 hunt ington beach,ca. 92647 Frank J. Abbott, ED.D. Superintendent of Schools HUNT INGTON BEACH•WESIMINSTER• MARINA. FOUNTAIN VALLEY. EDISON.WINTERSOURG •OCEAN VIEW.EVENING HIGH SCHOOL-ADULT SCHOOI. September 2, 1976 Mr. James W. Palin, Secretary Environmental Review Board P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Balsa Chica Annexation EIR Dear Mr. Pal in: On behalf of the 20,000 high school students currently being crowded into five high schools, we strongly object to the following aspects of EIR 76-3, Balsa. Chica annexation. Page 3 A "transitional zoning" could result in development which ranges from 500 to 3,000 new stu- dents and, therefore, the study does not provide any meaningful EIR school service data. Page 27 Ocean View High. School will not eliminate even our current overcrowding, much less mitigate any of Balsa Chica's new student growth potential . Page 31 Educating, .transporting and housing from 500 to 3,000 new high school students cannot be ac- and 34 complished without any expenditures! In addition to the above specific objections, it is a matter of grave concern to us that at no time prior to the EIR draft were any members of the District staff consulted regarding either numbers of potential stu- dents that could drastically affect housing in our District, or the fiscal cost impact of educating this ad- ditional population. Prior to any such massive rezoning of agricultural/industrial land to any residential uses, the City should reconsider requiring developer allocation of either real estate or funds to the critical high school housing need adversely impacted by this rezoning. For several years, San Diego City has been able to obtain de- veloper compliance (even Christiana Oil of Huntington Harbour) with this very modest pre-development requirement. We hereby request an opportunity to review with your Board the further ramifications of this annexation. Please let us know when such an opportunity will be made available. Sincere Iy, Board of Tr, stees Mrs. Helen E. Ditte, President Don MacAllister, Vice President ! - Ralph H. Bauer, Ph. D., Clerk i i ev Mrs. Zita I. V�essa, Alt. Clerk �--- Ik: Board of Trustees Ron Shenkman a Robert A. Knox wRalph H. Bauer,Ph.D.■ Helen E. Ditte ® Don MacAllister Vice Presideni President Clerk 4 (ITY OF HunnGTon BEAN ® P.O. BOX 190, CALIFORNIA 92648 fi PLANNING DEPT. (714) 536-5 716 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Planning Department DATE: April 13 , 1976 ATTN: David D. Rowlands, City Administrator RE: ANNEXATION REQUEST. APPROXIMATELY 41 ACRES SOUTHWESTERLY OF SLATER AVENUE AND GRAHAM STREET. Transmitted herewith is a request submitted by W. R. Grace Properties, Inc. to annex approximately 41 acres of land generally located southwesterly of Slater Avenue and Graham Street. Specifi- cally, subject property is located immediately south of Tract 8893 and 8894 , currently under development as a single family tract. