Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFile 2 of 9 - Bolsa Chica Annexation - Proposed - Resolution BOLSA CHICA November December January February March April May June s 1976-77 ANNEXATION SCHEDULE 1 8 15 22 29 6 13 20 27 3110117124131 7 14 21 28 7114121128 - 23 2 9116123130, E1131201-27 I ?ram==- ZIR on Prezone and :anexaticn- "II F--.=- ca-.ised to be prepared 19 IV Pla-=== CaTnission action on Prezoni-:_ V Clty C,o:rcil public hearing - adopt _szc-_, and approve-EIR V1 scx r�3ing I __ _ ew and hearing 2 2oLLncil Resolution o. Intent to v -=ex - Hearing Declaring Protests - \I __: -_cn _rdinance .irst 'CI _ ._--c.. Jr.�-. nce Semi R=aA_ l� 3peci`__ DF-te for Action (i.e., ?.:n___ �� •A% NITINGTON BLE-1-l"CH PLAMN"NG N-PT. F E 8 4 1981 P. J. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 January 29, 1981 Wi I li am-, -Kuebelbeck and Associates, Inc. 611 Veterans Boulevard, Suite 205 Redwood City, California 94063 Attention: Kenneth R. Dunbar Assistant Economist Gentlemen: Enclosed, per your request to the Huntington Beach Department of Development Services, is the Huntington Beach Fire Department's_response regarding the fiscal impacts of Bolso Chica Annexation. If you have any questions, please do not hiesitate to contact me at (714) 536-5411. Yours truly, Virginia Mason Administrative Deputy VM:cW Enclosure cc: June Catalano ----------- LAND USE SUMMARY GENERAL PLAN NUMBER OF ACRES NUMBER OF UNrr 1. HI 237 1544-4275 �_DENSII 6� Y,5__18 . 1.4 102 1275-1836 17 306-731 SUBTOTAL 356 3125-6842 5.1 JUIJURAL JRESOURCES Cw 41 SUBTOTAL 41 .pE�OPALE A& 397 54 RdEw 1150 dpr 0 z SWA OPEN *GRAM TOTAL 1547 t /Z'CIO 00 ,xN— o­ 1_4 f -7 �/7 a j" oil �7­� -—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—- r j A� Tto, Ff -7 El 00 11 0 cz)C--)CD C7 Gam _'7 ocf,. 13, OLSA CHICA 7/23/80 TOPOGRAPKC DATUNE MEAN SEA LEVEL TOPOGRAPHY: THIS PLAN REFLECTS GENERAL PLAN, 11178 GUIDELINES ESTABLISHED BY STATE AND LOCAL LAW AND PRESENTS A WIDE RANGE OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR; IMPLEMENTATION. LAND USE SUMMARY DESIlAT10t� NUMBER OF ACRES NUMBER OF UNITS - 34 ," DENSITY 53 345-954 w9 _ /,�r. �•� •* r;, . k , f 18Qu/ac2D� 78as1z2HIGH DENSITY 134 , 1.51 HEAVY - 31 558- 888 0� 7• __J ••'', .18.0-28.0 �'� •� _ SUBTOTAL 1008 7700-12084 l�-'`^ 4 �JG.4 .4"•0 •'h_..`: ' LOCAL 21 COMMERCIAL 10.5 2.2 COMM 21 " 2.21 PROF.-ADh1[N. y `-�, ,". ,,.'' �•: !�,;. - _�."_ ,:�" ern" i^� o� T 5.1 NA'�JRAL 28.5 - '-0`RESOURCES Lt'd ♦T 1ST BEC. .� J „ R �, � , �5.31 /COMM. 87 ` � l � , J SUBTOTAL 138 Ci0 ,��c�jor�t�'a.:�-2p.-"$,�J�'�7nrlah?'S5 "n Sj' .n�T�'.��-"-'•1 1, gJ� _ �'• l ` '`-,a "�\'=_. :_r'•�♦. '+� ._ TOTAL 1142- :b� �a �: .'pfl ay F,- o ii 6 n .�9. " 1 _ y�a:.- ` r'r � G:. /O ' DEVELOPABLE AC. "t0 /;iti`�'•� ,� I ' c Cc ��7 y 3�h G pt'•`�u_'�. �t.�;�? ^•^��,�'���J �-"''•�/,�\` �,. -As,o.5_.,"'' •o' _ _���r, •� 5.4 O 7CREOPEN 405 f d �� f ��; !' Q'`�p+ ,�� y, , T L,.� - _o •� �p �." �� `�? O - °` � � /-a GRAND TOT 1547 9 - �� .1 a ?, 1aprv,L;ry -—-— ---�Ji1+`.,�,'#1., A�! /) \,,�'• �•� t ') .. —1.41 1.41 „�� � .� �_✓' �" 'i d %'� �._' ,; ,- ' •" "ice A,4�1 ` / ¢•� 1.51 5.31 HUNTRIGTON t♦ i, '1. ° c. l r''� '``�- .'"`,,J r m - ' 5.4 _ �'-•'' ,>--1- p Ir-f��9' 77 ------'----�-{��--'� , - i _ ..., El El [-D � - BOLSA C"Hu, 1 CA �� TOPOGRAPHIC DATUM MEAN SEA LEVEL 7/23/80 TOpOGRAPHt�: P�iGE COU�TY42 as THIS PLAN REFLECTS GENERAL PLAN GUIDELINES ESTABLISHED BY STATE AND LOCAL LAW AND PRESENTS A WIDE RANGE OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION. LAND USE SUMMARY n 1 GENERALPLAN DESIGNATION NUMBER OF ACRES NUMBER OF UNITS pu 1.3 MEDIUM / '•' 3.5-6.5 du/ac 93 326-605 f� g � ✓.� -��.i(�• ;, 1.4 HIGH DENSITY 95 618-1710 'b ep tip `"'��r "•,` T 6.5-18 S 1.41 HIGH' .. 315 .2048-3938 `O� ry �// ! l•••`//, - 1A212.5-18IGH - 94 /175-1692 r �,( ` `\l ";,�;�'~�`%��s ,.r.7/•"� IS HEAVY 118 2124-3304 . ' �' � r,, r•a-��t } . SUBTOTAL 715 6291-11249 ",y�y''�i Oj '.\ -5.4:�'. ::(:I'• 0 .. - 2.1 LOCAL 11 COMMERCIAL 2.2 COMMUNITY 66 COMMERCIAL, /,>/ �o y.; i ' ' ..� >.,•,) 'O Ui /� 5.1 NATURAL '?gf r/ 00 29 RESOURCES - t} 5.3170URIST Jac✓COM287 'SUBTOTAL \ _ TOTAL 'F ..- ".'•' i 0 1 ,4r" "•Y" V - 'i ,`/.•;?� DEVELOPABLE AC. 1002 4 .� _ "/a },•%, q. I ''g pp t - 5.4 OTHER 545 .� \< ! e$ . per,�y aGG` _ .� o �: fir'-"". _- r. _ _ Sza� _ }��,. ' OPEN SPACE / Q�` %� `. $;F }5 -�' l'' i`L .; �a'�s='� !,- ,GRAND 1 _,�. `.11 % � :�gv`t�-pQ�" •� .p ,� u�S S "O.. - - _� / 'w\ 1 4Q-j�'Y d.�a 4 /�'}" di•- �' c1 _ �,� �J�'1r.gO.,•. �5� y' `f L, �.�' 2. �� .. Q.�,`�{-��,�i5,a��//� �c+ -ter �_ _ � , �. j �'l�` n� i• �-. �1. � �• W,'.,, ..Ga •.4'1..✓ ``J. ' _ I HUNTINGTON5.3f ` _-ems lam_--- _ �..--., ,� �.� \���l' ,�\`-�---._��_ y�._=lt'1 rc&p• 5.4: _ �r �i- \. -�.� q_,yam = -='' •,�° 'F�__ \, -��'"-- =�`--'�`".- ------ , 219 1/ L_ -,or-11 -.L}�---- 'off-'moo ..a1 - �-= - - - ,•;; - - ❑�.�11' o � -- -- — - ---- - - - n� moo - - -- -- BOLSA CHICA .TOPOGRAbF6C DATUM: MEAN SEA LEVEL 7/23/80 TOPOG ANY: ORAmX-ms�CovNTY.1971 THIS PLAN REFLECTS GENERAL PLAN; GUIDELINES ESTABLISHED BY STATE AND LOCAL LAW AND PRESENTS A WIDE RANGE OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR. IMPLEMENTATION. ; BOLSA CHICA ANNEXATION ADD ANNUAL CAPITAL COST Alternative 1. Year 2001 in 1980 constant dollars Provided Sunset Beach volunteer service continues, automatic aid continues and Ellis Street is cut through. Manpower $117 810 Operating 14,611 Alternative 2. Year 1990 in 1980 constant dollars 1 Engine and equipment 150,000 1 Building 8.50,000 1 Acre Land Unknown Operating and Support Personnel 90,929 Engine Manpower 405,705 Year 1995 - Add: 1 Truck and equipment - 1/3 cost 83,333 Manpower - 1/3 cost 173,846 Additional operating and support personal - 1/3 cost 1 mobile Intensive Care Unit 40,000 Manpower - 1/3 cost 93,365 Alternative 3. All of the quoted alternative 2 requirements for 1990 will be implemented immediately in conjunction with the removal of the Warner Avenue bridge now in operation. The 1995 additions in Alternative 2 will remain at a 1995 implementation date. Huntington Beach Fire Department January, 1981 t:D{ 0 C C ED 0 C - C D D ° 00 SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 w m 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 U 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 — O 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 w 9 10 11 VETERAN'S 12 13 14 15 2 DAY w 16 17 18 19 20 wo kslwp►1 21 22 O Z 23 24 25 26 ANKKSGIVIN 8T HO SSN 29 DAY DAY 30 1 2 Wo kshop+2 ' 3 4 5 6 (700 pm) 7 8 9 Workshop•3 10 11 12 13 OC (7:00 pm) m 14 15 16Planning orangeCo coummntyission:17 18 19 20 2 Stud Sessron(1:30 m) W 21 22 23 24 25 CHRISTMAS 26 27 w DAY 28 29 30 31 ° O SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY 1 NEW YEAR'S 2 3 DAY 4 5 ocument ism uson 60rangeCountyPlanning 7 8 9 10 (Tentative) Commission:Public Review Period—r Hearin /1(1:30 m) � Ti— 12 13 14 15 16 17 ¢ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ss onn? 9 28 29 30 31 Hearing i211. mr 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 LINCOLN'S 13 14 ¢ BIRTHDAY ¢ 15 16WASHINGTON'S 17End of Review Period 18 19 20 21 BIRTHDAY (Tentative) m 22 23 24 Commissia:a�bigGg 25 26 27 28 Hearin •3(1:30 pm) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 x U 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 a 22 23 24 250rangeCountyeoerd 26 27 28 of Supervisors Hearing 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Y 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MEMORIAL 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 i 1 31� 3 DISTRIBUTION LIST BOLSA CHICA ANNEXATION EIR 76-3 CITY DEPARTMENTS SCHOOLS Department of Public Works Ocean View School District 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 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 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 Orange County Auditor Grace Properties Orange County Assessor Donald Goodell 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 F FellCITY OF HUNTING EACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUN A ION Humm�croN e�ca O To Distribution From es W. Palin cting Planning Director Subject NOTICE OF INTENT to Prepare Date pril 30, 1979 a Draft Environmental Impact Report Attached is a County of Orange Notice of Preparation for an environmental impact report which will be prepared to address a proposal by Signal Landmark Properties, Inc. to amend the Land Use Element of the County General Plan. The subject site consists of 218.5 acres located south of Warner Avenue and west of Bolsa Chica Street. The site is presently designated as open space and recreational use on the County's General Plan. The pro- posed amendment would provide for 156.6 acres of medium and high density residential development (796-1198 dwelling units) , 2i1a acres of commercial development, and 45.7 acres of open space. The County Environmental Management Agency will be preparing the EIR and is requesting comments from the City on the scope and content of the information the City wishes to be addressed in the EIR. The Planning Department will coordinate the preparation of City comments on this project. If you have any comments at this time, please submit them to Jim Barnes in our department by June 1, 1979. JWP:JRB:df Attachment Distribution: Administration City Attorney Fire Department Harbors, Beaches, Recreation & Parks Police Department Department of Public Works Local Coastal Program Staff • !-��,'f COUNTY OF ORANGE ENVIRONMENTAL Ml' NAGEMENT AGENCY .�, NOT.10E OF PREPARATI(; N TO : City of Huntington Beach FROM : (Responsible Agency) COUNTY OF, ORANGF Planning Department ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMiAlT AGENCY - 2000 Main St/Box 190 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION P . 0 . L'OY. It I O8 Huntington Beach, _Ca._92648"-_ SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 9 2 7 0 2 ATTENTION: Mary Lynn Norby Subject: Notice Of Intent To Prepare A Draft Environmental Impact Report r Project Title: Bolsa Chica Mesa General Plan Amendment ' And Reserve Removal r't Applicant: Phillips, Brandt, Reddick For Cox. 190 Signal Landmark Properties, Inc. {'C;,.In;' ',iE CA 926 3 The Orange County Environmental Management Agency has conducted an I.nllial Study for the subject project and has determined that an Environ- mental Impact Report is necessary. The County of Orange will be the Icad agency for the Subject pr.u.ject and will prepare the EIR. In order for the concerns of your agency to be incorporated Into the Draft EIR, we need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information relevant to vour agency's statutory res- ponsibilities In connecCion with the proposed proje( t . Your agency must consider the EIR prepared by the County of. Orange when considering; your permit or approval for the project. The project description, location, and ,in analysis indicating; the probable environmental effects of the proposed action are contained in the attached materials. Pursuant to Section 15085.5 of the State EIR guidelines, your res- ponse must be sent as soon as possible but not later than 45 days after receipt of this notice. The contact person for the County regarding this project is • James Swanek who can be reached at 834-2071. If any changes in the proposed project occur, we will advise you promptly. I'nvirorim,-nt;il Management Aj,,ency ll. G. Osborne, Director By: --- Date: 103. (1/78) my i COUNTY OF ORANGE P20j. Ft r LNVIBONMINTAL MANAGENVAT AGU4y ENVIRONMEN' J.- Ai IN AC('01MANCE Will t4 714E POLICIES OF THE 0HAN(,I I N lit PAI M ('ill' Sk 1PI:HVl`,')I1!; kF GAMANG IMPLEFAC N I A riori 01 1 lit (:AI I I 011N I A 1.NV I 110NNI L N I AL OU A L I I Y A(I 'L*11' 19 1,1, 1 111'; 1 j(,(:I 11"i 1 114! (:0P.1 FI I N I D WITH 111 C AT TAC'f 4 L L) **E-t`,jV I 14ONMt NI A I I WORM A I ION', r(11`1 hi AN 1)SOPP011 T I NCI t)A I A I I I t I I I '', I i i I' IIIIIIAI S I I I f)',( (jrj 'I I I I: u Il.jr(.1 r 11 H 0jIr-C,;. I I I IS IN 11 IA L STUDY PI4OV I LX S I it U BASIS I()I 1 1141 Df.I L 10.11 NA 11064 Njll I I I I i( I I r I 11, PH U J I..C1 MAY 1-1 AV E A SIGNIFICANT Ell FECI ON THE ENVIRONMENT, IF' IT IS DETERMINED THAT till PW)JF(_1 M4\Y HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT, AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WILL M. PRI'I'AFILD WHICH FO(A)SES ON THE AREAS OF CON. C('RN IM-NIII'l[C)ON' 1HIS INITIAL STUDY, ST(CHECKLI : ITEMS NOT IOAHKED J11AVf' It(*( P4 I'll TO HAW P40"llr',NIF ICAPqT ErF fcT I Ajjjj�4 WILL THE PROPOSAL RESULT IN ILA tLt!.0 WILL THE iLl 1!_A!11 OR III Afrccyto III: ;;(JP AL A t S U L I I N: A. U N N I A 8 L L t A R?- (ONO 11 1()N S ON I N A P.II.,i, I N I Hit 1,Dl v t 0..I I Y 1)F CHANGES IN GLOLOr I( SLIBSYRUCTI JOES S ? ,cc E%, rR N,j W,-3 o f ANY SPECIES Of Pt ANT 1 OR AN]'-IS (INCLUDING 0 DISRUPTIONS, DISPLACEMENTS, (Om- 'a I.C , ;"(RUB S, GRASS, RASS, L NODS, PACT ION ON 0 VERCOVERIN4 OF THE S OIL? MICROFLORA, AQUATIC PLANTS, BIRDS, LAND ANIMALS, PFPT I LES, FISH AND C, CHANCE IN TOPOGRAPHY OR GROUND SHELL?IS-; a F.NTHIC -0PGA.NISm$. SURFACE RELIEF FEATURES? INSECTS 0 ICROFAVNA)? D. INC DESTRUCTION, COVERING 00 B. EDUCTION OF THE NUMBERS OF ANY - E ALL MODIFICATION OF ANY UNIQVE GEO UN 1 Q10 I At THT E C Y SIGNIFICANT, LOGIC ON PHYSICAL f r AT LIN E 5, RARE f OR ENDANGERED SPECIES OF PLANTS OR ANIMALS? E. ANY INCREASE IN WIND 04 WATER F EROSION Of SOILS, EITHER ON 04 0 C. INT&VOUCtION Of Nf. SPECIES OF THE SITE? PLANTS OR ANIMALS INTO AN AREA, OR IN A BARRIER to THE NOR.AL ALPLEN- F. CHANr.(S IN DEPOSITION OR ENDS- I S HMrNT 00 04 1 GRATION Of [.XISIING , 1 ON Of a(ACH SANDS, 00 CHANGES IN S F,C cI Cs. SILIAII(#,, DEPOSITION OR EROSION WMIC" "I" MODIFY IN[ CHANNEL OF A D, RCDVCYiON Of ANY 5 TMF IF H RIC C;NPACWIA(,C TAM OR E Ell D 0 1 E AGRICULTURAL 0 ? JA. 00: 1 0 RIVER "If 11 N ANY DAY, INLET 2 LAKE? E. DETER ORA I ON or [FISTING FISH G. LE ON PROPERTY W I;f HABITAT? EXPOSkat of PEOPLE 00 ILOL A IIAT? TO GEOLOGIC HAZARDS SUCH AS EARTH- QUAK 117%, LANDSLIDES, MUDSLIDES, GROUND FAILURE, 04 SIMILAR HAZARDS? WILL THE PROPOSAL Rl!:ULI IN AN AI FRAI[rm OF A !1,4!FI'ANI WILL I L IL THE PROPOSAL At SUIT IN: OLOGICAL OR HISTORICAL SITE, S?;t'JC- cn.jr(T OR -A:.roq_ I A. jP4(RjA!,j AIR EMISSION S OR E'r I C At ',I 1 0-' OTI'U lOrC.PTANT It a I L,WA 71 ON AMBIENT M13IL147 AIR QUAL1117 CV1 IU�A,/!,�IFNI If r� PT'.,'.j9CE B. IHC CREA1 ION 01 OBLrC7 IONAeLf Wl,L THE DOOR S? t k t L I I C. Al 71 11AI ION Or AIR -00HIN1. Of ,"I IN II' M %-IURL CLIMATE,"041'I.IA;111 91 1 C()IP HA41,t IN LIMATE, I A LOCALLY OR A f G I ONAL L Y? I I ION Aq1 w V.. r.L C D. fxvw..vRc or PERSON'. TO LOCALLY OF I.% 1 1; (L EVA,ED L L V I LS Of AIR I.OLLVIION? r C, WILL 'If -1�01'01AI. I. !t_Alig WILL T14F PROFMAL RESULT IN! U 1 01 AN, ICLll 1�'1'1 I A 1) 0 1` A CHANrES IN CU;,WEN7S, OR THE PUBLIC, 0 .TILL I"F c;LIPSE ON 0IRFCII0N 01 "Arco mi)�U- OF A,, MtNy%, IN (JIM17511 MARINI. OR FRESH At`',YHZT�' T'`CALL 14� 0'Ff .,IV 5I It OPEN ;0;WATERS? TO rumL.IC VIEW? 0. 0IA (S IN A 0 SQiPTIONAAIES. E N,_!_2L WILL -It RESULT IN: DRAINAGE A T E 9 N1, 04 -'THE RATE AND AMOUNT Of SURFACE WAFER ALINO117 A. U',f Of AVNCP-ALLY AM_VNIS C. ALTERATIONS 10 THE COURSE OR Of FUEL r,p tIjtR(,Y? FLOW OF FLOOD-WATERS? 8. IN'PtASE Of HAND (91S11Pr D. N IHt AMOUNT OF SUP- SOI,114(f� Of FN(P-.Y, 00 Rt7QfG[ THE ?A ('W'A`T"[�t C., LlrVrLOI'mf,.T 01 Nfo Of C F. A IN ANY WATER so ? E. DISCHARGE INTO SURFACE WATERS, • 04 IN ANY ALTERATION Of SURFACE WILL THE PROPOSAL WATER QVALIIV, INCLUDING OUT NOT RESULT IN' LIMITED 10 I[MPr.*A7vR(, DISSOLVED A rONFLfC7 WITH 7ONIN'. UP 'IN- , C, T 1 ',I(. IAT;01,1 FOR IHI OIF I I N w URSID TV? E�AL PLAN DE At I I RATION.OF TM I DII RICT ION OR PPOPERTY? 1 RAZE of ,FoWOf GROUND OUNOIAIEVS? B. LONfLICII WITH ADJACENT, EXIST- 1. CMANGIL IN THE QUAN I ITY 04 QVAL- INS OP PLANNED LAv U%f%? ARP J 171 Of GROLINV WATERS, fITHER IH&OU,m DIAL IAt CT A r,CilTIONS Do WITHDRAWALS, OR C. M)VC(MENT OF L;R5AN (.R04TH? N 7 Nov'" 1 4 1 E A(fp 11014 Of AN AQU 10 1 A P. 10. INANSPORIA110N./ClOCULATIOk WILL by CUTS OR E xCAVAIIO"? IMF PROPOSAL RESULT IN: H.7,:1.1101-1.111N,E104.1. AMOUNT OF A GENERATION OF ADDITIONAL VE41- OIHI, .I VA, Ita V I WA LA19L[ 004 C�L Mo fM NT PUBLIC WAY to SUr,P LI ES? 0. IF1fC1S 04 [1)"T IN r. PARVING PEOPLE 00 P JPFRTY D. (IL I IF E", OR DI HAND f 0 a N rw A 14 11 IE 0 1'$ S Ulf PARKIN',? fkl I. [;PVSV:%0' HAZA H AS TO . A C A N L.00 IN, 0. TIDAL WAVES? F02503.113 (1/70) Explanations for Bolsa Chica Mesa G.P.A. and "R" Removal Initial Study (191204003) I.a. The project area includes coastal bluffs highly susceptible to erosion and sliding and areas which mny he subject. in 1 Iquef ac•Hon In the event of a major earthquake. Portions of the project area are subject to sub- sidence. In addition, the impacts that petroleum extraction may have had on subsurface stability must also be discussed. Lastly, the escarpment cutting across the mesa may be Inherently unstable for adjacent develop- ment, as would be the marshy flatlands and the Sunset Bay remnant next to Warner. I.b. The intensity of development proposed will inevitably result In removal. of most of the existing so L l . I.C. The intensity of development proposed will inevitably result In sig- nificant changes in the site's topography. This is especially important in light of Coastal Commission restrictions on grading of coastal bluffs, as well as guaranteeing the pirysica.l integrity of Bolsa Bay and all. tributary channels. It should also be noted that any landform modification on the lowlands would require Army COE approval under Sec. 404 of Clean Water Act l.d. Both coastal bluffs and marshlands are considered unique physical features by the California Coastal Commission, and this project will adversely im- pact these features through grading and adjacent development. In addition, a tributary (one or more) to Bolsa Bay appears to cross a portion of the site. Lastly, a remnant portion of Sunset Bay exists on the property and receives tidal influence through groundwater percolation under Warner Avenue. I.e. The reduction of the area available for natural absorption and drainage by development will inevitably increase runoff and result in increased erosion of the coastal bluffs. 1 . f. Increased urban runoff from eh Ls project wIl.l_ increase (to some extent) erosion of the coastal bluffs and will thus result in increased siltation of Bolsa Bay, its tributaries, and marshy lowlands, both on and off.-site. The remnant of Sunset Bay on-site will similarly he af.fected,i.f it is not filled. I .g. Future residents of this; project will be exposed to extreme earthquake hazards. The Reserve removal criteria will need to be addressed in this area. 2.a.b.d. The Intensity of development proposed will ssig;nificanlly increase areal air emissions, with .potenti.a.l concentration .in the "Bolsa Gap" when day- time winds are not blowing; inland. This is also one of the Reserve removal criteria, and must be discussed in that light. 2.c. The intensity of development proposed and consequent increased air emissions, landscaping; irrigation, etc. , nmy adversely impact the highly sensitive climate of the adjacent State Ecological preserve. 3.a.c.d. Since portions of a tributary (one or more) to Bolsa Bay appear to crass part of the project site, grading associated with adjacent development may impact current flow in these marine waters. if flaw has stopped, forming ox-bow ponds, development may impact the amount of surface water in these ponds. Lastly, the remnant of Sunset Bay will certainly be affected by development. 3.b. The project will change a relatively natural setting to a highly urbanized one, with absorption rates, drainage patterns, and rate and amount of run- off all being changed. Ye. The inevitable increase in runoff due to .intpnsLve development may increase turbidity (due to both urban runoff and erosion) and Siltation. This also relates to one of the Reserve removal c:riterIa. i,astly, how will. development (affect the conclusions of on-goin;•, Bolsa Chica water quality studies r. IwLI,I O•.Y frltll•1G nr LI.N..11, / Ir ".IL . '.)I'I.i .A.1: 0.1.L.1LlLI ••4 YOPIAIIVI S•t'rN1r `,� rl.t Ir•! 1•.. r.t.l 11rr1 AY TIPI CT U At Ito rAt Lr N, P.111.N ;n CI- • Al,l ri tr tT-r ICI\ IY WT Or 1N1 C.U;At ION Ut Aver Nt Nl Or .I n,;l ♦r.(i, r r.,'V ING Ar!AS nA 000DST I. Attf- YAI[A - A r.l Pn P.nir.i lfvll .� P I.NI, fAll ilA AI- - 1-Aff —_ Ol III Penr R(1lfw} P, I-Afllr Nll. ,11 lUlotl tTfl Wt, ( SCrot)tfl r NUTO- VrN1C LI S. {I(Irl WITS, Pr _ II(It ST-I AN%1 _ — Cr 'All, n- O•..11 -Ir-/A110N.1 G. (-f AT lrnr Or IV/1 r4At /Irr�rlA 1 1 UN r-0At t N1 r l NA l rl l/4A4r 1 Or PO-t I, f Al I •}-1 L 111(S, INI ItIUI Nt. -nAntT 11. !Z!!YLITICP. WILL INI •A4POSAL i Ar Tf- TN/ toc Al l'N, o", Ar.r,In", r /Dvr. OF N.v"..t G.yt _ Df NSIT T, D- G-1)WTN M1�4N /DIUt AT ION O• AN AIt-rA7 G. Cf1,NirN1(AT IONt S,STr Yf1 __ 11. !1wjjyy WILL 111c Prwf:GAt. 1t. oTr-• �_ ` •. Ar PICI MISTING 11,ml IN:, on �A I. S(td■ Oi S[ITIC TWaS} c-I ATI • OF IO- I.00 1117.At NoVSI to, 7 J. Si c4 WATr■ o-AI NAG(? -. ►IfcIUW. DPPD-TI/NIT1I4 fnr — - r L0f10 W.Sf! ANn DlsroyAl• IP OvlylO+r Ur LOvIA INt(ol NUUS Ir1G7 11. • WILL nit P-OIO:At 1. O7NI- Sf-vtClf7 a t$UL.LI?.f -I SV LT IN NT IT AC i VI IT IMC ccat� jt, pIN���y i1S lTf W QU+4IT ITT OF IY IST ING -Cc-L- - ATIONAL WPOITUNIT1l%, I%- .vw r•CA,L1M t&pN_A./LET -ILI TNt P-O►OSAL: A• INVOLV( THE -ISf. Of trt'kO 104 qT`C�"SL.jS1Lti.�Y➢.-?1!.ii4_LL:.y!"�!iq D- TN{ -[Lt to Or MA7r-DO•S sus- ylAt"' INCLUDING OIL, ►[SIICIor S. CMf NICAIy On IIADIAT IONT �. t-101[ PC RSONS 0- ►POP[-TT TO MIGM /IPI IM1A-D CONDITIryt57 _�_ IS. N013[ WILL 7Nt r.O►OSAL -(BALL IN: L.t!YLC'l":�lT_�1. ILcC'IN1Uki A. INc-tr f, or !-IS11Nr• NOISt >� .. •.l F ���r_ LE Vt ISi .\1 11. if/05Uat Or Pf Orlf TO 40111E ' if Vt LS IN tltc I SS Of cOUNIT ST-NO• Lila IS. L,14A._G'ASILA. WILL INc P-U- rUtAl ►-CMi'Jl[ Al NFW LIGHT a 4L A-(,/ —_ �— O.r(• l/1 W O A. DOES THE PROJECT HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO DEGRADE THE QUALITY OF THE w m Z ENVIRONMENT, SIUD5TANTIALLY REDUCE. THE HABITAT OF A FiSH OR WILDLIFE ' a POPULA'iIGN TO DROP BELOW SELF-SUSTAINING LEVELS, THREATEN TO ELIM- INATE A PLANT OR ANIMAL COMMUNiTY, REDUCE THE NUMBER OR RESTRICT THE RANGE OF A RARE ENDANGERED PLANT OR ANIMAL OR ELIMINATE IMPORTANT EXAMPLES OFF THE MAJOR PERIODS OF CALIFORNIA HISTORY OR PREHISTORY? B. DOES THE PROJECT HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO ACHIEVE SHORT-TERM, TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF LONG-TEP.M, ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS? (A SHORT-TERM IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT i5 ONE WHICH OCCURS IN A RELATIVELY BRIEF, DEFINITIVE PERIOD OF TIME WHILE LONG-TERM IMPACTS WiLL ENDURE WELL INTO THE FUTURE.) _ _ _ C. DOES THE PROJECT HAVE IMPACTS WHICH ARE INDIVIDUALLY LIMITED, BUT CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE? (A PROJECT MAY IMPACT ON TWO OR MORE SEPARATE RESOURCES WHERE THE IMPACT ON EACH-RESOURCE 1S RELATIVELY SMALL, BUT WHERE THE EFFECT OF THE TOTAL OF THOSE IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT IS SIGNIFICANT.) D. DOES THE PROJECT HAVE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH WILL CAUSE SUB- STANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS ON HUMAN BEINC5; EITHER DIRECTLY OR IN- DIRECTLY? r _ DET Ef-1 MIH.ATI(p) . ON THE BASIS OF THIS INITIAL EVALUATION: 1 FIND THE PROPOSED PROJECT COULD NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT, AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I FIND THAT ALTHOUGH THE PROPOSED PROJECT COULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT, THERE WILL NOT BE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THE MITIGATION MEASURES DESCRIBED ON AN ATTACHED SHEET HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE PROJECT. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WiLL BE PREPARED. 1 FIND THE PROPOSED PROJECT MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRON- MENT, AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT iS REQUIRED, i ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY H. s OSEINRIlE, DIGF.CTr:R EIY: /'/' ...�.r_.... _._..___. ... ..�.-----• DATE!- M. The proximity of the project sLty to Bolsa Bay is such that movement of Mine, brackish groundwater may be mod i f i cd by grading for development. Certainly the remnant of. Sunset Bay .i.nf:lucnced by groundwater will be affected. Mg. If groundwater inland of the Owport-Inglewood fault: zones continues to be used for urban purposes, the aquifer there will continue to be degraded in quantity. 3.h. The area is not currently within the service area of: any water service agency, and will thus require new service from nn ndi'ncent district or use of the underlying aquifer. Tf the aquifer. :is not used, that water may not otherwise be available for public supply. 3.1. Future residents of this project will be exposed to extreme tsunami hazards and flooding hazards - as portions of the property are near or below sea level, and the areas around the flood control channel are regarded as being subject to flooding during heavy rainfall as a result of channel overflow. This is one of the areas to be addressed in the proposed Reserve removal. V a. Stands of eucalyptus (and perhaps: salt marsh type vegetation) will be removed by the proposed project and its intense development, together with their associated biotic communities. If the lowlands are affected, part of the significant original Bolsa Chi.ca wetland environment may be lost. See 4.b.e. for additional information . 4.b.e. The project proposes a thin strip of open space between the proposed intensive development and the State Ecological Preserve in Bolsa Bay. However, this open space (if recreationally used) may provide easy access for intrusion into the adjacent preserve, instead of "buffering" the preserve from urban uses. In addition, several significant, rare, endangered, and/or protected species have been associated with the project site. Both the eucalyptus trees and the coastal sage scrub have been identified as prohnble rooker.y,roost- ing and nesting sites, and the entire area is regarded as significant for forage. In addition, the eucalyptus, and coastal sage scrub are themselves considered very significant as vegetative communities rare in this area and worthy of protection. Lastly, a significant habitat in the form of a remnant of Sunset Bay tideland near Warner Avenue will be adversely affected. 4.c. Feral animals commonly associated with man will increase in the area due to urbanization and will compete with native wildlife for survival. 4.d. The area is zoned for agricultural uses , and large portions are currently plowed. S. The area contains very significant archaeological resources. in order to make a full assessment of these resources, all professional reports prepared for the property shall be submitted to the County's Cultural Resources Planner for re- view. To assist this evaluation , a county-certified archaeologist shall be re- tained to: 1)srynthesize and evaluates prior work; 2) ldentif.y,locatp, and evaluate remaining resourcev, as well as resources lost and/or sal.vrged; and 30uggest mitigation measurer annropriate to Lhc potentfal. effects on the resources. The possible historical s ign i f. icanev of the Bo is;a Ch fca Gun Club must also be discussed. All of these areas must be examined .in light of the reserve. criteria G.a.b. If development: precludes further use of the site for oil and gas uxLrac— tion, additional energy resources will have to be found to make up Or the supply currently being obtained from the ss i tu. Since Portions of the area are currently .in agricultural use and the orange County General, Plan Land Use Element: designates the nrvn for rvcrontion, bath agricultural soils and substantial recr.eati.onol open space will he lost. Lastly, natural. resources in the form of construct. ion matcrialss and cncrgy to he used in construction will be expended. 7. The project will. result in thp crrNi On of an uzi rpmply "rhanizpd vista from the nearby Stnto .Beach and other rvrrPat ionni arvNs,, and Kl l oh- struct the current scenic vista from the upper bench bluffs of the Balsa Chica Mesa. If oil and gas extraction are continued, associated structures will have a negative visual. Lmpact.. LasLly, Were is no provision for public access to .the Muffm overlooking the .lowlands. 8.a.b. High levels of energy will be used during Lhu construction process for the proposed development, and the large number of residential units proposed will add significant new demand for gas and electricity. See also discussion in 6.a.b. concerning the possible termination of oi.l and gas extraction. 9.a. The proposed project is inconsistent with the County General Plan Land Use Element designation of recreational use for the site. This proposed General Plan Amendment will alleviate that problem if approved. However, the proposed project also appears to be inconsistent with the County Recreation Element and Master Plans of Regional Parks, Bikeways, and Trails. The entire area is on the County Master Plan of Regional Parks and recent studies have indicated that development of a bluff-oriented linear park should be actively pursued by the County. In addition, the City of Huntington Beach (the site is within their sphere of influence) regards the area as a "Planning Reserve", with annexation or development inappropriate at this time because sufficient studies have not been con- ducted to establish prczoning appropriate to the site. The proposed project area is also subject to County "R" Reserve guidelines and all Reserve removal criteria must be addressed . Lasst. Ly, the proposed project is inconsistent with the present ngr. tcultural zoning. 9.h. The proposed project is; inconsaistcnt with tho County's Local Cp antral Program for the Balsa Chica area, Inasmuch as Lhc work tasks for this program have only recently hewn specified , :and many months of land use planning lie ahead before. .land use recommendations can be made. Thus , bout the County and the City of Huntington Beach consider this proposal premature by at least several months. Planning for Lhe area to dates has been a good faith effort by the County, State., City of Huntington Beach, landowners, environmental groups, and other responsible agencies, but considerable planning remains before projects of this type can be fully considered. For additional information, sec the discussion in 9.a. con- cerning potential park development. The Regional Coastal Commission also believes that the project is premature and not appropriate at this time. A great deal of State and Federal planning would he adversely affected by approval of this project, including: 1)the ongoing National Wetlands slap- ping Process; 2)the_ State .Fish & Camc's Resource Protection Zone Delineation (establishing future requirements for blufftop setbacks and protection zones) for the Coastal Commission; 3)the federal Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service's consideration of the nomination of the entire Balsa Chica area (including the mesa) as a Unique Ecosystem; and 4) the ongoing SCAG Section 208 Bolsa Chica Water Quality Study. 9.c. The proposed project will greatly induce urban growth by beginning development in an area for which land use planning has not been completed. This relates to one of 'the Reserve removal criteria. 1.0.a.b. Significant increases in traffic levels and vehicle usage can be expected if the proposed project is .:approved. This must also be discussed in light of the Reserve removal guideline concerning vehicle miles traveled. COUNTY OF ORANGE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION L� 4� 1 PROJECT TITLE proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendment/Bolsa Chica Mesa (GPA #79-3) ctT,A 2 PROJECT LOCATION The Study Area is a 218.5 acre site located on the Bolsa Chica Mesa. The site is bordered by Warner Avenue and Los Patos Avenue on the north, by coastal bluffs and Bolsa Bay to the southwest, and by the Wintersburg Flood Control Channel to the southeast. The Study Area boundaries are shown on Attachment 1. 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION See Attachments 2 and 3. a EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS See Attachment 4. 5 LISTING OF ATTACHED SUPPORTING DATA See following "List of Attachments" . 6 PREVIOUS COUNTY ACTION OR ENVIRONMENTAL UOCUMENTATION None. -r GOVERNMENT APPROVALS REQUIRED County Land Use Element Amendment/Zoning, Tentative Tract Maps/Grading Permit/Building Permit; Coastal Comm. dev. permit 8 CONTACT PERSON Steven Ross M cn Phillips Brandt Reddi ck t-732--)223 ) ak 901 Dove Street, Suite 260 ' Newport Beach, California 92660 { 9 CERTIFICATION: 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE STATEMENTS FURNISHED IN THIS FORM AND IN THE ATTACHED EXHIBITS PRESENT THE INFORMATION RE- j. QUIREO FOR THIS INITIAL EVALUATION TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY AND T-.:,T I� THE FACTS, STATEMENTS, AND INFORMATION PRESENTED ARE TRUE AND CORREr--T TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF . rf . DAT ��"'�/�� IGNATURE `A.. -5- parts of the area are sub_}ect to storm flooding because of inadequate storm water drainage. These will. be some of the primary areas of emphasis in the Reserve removal request di.scnss:ion. ' ' .�� � ,�,v!"�,K f,'f 11 •.!I\t;l . . � : --" ... :: 29 Yam' > .4-3" ,�y.Y 1,/�. •' ,I i� •� I�I . I i LEGEND 5.3 RECREATION yam., '•i ` \� �` LAND AID o t000 2 0 'woo V�C�HrV M (RA[4(/(�•11 R is BOLSA ,� SIGNAL LANDMARK PROPERTIES, INC. Attachment t 1 ATTACHMENT 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant, Signal Landmark Properties, Inc. , is requesting an amendment to the existing Land Use Element of the General Plan for a 218.5 acres site on the Bolsa Chica Mesa. The proposed land use designations include 1 . 3, medium density residential (65.0 acres) , 1 .4, high density residential (87.6 acres) , 5.31 , tourist recreation/commercial (20.2 acres) , and 5.4, open space (45.7 acres). The residential uses would accommodate from 796 to 1998 dwelling units (refer- to Attachment 3 and accompanying statistical summary chart) . The uses are situated so as to be compatible with the physical characteristics of the property and with adjacent land uses. The medium density area is located on the upper bench in the northeastern section of the property adjacent to single-family residential areas. The high density residential areas are located on the upper bench fronting the Bolsa Chica Gap and on the lower bench fronting the Gap and Bolsa Bay. The proposed pattern maximizes residential view potential by placing higher density units fronting the coastal bluffs. The TR/C area is concentrated at %"0 Q r the northe&sw -R corner of the property thereby affording maximum access to these activities. The open space encompasses the scarp separating the upper and lower bench of the mesa, the lowlands at the base of the coastal bluffs , and a band along the entire blufftop of the lower bench. {tr rl' .11\ItS _ ect�Nnau va W tilt : ' (a.... .._.. �. .P n�/ • • 11,4 i� I) -' .. J �111•• 'J ,:11,!/ roll u I��.• � . / •r •• 3• � a�FArA MIt: I �j ,4 J �t T11D(J I•I..,r• •�V .I. Y t41 lei 1-1 Ir YI f f �i �, •ri.• .' /�.r•i '��', � �n �•/.,,• ..INI LIIJ S,�.J.'ll"!fr;.�..Pr►..� .�, _ ... i fvr: t•• .I I rr1'ra 2 � ,Lllurr r Sunset . \•••fir' � '7 1 -� � 't!•• 1.'... . ✓. •�*f] t ,. 0000 0,10 � •'•rwrd'+raurc�•• � // loon f MAAP 1 t 000noo - !^�ML' p -•-_-___.__�.:�_. 000noo 00 .' 0l00c - j; 20 ii:.._....-. 00ryIg 0 o.00r"G • 000000noo J • :0000000000 000noo (� . I LEGEND 1.3 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 1.4 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL •5.31 TOURIST RECREATION/COMMERCIAL .5.4 OTHER OPEN SPACE p D D D B N``' 1 A•r _ _ o 0 ,000 2t '%O 4000 LAND B 0 L S-A ow'f"'H I C A M -r'! yam. yi SIGNAL LANDMARK PROPERTIES, INC. Attachment 3 DOLSA CHICA MESA STATISTICAL SUMMARY Land Use Category Acres Units Per Acre Dwelling Units Medium Density 65.0 3.5 - 6.5 227 '- 422 High Density 87.6 6.5 - 18 569 - 1576 TR/C 20.2 Open Space 45. 7 TOTAL 218.5 796 - 1998 ATTACNMEN"f 4 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Physical Features The Study Area is located on the Bolsa Chica Mesa. The mesa , lying between the Bolsa Gap and the Sunset Gap, rises gently to the southeast where it is cut off by the stream bluff of the Bolsa Gap. The Study Area is composed of two levels, referred to as the upper and lower benches. The lower bench ranges in elevation from <10 feet m.s. l . to 30 feet m.s . l . ; the upper, from 50 feet m.s.l . to 66 feet m.s.l . The highest point on the mesa occurs near the northern property line. A twenty to forty foot west facing escarpment cuts across the mesa separating the two benches. This reflects previous dis- placement of the land surface across the Newport-Inglewood fault. A small portion of the Study Area lies in the flatlands at the base of the mesa bluff. Previous alterations to the landforms consist of excavation of portions of the upper mesa for fill material . Roads, structures , and oil field activities have caused localized landform alterations. The mesa is representative of the Lakewood Formation geologic unit (Qpu) which consists of continental and marine gravel , sand, silt and clay. These sediments were deposited in late Pliocene and Pleistocene times. Changes in sea level some 15-25,000 years ago resulted in coastal streams cutting deep \ channels through existing basins - resulting in the formations of the Bolsa and adjacent gaps. Subsequent sea level rise resulted in the filling of these gaps as we see them today. Current geological processes of importance within the Study Area involve po- tential seismic activity alpng the Newport-Inglewood fault zone. Portions of this structural zone are currently seismically active. Earthquakes strong enough to be felt occur frequently. Although it is questionable whether sur- face displacement occurred within this zone in the past 11,000 years , the area along the fault (reference Exhibit 4-A) has been designated as a Special Study Zone under the provisions of the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act. The act requires that, prior to development, a geologic report be prepared defining and delineating any hazard from, potential surface fault rupture. 'Q g u) CT rz=il �0)� f LU Lp N)NM F'J __tl;iLSA.CH;CA,Sfitl`.E:I__� �. t3 S • y4 `r, The most detailed existing. geotechnical information on the site is contained in the following 2 studies : . California Division Mines and Geology, 1974. A Review of the Geology and Earthquake History of the Newport-Inglewood Structural_ Zone, Southern California , Special Report 114. . California Department of Water Resources, 1968. Sea Water Intrusion; Bolsa Sunset Area , Orange County, Bulletin 63-8. Drainage There are no major drainage courses within the Study Area. Surface runoff is transported from the site by sheet flow with minor drainage courses found along the bluff slopes. Localized runoff from the site drains to Outer Bolsa Bay and to portions of Huntington Harbor. The site is adjacent to the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Flood Control Channel which carries freshwater runoff from a 18,000 acre urban drainage area to Outer Bolsa Bay. No freshwater drainage from the Bolsa Chica area enters the Channel . Flood hazard conditions during heavy rainfall exist along the channel from Garden Grove Boulevard to Outer Bolsa Bay. The lower portion of the Study Area (i .e. , within the Bolsa Gap) is within this floodplain. The Study Area sites above the large groundwater basin located below the \ coastal plain of Orange County. The existing groundwater supplies within the Bolsa Chica area are utilized primarily for industrial purposes in connection with oil operations. Good groundwater quality is found inland of the Newport-Inglewood Fault; groundwater on the ocean sYe is characteristically saline. Previous over- drafting, surface disposal of brines , and disposal of oil refinery wastes have degraded groundwater in the Bolsa Chica area in the past. Biological Resources The majority of the Bolsa Chica Mesa , both upper and lower benches, were previously farmed. With cessation of this activity,, the tops of the mesas have become dominated by various grasses and residual crops. The fringe areas of the mesa contain a variety of upland and maritime species including saltbrush, cacti and telegraph weed. A grove of Blue gum eucalyptus is established along the base of the bluff facing Bolsa Gap and at the south- western corner of the lower bench. The lowland area south of this bluff *i.s composed of open sesuvium flats intermixed with spike rush and salt grass. This lowland area is part of the original Bolsa Chica wetland environment. A map of the Study Area vegetation is shown in Exhibit 4-B. A comprehensive analysis of the biological resources of the Bolsa Chica area is contained in the Dillingham Corporation study, "An Environmental Evaluation of the Bolsa Chica Area" , 2 vol . (1971) . Archaeological Resources Throughout 1970, Archaeological Research, Inc. conducted an archaeological survey for the entire Bolsa Chica property, of which Bolsa Chica Mesa is a part. Phase One entailed a complete inventory of the areas of archaeological importance and Phase Two was the systematic excavation and evaluation of these areas.- During Phase One, a field and helicopter survey and an extensive record search was conducted. In addition, interviews and discussions were arranged with previous professional and amateur archaeologists who had studied the property in the past. Three sites were located in the Bolsa Chica Mesa and recorded as 4-Ora-83, 4-Ora-84, and T4-Ora-289. Phase Two, initiated in November 1970, excavated and evaluated each of these sites. Site Ora-83, located in the southeast portion of the Study Area, is a proven archaeological site with a large areal extent. It is the largest site on the Bolsa property and best known as the source of 150 cogged stones and a large number of stone discs. After a surface collection of the site, test excava- tions showed that previous farming disturbed the midden. Artifact materials collected include cogged stones, a steatite pipe, two stone pendants, a bi- facial manos, chipped stone tools, and bone tools. 01—Uju CCES RX lowed Fietd Plowed Fie!d Open Areas J Euc .0 �t 113ppke, Ruch \ calt Grass 4 AJDD NONRIT 4-Ora-83 Recorded Sites <\ �is A 9U\ 4-Ora-84 *4-Ora-28® 1 i u Site Ora-84 is located in the southern portion of the property and west of site Ora-83. After a surface collection, a test unit was excavated. A total of 70 artifacts were recovered, ten of which were too fragmentary to describe. Artifacts recovered include hanmerstones, handstones, metates, flakes , and scrapers. Due to the shallow depth of accumulation of cultural deposits, combined with the extensive disturbance of the area, ARI 's evaluation of the site is that all meaningful material has been brought to the surface and further scientific investigation is not warranted. Site Ora-289 is located to the south of site Ora-84. A thorough surface examination indicated that the site was a secondary deposition. The archaeo- logical value of the site is minimized. Land Use The site is primarily vacant and contains few man-made features. Those structures present are primarily related to oil field operations in progress within the central portion of the property. A network of paved access roads - and oil pipelines cross the property. Three tanks are also located in this area, possibly for oil storage. In addition to the tanks and various other oil-related facilities, several structures are located on the southwestern portion of the lower bench. A 15 acre school site owned by the Ocean View School District is located in the interior of the site. There are no development plans at this time; the school district is studying the demand for new facilities in the area . Urban development abuts the north and northwest boundaries of the project site. A tract of single family -residential units border the site to the north along Los Patos Avenue. The Huntington Harbor Marina community lies to the north- west along Warner Avenue. Bolsa Chica Ecological Preserve, maintained by the State, adjoins the western border of the subject property. The adjacent area to the south and east is comprised of the remaining portion of unincorporated County land known as Bolsa Chica. Services and Utilities The following agencies and districts provide community services and utilities to the project area. Educational Services - The project site lies within the jurisdictions of the Ocean View Elementary School District and the Huntington Beach . Union High School District. The schools located within the closest proximity to the site include Westmont Elementary "School (Grades K-8) , Marine View- Elementary School (K-8), and Marina High School (9-12). A school site owned. by the Ocean View School District lies within the central portion of the project site; however, there are no immediate development plans for this'site. . Fire Protection - The project area is served by the Huntington Beach City Fire Department; however, because the project site is .in unin- corporated County land it is technically within the jurisdiction of the County Fire Department. The closest fire station is located at Heil Avenue and Springdale Street in Huntington Beach. Police Protection - The project vicinity is served by the City Police Department; however, the project site is in County unincorporated land and within the jurisdiction of the County Sheriff's Department. . Water Service - The project site is not currently located within the \ jurisdiction of a service agency; however, it adjoins the service area of the Huntington Beach City Water Department. Wastewater Service - The project site is not located within a waste- water district. The surrounding development is served by Orange County Sanitation District 411. • Electric Service - The project site lies within the service area of the Southern California Edison Company. . Natural Gas. Service - The project site .lies within the service area of the Southern California Gas Company. A File: LCP-Bolsa Chica F8ii0-t23.1 o„ CO!l11tj/ .Of Orange DATE: April 6, 1981 To- Members of the Board of SupervisorBEPT/DIST: FROM: Robert G. Fisher, Director of Planning Environmental Management Agency SUBJECT: Bolsa Chica Land Use Plan Concept At the request of Supervisor Wieder, we have reviewed the attached April 6, 1981 letter from the Amigos de Bolsa Chica concerning the Corps of Engineers pre- liminary report entitled "Preliminary Numerical Tidal Circulation Results for the Bolsa Chica Study" and offer the following: 1. We had the opportunity to review the Corps of Engineers preliminary report just prior to the hearing (received Monday afternoon) and found its conclusions (page 15) not contradictory to the conclusions of staff relative to Alternative 9. 2. The report is preliminary and subject to review by the Corps of Engineers and others and due to its preliminary, unofficial form, we did not feel compelled to call it to the Board's attention. 3. Based on Items i and 2 above, we did '.not deem it necessary to r extend an invitation to the Corps of Engineers to speak; however, the Corps of Engineers was notified of the Board hearing and 'did have an opportunity to testify in the event they felt they had new information of significance. 4. Staff found nothing in the preliminary Corps report which would lead one to the possible adverse conclusions mentioned in the third paragraph of the Amigos' letter. Rather, with regard to the preliminary report conclusions, staff believes that: a. The velocities indicated in the report in the vicinity of the Warner Avenue bridge are well below those which would cause erosion, particularly in a channel which is designed for navigation; b. With the change- in direction of flow from Bolsa Chica towards Huntington Harbour at flood tide, we would more likely expect an improvement in water quality in Huntington Harbour; C. The report does not conclude nor is there evidence we know of that would indicate the possibility of siltation in Huntington Harbour; Based on our review of the matter and the above comments , staff sees no reason why the Board should not proceed with its proposed action on the Bolsa Chica Land Use Plan Concept. o� &� /CDY- Robert G. Fisher 2 Director of Planning 0 2 RLR:jbc D cc: Director, F1,1A Af-R 16 1981 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Spa,,,, - CovPS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE � ; HAP RIFT IJ1i ® f 2 3 RESOLUTION 'OF' THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF 4 ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 5 April 8, 1981 6 On motion of Supervisor Wieder, duly seconded and carried, the following Resolution was adopted: 7 Y WHEREAS, the County of Orange has elected to prepare- a Local Coastal 8 Program in accordance with the Public Resources Code.; and 9 WHEREAS, Section 30511 (c) of the Public Resources Code and Section 00032 of the Local Coastal Program Regulations allow a local government. 10 to submit its Local Coastal Program in separate geographic units con- sisting of less than the local government' s jurisdiction lying within 11 the coastal zone; and 12 WHEREAS, Section 30511 (b) of the Public Resources Code provides for the separate processing of-Land Use Plans and Implementing Ordinances 13 and. Actions; and 14 WHEREAS, the Orange County Coastal Zone has been divided into four Planning units consisting of North. Coast, Irvine Coast, 'Aliso Creek,• arid 4Z= 15 South Coast; and °,o ° ° 4; W 16 WHEREAS, the North Coast Planning Unit has been divided into six 4.oZZ segments consisting of Sunset Beach, Sunset Aquatic Park, Bolsa Chica, 'o0 17 Santa Ana River Mouth, Newport Dunes and Santa Ana Heights; and U 18 WHEREAS, with respect to the Bolsa Chica area the Environmental Management Agency has coordinated with appropriate agencies including 19 the City .of Huntington 'Beach as directed by Minute Order of October 11, 1977, and has provided ample opportunities for the interested public to 20 input through meetings of the Bolsa Chica Study Group, Technical Advisory Committee and four public workshops in the area; and 21 WHEREAS, as a result of information provided, the complexity of 22 the issues involved and the importance of the Bolsa Chica area, it is deemed prudent and appropriate to consider a wide range of land use 23 plan alternatives at a conceptual level prior to preparation of a Local Coastal Program; and 24 WHEREAS, the Orange County Planning Commission has conducted four 25 public hearings to receive all evidence and consider the numerous alternative land use plan concepts for the Bolsa Chica area; and 26 O 27 / ® 28 / JRG:dh Resolution No. 81-479 Orange County Local Coastal Program LCP 81-1, Bolsa Chica Segment, North Coast Planning Unit and General Plan Amendment LCP 81-1 1 . 4 I WHEREAS, this Board has conducted a public hearing to consider information available on the subject and recognizes the need to provid 2 additional direction to the Environmental Management Agency in preparin the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program and General Plan Amendment 3 LCP 81-1; and 4 WHEREAS, Section 2.1080. 9 of the Public Resources .Code and Title 14, Section 10579. 3 of the California Administrative Code exempt the 5 preparation and adoption of Local Coastal Programs from CEQA; and 6 WHEREAS, Environmental Impact Report No. 250 has been prepared and circulated for public comment; and 7 WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report is not being .certified 8 at this time but has been reviewed for information purposes and to assist in the evaluation of the environmental impact of various land 9 use plan alternatives; and 10 WHEREAS, the Coastal Act of 1976 established a diverse set of policies for the management of the California Coastal zone; and 11- WHEREAS, the Coastal Act, in Section 30007. 5 of the Public Resources 12 Code, recognized that conflicts may occur .between one or more policies of the Act; and 13 WHEREAS, basic responsibility for reconciling Coastal Act policies 14 and determining what activities are to be permitted in the coastal zone J> lies with local government; and LLz; 15 - - Wou WHEREAS, in Public Resources Code Section 30007. 5, the Legislature W` w 16 declared that "in carrying out the provisions of [the Coastal Act) such OZ , conflicts shall be resolved in a manner which on balance is most pro- O0 17 tective of significant coastal resources" ; and 18 WHEREAS, this section also provided that "broader policies which, for- example, served to concentrate development in close proximity to 19 urban and employment centers may be more protective, overall, than specific wildlife habitat and other similar resource policies" ; and 20 WHEREAS, in Public Resources Code Section 30004 , the Legislature " 21 declared that "to achieve maximum responsiveness to local conditions , accountability, and public accessibility, it is necessary to rely on 22 local government and local land use planning procedures and enforcement" ; and 23 WHEREAS, in Public Resources Code Section 30001. 