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The subject property is one of several included within the unin- corporated area of the Bolsa Chica. The Bolsa Chica Study Com- mittee is currently reviewing various issues relating to the subject of annexation, however, a formal position has not yet been completed as of this date. This property has been included in the recommended Coastal Property Acquisition List by the California Coastal Zone Conservation Com- mission. The Coastal Plan, currently before the California Legis- lature, designates future use of the property to remain as open space. Grace Properties has expressed their intention to develop the subject property in a similar manner as the northerly residential tract if annexation were successful. The attached subdivision map was in- cluded for information purposes when Tentative Tract Map 8630 pertaining to the above mentioned final tracts was approved. The layout conceptually demonstrates how the subject property would be developed. The subject tracts while developed as a low density single family residential subdivision is currently zoned R2 (5 . 5) medium density, 5. 5 units per gross acre. In their request for annexation, Grace Properties has requested that the subject property be zoned Rl. Respectfull submitted, chard A. Ha low, Dir or Planning & Environmen al Resources RAH:DE:gc / W. R. GRACE PROPERTIES, INC. 4 4 6 3 BIRCH STREET NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. 92660 TELEPHONE (714) -540-1620 SUBSIDIARY OF (213) -623-6590 (213) -623-6574 W. R. GRACE & CO. March 31 , 1976 HUN7-INGTON SEACW Mr. Dick Harlow PLANNING DEP-r Director of Planning City of Huntington Beach APR 2 2000 Main Street ,��6 Huntington Beach, California 92648 p �utttirt �® Box 1 9C' Re: Approximately 41 Acres Located Adjacent 9tOAch. CAg2,648 to Existing Subdivision - Tract 8894 Dear Dick: It is W. R. Grace Properties , Inc. 's (formerly known as Kendall Development Co. , Inc. ) desire to have our existing 41 acres which is described in Exhibit "A" annexed to the City of Huntington Beach as expeditiously as possible. We would request that zoning on said property be R-1 to allow us to develop it in a similar manner as our existing Tract 8893 and 8894. W. R. Grace Properties , Inc. feels very strongly that this particular 41 acres is a natural extension of our current subdivision, Tracts 8893 and 8894. This is borne out by the fact that the Planning Commission in approving the tentative map for 8630 required that the future extensions of the street systems into this 41 acres be shown on the tentative map. A copy of said map is included for your review. We recognize that the Bolsa Chica Annexation Study Committee is currently reviewing the properties in which property owners have requested annexation