5, the Legislature 24 established the basic goals of the State for the coastal zone; and 25 WHEREAS, these goals include (a) protection , maintenance, and, where feasible, enhancement and restoration .of the overall quality of 26 the coastal zone environment and its resources; (b) assurance of N /N o .27 / LL / ® 28 / 2 . I orderly, balanced utilization and conservation of coastal zone resources taking into account the social and economic needs of the 2 People of the State; (c) maximization of public access to and along the coast and public recreational opportunities of the coastal zone con- 3 sistent with sound resources conservation principles and private property rights; (d) assurance of a priority for a coastal-dependent and coastal- 4 related development; and (e) encouragement of the State and local initiatives and cooperation in preparing procedures to implement 5 coordinated planning and development for the mutually beneficial uses in a coastal zone; and 6 WHEREAS, the Coastal Act, in Public Resources Code Section 30121, 7 defines the term "wetland" to mean lands within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and 8. include salt water marshes, fresh water marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mud flats and fens; and 9 WHEREAS, Public Resources Code Section 30233 permits, for designated 10 purposes, the diking, filling or dredging of wetlands where there is no feasible less environmentally, damaging alternative and where 11_ feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects; and z 12 WHEREAS, this section permits the dredging of wetlands for the con- 13 struction of entrance channels to new or expanded boating facilities; and 14 WHEREAS, Public Resources Code Section 30411 authorizes the Depart- ment of Fish and Game to study degraded wetlands and identify "those 4 = = 15 which can most feasibly be restored in conjunction with. development of Woo a boating -facility as provided in the subdivision (a) of Section 30233" ; "; W 16 and 4 0 f = o � 17 WHEREAS, Public Resources Code Section 30233 (a) (3) provides for the " O development of new boating facilities in those areas identified by the 18 Department of Fish and Game pursuant to Section 30411 if in conjunction with the boating facility a substantial portion of the identified area 19 is restored and maintained as biologically productive wetland; and 20 WHEREAS, this section provides that in no event shall the portion of said area, so identified by the Department of Fish and Game to be 21 used for the boating facility, be greater than 25 percent of the total wetland area identified to be restored; and 22 WHEREAS, this section provides that for every one acre devoted to 23 a boating facility- in areas identified as feasible to restore by the Department of Fish and Game pursuant to Section 30411, three acres 24 should be restored; and 25 WHEREAS, the Department of Fish and Game has not made a determina- t- ta pursuant to Section 30411 of the Public Resources Code for Bolsa 2 26 Chica; and . N /i 27 / 4 / ® 28 / 3. • a 1 WHEREAS, such a determination by the Department of Fish and Game is discretionary and the requirements of Section 30233 (a) (3) with 2 respect to degraded wetlands do not appear to apply until the Departmen of Fish and Game has made this determination, although the general 3 policies of the Coastal Act do apply; and , 4 WHEREAS, land use planning for the Bolsa Chica area was begun in 1973 with the execution of a Settlement Agreement between the State of 5 California and the Signal Companies which provided for the potential conveyance of up to 530 acres to the State for the restoration of salt 6 marsh habitat and the development of a smallcraft boating facility; and 7 WHEREAS, the State has received fee title to _300 acres and a lease to an additional 230 acres for a 14-year period; and 8 WHEREAS, the State will receive fee title to the additional 230 9 acres if a navigable ocean entrance is constructed by 1987; . and 10 WHEREAS, the 1973 Settlement Agreement referenced the State Conceptual Plan for Bolsa Chica which provided for navigable ocean 11 entrance, a salt marsh of approximately 400 acres and a 100-150 acre boating facility; and 12 WHEREAS, the first phase of the State' s Conceptual. Plan has been 13 implemented by the restoration of approximately 150 acres; and 14 WHEREAS, the State of California confirmed in Signal title to its C ,, lands free from regulation for public trust purposes, which purposes . 4ZZ 15 included wildlife habitat preservation; and - - o > > 4�W 16 WHEREAS, the 1973 Settlement Agreement appears to contemplate the oz < development of land retained by Signal for residential and other oT 17 private purposes; and u p 18 WHEREAS, it appears that the 1973 Settlement Agreement intended to reconcile and provide for the public interest with respect to wildlife i9 habitat preservation; and 20 WHEREAS, Sections 30233 (a) (3) and 30411 of the Coastal Act would apparently permit the implementation of the State Conceptual Plan and 21 the 1973 Settlement Agreement; and 22 WHEREAS, it would appear to be equitable and appropriate, based on the policies of the Coastal Act and the terms of the 1973 Settlement 23 Agreement, to include in the three ( 3) to one (1) (restored wetland to marina) ratio, areas that have been and, are being restored pursuant 24 to the 1973 Settlement Agreement; and 25 WHEREAS, the inclusion of a small boat harbor, related new ocean entrance and coastal-related visitor-serving facilities in the land use 0- 26 plan is considered of great importance in providing for coastal access N and improving recreation opportunities; and 0 27 28 / 4 . 1 WHEREAS, a goal of including a minimum of 600 acres of restored marsh land in the land use plan is considered necessary to preserve the 2 biological productivity and enhance and provide for a balanced and sensitive wildlife habitat of the area; and 3 WHEREAS, the consideration of a new navigable ocean entrance is 4 considered the most feasible, least environmentally damaging method to ' facilitate wetlands restoration; and _ 5 WHEREAS, the inclusion of a navigable connection from the proposed 6 new ocean entrance to Huntington Harbour in the land use plan will provide improved access to the ocean for Huntington Harbour boaters , 7 improve tidal flushing in Huntington Harbour, improve bay water quality, facilitate joint harbor patrol coverage and relieve a safety hazard to 8 boaters who must otherwise traverse the current munitions loading area at the Seal 'Beach Naval Weapons Station; and 9 WHEREAS, tourist recreation/commercial and a reasonable amount of 10 residential and commercial land use is found to be appropriate to provide for a balanced community and financial support for the public recreation 11- and ecological reserve facilities uses included in the plan; i 12 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board directs the Environ- mental Management Agency: 13 1. To prepare a Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan (LCP/LUP) and, 14 related General Plan Amendment based upon the EMA staff preferred alternative concept plan; Alternative 9 , as described in the letter oz ; IS from the Director, -EMA, dated April 1, -1981, and -as modified by this -- W0 , Board as follows : UU W 16 OZ , a. The area designated as "Special Design Zone" is intended U0 17 to allow for the expansion of the marsh area to the maximum extent economically feasible in conjunction with other development on the 18 property. Six hundred acres is set as the minimum planning objective subject to feasibility to be defined in the specific 19 plan to be developed by EMA staff. 20 b. The 40-acre W. R. Grace property, located contiguous to the existing .W. R. Grace single-family tract, shall be designated as 21 medium density residential. 22 2 . To circulate the LCP/LUP in draft form to the interested public 23 and affected agencies as required by law, and to present it at duly noticed public hearings to the Planning Commission and subsequently to 24 this, Board with the Planning Commission ' s recommendations thereon . 3. To prepare and present to the Planning Commission and this 25 Board, before submittal of the LCP/LUP, a proposed scope of work for 26 completing a specific plan for the Bolsa Chica study area as a component N of LCP Phase III , Implementing Ordinances and Actions; L7 / ® 28 5. 1 4 . To include recommended policies and requirements in or condi- tions on the LCP/LUP which ensure that: 2 ( . a. The overall biological productivity and diversity and 3 wildlife habitat values of Bolsa Chica are protected and/or reestablished without diminution. 4 b. All development as well as operation and maintenance costs 5 will be further defined in the Bolsa Chica Public Facilities Management and Financing Plan to be provided during the later stages 6 of the Local Coastal Program. 7 C. Visitor-serving commercial areas adjacent to the proposed marina shall be included in a special assessment district to provide 8 payback on marina capital costs and to provide for ongoing operation and maintenance of the marina complex at no net public expense. If 9 the County Administrative Office' s fiscal analysis team cannot ° assure this Board. that the above requirement will be met, the 10 project will not proceed. 11 d. No general County tax dollars shall be allocated to the cost of construction of any infrastructure improvements on the Bolsa . 12 Chica property other than those funds now budgeted for the Bolsa - Chica Linear Regional Park. The developer shall be responsible for . 13 construction of bridges, roadways, channels , flood control channels , and. other infrastructure, not otherwise financed by State or 14 Federal funds, or special assessment. funds•. J> �. W f 0 15 - ---e. -All - property owned by Signal Landmark, Inc. , in the area ,uV designated for Linear Park shall be dedicated by Signal to the 16 County for park purposes , boundaries to be approved by the County ; Z , and Signal as part of the LCP Land Use Plan. 0u 17 f. The project shall be phased so that the marsh restoration 18 proceeds along with the other project developments in the Bolsa gap so that they are implemented together. 19 g. The decision to allow a navigable ocean connection and 20 channel to the Huntington Harbour-Sunset Aquatic Park area is specifically conditioned upon the Corps of Engineers feasibility 21 and model study. County shall require that this feasibility analysis include maximum possible protection of existing public 22 beaches, parks and facilities for maintenance of existing public recreation and benefits . Results of the Corps ' study shall be 23 reviewed, prior to. final approval from the County, by an Ad Hoc Engineering Advisory Committee to consist of an engineering repre- 24 sentative appointed by the Director of EMA, and engineering 25 representatives of the following groups : o State Department of Parks and Recreation 2 26 o Sunset Beach Community Association o Committee for Clean water and Ocean Access 0. LL 27 o Amigos de Bolsa Chica ® 28 o Other groups to be determined. ° 6. 1 h. The ability to continue the production of oil can continue Cwithout interruption or significant interference. 2 i. The road system improvements and other infrastructure 3 necessary to support the development including operation and maintenance . of the private development project elements will not 4 result in costs to the general taxpayer. 5 j . The circulation system is adequate and will not pose' a substantial adverse . traffic impact on the surrounding area. 6 k. There will be adequate protection against geotechnical 7 hazards and subsidence.' 8 1'. There will . be protection against seawater intrusion of the underground .aquifers or .adjoining areas. 9 m. Land, improvements, operation and maintenance of the I 10 proposed linear regional park, new navigable connection between Huntington Harbour and the ocean, marina, bridges and expanded U.- State Ecological Reserve can be secured by a combination of contributions by the developer, assessments of property in the 12 area, budgeted County monies, existing or potential State and Federal funds and taxes and other revenue generated on the site, 13 such combination to be determined as part of the LCP Phase III and Specific Plan preparation. 14 n. In the event of application for City annexation of all or 4 = z 15 part -of -the Bolsa ._Chica_ area, a Fiscal Impact Report shall be 000 prepared by the petitioners to assess the cost revenue impact of 4; W 16 such annexation on the County and the special districts serving the tL Z property to be annexed. 00 17 " o. The developer shall make all on-site improvements for the 18 East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Flood Control Channel in a manner meeting the approval of the Director, EMA. 19 p. Prior to final approval of the LCP, the project proponent 20 shall submit a detailed outline of a Bolsa Chica Public Facilities Management and Financing Plan (Phase I) for Planning Commission 21 and Board of . Supervisors approval which addresses the .selected Alternative. 22 q. Based on the selected Alternative for the LCP, the Phase I 23 Management and Financing Plan shall be further defined by the proponents prior to eventual Specific Plan approval. This Phase II 24 Management Plan shall include a detailed analysis of: 25 (1) Identification of all facilities, services and land Y area involved, to include all other public project and marina 2 26 capital projects as outlined in Tables VII-1, VII-2, and IX-1 ti in the FIR, and other similar projects , if any. �. 27 U. / ® 28 / i 7. ; 1 (2) Identification of all agencies, private ownerships and associations responsible for management of the above 2 facilities, services and land. 3 (3) The costs associated with each of the above facilities, services and land. 4 (4) Preliminary funding mechanisms for all of the above 5 facilities, services and land.- 6 (5) A plan for funding the unfunded portion, $38 million, identified as unfunded in the Fiscal Impact Report, dated . 7 March 1981, Table VII-1, page 95, and Table IX-1, page 126 , including identifying specific sources, methods and reasonable 8 possibilities of- securing such amounts. 9 Such Bolsa Chica Management• Plan shall' be submitted to the s Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors for approval. 10 r. Prior .to approval of any :land division and/or any develop- ment of the subject property, a Phase III Bolsa Chica Public Facilities Management and Financing Plan providing finalized, 12 contractual detail for (q) (1 through 5) above shall be submitted for approval of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors . i 13. The Phase III Management Plan shall contain contractual arrangements for the phasing, funding, construction, operation and maintenance 14 for all facilities as identified in Item (q) (1) above. W f • "Z 15 i 0o , o� - > W 16 - ` u Z z 00 17 V 18 AYES : SUPERVISORS HARRIETT M. WIEDER, RALPH B. CLARK, ROGER T. j STANTON, BRUCE NESTANDE AND THOMAS F. RILEY I 19 NOES : SUPERVISORS NONE 20 I ABSENT: SUPERVISORS NONE 21 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) j ss. 22 COUNTY OF ORANGE ) 23 I, JUNE ALEXANDER, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California,! hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution was,dei Z d ogularly adopted by 24 the said Board at a regular meeting thereof held on the 8th_•day of'' •.• SApril 19 81 , and passed by a uanimous vote of said�Bdard-._, 25 26 IN WITNESS 1,MRE0F, I have hereunto set my hand' and,seal this $.th: '_"day of G7 April 19 81 a 27 28 f9UNE ALEXANDER . Clerk of A• _-.Board of ,Sdiervisors of LL c?ra�nge , buti •�1` 8 . t Huntingtor Beach INDEPEND�Er�Nr�t`T o Semi-Weekt'+{" 5 arina an T h mo% rAo% h ,' the -.-,M m.. on.ey supervisors OTC Bolsa' chica marsh- marina plan; no county.:funcls for project 1 By ROGER BLOOM The board's actions will now be written up by On the other side of the coin,representatives of the _ from. Robert Brown, chief planner for the Coastal Staff Writer county staff into the form of a precisely-worded reso- Amigos de.Bolsa Chica, a group which has long been' Commission,which indicated that the just-paF&Ml lution that will be .voted on by the supervisors next seeking to see the 1,100 acres of lowlands restored to a would not be acceptable to that body. -HUNTINGTON BEACH —The board of super- week. wetlands habitat, were displeased that 600 acres were Referring to the plan passed by the county plan- visors this week approved a conceptual plan for the After the meeting, Signal spokesperson Wayne 0 that were set'aside for restoration and that homes. ning commission (essentially the same as that passed , Bolsa Chica marsh which calls`for the construction of Clark commented that the company has doubts about weie OKed for land immediately adjacent to the site by the supervisors, except that the supervisors ex-I a 1,800-slip boat marina and 5,700 homes in the dis- the financial viability 'of a project on the 1,600-acre of restoration. ": panded the area for restoration), Brown wrote, "(it is)I puted area. parcel that includes a marsh of the size called for by :"I'm disappointed," said Dr. Peter Green, presi- deficient in meeting the provisions of the (Coastal) The plan, as passed by the supervisors,also upped the board. dent of the Amigos. "The board is attempting to Act,"and added that"the primary unconsistency (sic) the acreage slated for marsh restoration from the 400- compromise with 600 acres of restored wetlands, but I in the plan continues to be the minimal provision for plus approved by the county planning commission to The.supervisors actions could result in the dele- still feel the board has not considered the Coastal restoration of the wetlands in the Bolsa Chica Gap tion of'expensive waterfront homes from the plan and at least 600 acres. Act." - combined with proposed land uses which are incom- And, the supervisors, reacting to concerns put for-. thereby cripple Signals ability to recoup its,invest- , Under that law, wetlands are given high priority patible with wetlands and not allowable..." ward by the Amigos de Bolsa Chica that the develop- ment in the numerous public improvements (an ocean for preservation and restoration. The state Coastal The land uses that Brown termed incompatible ment plan could end up in the red, tacked a proviso :channel, roads, the marina and bridges over the chan- Commission, which administers the Coastal Act, and would include housing and commercial development in onto the measure that would prohibit the expenditure 'nels) that it is expected to fund in addition to the must approve any eventual plan for the Bolsa Chica, the lowlands. Brown instegd said that the county of county funds on the project, except for the linear homes,Clark said. last year rendered a preliminary decision that the dis- should come up with a plans for intense development, park linking the marsh with Huntington Central Park - "We're not certain that the result could produce puted marsh is wetlands and subject to the proecc- on the Botsa Chica Mesa, with revenue from that which is already planned and budgeted for. -. the revenue to cover they public costs that Signal is tions of the Act. `+ project funding lowlands restoration. The supervisors' actions came after more than. (being asked to shoulder, said Clark. We have to. Green said he is going to call a meeting of the "(We) maintain that this alternative would be far three hours of public testimony on the land use desig- ,obviously, refigure what can be done and we have to Amigos board of directors very soon to discuss the,: less'`environmentally damaging that developing the nations that the property owner, Signal Properties, .:convince the board of supervisors that they may have supervi ors actions and the Amigos response. wetland with both residential and marina uses," he was seeking for the land. "made the project unfeasible." Meanwhile, the board received this week a letter wrote. � 27 Avt __'F-4-,lo. ZA- F-r--b z+ - ��ed nm da� ----------- oleo lxo� ll?A - CITIZENS FOR OCEAN ACCESS AND RECREATION j P.O. BOX 4212 IRVINE, CA. 92716 -- VOL. 1 NO. 3 NEWSLETTER JUNE 1981 CITIZENS EYE COASTAL SCENE F BILL FICKER, A CHAM- PION YACHTSMAN, is the ;3 only person in histo y PROGRESS OF COASTLINE PROJECTS r to have won the three most coveted sailing A number of coastline projects in titles : the Star Southern California are currently Class; Congressional under construction including: Cup; and America ' s Cup . AS AN ARCHITECT —.west Channel/Cabrillo Beach Marina, AND PLANNER he has Phase I been involved in many —2700 slips , launch ramp, moorings , waterfront projects 250 spaces , dry storage throughout the world including old Port Visitor serving commercial uses Cove, Florida ; Port Sonoma , Petaluma (Near (restaurants , Shops , marine-- San Francisco) ; Marina City , Marina Del Rey; chanleries , marine services) andKapalua , Maui . Ficker is currently the —Fishing from jetties , museum, master planning architect for the Queen beach , marsh area, youth camp Mary project in Long Beach . --Construction begins August, 1981 BILL FICKER URGES COOPERATION --completion of project Fall , 1983 FOR COASTAL PROJECTS *Contact: L.A. Harbor Department Good Planning Can Provide (More than 2500 petitions were Benefits for Everyone signed supportive of this project) "We all have a common interest--the —Long Beach Shoreline and Downtown quality of the environment, " says Bill Marinas Ficker. - Fi-cker advocates coexistence —1700 slips , the first 131 available and cooperation and rejects the idea in June, 1981 ; remaining 1600 slips that coastal plans have to be to the det- available in June , 1982 . riment of anyone. "The old notion that: a development has to hurt some segment —Fisherman's Village , aquatic park of society is just not true. " —Currently under construction *Contact: Marine Department BOLSA CHICA--GREAT OPPORTUNITY (213) 5 9 4-0 9 51 Ficker, the president of the Orange —Oxnard/Channel Islands Harbor County Coast Association, sees Bolsa Expansion Chica as one of the few areas along the —..Only one hour from downtown L.A. California coast where new ocean access can be provided. Says Ficker, "Bolsa —700 new slips , the first available Chica represents the highest priority for Spring, 1982 navigable access to and from the ocean, —Offers excellent access to Northern plus great opportunities for the develop_, Channel Islands--Santa Cruz, ment of natural wildlife habitat and Anacapa wetlands. " A resident of Newport Beach for 25 —11-15 miles from easy entrance years—F c-ke-r=states;-"-Bols-a- Chica -is-not--- eha�nnel- -- - -=___ --- only important for providing an alternate —Currently under construction ocean access . . . thus reducing the boat traffic through Newport Beach. . . but *Contact: Channel Islands Harbor also for providing coastal opportunities ; Administration for all of Orange County. " 3900 Pelican Way Ficker, who submitted his own plan Oxnard, CA 93030 for Bolsa Chica to the Orange County (805) 487-7711 Ext. 4291 Planning Commission, now supports the —Ventura Harbor (Ventura West) County Plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors April 8. Says Ficker, "With —200 slips , lst available in late limited tax dollars available we should 1981 be looking at realistic ways for funding —Construction to begin in Spring, projects. Marina development provides a 1981 good opportunity to fund development of rich wetlands. " Contact: (805) 644-8266 Robert Woodward, Susan Anderson, Ralph Kiser, Wayne Clark, William Ficker, Stewart Case, Ed Nichols President President Executive Secretary Representative President Executive Secretary Executive Secretary S.Calif Marine Assn. Calif Marine Parks Orange County Coast Assn, Signal Landmark. Inc. Orange County Coast Assn Citizens for Ocean So, Calif Marine Assn. and Harbors Assn. Access and Recreation BOLSA CHICA CONCEPT--DEFINED COASTAL SUPPORT SHOWN AT The orange county Board of supervisors DUNE 4 COAR LUNCHEON has adopted the following Plan for Bolsa ' Chica: Support for coastal projects was —A 700 foot wide cut to the ocean at demonstrated by a turnout of more than Bolsa Chica 40 governmental officials, boating and coastal organization leaders plus rep- -1800 slip marina, public launching }amps resent.atives from chambers of commerce —A connection channel between the throughout Orange County who attended Huntington Harbour/Sunset Aquatic Park the Citizens for Ocean Access and Rec- area and the new navigable ocean reation Luncheon on June 4 at the connection Saddleback Inn in Santa Ana. Bill Ficker, Master of Ceremonies, —Expansion of the ecological reserve/ addressed the prestigious group and marshland area to 600 acres, contingent reaffirmed COAR's focus on providing upon economic feasibility coastal access and specific support —Up to 5700 residential units for new coastal projects--The Santa Ana River Mouth and Bolsa Chica. —51 acres of visitor-serving commercial, including hotels, shops and restaurants SUPERVISOR WIEDER HONORED —Dedication by the developers of up to On behalf of COAR, Bill Ficker Linear acres for the planned Bolsa development presented Orange County Supervisor Linear Regional Park, with development o Harriett Wieder with a resolution com- c the park by the County of Orange in mending Mrs. Weider for showing pre- Beach njunction with the City of Huntington fessionalism and consideration towards divergent interest groups with respect —Maintenance of Pacific Coast Highway in to adopting a plan for Bolsa Chica. its present location with bridges over Ficker presented the resolution to the new ocean connection channel and the Wieder as "COAR'S highest commendation Huntington Harbour channel at Warner in recognition of her leadership, Avenue to allow navigation passage judgement and exemplery performance in —Prohibition against county general tax the conduct of her office." fund expenditures for the projects Wieder graciously accepted the award and assured County's continuance —Possibility of special assessments on toward adoption of a specific plan existing and future homeowners in the for Bolsa Chica. Bolsa Chica-Huntington Harbour area to Also at the luncheon, a status re- fund construction and maintenance of port of the Santa Aqa River Mouth Pro- new channels and bridges ject was given by the project's con- -Phasing of the project so that marsh sultant, Ken Sampson, as well as a restoration, marina construction and presentation on Bolsa Chica by Robert residential development in the Bolsa McNatt, vice president/project manager„ Chica lowlands proceed concurrently Signal Landmark, Inc. ; and planning consultants Don Smith, vice president, Phillips Brandt Reddick (PBR) , and Greg Vale, project manager, PBR. SPEAKER'S BUREAU Citizens for ocean Access and Recre- TRAILERABLE BOATS--NEED FOR ation has formed a speaker's bureau LAUNCHING FACILITIES consisting of qualified speakers from a variety of coastal, boating, and Of the 500,000 boats registered in ----marine interest groups. If your or- California, 90% are trailerable, yet ganization is in need'of a speaker --= the-shortage"of launching-facilities— -- presentation please call: along our coast is obvious especially (714) 557-0349 between Los Angeles and Orange County. Suggested Topics: Launching Facilities --Coastal Project Planning Oxnard Channel IslandsMarina Del Rey —Coastal Access and Pending L.A. Harbor/Cabrillo' Legislation Golden Avenue-Long Beach 2nd Street Long Beach Ramp —Presentations-Bolsa Chica and Long Beach Marina Santa Ana River Mouth Sunset Aquatic Park Huntington Harbour Newport Harbour Dana Point YOUR INPUT NEEDED Ralph Poole, Editor of Trailer Boats believes more ramps are needed to We would appreciate your letters. satisfy the heavy demand of Southern If you have a special interest, need California boatowners. information, or would like to sub- mit a short article of your own, Poole advocates exploring alterna- please write to : tives for storing trailerable boats 9 in marina facilities. Says Poole, P.O. Box 2 some marinas in Florida and Missis- sippi are exclusively used by trail- erable boats. CITIZENS FOR OCEAN ACCESS AND RECREATION ' Bulk Rate P.O. Box 4212 HUNTINGT^'' BEACH U.S. Postage Irvine, CA. 92716 PLANNING DEPT. PAID c� Permit No. 15 JUN 2 1 6 1981 Santa Ana, CA. P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 June Catalano DeDL. Cltv planning Beach NEWSLETTER of Huntingtoz 'g �i _y P__C '--Box 190 _"�-�- ' JUNE , 1981 BOLSA CHICA LOCAL COASTAL PI AN--OCTLIN:- I. INTRODUCTION A. CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT B. COUNTY OF OR ,!-',GE LOCAL COASTAL P ROGRAI-f C. NORTH COAST PLANNING UNITS 1. Sunset Aquatic Regional Pare 2. Sunset Beach 3. Newport Dunes 4. Santa Ana Heights S. Santa :.na River Estuary D. BOLSA CHICA STUDY AREA TI. RESOURCE CO'4110N.E_r'T A. INTRODUCTION B. HAKI .T CONSTRAINTS AND PROTECTION 1. .dater/Marine Resources--Habitat a. Environmental Setting/Existing Resources (1) Terrestrial (2) Littoral (3) Aquatic b. issues 2. M fer Areas a. Envi.ronn:ental Setting/Existing Resources (1) Terrestrial. (2) Littoral (3) Aquatic b. Issues C. PUBLIC HEAI Tii !1ND SAFETY 1.. Seismic/Geologic Hazards 2. Flooding Hazards 3. Areas Subject to Tidal Activity !:. Fire Hazards D. CUL'TURAL/SCIE';TIFIC RESOURCES 1. Existing Resources 2. Issues E. LO`:G-T;;; i Hi',I-AT MANAGEMENT PROGRA?.i F. LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION PROGri.'L•' G. VIEWSH D PROTECT IOXjVIEUISHFD LRECLA?LATION PROGRAM H. F:El'i.'-.NDS 1. Definition/Extent 2. Environmental Setting/Existing Resources a. Issues 3. Public Health and Safety 4. Cultural/Scientific Resources 3. Long-'Term HabtLat Aan24`,emenU Program U. Land and Water Consorvation Program 7_ Viewshed Protection/Vzewsh<d Reclamation Program T. POLICIES 1. California Coastal. Plan Z Orange County General flan 3. Site Speciii.c. Policies -1- v , a. Habitat Constraints and Protection b. Public Health and Safety c. Cultural/Scientific Resources d. Long-Term Habitat 'Management Program e. Land and Water Conservation Program f. Viewshed Protection/Viet•:shed Reclamation Program g. Wetlands III. TRANSPORTATION COMPONENT A. INTRODUCTION B. REGIONAL TP,,'1`ISPORTATION/CIPCULATION SYSTEM C. TRANSPORTATION ISSUES D. ISSUE ANALYSIS E. AIR QUALITY 1. Existing Conditions 2. Air Quality Management Plan F. POLICIES 1. Transportation 2. Air Quality G. WFETLAN-DS INTERFACE WITH TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION NETWORK IV. ACCESS COXPONENT A. INTRODUCTION 1. Coastal Initiative/California Coastal Act 2. Conservancy Act 3. Federal Coastal 'Lone Management Legislation 4. Public Access Demand 5. Coastal Access Program B. DEFINITIONS C. ORANGE COUIvTY RECRIELAMO`IAL NEEDS 1. Overview 2. Individual Recreation Activity Profiles D. COHLM'INITY ANALYSIS AREA(S) RECREATION PROFILE E. SITE SPECIFIC RECRL-%TION1 PROFILE 1. Existing Facilities a. Shoreline Recreation b. Visitor-Serving/Commercial-Recreational Facilities c. Support Facilities d. Trails/Trail Links e. Access to Study Area F. PROPOSED RECREATIONAL FACILITIES 1. Shoreline Recreation 2. Visitor-Serving/Commercial-Recreational Facilities 3. Support Facilities 4. Trails/Trail Links 5. Access to Study Area G. PROTECTION OF ENIIIROM-TENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT AREAS--LIETLANDS H. POLICIES 1. California Coastal Act 2. Orange County General Plan 3. Site Specific Policies 4. Wetlands -2- V. RECREATION AND NEW DEVELOPMENT COMPONENT A. INTRODUCTION B. PROPOSED LAND USES/CATEGORIES/PARik flf'TERS 1. Visitor-Serving Facilities 2. Commercial-Recreational Facilities 3. Population Density/Building Intensity 4. Recreational. Facilities Needs C. HOUSING COMPONENT D. SHORELINE STRUCTURES, BEACH EROSION AND BOATING FACILITIES E. ADDITIONAL RECREATIONAL BOATING FACILITIES F. POLICIES 1. California Coastal Act 2. Orange County General Plan 3. Site Specific Policies 4. Wetlands VI. ENERGY FACILITIES COMMPONENT A. OIL EXTRACTION ACTIVITIES B. RESTORATION/PROTECTION OF COASTAL RESOURCES C. POLICIES 1. California Coastal Act 2. Orange County General Plan 3. ,Site Specific Policies -3= L L i5 1 J t, I I T L L U l"I &*gnal Bolsa (Balsa Chica) -ETA!L A I I- ACT Intl OF COUNCIL OR BOARD MINUTC BOCX V01 I!ME PACE 1/29/73 Req for Annexation by Signal Bolsa Corp - Signal Bolsa Annex #2 Def'd to 2/5/73 14 631 , 2/5/73 Signal Bolsa Corp req annexation of 263.536 acres .of land loc in northeasterly section of Signal Bolsa Corp prop which is entirely owned by them except for 15 acre sch site presently owned by OVSD,, from whom comm had been rec'd stating they have no objections to annexation of their 15 acres-CAdmin stated reps of Signal Bolsa req desire to withdraw req for annexation pending completion of Environmntl Impct Rpt & other matters 14 646 10/14/75 Mtg re: Developmt of Bolsa Chica Sched'd - Oct 16, '75 - CAdmin informed Council that city staff would be attending 16 474 11/17/75 Comm - Signal Bolsa Corp - Signal Bolsa #2 Annexation - Def'd 12/8/75 - rel to annexation to City of westerly bluff Plann f I L C N 0 1 T(W t-c --- 25 _lAnnexatign, I Signal aQlsa CaQls�a Chical S4.gnal Bolsa (Bolsa Chica) 2 - ',ETAIL DATC ----- ACT I ON OF COUNC.I I OR- BOARD ---- —'M I MITE BOCK VOLUME PAGEi 11/17/75 Dept, Plann Comm, & Envirommntl Council to have recommendations at 12/8/75 mtg 16 520-521 12/8/75 Comm - Signal Bolsa Corp - Signal Bolsa #2 Annexation - Def'd to ' - 2/2/76 - lttr from Environmental Council w/comm from Fire Dept & Pub Wks re: prop annexation. - Mrs. Ruth Bailey, Pres Lea of Women Voters, urged delay in annexation - Mr. Herb Chatterton, Chrman, Amigos de Bolsa Chica, req City postpone annexation until state has opportunity to acquire property - Mr. Geo Stringer, VP of Signal Bolsa Corp - recommended that Council app't committee to wk w/ Signal Bolsa Corp on matter - Motion made that study committee be appointed consisting. of Councilmen Duke & Shipley, Environmental Council, the Plann Comm, Lea of Women Voters, the Amigos del Bolsa Chica & other interested FILE NO -- 25Annexatipn # - Signal Bolsa CBplsa Chica) 'TOPIC FILE NO. Annexation # LEGISLATIVE HISTORY RECORD 25 Signal Bolsa (Bolsa Chica) �3 , DETAIL DATE ACTION OF COUNCIL OR BOARD MINUTE 6001, VOLUME PAGE arti�S. 4—ram Z ?1 r___Qn to Council 12/8/75 Councilman Duke appointed Chrman of Signal Bolsa 112 Annexation Study Committee - — 17 11 1/5/76 Comm - Plann Comm - Bolsa Chica Annexation Committee - Comm - Signal Bolsa Corp_ Bolsa Chica Annexation - Plann Comm to con't w/committee - Mtn of Committee would be convened on Jan 7,'76 - -- --- ----- - 17 43 1/12/76 Bolsa Chica Annexation Comm Rpt - Council apprv'd direction of Comm as set forth in their minutes dated Jan 7, '76 17 53 1/26/76 City Staff input req'd re: So Cst Regional Cstl Comm by Feb 2, '7 i CAdmin to submit stmt of City Policy, includ value of land & econ figures in-re: to prop Bolsa Chica_annexation - Also Bolsa Chica Annexation Comm to present recomm at Feb 2, '76 Council _ FILL T O P I C --- 25 Annexation # T 5i n t Bpl A'i1nexaition $ 2� Signal Bolsa (Bolsa Chica) 4' " DETAIL 4 i - I � I DAli. ACTION OF COUNCIL OR BOARD MINUTE BOOK �,�y VOLUME PACE i— 26/7VV61111 l mt� — 17 74 �- 2/2/76 Bolsa Chica Study Comm Minutes presented St Cstl Comm Pub Hrin I - on land site acquisition - Consid disc held - Motion to sned City rep to pub hring & city on record opposing blanket recomm I failed to pass _ 17 89 2/9 76 City Position - State Cstl Comm Pub Hring on Land Site AccT - as recomm'd by Cstl Comm in ref to acq of Bolsa Chica area - i Roll call on city position also to be Aresented to Cstl Comm 17 97 j 2/17/76 Bolsa-Chica-Study Committee Interim Rpt Accepted - Comm would prepare recomm to Council following action by Cstl Comm 17 105 1 2/17/76 City Position - St Cstl Comm Pub Hring on Land Site Acq - Council 1 — _ woman ,Wieder clarified intent of position stmt rel to prop acq of Bolsa Chica area as recomm by Cstl Comm 17 114 F ILj,_li0• IOPiC i_ 25 Annexation # - Signal Bolsa (Bolsa Chica) FILE NO. TOPIC Annexation # LEGISLATIVE HISTORY RECORD 25 Signal Bolsa (Bolsa Chica) 5 vE TA IL DATE ACTION OF COUNCIL OR BOARD MINUTE BCOk VOLUME PAGE 2/17/76 Req to Address Council - Herb Chatterton - stated his concern re: Council's position rel to proposed acq of Bolsa Chica area 17 116 4/5/76 Bolsa Chica Study Committee Rpt - to mt 4/21/76 to vote on final response to Council 17 184 4/19/76 Req to Address Council - Gordon Offstein - re: annexation of 41 acres of W.R. Grace Prop. - believed consid at this time would —_ be premature (Bolsa Chica Area) -� 17 199 _ 4/19/76 Req to Address Council - Sherry Baum - Pres of HB-Seal Bch League of Women Voters -- re: Bolsa Chica Annexation & consid of matte rdeferred til following Nov election 17 200 I 4/19/76 Req to Address Council - Herb Chatterton - req of W. E. Grace Pro I to annex their properties to City be deferred__until Bolsa Chica Study Committee Rpt has been presented to Council 17 200 FILL NQ, -- r 25. Annexation # - aj-qnal B.ols,a (RolSa Chica) L ? Signal Bolsa (Bolsa Chica) 6 I DETAIL OATF ACTION OF COUNCIL OR BOARD MINUTI BOOK I VOLUME rAGE 4/19/76 gricultural Lands in HB - Rpt - R & F - Also transmitted CAtt opinion on impact of AB 15 on proposed Bolsa Chica annexation 17 202-203 4/19/76 Recomm'd Coastal Props for Pub Acq - Position Stmt to be re 'd - Prop 20 & status of Coastal Comm_& implementation on St electioli 17 203 4/19/76 _��1�1 ���1y�sLGaham�sn__BoaS�l�a� — 17 203 5/3/76 Bolsa Chica Study Committee Rpt Def'd - designated May 24 ' 76 as date Council would mt w/comm to review said ETt 17 22 5/24/76 Joint mtg btwn Council and Bolsa Chica Study Comm - Mayor Wieder 17 256 reported her resignation from Comm - annexation disc - 5/24/76Initiation of proceedings for total annexation - Bolsa Chica Wetl nd 17 257 - motion passed ;5/25/76 isc procedure - water quality 17 260' 25 AnnexatiQn # - Signal Bolsa CBolsa Chica) ✓ FILE NO. TOPIC Annexation LEGISLATIVE HISTORY RECORD 25 Signal Bolsa (Bolsa Chica) ( 7 DEVIL I MINUTE BOOK DATE ACTION OF COUNCIL OR HOARD - YOL UME FAGE 9/20/76 Pub_Hear- E I R 76-3-(Bolsa Chica Annex)E I R to be re posted for 30 days_ _ — _ _ 18 451 9/20/76 Environmental Impact #76-3-Bolsa Chica Annexation #7 18 461 10/6/76 Signal Bolsa Corp-Communication-Re:Bolsa Chica Annexation- Deferred (CA 76-154) 18 479 10/26/76 Herb Chatterton_Annexation of "The Bolsa Chica" 18 496 10/26/76 Ord No 2112-Tables-Prezoning-ZC 76-20 "The Bolsa Chica" 18 499 10/26/76 Signal_BoIsa Corp-Comm-Re:_ Bolsa Chica Annexation_Tabled(CA76-15 E 18 500 1/17/77 Thomas Whaling-Appt of Council & Staff Liason Members 18 635 3/14/77 Bolsa Chica Wetlands _ — 19 19 3/21/77 Oral Comm-James De Guelle-Bolsa Chica Wetlands 19 26 25 Annexation # - Signal Bolsa (Bolsa Chica) LFCH:11n1IVE AI IORI REC.OR1)Annexations -Signal Bolsa (Bolsa Chica) 25 I DETAIL t DATE ACTION OF COUNCIL OR BOARD - ---- MINUTF BOOK VOt UME PAGE f `6 o 77 Bolsa Chica-HB Cent Park-State acquis 923 acres BC Marshlands - 19 139 Sp.vs Schmit spoke re support State Bud eted Item 396.5 - Cncl appvd Schmit's proposals tog with CAdm proposals j --^ -_--- 7/18/77 Bolsa Chica AanexaCion Staff Report 19 181 7/13/77_ H B C of C - Bolsa Chica Annexation - Received &_Filed 19 181 7/18/77 Request for LAFCO Coutinuan^e of Bolsa Chica Anne4a!Ao,.i _ 19 1.32 8/15/77 Fillback — Pres Amigo- del•Blsa Chidat-!req ,arnxatntbe,pstpndd!,,c 19 215 until study by Signal Lndmrk etc compltd 8 .15/77 Chatterton -- re_no annxtn til_pinng_done 19 215 8/15/77 Moon - re: annxtn - shd hav consdrtn of full Coun 19 215 8/15/77 Bolsa Chica Annex - partial annxtn - apprvd 19 218 9/19/77 Chuck Gibson - spoke re: annx Bolsa Chica 19 59 _gj 19 77 Bolsa Chica Annexn - Planng Dept communcatn - ref back to staff 19 69-270 25 Annexations - Signal Bolsa (Bolsa Chica) — —__ � `Annexations 25 VOL FIVE rAGE (12112177 Discussion re: Bg_Lsa _Qjjjr yor dir Plan Director bring Memo 0/ // 79 BChica Mesa Develop GPA (County) EIR staff to report back 23 140 force for Mica asd proposed by County 23 140 Reecind /or/c } Annexations oo/xmTIvc :/uom xcovno nu NO. 25 � B0lsa Chica Proposed lU DETAIL rArE 0,TYPisr PLEASE NOTE-THIS SCALE CORRESPONDS TO TYPEWRITER (PICA) SCALE--SFT ArER GUIDES �O THAT CARD SCALF WILL RE GISTER WITH MACHINE SCALE WHEN CARD :S TUR 1) INTO WR:TINGE POSITION START INDEX THREr (3) POIIJTS FROM LEFT EDGE OF CARD, USE OTHER POINTS OF SCALE I'OR OTHER DIVISIONS OF VISIBLE TITLE.SET TABULATORS TO NSURFNF r RFECT ALGNM NT OF EACH DIVISION OF INFORMATION. FOLD BACK. OR REMOVE STUB AFTER TYPING, USE NEW TYPEWRITER RIBBON. � An1IC.*:G IC I h, I_- I J i I G I L)U 1 ,,I (Bolsa Chica) DETAIL ' DATE ACTION OF COUNCIL OR DOARD IVINUIE 131 V n1,h'A I PAGE -P-mp-o-s e.d-me-tia ads--Aark shop--- sites 2/4/80 24 169 1/21/80 Bolsa Chica study session w/Bd of Supers 1/24/80 24 173-4 1/21/80 Bolsa Chica study session 1/24/80 request for Police Dept repre 24 175 24 178 2/4/80 Res 4840 - Adopted as amended--LO for Bolsa Chica 24 189 re comilien d 2/4/80 So Coast- R.eqio-n-al Coastal Comm - vacancy -_Aqtion to appointm_t_ of Jackie Heather died for lack of a second 24 193 2/4/80 LCP-CAC - amend ord pertaining to LCP/CAC to permit another member- motion w/drawn 24 194 2/19/80 More Info on Bolsa Chica Wetlands 24 210 3/17/8 Motion re Rols-a—Chi-ca—lowl-ands - fails hv tip vote 24 246 F I L L_"JjQ_ T_(n I C 9 tAnr I,t i o ri - SiQnal Bolsa . (Bolsa Chica) il I 1 41 � I I I Ila r n 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r I 3jo i I TYPIST PLEASE NOTE—THIS SCALE CORRESPONDS T 0 T YPEWR I T F R PIC A) SCALE—SET PAPER GUIDES SO THAT CARD SCALE WILL REGISTER WITH MACHINE SCALE WHEN CARD IS TURNED INTO WRITING POSITION ST 4P I INDEX THREE (3) POINTS FROM LEFT EDGE OF CARD. USE OTHER POINTS OF 'fCALE FOR OTHER DIVISIONS OF VISIBLE TITLE,SET TABULATORS TO INSURE PERFECT ALIGNMENT OF EACH DIVISION OF INFORMATION. FOLD BACK OR REMOVE STUB AFTER TYPING. USE NEW TYPEWRITER RIBBON REMINGTON RAND —20 DIVISION OF SPERRY RAND CORPORATION Annexations - General U01SLAI,vk H15'LOzY RtLORP I A I F ACTION OF COUNCIL OR BOARD MINUTt BOOK ry_` VOL LIME PAGE _91-U173 between City & Westminster _._ 15 11/5/73 Matney suggest PC initiate annex proceedings thru LAFC (Bolsa Chica Area Dev) —direct item be scheduled 11/12 15 168 11/19/73 Res 3788 - Adopted - Transfer of Territories - Westm - RB 15 179 ' F; llest- m- 15 1h _.y I td - Transfer of Territories - 11B-Wes !_m ED #74-38 - Ad td 15 351 3/21/77 League Delegate Authorized to Support Annexation Resolution 19 34 4/4/77 Propalsed Council Meeting with Assemblyman Mangers RE: Bolsa Chica Wetlands 19 47 110116 78 Proposed Annexation of Bolsa Chica 22 90 11/6/78 Bolsa Chica Annexation-Deferred to 11/20/78 22 127 11/20/78 Bolsa Chica Annexation -A roved 22 1 153 FILL NO, TOPIC 25 Annexations - General Information '.PIC FILE NO, Annexation - General LEGISLATIVE HISTORY RECORD 25 5 �iA BATE ACTION OF COUNCIL OR BOARD MINUTE BOOK — VOLUME PAGE 1/29/79 Disc w/Plannin Comm Re: PropesedZoning of Bolsa Chica- Dec Def 23 1 2/20/79 Several spoke - Bolsa Chica Marshland 23 31&32 3/5/79 Several spoke-Bolsa Chica-Recreational Open Space 23 46-48 3/5/79 Bolsa Chica PreZoning-Deferred 23 51 3/19/79 H Char_terton-Coastal Co-muission transfer LCP-County to City 23 69 4/2/79 Comprehensive Plan for the Bolsa Chica-Deferred to 4/16/79 23 87 4/16/79______ D ;.all spoke-transfer Local Coastal Plan m.)ney from County o i 23 IQ3 4/16179__.___ _. C-uWrl,h,_nsive Plan for the Bol ..i. Qhica - Deferred t) 4/16/79 E Zschoche spoke re: comprehensive plan for the Bolsa Chica 23 103 5171.79__ Ed Zscho he Amigos de Bolsa Chica spoke re annexation of BChica 23 _ 129 5/7L79:.,_ Bolsa Chica Comprehensive Planning - Letter to be fwded to Super Vis_o_r_Wieder 23 136 5/7/79 EChica Mesa Development GPA (County) - EIR - staff requested t8pt 23 140 25 Annexation - General I I I 11 1 uU l ! I I I I I 1 11W 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 3lU 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I Aw I I I I I I I I I alv I I I I I I I I I dW 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1W I I I I I 1 I I I n E YPIST PLEASE NOTE--THIS SCALE CORRESPONDS TO TYPEWRITER (PICA) SCALE—SET PAPER GUIDES SO THAT CARD SCALE WILL REGISTER WITH MACHINE SCALE WHEN CARD IS 'URNED IN WRI IING POSITION START INDEX THREE (1) POINTS FROM LEFT EDGE OF CARD, USE OTHER POINTS OF SCALE FOR OTHER DIVISIONS OF VISIBLE TITLE,SET TABULATORS TO irr.pul PERFECT ALIGNMENT OF EACH DIVISION OF INFORMATION. FOLD BACK OR REMOVE STUB AFTER TYPING. USE NEW TYPEWRITER RIBBON ';FM1?jGTON HAND —20 DIVISION OF $PERRY RAND CORPORATION ""a •'E!"! 10i'.;d1Juii — Gelleral LEOISLAIIVL H1SIORT RECORD l5 6 !,A Tr ACTION OF COUNCIL OR BOARD MINUTE BOOK VOLUME �AGE 6/18179 Bo s - defeated 23 2 3 9/4 79 US Army CorpEng Bolsa Chica/Sunset Harbor Study Supported 24 12 19/20Z80 Amexation Proposal - McFadden/Sugar 25 239 25 Annexation - General 1 141 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1ZI0I I I I I I f 11sp1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14101 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1sioI I I I I 1 I 11$101 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17101 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 141 TYPIST PLEASE NOTE—THIS SCALE CORRESPONDS TO TYPEWRITER (PICA) SCALE—SET PAPER GUIDES SO THAT CARD SCALE WILL REGISTER WITH MACHINE SCALE WHEN CARD IS TURNED INTO WRITING POSITION. START INDEX THREE(I)POINTS FROM LEFT EDGE OF CARD, USE OTHER POINTS OF SCALE FOR OTHER DIVISIONS OF VISIBLE TITLE.SET TAWLATORS TO INSURE PERFECT ALIGNMENT OF EACH DIVISION OF INFORMATION. FOLD BACK DR REMOVE STUB AFTER TYPING. USE NEW TYPEWRITER RIBBON. REMINGTON RAND —20 DIVISION OF SPERRY RAND CORPORATION ■uc.nui • noted that the county has as yet to X•"--°":>tiu olsS ,,�I,k hica Landowner complete a local coastal program for the shoreline area including pX'� �., Bolsa, �`:f-` ' / Chita. r� j p� +� ®® •--- �►� 'S'. �O Erc'�S r�s RU'tCl As for the state commission's con- duct at the March 19 hearing in Santa '- ° Barbara, Signal in the petition de- 1, Superior Court'Pelt itioned;.by Signal clared that it and,others with oppos- ing viewpoints were deprived of due i rOn„Coastal'Project,in,Orange County. process of law and claimed that the v commission had prejudged that Bolsa - ' Signal Landmark Properties Inc., ,' the Bolsa Chica project ran in the Chica was wetlands months beforerV charging that the state Coastal Com-' April 29, 1979, real.estate section. It . the hearing datemission has overstepped its authority . described the complex land exchanges Bolsa Chica originally was pur., " p g appeared,to be chased for $20 million by Signal in *------_-.— �ar`��: }. under the 1976'Coast Act, has eti- and agreements that a tioned Santa Ana Superior Court.to in danger of collapse last year.) 1970.After the State of California as, } void a commission ruling which could ". Two members of the,Coastal Com ', serted ownership over a small portion i in`effect halt a Signal project in the mission—Robert Seligman, 'a city of the lands for purposes of cam- Bolsa Chica lowlands near Hunting-,, councilman from'Crescent City and :merce,navigation and fishing,Signal 1 r ton Beach. Robert Kallman, alternate for Dorill 1'and the state in 1973 negotiated t 1 The"petition called into question-'`4? Wright, mayor..of. Port-Hueneme "boundary settlement, *. ( the commission's actions leading up to? also dissented: � � ,X; •- j1 , , and including a March 19 public hear- " Free and Clear #( .i in in Santa Barbara at which by ma-1The commission action,'according ' Under the'•agreement,the company jority vote the commission made a-"? to a Signal'spokesman,'appeared to !conveyed- to the state: several "preliminary determination" in favor ignore letters from six Orange County hundred acres over a.period of years legislators and a unanimous petition of lts staff report that approximately p ,, for marsh restoration and in connec 1,000 acres of Bolsa Chica owned by from the South Coast Regional Coast-' tion with a navigable ocean entrance v./ Signal be declared a wetlands for al Commission requesting that the to Bolsa.Bay to be installed by the . purposes of local coastal planning. county be allowed to continue its to state. o Under the 1976/act, wetlands are cal coastal program planning without The state in turn declared the re- {... " : defined'as sensitive coastal resource interference from the.state commis, mainder of the property under Signal areas where development would be sion. ":''""' ownership was free and clear of the "We are disappointed substantially restricted. to learn the historic imprint of the tide and sub- The staff report itself and in partic- staff apparently dominates the merged lands and could be developed, '.a x.~ ular the sudden surprise endorsement "(coastal) commission 'to the extent subject to normal building regulations. by the majority vote of the commis— that it will not listen to evidence pre- The plan was to develop a marina, sion at the March meeting were op- sented by citizens which is, contrary parklands, environmental preserve, a '�yp`r t ^� . .. posed by representatives of Orange '" o biased and inaccurate positions and residential complex.Impiementa- County, Huptington Harbour'home:: taken by its staff," said William R. tion of this plan was stymied because owners,'boating and marine interests Allen, senior vice president and gen- of controversy over the development z -•.. and Signal'and Aminoil USA which.', .eral counsel for Signal Landmark. plans, generated largely by an orga- fi a leases a portion of the land. In the petition seeking to have the nization known.as,,.Amigos de Bolsa ,v • .- (A.story by Joe W. Anguiano on commission action set aside, Signal Chica. - -- - r: 'tip;, �.:"' ,;:•,'�:3.'�- ,. ,, - ^' :. _ Vr. 71 �`.' • •. .5..'• `J..f`i••.�'k�l:L":"Y''�•. 'M' '• .r,* � M, •7�^ "'r,•r..f•'.:-- •h..'t_., ����,. ?, .�+-r'. _. - .,. .1 ; ., , .,.. �,,.....' W. :�!S. ,;r.'.t a ',� ( - i'•_..+y~)^r r �.,,i.a'r°q'„�f'^+S t. +a'. •. ,..!�`r:/, '..•,.'', •C.:�t. ..rw..' ''• `!•� +• ,=, '.'• , t,.,, Y, .•f"v'.,?e:i!r.-:z?.Y�•'i..,E.- . ' ryt _,,,.}.... .. . .i ♦^,r.a{'.S7"�..+.Y',.i'Sl:_:.0.'•Ci':p✓, . .� _.__._`_ .._ - _ ' S. .4-._ +f"rn y-,a,•.;+.'i",.v�'.sue.iP N f r'L�,r, J�'''.�.�.tif,`., � ' ur .._..__� _ '. �{ _ _ ' S.F.'4:' ti..'f;7n°'.'•..,�..k'S:.'r—•4.s":i+'vv,-r•e � X .7. ��.•�+c?�'�.'r'w`� V.`.Z:,:.t-` rz.'r.ti7a'N✓,h.'��'i.d•R",:. - /159: meYi�.3J++•f.^".-w�M.�.a+''°:v` 1. _ r...,. ..e�u. •' �''�'i. .rry.i. .r• '•:e., %''' Fes' .. .�. "„ •, '�.� '� fs , t` ' !` REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION RCA s 0-14 Floyd G. Belsito Administration Submitted by Department Date Prepared January ?5 , 19 80 Backup Material Attached Q Yes No Subject \ City ofAuntington Beach ' s Role in County LCP Planning City Administrator's Comments ad Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions: Statement of Issue At the January 7 , 1980 City Council Meeting , staff was directed to determine what shout & be the proper role of the City of Huntington Beach in the County ' s LCP planning effort. Recommendation Adopt Resolution # 4840 The resolution requests the County to recognize that the City ai"�Huntington Beach should have some direct input into the LCP including participation on a North Coast Local Coastal Program Advisory Committee , formal City Council review of the LCP plan prior to action by the County Supervisors , City/County staff cooperation , and County and City LCP Citizen Advisory Committee joint sponsorship of workshops . Analysis The City of Huntington Beach , and the County of Orange have a history of dealing with their mutual concerns relative to Bolsa Chica on a cooperative basis . This has included , among others , a joint effort to implement a , linear park in Bolsa Chica . The City of Huntington Beach has been invited to participate on the North Coast Local Coastal Program Advisory Committee . The City accepted the invitation at its meeting of January 7 , 1980 and appointed Councilwoman Ruth Finley and Senior Planner June Catalano to the advisory committee. The advisory committee includes the various interest groups , state, federal and local agencies that have an interest in Bolsa Chica . Staff feels , however ,; that participation on the North Coast LCP Advisory Committee is not sufficient input from the City in view of the obvious importance Bolsa Chica has for the city . P10 ins RC4 No . 80- 14 January 25 , 1980 During the month of May , 1979 , Mayor MacAllister and Supervisor Wieder established a framework for greater city involvement in the county ' s LCP planning effort . In order that the tenets of the informal cooperative agreement be recognized , staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution formalizing the points of agreement and requesting the county to do the same . The resolution should include the following considerations : 1 . The City Council shall provide independent analysis , review and recommendations for development of the subject property directly to the County ' s Board of Supervisors for that portion of the County Local Coastal Program relating to Bolsa Chica . 2 . County and City staff shall continue to work cooperatively on all matters relating to Bolsa Chica . 3 . The Huntington Bejach Local Coastal Program Advisory Committee shall jointly sponsor with the county citizens workshops to fulfill the requiirements of citizen participation for that portion of the county Local Coastal Program relating to Bolsa Chica . Funding Source Not applicable . Alternative Actions 1 . Limit city involvement in LCP planning for Bolsa Chica to participation on the North Coast Local Coastal Program Advisory Committee . it • CITY OF HunTInGTon BEA ( H DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUILDING DIVISION(714)536-5241 PLANNING DIVISION (714)536-5271 P.O. Box 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 C��y TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council ATTN: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator FROM: Department of Development Services DATE: January 31, 1980 RE: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: AGENDA ITEM G-1, RESOLUTION 4840 Attached herewith is an outline of the duties. of the Citizens Advisory Committee as drafted pursuant to a prior request by the City Council . This outline of duties will be discussed with the Committee at its January 31 meeting, and the staff will inform the Committee of the Council' s direction to appoint a chairman from its own ranks . As Resolution 4840 proposes to involve the Citizens Advisory Committee in sponsoring joint workshops with the County of Orange in its preparation of the plan for the Bolsa Chica area, the staff feels it is imperative that the Council review the outline of duties prior to taking Any formal action on said resolution. The Committee is now getting involved with detailed agenda preparation and organization as well as proposing a time line for preparation and review of the Coastal Plan, which is an area of authority not previously envisioned by the staff . As. this task is currently running over budget, I feel it is necessary for the Council to redefine the role of the Committee. Normally in the. preparation of a General Plan Amendment, staff prepares the data, background information, and draft plans for review and comment by the public as input to the Planning Commission for its deliberation and recommendation ,to the City Council. The original grant of authority to the Local Coastal Program-Citizens Advisory Committee was envisioned to satisfy the public participation requirement for the above-mentioned process . There appears to be an adversary role developing between the staff and the Committee which I feel can be resolved through a formal action by the Council on the attached outline of duties. if the City is to finish up the work necessary for completion of the plan in a timely manner, it is extremely important that the Committee and staff work in concert to develop the best possible plan for the total City for submission to the Council for adoption. I am therefore recommending that Resolution No. 4840 not be acted on until the Council has had an opportunity to discuss the attached outline of duties . If it is the desire of the City Council to have the Committee involved with the joint workshops in concert with the County, an amendment to Chapter 2.97 should be initiated to allow the Committee to remain in existence past the completion of our Local Coastal Program. If the Council does. not wish to retain the Citizens Advisory Committee beyond completion of our loca then Resolution 4840 sho mended Item 3 to '° e City of Hun i eac shall jointly sponsor public workshops with the County of Orange ..to fulfill the citizens --�- �_ Page 2 participation requirement- Of--the--Goastal Act. " I will be prepared to discuss this and answer questions at, your February 4, 1980 meeting. Respectfully submitted, )Director. ames W. Palin WP:df Attachment f f I TIM • CITY OF HUnTmGTon BEACH DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUILDING DIVISION(714)536.5241 PLANNING DIVISION(714)536.5271 P.O.Box 190,HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92648 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council ATTN: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator FROM: Department of Development Services DATE: January 31, 1980 RE: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: AGENDA ITEM G-1, RESOLUTION 4840 Attached herewith is an outline of the duties of the Citizens Advisory Committee as drafted pursuant to a prior request by. the City Council. This outline of duties will be discussed with the Committee at its January. 