to the City of Huntington Beach. W. R. Grace Properties , Inc. would welcome the opportunity to make a presentation before this committee, staff, Planning Commission and/or City Council if you feel this would be appropriate in order to make our position known and to clarify the issue. Very truly yours , W. R. GRACE PROPERTIES, INC. John 4LDowney Director of Planning JLD:sep cc: Bolsa Chica Study Committee Henry Duke CALIFORNIA STATE CONTRACTORS LICENSE NO. 307771 IU lbbb C t1L-/31 /\merwan Lana i me i-vssocianon t-marl I U]",Y-ia,IJ v 11,"1", CWwr's Policy Foim U-1970 or California Land Title Associalioil Standard Coverage Policy--1973 S�B-e ule C • ......,.�r�.t�R-_.a:.. -cs��,. —^^�.*•�sx•:�a-=- �sema��-re�*-.'P"c The land referred to in this policy is described as follows: f-'/-'RCZ-1_ 1 : THAT PORTION 1C E OF `i"F'i SQUTh} ,!Fw,'T QU,AE:.T ER OFSECTIf.N 28t TOW'NSHI P 5 Sti:'UT.Hp RANGE 11 11,1E`.;T, IN T?-2. €"IXICHO LA BO'LSA ChiaCA, CITY OF IiUT.F T I";GTCt _ i1x= °.Clip CtyIJ T Y i,F" 0R,'V'4(;Er >T,'dF" _ OF C� LI F` :�Fc"F1,°!p jar E'�^ 1-1AP IN B01� K 51 E'AGZ 13 OF M r S UE.'LLAMFOUS 1-1L PS IN T-}-i" OFFICE ICE OF THE. C4` WN Y Rk-'_ .{' 1eW.'_R OF SAID C UAJ.14 °T'Y. A'6 TF`1F WESYERLY C:3>:;' ': .=c OF TRACT ?1410. 7G341 AS iiii3k Ml ON MAP WE7U),;DED IN' BO:=K 330 PAGES 26 TY 4':r:JG,"1 29 OF SAID i-'iFs— Ci:_LLAN'EGUS MAPS; TiH IC ALO", G TL}F OF THE- N€-Z-fFi- ,I 1_1, or SP,113 TRACT :w'0. 7634.0 50U N..I 540 491 05"' 1vi":�:T F::. 'kP TH;Y'MCf. f�1C3r)rF 47v 1$ r 30rt ,err-" 531 ,00 F,"---"-T"; THUNCF 570 016 ' 00" 11Lj,2.36 FLET'j ;ice} C NORTH 400 0101 00"' 4°1EST 340. 00 f= _1' TO T'}iw. SCtt d'Ii _..':S EZL'r [-IS< ' OF THF 011"'A G CCU TY FLIOaxD CO` TR:;.tL P,1"ST,'PkCT. RIGI-}r-,�•;,}_«.WAYp AS E'r'RCEL C5--101 IN,, Dr--=, 3 r;. CPDF—E� 1. , t'.':3K 719I f"AGir 748 "vF OFFICIAL .:CORDS, IN T'�yyiE 0FFWC'_. 01": 251AID F`C;4:-"RDEHR; THH' -,`.CF SAID Oi1YHEA5T`:. .LY 6 i 4(3 14 .ST (.)t)p .Ot3 C€ :t:T TC: THE �°va-+' �T'F�;:. OF Ts'.._. 7)0UT'!-}t•1.w5`E°"" 'LY LPN'E" C}r SAID TRACT N0. 7 634; TFY} 4,y C�pg POINT U tr', ` G .'E 1t "'r SCUT}: et5" 351 11`' _AST 1004063 THE G. Y.C"PT ALL OlLp GAS,, HYDRC`:CARBMNS AND 4 TN'FE':1,LS OF A=VI7RY i:.INo q H{, y� €•t ';t {1i.. R `rt� SUCH WHICH t Cy.p „ `:E. 1P� r� ` h-` C� ker.,, ` !'.+'.�;� CI �Y'9�.r��t�6 � 'C fi Sa �,}t� G••{E��. ♦ !t't''ii t.! .r.".1..F 41�f k11-1�L F i�'�:��Y 1 f���LJ�./C L�'i i �'e}i i SAID L.AtiDS T°C;'i ..'T!i3 P 111d�`yF-H Ty"`Fg1E R I;t`yI'( tTO .-X 21AC°ff e E�E' SAMEryF�=°r,a�1`4 �,LL.. {(�xE.. SP.1E% LA,"I.)ap. Ui qd E'ii �' C, .iIt, HT T() USE- OF A"UY `OR [ UD'N 113F A IOVE A E'L4.4 00 f-=="I' BELOV. 'E'Fi.�E` SURF=,AC=? "DF SUCH LANDS i"'`� THE P4 +::1x 11GT a. ''� OFIi; 1'Y9`3vF�6F_r,p r�CT t,;1T"! T:ir` P�:RPETU,�,,L :SIGHT OF :t"N0 A DEPTH ;F< FIVE (5001) r-_-, T BE'Ll'I"'ATH THE .LJQ,'FAC':. C F' .�LL. t F" �iUC}! �..�-"ID FOR `H't-i F'llRsr OSE O {�t5 I1.( tl NT O, U =�L7}' 1; r;.rD�y T ify2,.<t �F T i k � F- a.> x T"ri'7 f U)� , C+:f:�.r tal- L.✓t�"i,.:l': F.. `:u�Djp T'iCiG 5. 2"i"}e.;'', WITH, THE' 'R•I�7H TO POOL .'zAV) DIGI-ITS T.ND IF''TER`� STS IN' SAID U%11"i 1'.'I a?1 :KIGHTS AiM TNT k`,":3T"5 IN osl[- ER LAIrIDS; Si 1 D R II H ., A�,:'!) c t'V u..\fiE'S `, It--y� `.'AID L�T:�?'ID SHALL 1K:t�C.UDL'. Al L �t.;3 p� ..�f�5 r• S'r'"r'�e�'u iG .'�.1::1-1 .t? E'i i'Ll '1;' d� i,)i:.t'-'�H OF F 3 v_`:" }iU: t r�:.._-D ��10 0�} �" ��. T t-'i7,•?n.•`-`t T g }:. Sf.3P{}=?,C,.. i. 1" :.���1 r/ L.-'�`i,}v �J "`t;`.'., {"r r }� W g t' �^ }=`..E'•�n E� ;°; 'tf` �xr i�i3+� O f , r C E .) .,i'.1-Y C.a is 6:'i L ?�i tl �.`: V': tl k i TO TH'r-. FULL ;uJ1,CIS C:F SAID C-WC :'PTCD ?YG;..}TS .`N't', t'!IALL I5•fCLUL1 T}i r :tIGi,i7" 'F0 DR.1LLp (, 'PE ��'�T' g I'ATP; T'a`�.�:N �'.�:f•':LIR .AND R``-" 'L0`:C_:p TU : 6"L, Cis _ HOLES, I34.`RZ.3 A" 1) 7LL` Uv C, SAID L Ai,11ti s y OR .tl \ 1 .+`,ry rr , ;!4 5 J rJ• ..q q r hC i yr:_ THROUGH 0T 0FR Lf's .�)S Ff R THE l"U";t? 'A�S OF :,'_c1`V ,iG 0 F._, �rt.,g i� l�f '..i h, r:pY6 r x = 'S -1� h. ^cFROM u !" , �O i„'y �r'�S �, ,{e- .4v :'.? QE..si i:`�Il� L� • +�:f:1.3 :?;� -1.Lr1-t C) ti.. L.stl'1 ..a Ga',} ;�:�-F :s`U.. p N',-a�;Cd:._. ter' 1 g I'.. �, FOR, THE PU1,P0,`.S;a5 OF ;U;;S! D'*: iNCE CONTPOL R PRZ, V4:'NT"If.`N OF SALT 1./,?1.L.`EER q 4 f: 4 r:; E.. ,C_- p .r: t "v ^" r:rt•"e ,^�1 1.,. lill"Y U.:ICNI, MESC::I!',LD AS I.,:,. It�t"7 _ XC F 3 `D IN (?.__:t FR'011`1 SIG,iAL P:~OPE TU]S, - INC. , A CALIF'CR,11>-•. C0!ZP0RATYE1'.'3p TO SIG!,i !L R)OLSA . ak ./ L L. ��a� ,aaA CALIF ,N A COO ORATILp � C04"!PANY, r^ D L>~V;,"AR C+`.f:POR—ATION, AUGUST 9, 1973, a`-•'ND RECf•:+e MED AUGUST 17, 1r73 I;,,.} 110 10855 PAGE 34-fip OF CIFFICIAL RFEC:>I:Mi. EXHIBIT 11A" 540549, 5CHED. C PAGE 2 PARCEL 2: THOSE PORTIONS OF SECTAUNS 28 AND 33, TOWNSHIP 5 :°it3faTHO RANGE 11 WEST, kN T P CITY OF MUNTINGTON BEACHp COUNTY OF ORt=YG ., S'TATC OF CAL.IFORNIAP AS SHOWN UN A MAP FILED IN BOOK 92 PAGES 19 Tt-g;...OUGi 28 XNCLU`',I` E OF RECORDS OF SURVEYp IN THE DF FIC,S OF THE COU`.'T•Y RE— CORDER r OF SAID COUNTY; DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNIkG AT THE SOUI'r ERLY CiR<^ai::.? Or TRACT MO. 7634, ASnSh OWM : W r RECORDED r O 0 PAGES 2 d t H 29 OF 1 iI C LLe=`�` EOUS P-1i�,q:l ��,�: vy�:+r�i•..t, IfCLy (�•:�.�.fti.�q�j.�i .r fs���.�;...a s {�) �k�i ,`',C J:a MAPS, IM 8H OFFICE rl SAID RECORDER; THENCE ^. r�.� � E SOUTH— WESTERLY $ � a r ..1.)." it-! i _ .j_- ALONG it rlt. LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 7C 34, r)OP TH 40- 371 02" .,4`iaST �`�.r''C" .AN ANG,t .. POINT THEREIN, r=:3'P �;OPTH �°4fT 35 ' 11" EST 1588. 35rFE L TO THE WESTERLY CORNER 3F SAID TRACT; .T.},FMCE ALCMKG THE PROLONGATION O TH7 ,,,r;RT•;SUZ`:=TERLY LI,r..., OF SAID TRACT, S U F 540 491 05" y,EST 360 .00 f=,,:ET; ;'s3.