31 meeting, and the staff will inform the Committee of the Council's direction to appoint a chairman from its own ranks. As Resolution 4840 proposes to involve the Citizens Advisory Committee in sponsoring joint workshops with the County of Orange in its preparation of the plan for the Bolsa Chica area, the staff feels it is imperative that the Council review the outline of duties prior to taking any formal action on said resolution.. The Committee is now getting involved with detailed agenda preparation and organization as well as proposing a time line for preparation and review of the Coastal Plan, which is an area of authority not previously envisioned by the staff. As this task is currently running over budget, I feel it is necessary for the Council to redefine the role. of the Committee. Normally in the preparation of a General Plan Amendment, staff prepares the data, background information, and draft plans for review and comment by the public as input- to the Planning Commission for its deliberation and recommendation to the City Council. The original grant of authority to the' Local Coastal Program-Citizens Advisory Committee was envisioned to satisfy the public participation requirement for the above-mentioned process. There appears to be an adversary role developing between the staff and the Committee which I feel can be resolved through a formal action, by the Council on the attached outline of duties. If the City is to finish up the work necessary for completion of the plan in a timely manner, it is extremely important that the Committee and staff work in concert to develop the best possible plan for the total ,City for submission to the Council for adoption. I am therefore recommending that Resolution No. 4840 not be acted on until the Council has had an opportunity to discuss the attached outline of duties. If it is the desire of the City Council to have the Committee involved with the joint workshops in concert with the County, an amendment to Chapter 2.97 should be initiated to allow the Committee to remain in existence past the completion of our Local Coastal Program. If the Council does not wish to retain the Citizens Advisory Committee beyond completion of our loca then Resolution 4840 sho ended Item 3 to s Cit o un 1 ac shall jointly sponsor public workshops with t e County of_Orange to tuitill the c1 zzens 1 7� ..,Katra5",r�r`='"'�!,O�w4x';,r�.,�'-i�i:.rt.....m.—;a•r..,..�,._. -- , Pf Page 2 participation re ui Act." I will be prepared to discuss this and answer questions at your February 4, 1980 meeting. Respectfully submitted, )JWP:df ames W. Palin irector Attachment !I f i j I I i 1 I lr _ }IPat• ' • I // Err _ =j•�h.. 1 F 15 SUPERVISOR, SECOND DISTRICT /4 � ,ORANGE COUNTY HALL Of ADMINISTRATION �s• t �/a 10 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA,P.O.BOX 687, SANTA ANA,CALIFORVIA 92702 \ram PHONE: 834-3220(AREA CODE it+} April 17, 1979 YW ' Honorable Board of Supervisors County of Orange Santa Ana, CA SUBJECT: Planning for the Bolsa Chica Area sr-w SIS: A comprehensive, definitive plan developed cooperatively by affected agencies, landowners and other interested parties is needed to resolve the complex issues of the Bolsa Chica area. The plan would be prepared in parallel with and augment the Local Coastal Program process. A resolution calling for a Bolsa Chica Planning Task Force is sub.7itted for approval .of the Board. Honorable Board Members: The Bolsa Chits area is an approximately 2,000-acre unincorporated County island surrounded by the City of Huntington Beach. Please see attached map. The State, County and City have long recognized the importance of the Bolsa Chica area. The area currently functions as a major producing oil field , state beach park and ecolcgical preserve. Among the uses,.proposed for the future are expanded wetlands .wildlife habitat, a regional park, a small craft' harbor, tourist recreation/ coi-nereial 'uses and residential development. In 1973, the State and the principal landowner in the area (Signal Properties, inc.) entered into a boundary settlement and exchange agreement for the purpose of resolving a dispute over title to the property. The agreement provides an option to the State to acquire at no cost an additional 230 acres in the area if by 1987 the financing of a new ocean entrance and navigable channel to serve the balance of the property is authorized. The agreement contemplates a 1750-boat marina with Corps of Engineers participation in the cost of constructing the ocean access and channel . Mere recently, funds have been budgeted by the State to acquire a much larger area to expand the ecological preserve without the navigable channel and marina. The ne:;otiat;ons for the purchase are stalled over widely differing opinions of value afld the funding appropriation will expire within a year if not extended. There is apparently no authority or proposal to use the power of eminent domain and litigate the issue of land value. In the meantire, the County and the City of Huntington Beach have major public works projects and significant land-use decisions awaiting a determination of :..hether the _ a _. " _,_ _ ,. G?�i•JF • itUN tINC:T O:V flE:C FI _ LOS AL•::.li T<;S • ROSS 41J0t: Sf 4t_ Fi!:ACt+ • i'v\'�;ti • 5`J NiEt F�AC f Honorable Board of Supervisors Page 2 April 17, 1979 State %•rill implement the 1973 agreement, press the current acquisition proposal or pursue some other course of action. In 1977, the Board of Supervisors allocated $2 million for a Bolsa Chica Linear Regional Park and directed that a general plan amendment and Local Coastal Program for the area be undertaken with high priority. The Board authorized EMA to negotiate cooperative planning agreements with affected State agencies and the City of Huntington Beach. These agencies declined to enter formal agreements at the time, but agreed to form a study group with the lando,:mers and other interested parties. The Bolsa Chica Study Group, led by EMA, has been busy at work over the last year clarifying the facts and issues and seeking to develop a cooperative planning approach which might reconcile the diverse interests . A draft report prepared at the direction of the Study Group was completed in November, 1978. It has been under critical review by the Study Group participants since then, and a final report is expected in May, 1979. My office has reviewed the work of the Study Group and found it to be an important contribution to understanding the problems and opportunities of the area. It should be a very valuable information base for the LCP process and for other planning activities in Bolsa Chica: However, a suggestion in the report that a planning .task force be - formed to resolve the remaining issues by developing a comprehensive plan more definitive. than the LCP' is likely to be, seems most appropriate. I believe it is the approach now most likely to succeed in reconciling the divergent points of view and producing a plan that is realistic and implementable. Without such an effort, the LCP, prepared by the County on its own and with limited funding may not be so successful . I have discussed the idea of a Bolsa Chica Planning Task Force with EMA and the principal landowners; they endorse it and are prepared to make a substant0al contribution. to the effort. No additional County staffing is contemplated. . It appears the City and State , agencies may be ready to participate, as well . A. draft resolution calling for the task force and a preliminary scope of work are attached for Board approval . A financial plan for task forcework will be required: .I am prepared to suggest that some funding be . made available from the Harbors, Beaches and Parks District funds budgeted for the regional park. Signal. Landmark is ready to make a major financial contribution too. The resolution directs that as a first order of business a refined. scope of work and, a financial plan be developed and submitted to this Board -for approval . COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA: The recommended action is not a project as defined by CEQA. CEQA %•:ould be complied with in the subsequent planning/decision-making process. RECOMME-INDED ACTION: 'Adopt Resolution. Respectfully submitted, HARR I ETT M. 411 EDER > Supervisor, Second Distri t Attachment RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TM April 17, 1979 e WHEREAS, the County of Orange is responsible for preparing and maintaining a general plan and Local Coastal Program for the unincorporated area known as "Bolsa Chica"; and WHEREAS, this Board also is interested in seeing implemented certain proposed park, road, flood control and other public improvements which are awaiting land-use decisions in the area; and WHEREAS, this Board recognizes the substantial interests of State agencies, the City of Huntington Beach and other parties in planning and development of the area; and WHEREAS, as participants in the Bolsa Chica Study Group the affected govern- ment agencies and many other interested parties have demonstrated the willingness and capability to work cooperatively and have prepared a report that can serve as an infor- mation base to develop a comprehensive, definitive plan for the area; and WHEREAS, an interagency task force to cooperatively plan the area appears to constitute the best mechanism to reconcile the diverse interests and resolve the complex issues in the area. NOW, THEREFORE, this Board of Supervisors does hereby resolve as follows: 1. The Chairman of the Board is hereby authorized to issue an invitation to the following: . 0 The Resources Agency 0 The Coastal Commission 0 Department of Fish and Game 0 State Lands Commission 41 Resolution of the Board of Supervisors I April 17, 1979 0 Attorney General 's Office Department of Parks and Recreation 6 Department of Boating and Waterways 0 Coastal Conservancy 0 Department of Transportation I Major Landowner (Signal) O Conservationist Interests 0 Recreational Boating Interests (and other interested parties to be identified by the Director, EMA) to participate in a Bolsa Chica Planning Task Force; 2. The preliminary statement of purpose and scope of work attached hereto is approved as a basis for discussing participation in the task force with interested parties; a recommended, refined scope of work should be developed as a first order of business by the task force once constituted; 3. The Director, EMA is directed to present a recommended final scope of .rork, including a plan for financing said work, to this Board for approval before any substantial County expenditures for task force work are authorized; 4. The proposed Bolsa Chica Planning .Task Force is intended to support, not displace the County's Local Coastal Program process. I 2 3 I RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF 4 ORANGE COUNTY , CALIFORNIA 5 September 24 , 1980 6 On motion of Supervisor. Wieder , duly seconded and carried , the 7 following Resolution was adopted : 8 WHEREAS , the Board of Supervisors earlier this year issued a Reso- 9 lution emphatically opposing the designation of "wetlands" in the Bolsa 10 Ch ica Gap; and 11 WHEREAS , in spite of the strong opposition of the Board , a majority 12 . of the Countyns State Legislative Delegation, and other local agencies , 13 the California Coastal Commission on March 19 , 1980 , in Santa Barbara 14 japproved the "wetlands" designation of Blisa Chica; and q 15 j WHEREAS, this action by the California Coastal Commission underscores ; o 16 the need for precise guidelines for designating wetlands in natural arensq % Z 0 17 a'nd 18 I WHEREAS, this Board strongly endorses the spirit of both the Coastal 19 Initiative of A972 and the Coastal Act of 1976 ; and 20 ITHEREAS, the proposed Statewide Interpretative Guidelines for 21 Wetlands and Other Wet Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas , dated 22 July 17 , 1980, and prepared by California Coastal Commission staff , defineh 23 ''wetlands" far more broadly than the Coastal Act of 1976 and would include , N lands of little or no ecological Value , thereby precluding them from 25 other productive uses ; and 26 WHEREAS , the proposed definitions of "wetlands , " "degraded wetlands" a 27 and ''environmentally sensitive areas" and procedures suggested for 'J, 28 determining the boundaries of such areas fails to fully consider economic �K: cv Resolution No. 80-1545 State Co. Pos . -Pro Statewide Interp. Guidelines-Wetlands & Other Wet Environ. Sensitive Habitat Areas U (and social perspectives and preclude opportunities for increased public � I 121access to' beaches; and 3 WHEREAS , the proposed guidelines would be applied to review of development perinits after the certification of a Local Coastal Frogram, 5 thus undermining the whole purpose of having an LCP; and 6 WHEREAS, the California Coastal Commission will be holding a public 7, hearing on the proposed guidelines on September 30 , 1980 , and will decide 8 whether to adopt the guidelines on November 1 , 1980; 9 � NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby 10 recommends to the California Coastal Commission, that: 11 1. "Wetlands" be. defined to include only tidewater inundated areas 12 and significantly productive fresh water_ marshes. The definition should 13 exclude "saturated soils, " and "empherneral storm water ponds . " "Degraded II 14iwetlands" should only be included after �! case-by-case review. { : ; 15 2. "Environmentally sensitive areas" should be established on a f . � 16 case-by-case basis . The definition should not overlap with "wetlands . " ; z . 17 3 . Local governments should determine the e�:tent to which "wetlands" 18 and "environmentally .sensitive areas" within their jurisdictions require j 19' development restrictions . This determination should be based on the 20 provisions of the Coastal Act of 1976 , which include the right of local 21 governments to balance Coastal habitat policies with other policies to 22 achieve the best overall. local plan. The proposed guidelines should apply . �3 only to permit-related activities of the California Coastal Commission 24 prior to the adoption of local coastal programs . 25 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Board authorizes the Chairman of 26lthe Board to submit the above reco„imendations to the California Coastal 'N I ;; 27 Commission as Orange County ' s official. position at the Commission ' s public 28 hearing on September 30 , 1980 ;* 2 . BE Irl FURTI-JER RESOLVED that this/ Board directs the Environr;lental 2 Management Agency to use the above recoimendati.ons as a frarr,ewor}: for- preparing ` 3 Iits technical te:_,timon to be resented at the pub]-i-c hearing Y P - P , . F' 4 � I 5 •r 6I i 71I I, 8I i I � 9 ' 10 11 12 13 1 14 ; I Z 15 ' W 16 I i - a 17 18 AYES : SUPERVISORS; HARRIETT M. WIEDER, EDISON W. MILLER, PHILIP L. ! ANTHONY, THOM- S F . RILEY , AND RALPH B. CLARK 19 NOES : SUPERVISORS r"O']E 20 II. ABSENT: SUPERVISORS NONE i 21 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss. 22 COUNTY OF ORANGE ) 23 I, JUNE ALEXANDER,, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange Coimt(y, Califorma, . here-byand certify that the aLx-)ve nd for-eyoing Resolution v,-:is dql ;t)r�d••requLarly adopted by 24 the said Board at a regular ra eting thereof held on the 24t.-Z�.,'aay of Septe,Tber , and passes-1 by a urianimous vote of said F Ld• 2 5' -----------IN WITNESS WHEPOOF, 11iave hereauto set ay, hand a'nd seal. this _21± h ' day of 26 SeTDtemher 19 00 27 28 JUNTE--ALEX1\NDF R CIe.rk of the'.w and of Sups..visors of ' C7range"C7�t�nt�� - 3 . • E. 1^, M . SENT TO. . DATE-------•------•--- ��. r. 7 M . WIEDEI2 f - >5..�" SECOND DISTRICT SUPERVISOR, FOR It STIGAT ON AND FOLLOW UP, � �.�}i)t` ; . fox a, 7GA '�' °GVN'J ORANGE COUNTY HALL OF ADMINISTRATION ^'•'---•- -•-^---- •[-`-� 10 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA.P.O.BOX 687, SANTA A A,CALIFORNIA 92702 + PHONE: 834-3220(AREA COD 714) August 16, 1979 Q E W E AU G Colonel Gwynn Teague, District Engineer CITY Or" HUNTINGTON BEACH Department of the Army CITY COUNCIL OFFICE P 0 Box 2711 Los Angeles, California 90053 Dear Colonel Teague: This is to notify you of the County of Orange's support for con- tinuation of the Corps of Engineer's Sunset Harbor-Bolsa Chica feasibility study, as evidenced by Resolution No. 79-586, a copy of which is enclosed. My office has previously hand carried this resolution to Congress- man Lungren's office and it was our understanding that you would be receiving the County's resolution together with letters of support from the various elected officials and public agencies concerned with Bolsa Chica. This letter will underscore the Orange County Board of Supervisors support for the above-mentioned study. It is important that your department is aware of the strong local desire to determine the need for additional tidal flushing and/or navigable ocean access at Bolsa Chica, and the cost-benefit ratio for such a project. I am confident that with Congressman Lungren's able assistance and your department's placement of this project at a reasonable priority level, we can all work together to resolve the important land use questions concerning the Bolsa Chica. Sincerely, HA1>,12IETF M. WIEDER Supervisor, Second District 1-MV/j e/cr cc: See attached Attachment CYPRESS • GARDEN GROVE • IIUN SING TON BE ACH LOS ALAMII US . ROSSPAU()R SEAI_IiEAC.H • Si,::.-�,� S.J' SE1 i9EAC)1 (, 2 31 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF 4 ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFOR�IIA 5 July 25 , 1979 E 61 On motion of Supervisor Wieder, duly seconded and carried, the 7 following Resolution was adopted: 8 WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 79-586, this Board authorized the creation! 91 of a Bolsa Chica Planning Task Force to develop a comprehensive, definiti," 10 Plan for the Bolsa Chica area; and i 11 WHEREAS, such a plan will consider the opportunity for developing II � 12f a new ocean connection to provide a navigable channel for a proposed I 13 public marina or enhanced tidal flushing for an expanded march habitat/ 14 wildlife preserve; and j 5 �I , jdiiE�2iAS, Congress has authorized the U. S. Arn1y Corps of Engineers 16 Ito undertake a feasibility study of a new ocean connection for these � Q ! > 17 purposes ; and °- i 18 WHEREAS, this Board believes the work of the Bolsa Chica Planning ) 19 Task Force will be substantially aided by completion of the authorized i 20 Corps of Engineers feasibility study. 21 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: I E 22 1 . The County of Orange is willing to serve as a local sponsor of 23 the Corps of Engineers study of the feasibility of creating a new ocean i 24 i connection for a public marina and/or expanded marsh habitat/wildlife j V 25 preserve. - 4 26i 2 . It is understood that such local sponsorship involves assistance I 27 I to the Corps of Engineers in obtaining local input to the study and in !y -8 coordinating related planning activities , but does not involve a } ': jc I Resolution t�'o. 79-1140 ( County Sponsorship/Army Corps of Engineers ' ! Feasibility Study 1 I � Icommitment to the proposed marina or expanded wildlife preserve at this P P .. 2 i time. 3I 3. The Director of EMA is directed to transmit this resolution to 5 ; 4I1 -the Corps of Engineers and other interested parties. i SI + 6 E 7 t , 8 9 10 ' f s 11 I 12 131 14 i� W . . 15 r W. 16 � � I z z 00 17 i U 18 AYES: SUPERVISORS HARRIETT M. WIEDER, PHILIP L. ANTHONY? EDISON W. � MILLER, RALPH B. CLARK and THOMAS F. RILEY i 19 NOES: SUPERVISORS NONE j I 4 20 ABSENT: SUPERVISORS NONE i 21 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss. 22 I COUNTY OF ORANGE 23 I-, JUG; AC,I,Xx,NUFR, C1cr.I; of the Board of Sui: arn.iscr. of OrangG Co.linty, Gzlifor_nia,� 24 1' hereby certify tha- the above and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by i the said Board at a regular_ meeting thereof held on the 2 5 th_d,-1,,b f July 19 79 , ar�•_l jDassed by a unanimous vote of said. 25 _ --- I l IN t TIENIL,SS [�'TIL:I�I,OF I have her. wi set- ;7 �•�•�, �- 2 5 th'. - e to _ct my han� __.l v?-us day of 26 July 19 79 . -- 27 n 28 I Clerk of tip Lard of sLl:>-el- Jisors of (� orar COu1rt} Honorable Edmund G. Brown E. Charles Fullerton, Director honorable Don MacAllister Governor, State of Calif Department of Fish & Game �Ia)or; Cit.} of Hunt. Beach State Capitol 1416 9th Street P 0 Box 190 Sacramento, Calif 95814 Sacramento, Calif 95814 Huntington Beach, Calif 92648 5 Honorable Alan Cranston Commissioner Ken Cory, Chairman Mr. Don Hartfelder U.S. Senator, California State Lands Commission 16897 Algonquin 10960 Wilshire Blvd. , Ste 920 1807 13th Street Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 Los Angeles, California 90024 Sacramento, California 95814 Attorney General George Duknejian Department of Justice 3S0 McAllister Street San Francisco, Calif 94102 Honorable Robert Badham Russell Cahill, Director Amigos de Bolsa Chica Congressman, 40th District Department of Parks & Recreation P 0 Box 1563 1649 Westcliff Drive P 0 Box 2390 Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 Newport Beach, Calif. 92660 Sacramento, California 95811 I-Ionorable John Schmitz Marty Mercado, Director Bill Hanson U.)S. Senator, 36th District Department of Boating & Waye nvays Huntington Harbour Anglers 4600 Campus Drive 1416 9th Street P 0 Box 1922 Newport Beach, Calif 92660 Sacramento, California 95814 Huntington Beach, Calif. 92647 f-lonorable Dennis Mangers Joseph Petrillo, Executive Dir. Bolsa Chica Committee lkssemblyman, 73rd District State Coastal Conservancy For Clean Water & Ocean Access State Capitol 1212 Broadway, Room 514 17164 Courtney Lane Sacramento, Calif 95814 Oakland, California 94612 Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 honorable Marian Bergeson Adriana Gianturco, Director Gregory Taylor Assembly�Joman", 74th District Department of Transportation Assistant attorney General State Capitol 1120 N Street Attorney General's Office Sacramento, Calif 95814 Sacramento, California 95814 3580 1%711shire Blvd. .Los Angeles, Calif 90010 Norman Wagner, II Michael Fischer President Executive Director Signal Landmark Properties, Inc. Calif. Coastal Conmlisslon 1-7890 Skypark Circle 631 Howard Street Irvine, California 92714 San Francisco, Calif 94105 Ir. Huey Johnson William Ficker Honorable Dan Lunoren ,ecretary of Resources 610 Newport Center Drive Congressman, 34th District ,Mate of California Newport Beach, Calif 92660 551.4 Britton Drive 416 9th Street Long Beach, Calif 90SIS ';acramento, Calif 95814 '...�..--..r. .-ri=::'.L'w:.---,�—r..,..- ":.w.._-'—.�.;7."1_"ii:`,n"�'i.:.�;TFi:.`;.i?ic:,�✓x'-.:, ti.r".'.:;:or.;�c.._ - _ -,.-:}•jAa�'_,;:.. _.`'cr,•;:,,n. _ _ � _ _ _ _=^Cr^.�^. 7"-».::.pr:�.i?t.S•.-.;,^' s{.�.r. � ""qsl"« ';ao-, r„Iw'>e! .�1-..�.�'.4Sv. �±11•!u-Ay �,.•.y n«,� ,;<'rs^. '.v'��a� ^'w .Y4:»�t�.?W ^".:r�'✓..-.:.�.', - - .. ":•' - . r.. .r^". - ..r " "`�a M4w.:.i"%....�:,.w.�.a:Xi.T�..aw.......P'`'.x �t..m�•':'-a.,. .�,,_ `-:.r:_.,.,.x�i..7.m-:+.,.::..�'i:�,.; .�yr.,... '=" .. ..,. .,_..... ,.. -...a, ,.. ,.. ... _ . RESOLUTION NO . 4840 S A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUESTING THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO ACCEPT ADDITIONAL CITY INPUT IN THE COUNTY LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM FOR BOLSA CHI CA WHEREAS , the County of Orange is the lead agency for the preparation of the• Local Coastal Program for the unincorporated area of. Bolsa Chica; and The ultimate use of land in such area is of great concern to the City of Huntington Beach; and The City. of Huntington Beach and the County of Orange have a history of cooperative planning effort for the unincorporated area of Bolsa Chica; , and The City of Huntington Beach has, in the spirit of coopera- tion, appointed representatives to the North Coast Local Coastal Program Advisory Committee at the request of the County of Orange; and It is in the best interests of both the City of Huntington Beach and the County of Orange .that both agencies continue to ex- plore means for cooperative planning for the unincorporated area of Bolsa Chica, NOW, ,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of City ,of Huntington Beach respectfully requests that the role of the City of Huntington Beach in the county Local 'Coastal Program be expanded to include the following: 1 . The. Cit'y Council shall review the proposed Local Coastal Program Plan and make recommendations to the county Board of Supervisors prior to adoption of the plan by the Board; and. 2 . County and city staffs shall continue to work coopera i tively on all planning matters relating to the unincorporated /ahb 1/28./80. 1 . I ;tom area of Bolsa Chica; and 3 . The City of Huntington Beach shall ,jointly sponsor pub- lic workshops with the County of Orange to fulfill the citizens participation requirement of the Coastal Act. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City, of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th -day of February, 1980 . Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk ty AttoufAey INITIATED AND APPROVED: Ci y dm nistrator f r 2 III f Res. No. 4840 • .,I`A'jI OF CALIFORNIA } ('01IN1'Y OF ORANGE ) se CfTY' OF HUNTINGTON BEACH } I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ek-of€icio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution .was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at- a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of February. 19 80 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Pattinson, Thomas, Mandic, MacAllister, Bailey, Yoder, Finley NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: ' Councilmen: None City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City .Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California The foregoing instrument is a correct copy of the original on file in this office.,:,`;..1 , -- 1 < < Fx-of;-i io CIA'of,the City City Clerk and Council of the City of Huntington`,�Eeach, Cal. r CH r 1 LA�`�I�If`IG DEPT. f �4 �\ P. 0. Box 190 2. P 4 Huntington Beach, GA 92648 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY TELE : d3 14643 ADVANCE PLANNING DIV;SION AREEAA CO: 74 811 NORTH BROADWAY MAILING ADO4F tip: SANTA ANLLA, CALIFORNIA P.O. Box 4048 ti June V, 1980 SANTA ANA, CALVFGRlA 32702 M. STOPI-111 - CIREC"GR FILE RICHARD C. MUNSELL ASSISTANT DIRFCTOR ADVANCE PLA^F.