~.W SOUTH 351 10 ' 55tz EAST 300.OD FEET; THENCE NCE SOUTH 32" 13' 43" EAST 1396 .60 FEET; 'THENCE NORTH 510 47 ' 30 y EAST 315 .00 FEET;� THENCE NORTH 420 191 4511 �f 43n.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF U ulUNIMC. EXCEPT ALL }IL, GAS, HYDRROCARBO2uS Ae,D MINERALS OF .aVE Y KIND AND CHARACTER IN OR. UNDER AND SUCH WHICH MAY BE !")^;.DUCCeD FROM SAID 1014DS 'I"tiC;-.-r•HER WITH THE RIGHT O EXTRACT THE SAVE FROM, A?LL.. Td iE SAID L MO , OUT WITH N0 .I`'i!-i'Y TO USE OF ANY PORs'1,' 't''-fEREC,F ABOVE A PLi"NZ 500 FEET I:Et°.OW THE ,SURFACE C'.'RF SUCH LANDS FOR T(-i., PRODUCTION .i SAIDi,.! }�'� 'ti WITH THE PERPETUAL CFi� - (� x �,',' raC?1tJ iC�r . t�a �F `t.'`I!°f°sp.ti,r L`�, .f; �' .I ��#-{ �'1';3fit� { (� RIGHT OF INGRESS AND EGRESS BELOW A DEPTH O FIVE f-ti4�`J?�xlfl�ED (500) FEET 1e;T BENEATH THE SURFACE OF ALL s..:.F SUCH L..tlNDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF �F p y [ THROUGH THE E LANDS DS FROM ; .SURFACE Cad €If�ILLIP#fY .ti:'i�"C', �.�:`aE?=�' ;�R'RLt EIi; L2L3�.�ti pie": L�.c�`;_• F.o.l`t �"i- 'l: ° OTHER R LANDS, TOGETHER WITH TME t?.kGHT TO POOL SAID RIGHTS AMD IW :RZ S•TS IR SAID LA D WITH RIGHTS AND M'ORS TS IN °:''i"HER LANDS; .SAID RIGHTS AND INTERESTS IN SAID LANDS SHALL X CLU AL.L SUB— TERRANEAN RIGHTS BELOW A DEPTH OF FIVE HUNDRED C500) FEET C.EN 'a, H THE 1`:; SURFACE OF 16'41:,7 LANDS NECESSARY, INCIDENTAL OR CO) b rY..'.�`•5" TO THE FULL EXERCISE OF SAID EXCEPTED RIGHTS AND iN RES FysS Y�:iV S, AND SHALL f U ¢-.fr RIGHT TO rs L O*7,E � M 1" e� N Q PAIR AND REPLACE, I..,C ..�.L� . �'. .,,.. ..I �t-i f?:�I L, .:a .._:t<-i�i'=', .ti; 1�•. I .., .. ., CORE HOLES, f?g'R S AND I i fl::C T'I'ON WELLS L raYa °°lAg t.r LAND- 1 .. OR— THROUGH O-T"h;f"zt t_Aa4'f?4= FOR THE PURPOSE OF RIMOVING OIL, GAS, 1-.Y!`>,.t CiiR;3O`,`,t SUBSTANCES AND MINERALS S FC?t- H SAID LANDS OR FROM OTHER LANDS FOR h E T PURPOSES OF SUBSIDENCE CONTROL OR PREVENTION OF SALT WATER,INTRUSICN, S DaSCaRIBED AS BEING EXCEPTED IN D EFD FROM SIGNAL f';d{;I'' "''`C'IFS, IB C. , A CALIFORNIA C.CRPORATIDM, "TC ::>IG;','C,L B LSA CORPOaA I OCR, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, AND SIGNAL CIL IND GAS COMPANY, A D".LAWARl- CCRf'CtRA`6"'IONP DATED AUGUST T' � 1973 ,-e)'n R C;O RDED 1- t AUGUST 17, 1973 IN OCOK IPS55* t?i`4C ('340, OFFICIAL RECORDS. rc J' I •� 24- • sti,e —t'•-1- ? ��•• SLAI'LIZ GIIANNFL _ 1G Sa.Y3' 1 r. -a • A • K sr h 1J �O v v S` 1 � 1 I 5f Cvv�u G \ r , 1 l Sw lov,SNi SlL.2© SIC.? �I ,'. ) f1.)6�(v!'4 R.S �}Ir Y-`Y) `•1 NO _ ._ .._ OF yi d P7—AL J.YY,i� GC1 J'�� r Sc c. 32-S-11 f , EXHIBIT "B" f i 1 , •' mpp— f HAI `\ u. \ \ �-,'47 .o- �i � .•.� !•'ift � a ; :` IIrB_v rti - 44 ;;• � y,� ,,�\ �, �\ �,� 4's j,� -4 ��•�`'�.� �.%-Gs *-•'ter'";,�'^-'•. _ .. �.• •--••T.-\. �':���. wt• �SG . v' �� f �`1 sb �r }• / �y/ h `mil., .,j ''�► ! � / ti i. I ..