`";;N MEMBERS OF THE BOLSA CHIC,, TECHNICAL ADVISORY COA?iI.TTEE: The next meeting of the Bolsa Chica LCP Technical Advisory Committee will be held on Thursday, June 1. , 1980 at 10:00 A.M. in the Fifth Floor Conference F.00m of the Orange County Hall of Administration, 10 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana. The agenda for this mceting is attached. Also a copy of summary notes from the May 8th meeting is included for your review and comments. If you have any question or comments, please. contact Ken Winter of the Local Coastal Program Staff at (71.4) 834-5387 . Very truly yours, Richard G. Munsell i assistant Director Advance Planning KIJ:kc i Attachments I i I , i " AGENDA BOLSA CHICA LCP TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE 'JUNE 12, 1980 - 10:00 A.M. 5th FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM ADMINISTRATION BUILDING SAN T A ANTA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. INTRODUCTIONS 3. REVIEW OF MEETING NOTES FROM MAY 8, 1980 4. PRESENTATION OF ADDITIONAL CONCEPT PLAN ALTERNATIVES A. Department of Fish and Game B. Mr. Bill Ficker r C. Others 5. CONSENSUS ALTERNATIVE PLANS FOR CORP OF ENGINEERS STUDY 6. PRESENTATION ON "GUIDELINES FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA'S COASTAL WETLANIDS" = Mr. Eric Metz, I California Coastal CoMi�Issl.on. 7. OFF AGENDA ITEMS 8. STATUS REPORT OF COUNTY LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM 9. ADJOURNMENT TO JULY t-G, 1980 I i { i . { I ac ® F850-123.1 o un of Orange � DATE: May 21, 1980 a TO. Bolsa Chica Technical Advisory Comm. DEPT/DIST: FROM: A. G. Armijo, Planner III_ EMA Urban & Onen SDacP plann�no� SUBJECT: Meeting - May 8 1980 Following are summary notes from the specified meeting of the Bolsa Chica Technical Advisory Committee: 1) Chuck Simpson of Congressman Daniel Lundgren's office notified the Advisory Committee that $100,000 has been appropriated for continuance of the Bolsa Chica advisory/planning efforts during Fiscal year, 1981. 2) _ Joe Natsuhara (EMA/Development) made a presentation to the Advisory Committee about the flood control situation in and around the East Garden Grove/Wintersburg Channel area. The entire, flood plain area (18,000 acres) is bounded on the east by the Santa Ana River and on the west by the San Gabriel River. a) Background: In 1950, an engineering report published by the County of Orange recommended there be a channel extending from Anaheim to the Pacific Ocean. A bond issue for study/ planning/construction of such was passed in 1956. Construction of such project--based on a 25-year flood protection level-- commenced in 1958. The earthen channel has proven- totally inadequate; several overflows have occurred since 1958. b) Current/Recent Planning Efforts: A 1977 County of Orange study divided the drainage area into two reaches: Reach #1 extends from Bolsa Bay to the Slater pump station, Reach #2 extends from Slater pump station to Magnolia Street. Three options have been identified for construction of Reach #1 facility: 1--Construction of an earthen channel 15 feet high. Such project involves a right-of-way of 120 feet is required I for 5,000 feet; 2--Construction of a concrete channel 11 feet high. Such project would require an additional 10 feet of right-of-way; 3--Raise the existing channel. Such project requires no additional right-of-way. Few options, if any, exist for Reach #2 due to proximity of residential development. The 1977 proposal allows retention of the tidal gates. P j R 't fi Bolsa Chica Technical Acitiv selr,y Committee Page 2 The cost estimates (1977 figures) for the three options for Reach 1 are: $14 million (earth channel) ; $15.2 million; and $15.5 million. Permits from such agencies as the Department of Fish and Game, Coastal Commission, Metropolitan [-later District, Department of Parks and Recreation, etc. must be obtained. The County-recommended alternative is the earthen channel. Such project has been submitted to EMA/Environmental Analysis Division for assessment. 3) Dr. Feldmo'uth, professor of Biology, presented results of water quality analyses in Bolsa Bay. Such studies, funded by Signal, assessed the impact upon the marsh of substances flowing down the flood control channel. It was found that levels of lead, pesticide and other pollutants in inner Bolsa Bay have increased by 15+ ppm since the flood control tidal gates fwere opened. This "problem" is growing and presents a falter in re- storation of the salt marsh. 4) Bryan Speegle and Jerry Bennett of EMA/Transportation Division presented a visual and verbal discussion of the recently-completed Multi-Modal Transportation Study. Pamphlets -and study papers for such study are available, from EMA. The. study basically divided- Orange County into 10 analysis areas, accumulated demographic and transportation-related data for each analysis area and produced (through computer analysis) several alternative transportation/circulation networks for. the County. It was determined that in order to fund such Board-approved alternative, between $6-9 billion and $16.6 billion would be necessary. 5) Claude Wong-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - provided a discussion of Corps activities relating to bolsa Chica. Army Corps of Engineers studies began as early as 1964 and continued through 1978 under small study appropriations. Several alternative (concept) design plans are under study. Such alterna- tives differ in size and location of a marina, extent of marsh restoration. possible navigable/non-navigable outlet to the Ocean, alignment of Pacific Coast Highway and other considerations. Design input, scope of analysis and funding are major aspects needing clarification. 6) W. H. Ficker (Ficker & Ruffing-Architects) presented a concept development plan for the entire Bolsa Chica area. The plan is an effort to provide maximum access to the Ocean to provide areas for diverse recreational interests to preserve inner areas and to provide certain areas for resi-- dential development. 7) The next meeting of the Bolsa Chica Technical Advisory Committee is scheduled to be Thursday, June 12 at 10:00 A.M. in the Board of Supervisors Conference room (5th floor, County of Orange, Hall of Administration) . + A. Armijo AA:kc 5Y-- F — ell, LA r taT vA ._746 A 0� tFJ 646=-oc �S 13 Xk ® CITY OF HunTmGTon BEACH DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-5271 June 13, 1979 James Swanek County of Orange j Environmental Management Agency Environmental Services Division P.O. Box 4108 Santa Ana, California 92702 Dear Mr. Swanek.: The City of Huntington Beach has received the County' s ,Initial Study and Notice of Intent to prepare a draft environmental impact report on the proposed Bolsa Chica Mesa General Plan Amendment and Reserve Removal. The Planning Department has synthesized and presented below the City ' s concerns regarding the environmental effects of the pro- ject. We have attempted to focus on areas not already addressed in I ,the County' s Initial Study. The County' s Notice of Preparation and Initial Study were circulated I to most City departments for review. The full text of their comments is contained in the attached memoranda received by the Planning Department. IS AREAS OF CONCERN: I I. Physical Environment i A. Earth - The Planning Department concurs with the findings in the County' s Initial Study regarding the effects on i existing soils, changes in topography, the effects on` { coastal bluffs and marshlands, increases in runoff and potential erosion, earthquake hazards, and the potential { for increased siltation of Bolsa Bay. A copy of the City' s Geotechnical Input report is enclosed for consideration and assistance in evaluating seismic and safety hazards. B. Air - The Planning Department concurs with the findings in the County' s Initial Study regarding the effects on air quality; however, in addition we feel that existing oil operations on the site could create objectionable odors. r i i i James Swanek June 13, 1979 Page 2 C. Water - The Planning Department generally concurs with the findings in the County' s Initial Study regarding the effects on water quality; however, the tsunami hazard appears to • be overstated (refer to Geotechnical Input) . II. Biological Environment - The Planning Department concurs with the findings in the County' s Initial Study regarding the effects on the biological environment. We urge that the EIR incorporate information from a recently published report by the U.S . Fish and Wildlife Service (May, 1979) regarding fish and wildlife resources of the Bolsa Chica wetlands/mesa complex. III. Public Services and Facilities - The degree to which the City' s public services and facilities will be impacted and the effects of the project on existing and planned roadway systems are of considerable concern and should be addressed from a cumulative standpoint in the EIR (refer to attached memorandum from Ralph Leyva, Traffic Engineer) . The City's Public Works Department has stated that no City sewer service will be available for the project. The County' s Initial Study lacks discussion of sewer capacity. Impact on present and planned sewer and drainage facilities should be discussed in detail in the EIR. The City has recently engaged two consulting firms to prepare master-planned studies for the installation of sewer and; drainage facilities within the City. It is anticipated that the Huntington Beach Fire Department will be involved in any fire, medical aid, or other related emergen- cies in the project area because of the mutual aid agreement � .. between the City and County (refer to attached memorandum- from Mel Ott, Deputy Fire Marshal) . The Police Department has also estimated the number of additional police officers needed to effectively police the proposed development (refer to attached memorandum from Robert Fickle, Special Operations Division) . IV. Huntington Beach Policies and Plans - The Advanced Planning section of the Planning Department has reviewed the County' s Initial Study and submitted comments concerning applicable City policies and plans pertinent to the development (see attached memorandum from June Catalano, Senior Planner) . The Local Coastal Program section of the Planning Department has also re- viewed the Initial Study and submitted comments pertaining to coastal policies and the City ' s Coastal Plan (see attached memorandum from .Mary Lynn Norby, Coastal Planner) . V. Public Fiscal Impact/Economics - It is the Planning Department' s recommendation that an analysis of fiscal impacts of the proposed project be incorporated into the EIR which will stress incre- mental public revenues generated and incremental service costs in the context of Proposition 13. It is suggested that this be done in accordance with the recommendations and methodology outlined in the State Office of Planning Research Economic Practices Manual (1978) . f James Swanek June 13, 1979 Page 3 We hope that the above comments will assist in the County' s assessment of this project. Thank you again for the opportunity to submit input at this stage in the environmental process. If we can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to con- tact our office. Sincerely, James R. Barnes Associate Planner JRB:df Enclosures cc: June Catalano Mary Lynn Norby f 1' C NTV OF I-P,U !'%1 1H,G OIN RE !FAC H rrr,' INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION (, III AII.A'(.ION BIA(II To Michael Zambory From Ralph R. Leyva Director of Public Works Traffic Engineer Subject Bolsa Chica Properties Date June 8, 1979 Draft EIR This memo is in response to a request for comments by OCEMA regarding the preparation of draft EIR for a proposed development by Signal Landmark Properties, Inc. The subject site consists of 218 . 5 acres located south of Warner Avenue and west of Bolsa Chica Street. The site is presently designated as open space and recreational use on the_ County' s General Plan. The proposed amendment would provide for 152 . 6 acres of medium and high density residential development (796-1998 dwelling units) , 20. 2 acres of commercial development, and 45. 7 acres of open space. The following is a summary of the anticipated traffic generation as a result of the project- : Units per Dwelling Gen. Land Use Category Acres Acre Units Rate Trips Medium Density 65. 0 3. 5 -6. 5 227-422 11 TE/DV 4642 High Density 87. 6 6 . 5 -18 569-1576 9 TE/DV 14184 TR/C 20 . 2 400 TE/AC 8080 Open Space 45. 7 10 TE/AC 457 TOTAL 218 . 5 796-1-998 27, 363 i The project is expected to generate as much as 27, 400 trip, per day which will significantly impact the existing arterial highway system. Therefore, the extension of Bolsa Chica Street south of Warner Avenue would have to be a serious consideration. In fact, the southerly extension of Graham Street would also be included in the study. Another issue which would affect transportation and traffic safety is the need for an elementary school within the area. Otherwise, attendance may have to be transferred to Harbor View school which would require crossing a high volume arterial highway. The EIR should also discuss the impact of being under the take off flight pattern of the Meadowlark Airport, and the need for waterway passage across Warner Avenue into Huntington Harbour. r. Ralph R;; Leyva Traffic Engineer i RRL:ek . cc: Jim Barnes CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH r=� ,! INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH Barnesel Ott? To Jim arnes From / Development Services Department Deputy Fire Marshal Subject E.I.R. FOR THE BOLSA CHICA MESA Date May 30, 1979 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Please include the following comments pertaining to this project in your report to the County Environmental Management Agency. Even though the project site is within the County jurisdiction, it is anticipated that the Huntington Beach Fire Department will be involved in any fire, medical aid or other related emergencies in this area because of the Mutual Aid Agreement between the County and the City. The project site is within the area served by our Warner, Heil and Murdy Fire Stations. The Warner Fire Station located at Warner Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway is the closest fire station to this project site and provides one engine company. The Heil Fire Station provides the second engine company and the Murdy Fire Station will provide the truck company and paramedic services. It is also anticipated that the Huntington Beach Water Department will supply water for fire protection purposes to this project site. With the anticipated involvement of the City's services for this area, it seems appropriate that the City of Huntington Beach have input into the design of any proposed projects. The following items will be of concern: 1. Street system - to assure proper access and circulation in emergency situations. 2. Water main and fire hydrant layout for proper fire flow. 3. Fire protection systems as required under local fire and building codes. 4. Proper handling of the various oil related operations such as: transfer lines, sumps, tanks, wells, etc. If any further information is required, please advise. MO:sh "'tiT�i i QN BEACH PL/a{'4N;r�G DEPT. MAY 311979 P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ? INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To MR. JIM BARNES From SERGEANT ROBERT E. FICKLE Planning Department Special Operations Division Subject SIGNAL LANDMARK PROPERTIES Date MAY 30, 1979 (218.5 acres Bolsa Chica and Warner) The estimated additional police officers needed to effectively police the proposed development has been based on the number of housing units described in the "Bolsa Chica Mesa Statistical Summary". The number of dwelling units ranges from 796 to 1,998. Using the average population per household, (3.39 for single, and 2.39 for multi-housing) and the number of calls for service per person in 1978, the absolute minimum number of police officers to handle the estimated calls for service for the minimum development will be at least two officers, and for maximum development, the necessary additional officers will be at least six sworn officers. Additional manpower must be considered for development other than residential, such as recreational, etc. ROBERT E. FI KLE, Serge nt Special Operations Division REF:skd F"."Mt,CTO.N B2".CH PLAMING DEPT. MAY 3 a 11979 P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Jim Barnes From June Catalano Associate Planner Senior Planner Subject ADVANCE PLANNING COMMENTS Date June 11, 1979 ON BOLSA CHICA MESA DRAFT EIR The Advance Planning Division has reviewed the environmental information form for the above project and submits the following comments concerning applicable City policies and plans: OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION - The Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan sets forth the following policies applicable to the proposed project. 1) Preserve and protect outstanding geographical and topographical features (e.g. bluff areas) . 2) Promote the preservation of the area' s marshes and lakes . 3) Protect the area' s water resources - domestic supply, ocean and harbor areas, marshlands, and lakes - from pollution. 4) Cooperate in local , state, and national efforts to improve air quality. 5) Prevent excessive noise intrusion. 6) Preserve significant vegetation and wildlife habitats now existing in the Planning Area. 7) Preserve and protect areas of significant historic, scenic, and archaeological value. Additionally, the adopted Open Space and Conservation Plan identifies a number of open space planning areas where valuable resources exist and development pressures necessitate careful planning for thier protection. The Bolsa Chica Mesa was assigned the highest priority for conservation because of its bluffs, tree stands, potential historical sites, archaeological sites, scenic vistas, mineral resources and seismic hazards . The south-facing bluff is designated as a Scenic Corridor on the Plan, to be protected from disharmonious development or preserved in its natural state, utilizing scenic roadways and open space greenbelts. The Mesa is also identified as a Planned Open Space Development Area in order to maximize the area ' s open space benefits by incorporating natural features and resources into any proposed development. BOLSA CHICA MESA June 11, 1979 Page 2 In implementing its policies concerning open space and conservation, the City of Huntington Beach stresses preservation through regulation of development rather than through public ownership, possibly using cluster or resource zoning and subdivision controls to protect signif- icant features and resources. The transfer of development rights for the subject property might also be investigated, although the City has no existing provisions for this procedure. The environmental information form adequately identifies the many open space issues to be analyzed, however; the environmental impact report should also consider the City' s open space and conservation policies, including the Open Space and Conservation Plan. SEISMIC/PUBLIC SAFETY - The geologic conditions of the project area are well documented and adequately addressed. The tsunami hazard appears to be overstated, however; a copy of the Geotechnical Inputs report has been attached for consideration and assistance in evaluating seismic and safety hazards . A potential additional hazard exists in the project area' s location one mile south west of Meadowlark Airport, directly beneath the take-off pattern of small aircraft using the airport. NOISE - The proposed residential units may be slightly impacted by engine noise from small aircraft flying over the area after taking off from Meadowlark Airport, although the noise level should be considerably less than 60 CNEL. CIRCULATION - The anticipated traffic impacts associated with the proposed project are of great concern, especially along Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street, which carry substantial amounts of seasonal beach traffic. Any new interior arterial should be planned to fit into the City' s system of existing and proposed arterial highways, specifically the proposed extention of Bolsa Chica Street. Care should be taken to distribute the anticipated increases in traffic as evenly as possible to the City' s arterials . Additionally, the ` scenic corridor concept for the bluff area should be observed in designing roads near the bluff. The City is now developing a transportation demand model to assess the impact of future development on existing arterials . This model utilizes data presented in the Orange County Transportation Commission's Multi-Modal Transportation Study. This model may be helpful in assessing traffic impacts associated with the proposed project. Bolsa Chica Mesa June 11, 1979 Page 3 HOUSING - The City of Huntington Beach is currently preparing a revision to its Housing Element. A local and regional goal in the area of housing is to expand housing opportunities for families of low and moderate incomes . The provision of affordable units is more easily accomplished within the context of a large planned development; therefore, the proposed project represents a valuable opportunity to further this housing goal. The environmental impact report should address alternatives which include units affordable to families of low and moderate incomes . LAND USE - The City' s Land Use Element designates the project area as a Planning Reserve . Planning Reserve is a broadly defined interim designation intended for areas where long term comprehensive planning and development is anticipated. Uses may include: a) Land areas in a pre-development phase that are not yet fully planned or ready for immediate development. b) Land in transition to ultimate use that may be designated as a "holding" zone (such as the RA or LU District) . c) Resource production areas including land used for agriculture or oil extraction purposes . (Oil extraction may be combined with land designated as industrial , residential-agriculture, or resi- dential use) . The proposed residential land uses most closely correspond to the City' s low and medium density designations, although the County ' s high density designation allows a slightly higher maximum density than the City' s medium density (18 units/acre vs 15 units/acre) . The City has no specific designation for tourist recreation/commercial; the closest designation being Mixed Development. The City has been involved in various stages of planning land uses for the unincorporated area in anticipation of eventual annexation of the Bolsa Chica to the City. While the Planning Reserve designation has been retained, low intensity zoning designations such as Limited Use District and Recreation and Open Space have been considered as pre- zoning alternatives for the Bolsa Chica. This type of zoning was recommended in order to have the least possible impact on the adjacent area and to prevent inflation of land values which would complicate state acquisition efforts. The designations would also act as a holding zone until a comprehensive development plan is prepared and the issue of provision of services is resolved. The lack of services and public utilities in the area and the degree to which the City ' s facilities would be impacted by the proposed project is of considerable concern. These and other concerns appear to be adequately addressed in considering the procedure necessary to remove the County ' s Reserve designation from the- property in question. JC/BH/dc CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH 47L& To James Barnes From Mary Lynn Norby Associate Planner Local Coastal Plan Subject BOLSA CHICA MESA Date June 14 , 1979 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Local Coastal Program Staff has reviewed the information on this project provided with the Notice of Preparation for a Draft Environmental Impact Report including the Environmental Analysis and Explanations (19PO4003) and Environmental Information .form. This information appears to adequately outline the known issues including those involving coastal planning. The primary additional information which needs to be included is the following concerning the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program: The City ' s Local Coastal Program has contracted tasks related to the Bolsa Chica including: 1) coordinating with the County for the linear regional park; 2) recommending policies concerning runoff, aquifer water quality affecting the Bolsa Chica wetlands; 3) identifying dredging and filling impacts and alternatives; 4 ) assessing demand for additional marinas or other boating support facilities; 5) determining land use designations based on habitat sensitivity and adjacent development requirements compatible with the wetlands habitats ; 6) protecting visual resources; and 7) assessing OCS offshore and onshore impacts and mitigations. The City' s LCP is scheduled for completion at the end of 1979 . During it' s preparation, coordination with other agencies including the Orange County LCP Planners , the State. Dept,_.of.Fish and Game and Recreation and Parks is part of the process. Coastal policy issues of particular concern to the Huntington Beach LCP are: 1) The views from the upper beach bluffs may be blocked and changed. 2) Views from the "scenic highway-to-be" , Pacific Coast Highway, and the Bolsa Chica State Beach will be changed from tree-lined bluffs to urban building-form. Bolsa Chica Mesa June 14 , 1979 Page 2 3) A different proportion of recreation and visitor-serving facilities and open space than the project provides may be found necessary in that area by the demand analysis of the LCP. 4) Provision for meeting low and moderate income housing requirements of the Coastal Act will be addressed in a piecemeal rather than comprehensive manner if the project precedes the LCP. 5) The effects of runoff on the bluffs the groundwater,and particularly the outer Bolsa, biologically and visually, are LCP as well as environmental issues. LCP standards and mitigation requirements are not yet established to apply to these impacts. 6) The impacts and compatibilities of the habitats of the Bolsa Chica and any 'developments are a major concern. 7) The provision for on-site recreation areas and facilities in any development increasing the resident population needs to be a requirement. Such provision can minimize the overloading of public facilities with the added population. 8) Extensions of service (sewers, water, etc . ) would be necessary to serve this area. The growth which would foreseeably be induced may degrade the quality of the coastal resources. 9) The evaluation of impacts to the oil and gas production facilities existing have not been made and the preclusion of expansion of this use hereby the proposed project would pre-determine the LCP-Coastal Energy Impact Program. 10) Finally, the public participation process required by the Coastal Act would not be operational for this project area if it precedes the LCP ' s Thus this memo confirms the statement in 9 . 6 that the proposal is premature. MLN/dc BOLSA CHICA ................................................................................................. PREZONING ALTERNATIVES January 1979 m huntingfon beach planning department BOLSA CHICA PREZONING ALTERNATIVES Prepared by HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT i BOLSA CHICA PREZONING ALTERNATIVES TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. 0 INTRODUCTION 1 1. 1 Purpose of Report 1 1.2 Staff Preferred Alternative 3 2. 0 GENERAL BACKGROUND 5 2 . 1 Early History 5 2. 2 Recent History 7 2 . 3 Local Coastal Program 9 2 . 4 City Activity 9 3. 0 PREVIOUS PLANNING EFFORTS 11 3 . 1 State Department of Fish and Game 11 3 . 2 Private Entities 14 3. 3 Bolsa Chica Regional Park 14 4 . 0 COUNTY OF ORANGE: GENERAL PLAN/ZONING 19 4 . 1 Orange County General Plan 19 4 . 2 Orange County Zoning 22 5 . 0 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH: GENERAL PLAN/ZONING 23 5 . 1 City of Huntington Beach General Plan 23 5 . 2 City of Huntington Beach Zoning 26 6. 0 ALTERNATIVE PREZONING PROPOSALS 29 6 . 1 Alternative I: Open Space 29 6 . 2 Alternative II: Consistent with General Plan 31 6 . 3 Alternative III; Consistent with State, County Open Space Efforts 33 6 . 4 Analysis 33 1. 0 INTRODUCTION 1 . 1 Durpose of Report This report provides general background on the history and planning efforts in Bolsa Chica as a foundation on which the City Council may consider its intent as to eventual prezoning in Bolsa Chica (Figure 1. 1) . Presented are previous City efforts as well as current activities of other involved public agencies and private entities . Background on the City General Plan and appropriate zoning districts is also provided as a necessary part of the analysis . All the information is provided as a short overview of relevant matters to be considered in a decision on prezoning Bolsa Chica. AM)k X, Cq X., F14 ................ BOLSA CHICA ............... 14 P4 OCEAN LOCATIONAL MAP I as HUNTMTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPT. Three alternative prezoning proposals are presented. Alternative I is an open space alternative. Alternative II is consistent with City planning efforts to date in Bolsa Chica . Alternative III is a compromise between Alternative) and II . 1 . 2 Staff Preferred Alternative Based on the analysis and information presented the Planning Department prefers Alternative II for the following reasons : 1) It is consistent with the General Plan . 2) It best reflects the unsettled state of affairs in Bolsa Chica • 3) It protects the City from the threat of inverse condemnation. 3 m � R � 2 . 0 GENERAL BACKGROUND 2 . 1 Early History The first inhabitants of the Bolsa Chica region were Indians who several thousand years ago lived on the bluffs east and west of Bolsa Gap. The predominance of Pecten and Chione shells among some of their midden material suggests that the gap might have been occupied by a broad, shallow bay or estuary. As time passed, alluvial sediments slowly filled the estuary. Salt marshes and then freshwater swamplands developed. The shellfish resources declined and the Indians were forced to move to new sites . Just prior to 1795 a large Spanish land grant consisting of 300 , 000 acres, including the lands surrounding Bolsa Bay, was awarded to Manuel Perez Nieto, a retired soldier. Following his death, the land was partitioned and several transfers of ownership occurred. The Mexican Government conveyed a small land grant bordering the ocean to Joaquin Ruiz in 1841. In accordance with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, his title was confirmed by the land commission in 1854 , and a survey notice published in 1861. Part of the Ruiz holdings, then named "Rancho Bolsa Chica, " now forms a section of the present Bolsa Chica property. 5 Don Abel Stearns acquired title to the majority of the original Nieto grant, including the Rancho Bolsa Chica, long before the patent to the grant was signed in 1874 ; and his successor, the Stearns Rancho Company, survived to influence the settlement of this coastal section of Orange County. The large landowners of the early 1800 ' s depended on cattle ranching and sheep grazing for their livelihood. A gradual decline of beef prices and a series of severe droughts in the 1860 ' s eventually led to the sale of many of these holdings. By the late 1890 ' s , much of the lowlands had begun to be settled by Americans who cleared and drained the land. The high water table and fertile alluvial soils permitted truck farming on a large scale. Celery, corn, lima beans, potatoes, and pumpkins were among the principal crops . By 1900, only the tidal marshes of the coastal strip remained unaltered. The beach-bay setting of these areas and their plentiful game had already attracted sportsmen and hunters, and several gun clubs had been formed. The Bolsa Chica area was regarded as an excellent natural habitat for wildlife and game birds . Wild ducks, geese , jack-snipe, coots, plover, doves, killdeer, egrets, herons, gulls, pelicans , land birds , and waterfowl of many types varied their flights from ocean to swamp and from swamp to ocean in search of sea food, grain, seeds , and insects. In 1899 , the largest hunting organization, the Bolsa Chica Gun Club, was issued a patent by the State for 529 acres of tidelands within Bolsa Bay that were not included within "Rancho Bolsa Chica. " Following the issuance of the State patent, the gun club began to build a dam to limit tidal flows into Bolsa Bay. After several attempts, a dam was built that could withstand the tremendous pressures of the tides . The dam with its tide gates stopped the ebb and flow of tides through the natural opening to the sea, resulting in the sanding up and closure of the opening. Provisions then had to be made to get rid of upland drainage that backed up behind the barrier beach. A channel was dug though what is now Warner Avenue into the Anaheim-Sunset Bay tidal system, allowing Bolsa Bay to drain. The club then began a development program including construction of ponds, levees, and private access roads designed to complement the club' s activities . Coastal communities grew rapidly following the discovery of the Huntington Beach oil field in 1920. Oil and gas operations received further impetus from the discovery of the Sunset Beach oil field in 1954 . Drilling pads and well-access roads were first built in Bolsa Gap about 1940. Initially, they were confined to the southeast section of the Bolsa Chica property adjacent to the Huntington Beach Mesa. By 1949, they had been extended over the entire eastern half of the property and today almost the entire area is affected. 6 The post-war building boom of Southern California had little effect on the Bolsa Chica region until the 1960 ' s . Since then, urban development throughout the region has steadily increased. The tidal marshes of Sunset Bay were dredged out during the development of Huntington Harbour, a large residential marina north of the Bolsa Chica property. As oil production declined on the northern and eastern fringes of Bolsa Chica, portions of the property were annexed by the City of Huntington Beach. Almost the entire eastern boundary of the Bolsa Chica property is now bordered with single-family housing tracts, as are large areas of both Bolsa Chica Mesa and Huntington Beach Mesa. 2 . 2 Recent History Signal Properties, Inc. ,, in 1970, acquired title to Bolsa Chica (approximately 1, 970 acres) from the Bolsa tenants in common and began preparation of a conceptual plan which included a marina- residential complex. At this time, the State of California contested the title to those areas comprising the historic tide and submerged lands in the Bolsa Chica area. By 1973 , the State and Signal Properties, Inc. had signed an agree- ment which has come to be known as the "1973 Boundary Settlement. " The major components of the agreement were as follows : 1) Fee title to a 300-acre plot and 27 . 5 acres beneath Pacific Coast Hiqhway (both of which are adjacent to the Bolsa Chica State Beach) be confirmed or received by the State. 2) Fee title to the remainder of Bolsa Chica area will be confirmed or conveyed to Signal Properties , Inc . , and the easement of commerce, navigation and fisheries to the extent it exists over such lands will be terminated. 3) Signal will provide to the State the right to use, without payment of any rental, for a period of fourteen years and specified purposes, an additional 230 acres of land adjacent to the 300-acre plot. 4) The State will receive fee title to the 230-acre plot upon construction of an ocean entrance system, within said fourteen year period, re-opening Bolsa Bay to the Pacific Ocean to provide a variety of public benefits and water access to Signal lands . 5) Upon re-opening Bolsa Bay to the Pacific Ocean, the State will have fee title to a total of 557. 5 acres in Bolsa Chica area. 7 6) The Department of Fish and Game will receive 66-year leases of the lands described in points 1 and 3 above from the State Lands Commission with the qualifications that the lease of the point 3 area will terminate at the end of fourteen years should an ocean entrance system not be constructed. 7) The State exchanged with Signal the 63 acres of mineral interests recognized in State ownership (which have very irregular con- figurations and in many instances are isolated slivers) for a consolidated 70-acre parcel of mineral rights . In 1973, upon completion of the land exchange agreement, the State of California, through its appropriate departments, began preparation of a conceptual master plan for development at Bolsa Chica. This plan, completed in 1974 , envisioned two phases of development. Phase I concerned the restablishment of a saltwater marsh encompassing approximately 200 acres of the 300-acre parcel defined in the land exchange agreement described above. Phase II would involve expansion of the 200-acre marsh, construction of a public marina, and const- ruction of a navigable ocean entrance system to provide tidal waters to the marsh and marina. The State would thereby gain title to the additional 230 acres of land presently being leased. Also considered in various plans relating to a navigable entrance to the Bolsa Chica area, was the Metropolitan Water Districts proposed Bolsa Island. Bolsa Island was to act as an off-shore breakwater which could be extended upcoast to form a sand trap from which the material could be dredged and placed down-coast as a bypassing system. Metropolitan Water District has not pursued Bolsa Island past the conceptual stages. In 1977 , State Assemblyman Dennis Mangers introduced legislation into the State Legislature (AB 643) intended to provide the State Lands Commission the funds necessary to acquire approximately 924 acres of the Bolsa Chica marshlands (including the 230-acre lease parcel) . This bill subsequently was withdrawn, but the requested funds were included as a Line Item in the State Budget of 1977 . This approp- riation was for $4 . 6 million, with one million dollars of that amount to be reimbursed by local entities . The State offered approximately $3 . 6 million dollars to Signal Properties, Inc. for the property, but this offer was not accepted. The City of Huntington Beach, in response to the County .of Orange ' s request for nominations for regional park sites in north-western Orange County, proposed on May 12, 1977 , the concept of a linear park for Huntington Beach Mesa, and at the same time, also proposed to the County of Orange the concept of County participation in up-grading Huntington Central Park to regional park status. The Orange County EMA, in June of 1977 , compiled a Feasibility Study for a regional park linking the Bolsa Chica marsh lowlands and Bolsa Chica State Beach with nearby Huntington Beach Central Park. 8 The study recommended a linear type park connecting Huntington Beach Central Park and the Bolsa Chica Marsh be established, along with a scenic drive connecting Bolsa Chica Street with Ellis Avenue. This study was accepted and approved by the Orange County Board of Supervisors who, in turn, directed Staff to begin efforts for plannina, initial acquisition, and development of the linear park. On April 6 , 1978 a meeting of interested agencies and public interest groups was held to discuss the formation of the Bolsa Chica Study Group. The Bolsa Chica Study Group subsequently was formed (City Staff members have been involved) with the intent of developing a comprehensive study of issues and considerations in planning for the long range uses of the Bolsa Chica Area. A final report will be forthcoming approximately in March 1979 . In addition the activities of the Bolsa Chica Study Group, the U.S. Corps of Engineers and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service are currently conducting studies related to land use alternatives in Bolsa Chica and the biology of Bolsa Chica. In January 1979 , Amigos do uc1.,,-' Chica filed suit naming Signal Properties , Inc. , Aminoil, Grace Droperties, Inc . , the . State of California and others as co-defendents and contending that unlawful dumping has been occuring in Bolsa Chica. Amigos de Bolsa Chica has also terminated its participation in the Bolsa Chica Study Group. 2 . 3 Local Coastal Program The City of Huntington Beach in its original work program for the LCP proposed to include Bolsa Chica in the planning efforts. However, the Coastal Commission in its approval of the City Work Program in January 1979, deleted City responsibility for Bolsa Chica. The Coastal Commission determined that as unincorporated property Bolsa Chica should be the responsibility of the County of Orange. The County of Orange LCP Work Program was heard recently by the Regional Coastal Commission. The County anticipates approval by the State Coastal Commission in February 1979 . Completion of County LCP planning efforts in Bolsa Chica would occur no sooner than February 1981. 2 . 4 City Activity Bolsa Chica is a logical area for annexation by the City of Huntington Beach since the City surrounds Bolsa Chica with the exception of 343 feet at the northwestern most corner. Furthermore the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) has determined that Bolsa Chica is within the sphere of influence of the City of Huntington Beach. a In August, 1976 , the City Council officially submitted an applic- ation to the Local Agency Formation, Commission (LAFCO) for the annexation of the entire Bolsa Chica. After considerable discussion over a period of several months, including consideration of annexing only the uplands portion of the Bolsa Chica, the City Council at its December 12 , 1977 meeting decided not to pursue the annexation of any of the Bolsa Chica. On December 16 , 1977, the City officially withdrew its application. On January 11, 1978 LAFCO officially terminated any further proceedings related to the City application. The City had originally proposed perzoning Bolsa Chica with Recreation and Open Space on State owned and leased lands and Residential Agriculture on the remainder of the property. However, upon further considerating the City Council directed Staff to amend the zoning ordinance by introducing a new district (Limited Use District) expressly as ' a holding zone and to apply it to Bolsa Chica on those portions which would have been prezoned Residential Agriculture. The Limited Use District has been utilized in the City in instances where the land use designation in the General Plan is Planning Reserve. Most of the properties in Bolsa Chica are designated Planning Reserve in the General Plan consequently the Staff report to the City Council for the meeting of November 20 , 1978 recommended use of the Limited Use District if the City pursues annexation. On November 20 , 1978 the City Council directed Staff to once again proceed toward annexation and to consider use of the Recreation and Open Space District. r i 10__ 3. 0 PREVIOUS PLANNING EFFORTS Planning efforts in Bolsa Chica have been related to ownership patterns (Figure 3 . 1) . Open Space uses have been proposed and to some extent implemented on State land by the State of California. Signal has provided preliminary, unofficial plans which provide for urban development for the remainder of properties in Bolsa Chica. An alternative to these proposals for land use has come about because of the efforts of Assemblyman Mangers and the cooperation of the County of Orange which has led to a concept plan largely aimed at open space preservation in Bolsa Chica. 3. 1 State Department. of Fish and Game The Bolsa Chica State Ecological Reserve is located within Bolsa Chica. The State presently owns 300 acres and leases another 230 acres . Of the total 530 acres, the Phase I marsh re-establishment project utilizes approximately 200 acres (Figure 3 .2) . Phase II of State plans for the remaining 1_00 acres under State ownership and the 230 acres under lease depend on whether the State acquires the 230 acres of leased land by meeting the stipulations in the agreement signed between the State and Signal Properties Inc . Specifically, if the State provides a navigable cut through to the ocean the 230 acres of leased land will be deeded to the State. The State has approximatley ten years left on the existing agreement 11 PROPERTY OWNERS ACRES Signal Bolsa Corporation ll63.21 (230 acs. leased to State) W.R. Grace Prop. 42.08 `` \ i Don Goodell 6.22 Metropolitan Water District 37.18 j Q Oceanview School District 15 ` �; e, i % ® State of California 309.45 ® Orange County Flood Control 20.03 Huntington Beach Company 9.86 Y� +X. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. .6 ;•i `'' i J TC7PAL 3 1603.63 O 0 of !Y FF ,p r--I i :t• �L a M ti A O I :,. v 0 �•f e i N O 4 111/y f •O y� O 'Y.. V' tl P O _a J /) P / ••o 0 41 YX. (t o e :�• o 0 0 o° o° 1 • BOLSA CHICA PROPERTY OWNERS Mm+iwcrar IWACH HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING om marsh restoration r - Ar ctva N ;lRSIW ' n yt _ - - - •\ -r-sLix i°RL"Me larr'i�c "Its-set Jrr p .'Gy — M L .trl M Rw 00�rs .�� �'IOLIdv L,JOG rAL y ♦ _�.� �l.µt IwG/�L fp.Jrjtvcr[.[r.A.LL —�❑ '— -(sue -_ f- fpf-GM1rtKlOv J/ 1 �•�• — c4u_ I fy..V�z - ' fif c L liA• MOI Wlf r lO�r 'OMJArWT Al A..a[!M_ f0 .M •• - !_ %+ s' -u.rr..loOK r— _r l_ frr� 6pLfOW IJLI.O SJ {�\ ( /'t Ar of L//JrAGS�L.[r. GG.Jrr cr - - - 3 G•,••• �� -.- 1 NYlrRvcr L.YAr Age-AIW 7-7-1 - - ;-ems- - -- - • MePHASE I MARSH RESTORATION I aurtr+crav�J� HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEFT. To reestablish a saltmarsh system in this area, a levee has been constructed around a 150 acre area to contain tidal flows received through Huntington Harbour (tidal flows into the former Bolsa marshlands were blocked by tide gates , originally constructed in 1899) . The project area added to the existing 50 acres of wetlands in "outer Bolsa" provides a total 200 acres available to fish and wildlife. Presently, the State conceptual plan for Phase II calls for the development of a navigable cut to the ocean, exppansion of the ecological reserve and boat marina development(Figure 3.3) . Actual implement- ation however, is tied:to the State meeting the terms of its agree- ment with Signal Properties, Inc. ; the outcome of efforts by Assemblyman Managers to preserve most of Bolsa Chica for open space; the determination by Federal Agencies as to federal government jurisdiction in this matter (Corps of Engineers has permit authority in wetlands areas) ; and the completion of a land use plan as a part of the Local Coastal Program. by the County of Orange. 3. 2 Private Entities Signal Properties, Inc. has developed preliminary, unofficial plans for urban development on properties other than those owned and leased by the State (Figure 3 . 4 is representative) . The plan in Figure 3. 4 designates some 675 acres for residential development of varying densities and types, and over 80 acres of commercial and office facilities (refer to Figure 3 .4 for a more complete breakdown of land uses) . Development according to this plan would yield an approximated 8, 423 housing units supporting an estimated population of 21 ,000 to 25 , 000 persons. 3 . 3 Bolsa Chica Regional Park Based upon indications that West Orange County is deficient, in regional park sites , this planning effort, as its first task, attempted to identify potential park locations in West Orange County. A report has been completed and submittted to the Board of Super- visors. It concluded that the linear regional park proposed in the Bolsa Gap was the only feasible location of a new regional park in the West County area. The Feasibility Study for Bolsa Chica Regional Park prepared by EMA in June, 1977 , had recommended earlier that the County change its proposed regional park site from the current Bolsa Chica Mesa location to a linear park that would wrap around the State ecological reserve and create a passive park/trail corridor. The park/ corridor would connect Huntington Central Park to Bolsa Chica State Beach and would require a land area of approximately 149 acres. (Figure 3. 5) . The linear park complements and is complemented by Assemblyman Magers attempts to prcxnote State purchase of the remaining properties in the Gap area for purposes of marsh re-establishment. 14 r- C f--r c� vi y. /fcf.l I[Y r[.w cww..wec. ['7Y�1i "�M. r.• r STATE OF CALIFORNIA r I miff CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN HL%TMIGTON MACH HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPT. 9JAMARY OF USES N ANNEXAWN AREA RI L14W 56A 278 / RI M22 6M .y \ �� _ 469 \ 'p s p BQ7 RS C- / - /0 i 4 t1 C4 6Lt 1 •�' MARNAJMARSH 7784 \ / •a� �'j • ,, P��. t�++ r,� � � mil/ yl z Lj of ft wK a \ • REPRESENTATIVE URBAN DEVELOPMENT PLAN ►K1MfTWGTQIV BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPT. F-71 STATE AB643 Ccl ACQUISITION LeE �_ i COUNTY MINIMUM _i ACQUISITION ' ] STATE-COUNTY LEASE OR JOINT OPERATIONS ALIGNMENTS NOT \ ? r1 DEFINED. SCENIC ��> �' "� X�' s Al TREATMENTS THROUGHOUT - i: �.114 i. VISTA POINTS � EQUESTRIAN sT.` - ...... L .�.: : . ::'. : ::':....::::.:.::::::... .. FACILITY � - RA ks:.:::::::.:::: ; :':.. -s:::: �A AsiF" �. �\ ......� ..r 3 .e....Y PAN IINi� �;� A3 _ PANK NO• l:, ,. ' J R Bunke. u, STATE RESTORED ECOLOGICAL AREA k'::,: .!IPANKMO - - - - - --.'6S':'-_ ,^_-•-' :�_- - � NtWP^�R( tNi:LGWQOC _. •N-;,r r.,R E'; ZONE - -:. A3- ::: -- - -- - -- - -- - - - -- - /.:;. 2� 4 -- STATE RESTORED y ECOLOGICAL AREA lK PACIRC CGAST FLUSHING ACCESS - `" FLUSHING "ACCESS BOLSA CHICA REGIONAL PARK • CONCEPT PLAN ►N�rrorccsaN�Ac++ HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEFT. it 18 4 . 0 COUNTY OF ORANGE; GENERAL PLAN/ZONING 4 . 1 Orange County General Plan Bolsa Chica is currently under the jurisdiction of Orange County. The Orange County General Plan land use designations for Bolsa Chica include: recreation for the State-owned property and a proposed County regional park (280 acres) on the Bolsa Mesa (amendment 76-2, adopted 12/22/76) ; and general agriculture for the remainder of the study area except for a very small portion of unincorporated property located on the ocean side of Pacific Coast Highway which is designated Other Open Space (Figure 4 . 1) . More important than the actual land use designations for Bolsa Chica in the County General Plan is that Bolsa Chica is designated as a "reserve area" in the County' s General Plan. According to the County, " (a reserve area) is land identified on the Land Use Element Map where proposed residential , commercial or industrial land uses are not yet ready for implementation or where such proposed land uses have not yet been adopted. WIN 19 t y 4 LEGEND 5.22 General Agriculture 5.3 Recreation 5.4 Other Open Space �r ��— S, PA C OAST HWY. J S-. 0 ORANGE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN ®� ►K,NrwcroN eEno+ HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPT. "This designation is one in which both public and private planning are encouraged within the limits of available planning resources and constraints of approved amendment schedules . Residential , comm- ercial or industrial developments, particularly large scale develop- ments, are not encouraged within the reserve designation. "Removal of land for either a phase or the entirety of a planning area from the reserve status must be accomplished by amendment to the General Plan. In addition to other General Plan policies , approval of a request to remove land from reserve status will be based upon the degree to which all of the following criteria are satisfied: 1) Adequate public services, facilities and utility capacities exist or have been planned and budgeted to adequate capacity and will be available at the time of development. 2) Existing or planned and budgeted traffic and/or transit facilities will permit access to employment and activity centers without exceeding local or regional transportation facility capabilities . 3) Implementation of land uses will give consideration to broadening housing opportunities for low and moderate income families . 4) Residential and employment centers will be brought closer together to minimize vehicular miles travelled. 5) A minimum of natural hazards exist or can be mitaged to the County' s satisfaction. 6) Natural resources are either insignificant to can be preserved to the County' s satisfaction. 7) ' Applicable air and water quality standards for respective air basins and watersheds can be met. 8) Regional impact of proposed land uses have been evaluated by the County and required amendments to all applicable General Plan elements have been identified. 9) Urban land uses have been adopted within the reserve area. " The "reserve" status does not preclude the implementation of agric- ultural or other uses allowed under the general agricultural district in force in the Bolsa Chica so long as development is not urban in nature. Residential uses associated with farming, as an example, could be allowed. On the other hand, residential development meeting minimum acreage requirements but clearly intended as an urban residential development might not be allowed. ACM& 21 4 . 2 Orange County Zoning The study area is presently requlated by Orange County Zoning Codes. 1. 575. 13 acres are zoned Al and Al (0) ; general agricultural district, combined with oil production for a majority of the sites . Uses allowed under the Al zone include: Single family residence on minimum 4 acre lots Agriculture and horticulture Grazinq Poultry and squab farms Small animal farms except kennels Riding and hiking trails Parks, playgrounds, athletic facilities (non-commercial) Apiaries Equines and bovines (non-commercial) Additional uses , some of greater intensity, are permissible if a use permit is secured by the potential developer. A 28 acre strip along Warner Avenue is zoned AR, agricultural residential district. Uses allowed under the AR zone include . Single family residence (approximately 4. 5 units/gross acre) Agriculture Grazing Golf, polo, swimming, tennis, yacht and country clubs Accessory buildings Additional uses, some of greater intensity are permissible if a use permit is secured by the potential developer. AdWk 22 5. 0 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH: GENERAL PLAN/ZONING 5 . 1 City of Huntington Beach General Plan The City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Figure 5-1) designates approximately 530 acres owned and leased by the State of California as open space. A 50-acre area located in the eastern portion of the study area near Edwards Street has been designated low density resi- dential. A 10-acre area in the southernmost section of the Bolsa Chica is designated resource production. The remaining 1, 013 . 12 acres constitute a planning reserve. As Figure 5-2 indicates, the State owned and leased properties are designhted as a resource preserve in. the City' s Open Space and Con- servation Element. Three scenic corridors and at least four park sites (exact sites not determined) are also proposed. Two planned open space development areas are proposed in the Bolsa Chica. One is the Bolsa Chica Mesa and.- the other is the remainder of the Bolsa Chica. Planned open space development applies to special resource areas, permitting open space uses and other kinds of uses, including residential, which maximize open space benefits by incorporating natural resources into the development plan. AW& .000/ 23 ,�, ♦+,,�,% ,�. � O�. � .d' �. �:r1i �, ♦,4 ht r�4yy�9�'O�L3 •y ;r`r ,�y� �►' 6•`.�fi < b •: . •i♦iiy y♦ Lyr ..A• •i�y y�r�•'" . `� • •�� p � I, ♦ � i, .ei11•:4` �`yi•i 4 . ,y. r JI' '+y •i �/+ .ter .. �� •i,��►r ,ri�,, ♦♦•i,♦y�I•� �i., �4�r`, � Ly�' ♦h,• �+♦� ��ti���fy rr � �a �� �� �y'i, ii, ♦ /ia h�,,�.r r•O�y ♦�r.•r�r�i�i'�`: � h� r /�I \�� •�i�•f•`r,0 r i��► r•-♦♦ <' r`�` Or r\ti yid♦♦i.� �y�r �I� /�/ \\ i�.. •-r 4'i ♦ . d' .•ram•r0. f'ys��•�/6���`` y yy � �yh�"o��'•punY � �Z��(�, GENERALI USE DESIGNATIMNS Ill :1 0 Resource Preserve Scenic Corridor ` Recreation Area 00, T Neibhhor hood Park * — t ® Water Area Lrl ;" Resource Production Open Space Development Open Space Plan Area ; .='.•:?';:1" ^�w• l (No. Indicates Priority) w•:��i:::�• •~,• n OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENT '�� fell ►N0ri1NG70N MACH HUNTINGTON &EACH PLANNING KPT. Priorities have been established for the open space plan areas according to endangeredness. High priority areas where valuable resources exist and development pressures are high include: 1) Bolsa Chica Mesa: includes the property in the Bolsa Chica Mesa between the bluff line and city limits . This property, under County jurisdiction, presently has some agri- cultural activity. It contains several valuable open space and conservation resources : the bluffs , tree stands , potential historical sites, archaeological sites, and scenic and mineral resources . Fault traces also exist here. 2) Bolsa Chica: includes the property in the Bolsa Chica under County jurisdiction between the two bluff lines, excluding the property under State ownership or lease agreement. Contained within this planning area are numerous valuable and unique resources; wildlife habitat, distinctive vegetation, arch- eological sites; scenic, historic, and mineral resources . It also suffers flood and seismic hazards . Most of Bolsa Chica is designated as a Planning Reserve. Planning Reserve is a broadly defined interim designation intended for areas where long term comprehensive planning and development is anticipated. Uses may include: a) Land areas in a pre-development phase that are not yet fully planned or ready for immediate development. b) Land in transition to ultimate use that may be designated designated as a "holding" zone (such as the RA or LU District) . c) Resource production areas including land used for agricul- ture or oil extraction purposes . (Oil extraction may be combined with land designated as industrial, residential- agriculture, or residential use) . The intent of this category is not to preclude development, but to identify such areas as deserving special attention and planning effort. J, v 5. 2 City of Huntington Beach Zoning Approximately 52 acres are prezoned Residential Agriculture, Low Density Residential , Low Density Residential with Civic District suffix and one portion with the Civic District suffix but no base district (Figure 5-3) . Existing prezoning would be replaced by prezoning ultimately to be determined by the City Council. 26 R3 � R% RI w R CD '" C R i a �`F<° R I o el L_ 0 4 / RI- _ t- m CD 4 q' RI p� ^�g^ R2-PD-14 ' q �� ° jI' \RI /°.� RI (PREZONED) RA-0 CD RI-CD "REZONED) N � ' Rif o pr . L O-CO� (PREZONED) L 0-CD Rl D-0 (PREZONED) -CD N h'I ' � Ib=_�• c A br Un ,� 'a25�- 95960 R/ RA-0 BOLSA CHICA P4C/F/C OCEAN o EXISTING CITY PREZONING Ila" MrHtwcroN IWacn NUNTINGTON BEAU PLANNING DEFT. i 28 1, 6 . 0 ALTERNATIVE PREZONING PROPOSALS 6 . 1 Alternative I: Open Space This alternative was developed at the direction of the City Council to consider open space prezoning. The Recreation and Open Space District combined with an oil suffix (ROS-02) is proposed in order to permit oil extraction activities in their existing capacities. The Phase I Marsh Re-establishment however, is proposed to be prezoned ROS without the -02 suffix since there are no oil extraction activities occurring (Figure 6 . 1) . The major advantage of using the Recreation. and Open Space District is that it protects against urban encroachment into Bolsa Chica. Section 9690 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code stipulates that the ROS District is "designed to fill a recognized need for privately or publicly owned and operated recreation facilities which consist predominantly of open landscaped space, together with incidential structures. As set forth herein, such provisions are directed toward encouraging development of open space recreational uses in keeping with the natural surroundings, and emphasizing the need to conserve resources as well as scenery. " At!R& IRI 29 ../� \ • Q`�� b py _ �� _$'+7i phi � •#y 6'1 • ra J��4N�1►a�,d 0,4 � ►�• � � y �. � as %t a..`-. � ► .♦♦ q,�,',��, A r'h11' xb u�u• � nmun 1 .��i,�•�dNNN xn� utr�nn�a_� .aI=L !_ •� �, ,� fp��3'-.�N tNt�,-" �%idtL.i.�■ .�'�r_ f�, mu 00 v 0 1 ON OPEN SPACEi The following uses are permitted in an ROS District: Arboretum Archery range Athletic fields including, but not limited to, polo, baseball, football, soccer and lawn bowling Bird sanctuary, aviary and farm Boating Fishing ponds Golf course (a) country club (b) pro shop (c) 3-par golf course, including pitch-and-putt Picnic grounds Racquet and tennis clubs Recreation centers Swimming pools and clubs Visual art festival grounds Water skiing Also allowable subject to a Conditional Use Permit are zoos and other recreational uses and structures in compliance with the intent of the district. 6. 2 Alternative II: Consistent with General Plan Alternative II has as its major component proposed prezoning with the Limited Use District: (LUD) within the area designated as a Planning Reserve in the General Plan. The LUD is also proposed on - small portions of property which have been General Planned Low Density Residential and Resource Production. The State owned and leased properties are General Planned Open Space therefore the State properties are proposed to be prezoned with the Recreation and Open Space District with allowances for oil extraction activities where appropriate (Figure 6 . 2) . According to Section 9690 . 5. 1 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code the LUD is "to be applied to an area for a temporary period for the purpose of further planning and for zoning or environmental issues . Land in a LUD shall not be subdivided for residential, commercial or industrial purposes until it is rezoned. " In this case the planning period should take from one to two years before rezoning could take place. The following uses are permitted in an LUD. Farming or grazing Greenhouses Riding or hiking trails Fishing ponds Apiaries Boating Field Crops Picnic grounds Orchards or groves Water skiing Bird sanctuaries 31 r p♦��••ribh� J♦ •� -. f0``,•i••i h �S •7y•4••••h rii�'•�♦•t ��� •��,`♦•A � ♦►♦�♦�i ♦�,�,•�o� 4'• •• ♦♦ �`�♦•t' • •i •i•ryhI 9 ��ti• h/•� •icy '■ • •a1� ��•i J��```` ``•44�yti i� =i♦`7♦;.����P' Oj►•i� •sh`Oy�yi L S yy`••4J Ip♦s p••� O � ♦ � � '.. •�•• iy •h ryhh q ♦ w •• • •• r �♦`` �•i. �• ;` ♦ ♦ / ag K- Pi;py ••'4 ♦i``�r�f•'••�•♦-ter``�-90 1� r � `l..I1b ♦J PJ�J ♦•� ►`_rDr2 h• ♦ a J`�O O♦�O`pI•/�0t•••r••rf• • ■ R \ j� :O�`�♦Q,O �j ••.♦ �`r'6♦�1r` p�``�P♦``�J,``�O,`♦a •iii�•••f i i r r i•::i `_I ?i;.`h/dI � � � L��A J� • y�,•..0`��` ♦`� h``P:``�J`�``�`��I_��y••► ii. •�iii. ..���i4/�yr�4/.I�/iry/OyII,,.,I •' 4♦`'i Ic♦�P O • .P�` ♦ ��L• ur•xtu■ •o Ij y`If/j/�R�iI � °ice° ��• •a i�I •............:r I��y// I�IiI� IIi. � � •I J�9• •/•♦ yLT•dam .i �'i11L`�� �♦`, ii•�ilii iiii� // ylli/I/ij. Ii�Iilllll� � y�44ti1,�`� t`�y.saS•�L ��xm►Zn■�/� e�x ■■.■■.■r..,.. I I' .•D�•��► "�►•• r L. _• /11,oSw�aiwr- c unn�7 L :::::::::n: t I.Rtl�t►meµ 1 r.minnl? ....■r■.■u••� 'L , ,Sa♦ .6 /l•NJ\i Lr a. ■ t _ go.�..uro u.ulu oau.a�• u goai• -_ .... ud•,.Os uuugouuluuuOs■u. u■u u•.acu.Os u.c.•. r��-,� A ♦!`y�jtl..�... •■ au•:.....•lu o.0 • sl uA. ..0 !■ ■• •■ uuuu.•utuuouu.u•u o.u.ru u.utu.u. ago.H.go i.a/■■.go.go.ago...•goa..go a.pgoNgo■ •O■go Oaa■go O...ago■•..a■■.•■..gorO.go..■1H/aa�.go• p1. / Y��/•�: ir.■iu■u.■■iiin.wi•ir■tiii.a ii uliii.uui■u■.i►suo..ii..ii..0 i..i.iiu u■n..iii.�.ii.a i. •r.iai c.n■. S�r` : � � � \�I'ham �.•■uOsOsuu■Os■uloaua•.■uOs■u■Osu.u•u■■uOsr..u■uuo■utu u•■.uuauouuu.ae�l u.0 acuouuw . ............ii iiiiiiiiiw iieiiiiii��ii iii� rh ...■o...Os..Os■■go■u■gor■u■gouuo.u•uOsuuogo•.go.uuu■■•uoouu000gooOsododouu..•g000drc..v C �. 4yi.►•ffp•4y rhf� / .od/......■a•a•r.u.N■nr.r•■Osrod.lOsoduuuuuu■v,u.Os.......Oso...odn.u................uuOs.•u . •• �• .y;ay•• . ■.r.■Osgoo■goo■nu■luua■uu■Osodu.ugo•Os•u..u■ooduru us■■•u ucgo.uuu.0 Os.OsOsuu.0 uur•:.u.. �•1♦••••Ir.� 1/��' !ip•� i' I•iiiiiii iiriiirl•ii•.�i.iiliiiiiii./iiiiii.iiiiiiiiilii.iiiiriiiiii.iiiiiii•ii.riiliiii*0111. ........... •i !. i1r1••• •t� •/ • aN N auo■Osuauuvu.uuOsu.gou■l.■od..■o...■.oaa.■OsMUMuaa.aau vn..go.tuogo•.■.lu•..m.uas•.• r ♦ I i p`�..ny• "uuu.oru r.•.u�.=au■uu.■.oaouuruuo.■.0 ucuuu.uruuuuu u.u•uuuruuuou • .0 ttu•.a ur.,u..... �,'�i•�.�• `♦ �•♦`• • ■ .iiiiiiiiiiii �.i :iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii...n m....was...an... .• �r ♦` .•Ct nq .uuOs.OsOsn...uu......or•r•..uor■■r�!. 'i•.•�3,�I •`.•a♦•„A ,- ...o..■.r a..:.u■.■u.ru....... ou■oOs..uuu■goa■gou■Os.uoa..u.Oso.--..u.u.u.a u.a.u.......o Osaguo od.• al . :r �• 1 -�� ■uuu...,ac..•■OsOsinoduou■oOs.:uOsOsOsOs.r,■uoduOs.Os of ■.,i ii. •III C �ioiii a■.0 or.:::::•;ugou�r��� t�lry __ .....................u■ r.uuOso.0 Os.■u ar. r4r �41►IA► ..........ease.. afs..0•..agof.t• sgoa. ..■ ................... • b��4q .. ■o u..Osouru oOsuuago.go r..• '�1 uu... .ugou•uugouu■uv .�o.a. ■.uouod.oOsOsu.uuu• ........... iiiiiiiiiiiiiii�ii ii•���r••....r■.•■.•!..!•.■.!•.tr p / •.....•gol.s.rl.od...rltn........ r■Os..•Os.Os r.u.r■■.u.OsUOs.r.. ■i...•o ur■.0 gorauuOs.•r.■.aOs.■ uoduoduuu.Os u.■u u.ouOs■• ♦ •r....•......•..........laa.•.l.a.•r r.••lr..••.....■.•...•l.r.rr.l.r• �r ......r........................ l.r ■l■■■rlf.a .l laa..l■■./.■.a...A■■•/.' ■••.r/..•!.■■.a.t.a.rr.a..!■■■ u ■ ■■■a.■■■■.• I'm ------- r- a ul Osuu odu■■....■•..■■.•.• ■ • ..• ••■ .a....■■...r■■!!.r'..■•..r ■■r.■.ar•■■.....■..............• ....................■a::::V; ■ .a' 11...•rta■tl..t.l.11.••t..•aa• . .. • - -... •tw ■a..a.•t..■■a.•■■■a..•.•. - '-- ■■ •...........a.:::: • .l..odl..Os od.od.....r. ■....................••. .0 u•::•au u. IN:u... 1 I • 1 • • ruuOs. uuuu PREZONING ALTERNATIVE PREZONING CONSISTENT GENBAL PLAN �QS `HUNTINGT ` r 1 1 The LUD is the one district in the City zoning ordinance which best reflects the intent of the General Plan land use designation of Planning Reserve. The Planning Reserve Designation is an interim designation intended for areas where long term comprehensive planninq is anticipated. Until comprehensive planning occurs and zone changes are made , urban development cannot occur. 6. 3 Alternative III : Consistent with State, County Open Space Efforts Alternative III reduces the proposed use of the LUD to the Mesa and minimal properties in the Gap which have been considered low priority ;; by the State and County in their efforts to plan and acquire pro perties for open space use . Alternative III reflects the planning efforts illustrated by Figure 3 . 5 . Consequently, most of the Gap area and all of the State owned and leased properties are proposed to be prezoned Recreation and Open Space with allowances for oil extraction activities as appropriate (Figure 6 . 3) . 6 . 4 Analysis Alternative I has been proposed at the direction of the Ci—itCouncil. The use of the Recreation and Open Space District is consistent with the Land Use Element (Figure 6 . 4) however, it is not necessarily consistent with the Open Space and Conservation Plan (Fiqure 5-2) which calls for planned open space development in the Mesa and Gap areas of Bolsa Chica. Planned open space development applies to special resource areas, permitting open space use and other kinds of uses, including residential , which maximize open space benefits by incorporating natural resources into the develop- ment plan. However as of the present there is no overall develop- ment plan within the context of which determinations could be made as to what areas will be actual open space uses . It would be premature and inconsistent with the intent of the General Plan to prezone any area as open space within the Planning Reserve Land Use Designation. until a comprehensive plan is prepared. Alternative II reflects previous efforts to prezone Bolsa Chica. According to the Zoning and Land Use Element Consistency Matrix (Figure 6 . 4) any of the proposed prezoning alternatives are con- sistent with the Land Use Element. However, Alternative II has been labeled as the alternative consistent with the General Plan because the use of the LUD in the General Plan Planning Reserve Land Use Designation reflects best the intent of the General Plan which' is to provide interim zoning and land use designations for purposes of further planning. This would also best reflect planning activities of other agencies since no agency has formally adopted a comprehensive plan in the Bolsa Chica. P 33 �•��i y1.1Q�rr••�: rOr y.�N ♦♦rOi f��y•!�.ati '>iy��i�♦•� • .'fit. 1 . .♦ rr,.O. •ice�♦��ii 4agS 1 ri ?rry♦ri r4�ir�i'ir�i rirM i1-►1•f \i�r♦der♦.�r4���9�►•`♦, famunn ■•.■u�� ♦� ♦q.♦rid��'r4r �� •f♦apfmunu. • �.rr . .fir Sri � .. r•�}•}��f!♦.• •■u � � ♦r'.�larr'♦+,•JrA ♦ • 33iit1■ •u am nma rrr, ♦� ,11f�1�at�.�L` r u•i : � - r � g`r . 4yi��`r ■�� r • a �. .� ...... .. . .■. .r •r.ul .u..■n.l■ 5u�■ •uur •y�i � � u.r r..•uu.■..iY• uuouu..■i . • • uw■unu ulu•u.u■..uo r4j.kr�r I�Sj♦♦♦ � ��� \ •.r.uuuu.:�ril•r.u.a:. � � ����r ' �,;` �,���� • lrcd// �fffSU1� •�n.u...iu.ur• 1 • . . 7`, :. Ij>�r�\�� ♦ � 'fig.•♦r,0.•♦J�♦. ...u.uu.... Q a "1~ d t`' w o o f i I L? Z W LAND USE z i I CATEGORIES O N t _ j >� i _ al NQ crtM ' d �, i Icy c� a -L';. _ I c, Q _ I LLI O ' -� ►j! rY Y I K <Y pC U U V U ++ LORESWENMU 1.1 ESTATE �_ t r i.2 LOW DENS;T Y000 1,3 MEDIUM DENSITY 1.4 HIGH DENSITY -.-- LEI 2-000MMERCIIAL 2.1 GENERALto 2.2OFFICE PROFESSIONAL j W (D ul 2.3MIXED DEVELOPMENT t 3.1GENERAL I i I 4,0 PUKX Ltd 4.1 PUB..QUASI-PUB.. INSTIT. " 4.20PEN SPACEXR� 5.1 PLANNED COMMUNITY - 5.2 PLANNING RESERVE Ql RESOURCE PRODUCTIONXD Fips,rr 4-1 -tl.-M G'0N BiACH CAUPORNIA Convrtency wrth the Land Use Element ZONING AND LAND L EiEMBVT i_AN\:w DEPARTMENT may alto be determined by reference to aze and locatioml aiteria. CONSISTENCY MATRIX p- Alternative III has been prepared as a compromise between the other two alternatives. Although this alternative is inconsistent with the General Plan for the same reasons that Alternative I is, Alternative II does better reflect some preliminary open space planning done by the State and the County. Alternative III is heavily dependent on the will and ability of the State and County to carry out their efforts as depicted in Figure 3 . 5. Since Bolsa Chica is unincorporated the County of Orange is respon- sible for the Local Coastal Program (LCP) in the Bolsa Chica. The County will not finalize the LCP for Bolsa Chica before February 1981 In view of this upcoming planning effort, the City Council should realize that it is a calculated gamble to anticipate tnat the LCP will actually reflect existing State and County open Space efforts in Bolsa Chica. There is also a practical matter of whether the State and County funds allocated for purchase of properties in Bolsa Chica ($4 . 6 million total) will be sufficient to purchase approx- imately 1, 000 acres of land as proposed. In summary, Alternative III attempts to anticipate the outcome of future planning efforts while providing unclear benefits today in view of the fact that use of the LUD in Alternative II protects against urban development just as well as ROS does. However, the LUD is consistent with the City General Plan. 36 „ pill INGTOW ?r t 2ARK �.,.; ,.-rwi�,'v ''*`� ;%`•r<;%;'.r,E, ��'Y)Zry�EIyTf3a - ` LEGEND •Yss /_ ,IY:L . , &.' .:�.`,- �k.:r !'v...r ate¢ Y�\ �'"`�"�.' G�,:: .i/• -7 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 2 I HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 3 HEAVY DENSITY RESIDENTIAL I , ,;`• "ji,HS.:=";� ,tK'�` .'.1' - -r:i;i.c;�'z. ;`. ^!r !_ \ -'i'. r NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL �' _ .- �`�;,?,.i;`' %!fir c =� `"��`���•�'' � - J. f h' '>i/ Cy .'•.S'�•!"":':eta+.,✓ •� OPEN SPACE/RE CREATION ACCESS 2. �'��' :��'�:-' �s;"�' :•;.�', �., ;�_;);�• �.;,,',� �•���; `'! _ :�:.. `%,- �' 94 ,`i'•+'�`' ~�` .co-.w'�r� 'f-;'r„ �:�:-� ,i);;�. -�/i/li\\ ,a�'�:I�',i:;. :',.,,_,x, S��_V. \ ..S - ,:'S', ci?,' c.' as. - •_'i-`,:,�j;,s. 1•t;'. {;') 4'_:�j'T•: _ _ - :`t• _ �`�, i' MARSH SYSTEM r :A;;� °��. 't.•'4" _ �L.1=}` - - ltr,:?7YT.`i:i%':C.� _ - / •{ - t� /�s .r�;•.�,.,- sir' '-zxr" = .; •, _ -� A LINEAR a C1• sOISA-CHIC P . • TI' ` LC SUBAREA A ARK ♦ EA BOUNDARY 6� '� �/ - :`. N.. ,s=' ns;� :��;5' ',,. -'�•- �� fat-LION LP y-u C - { — nr��_ _ Rti.B y r- ,SR^. 1; LEUM RESOURCES t )J' _ a'> rY HUINTINGTON HARB, ?u /y / `PETROLEUM , _ c ' _ RESOURCES ,1 s x. 1 PCH/1NAFINER; V£tiCfE ? _ ._ _ COAT HIGHWAY ' — _. BOLSA'CHICA STATE BEACN HIGH BRIDGE _ _ � - - i PET7iOLEUM RESOURCES T'OPOGRAP14C DATA! MEAN SEA LEVEL CONTOUR INTERVAL'2 PHOTOGRAMMETRY:SEEPTEMBER 17,1980 iouY,oxu o•aaerc wnrx wnr v,n•.,w•oc••ws,.�n NAVIGABLE / OCEAN ENTRANCE �i a i • 1 i �1pT �0 760 1600 2250 COUNTY OF ORANGE L�UZW V DD �:JSLE �L�IYI V EXHIBIT 6 The Carma-Sandling Group 16592 Hale Avenue Irvine, California 92714 714/540-3383 May 17, 1982 Honorable City Council Members Huntington Beach City Council P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 SUBJECT: BOLSA CHICA ANNEXATION Honorable Members: i As you are aware, The Carina-Sandling Group represents one of the parcels within the Bolsa Chica area you are considering for annexation. Specifically, we are the optionee, from W. R. Grace Company, of the 42± acre parcel in the far north- west corner of the Bolsa Chica, immediately adjacent to Graham Street. The Carina-Sandling Group has been working with numerous government agencies, over the last few years in an attempt to develop a plan compatible with the surround- ing community and its residents. We have, however, been concerned over the time required to obtain development authorizations, and have concluded that this is due to issues relating to the development of more sensitive portions of the Bolsa Chica than those affecting our 42 acres. We are most confident that the concepts we have developed for our parcel are reasonable and we are, of course, interested in resolving, as soon as possible, the development and jurisdictional questions affecting our property. i We look postively upon your consideration of the annexation of our 42 acre portion of the Bolsa Chica, and fully endorse your thorough evaluation of this issue if it would facilitate the development of our property. If you elect to initiate the annexation process and wish any information or support from The Carina-Sandling Group, I encourage you to please call upon me personally or any of my staff. You have my guarantee we will be most cooperative. Sincerely, THE CAPMA SANDLING GROUP E. A. "Sandy" Sandling President EAS/rpm ' 'Dolss C4,c,Ir- CITY OF HUNTINGTONCH P.O. BOX 190 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CALIFORNIA92648 BUILDING DIVISION 1714)536-5241 PLANNING DIVISION 014)536-5271 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council ATTENTION: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator FROM: James W. Palin, Director of Development Services DATE: September 2, 11981 SUBJECT: BOLSA CHICA LCP UPDATE At the May 4, 1981 City Council meeting, staff was directed to study the issue of annexation of the Bolsa Chico and return to Council with a report outlining the pros and cons of such an action. On June 4, 1981, staff presented Council with a communication outlining the proposed report. It was staff's intent at the time to provide the following information: 1. Review of previous annexation proposals. 2. Explanation and possible timing of pending County efforts to obtain Coastal Commission certification of the Balsa Chico Local Coastal Plan. 3. Update on the status of SB 493 to remove Balsa Chico from the California Coastal Commission's jurisdiction. 4. As much information as possible regarding the fiscal impacts of alternative development plans with and without annexation. S. Explanation of annexation procedures and alternative time-frames for completion of the annexation process. In the ensuing time since the above outline was submitted to Council, staff has been monitoring the County's Bolso Chico planning efforts. This report, the first in a series concerning Balsa Chico, provides an update on current and pending LCP efforts. Subsequent reports will address annexation issues and procedures. On April 8, 1981, the Orange County Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution directing the Environmental Management Agency (EMA) to prepare a Balsa Chico LCP/LUP based on a conceptual land use plan identified as "alternative nine." The selected alternative contains the following features: I. A reopening of the historic ocean connection between Outer Balsa Bay and the Pacific Ocean by means of a navigable channel approximately 700 feet in width; 2. Development by the County of an 1,800-slip public marina; 3. A connection channel between the Huntington Harbour/Sunset Aquatic Park area t and the new navigable ocean connection; next page please. . . . . BOLSA CHICA LCP UPDATE Page Two 4. Expansion of the ecological reserve/marshland area to a minimum total of 600 acres, contingent upon economic feasibility; 5. Approval for development of up to 5,700 residential units; 6. 51 acres of visitor-serving commercial including hotels, shops and restaurants; 7. . Dedication by the developers of up to 225 acres for the planned Balsa Chico Linear Regional Park, with development of the park by the County of Orange in conjunction with the City of Huntington Beach; 8. Maintenance of Pacific Coast Highway in its present location with bridges over the new ocean connection channel and the Huntington Harbour channel at Warner to allow navigation passage; 9. A prohibition against county general tax fund expenditures for the projects; 10. The possibility of special assessments on existing and future homeowners in the Bolso Chico - Huntington Harbour area to fund construction and maintenance of new channels and bridges; and 11. Phasing of the project so that marsh restoration, marina construction and residential development in the Balsa Chico lowlands proceed concurrently. Upon adoption of this conceptual plan, the EMA was directed to begin preparation of a final draft Bolsa Chico LCP/LUP with policies designed to support the adopted concepts. The EMA is proceeding with development of the plan with the intention of submitting it to the Orange County Planning Commission in October, 1981, Upon approval of the draft LCP/LUP, it will then be submitted to the Board of Supervisors the following month and the State Coastal Commission after that. The Board of Supervisors' April 8, 1981 resolution also directed the EMA to prepare a proposed "scope of work" to be used in directing and completing a specific plan for Phase III (implementing actions) of the LCP. The "scope of work" will indicate detailed background information which must be collected for all issues considered in the specific plan. A draft outline of the "scope of work" has been prepared by the EMA to be submitted with the LCP/LUP. The EMA has also proposed that a Special Area Management Plan be developed for Bolsa Chico as an integral component of the specific plan. The intent is to support the timely and effective preparation of the specific plan through coordination of the planning efforts of all Federal and State agencies involved. Those agencies presently involved in studies regarding the Bolsa Chico include the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Coast Guard, State Lands Commission, Fish and Game, and Boating and Waterways. Preliminary work on the Special Area Management Plan, including initial contact with the Federal and State Agencies is in progress through a private consultant hired by the County. After agreements for cooperation are reached, the R_OLSA CHICA.LCP UPDATE Page Three Special Area Management Plan and the specific plan-will be developed concurrently. Such development should begin next year if the LCP/LUP is adopted and certified, and should take approximately one to two years to complete. Whip Balsa Chico LCP planning efforts were progressing, Senate Bill 493 was introduced to the State Legislature. The bill would have exempted the Balsa Chico lowlands from the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission, thereby permitting development of the Balsa Chico as proposed by Signal Properties subject to County approval. After gaining Senate approval, however, the bill was denied on August 18, 1981 by the Assembly Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Had the bill gained the Committee's approval, it would.have required approval by the Assembly. The bill, though inactive at this time, could be reconsidered by the some committee in January 1982. The County has taken no position on the bill and the EMA has indicted that LCP planning efforts will continue. At this time, the outcome of the County's Bolso Chico LCP/LUP planning effort is still indeterminate. Should the LCP be certified by the State Coastal Commission this winter, full scale efforts for development of a specific plan will ensue. At that stage, the City will have a stronger interest in the planning process and may want to seriously consider steps for annexation. Staff will continue to inform Council of Balsa Chico LCP status and will report next on annexation procedures and the fiscal impacts associated with Balsa Chico velopment with and without annexation. -de 0 .q �5 Page #11 - Council Minutes - 2/2/81 A motion was made by Bailey, seconded by MacAllister, to call for a Grand Jury "ry Investigation of the Orange County Manpower operation including all of their subgrantees which includes the City of Huntington Beach. The motion carried unanimously. The Mayor stated that she would write a letter, with the assistance or the City Attorney, to the Grand Jury regarding the matter. Mayor Bailey informed the Council that an ultimatum had been issued to Peat, Marwick and Mitchell requesting that a draft of their audit from 1976 through 1979 be submitted to the City no later than February 4, 1981 . CLOSURE OF TAYLOR STREET AT PAMMY LANE - APPROVED The City Clerk presented a communication from the Department of Public Works regarding the closure of Taylor Street at Pammy Lane which was approved with the adoption of Precise Plan of Street Alignment #73-1 and later included as part of the Taylor and Beach Specific Plan. Following discussion, a motion was made by MacAllister, seconded by Thomas, to authorize the use of interim measures to close Taylor Street immediately east of Pammy Lane per the drawing submitted and to direct staff to study Y the effects of the closure in six months. The motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION NO 4963 - APPROVED - STORM DRAIN CLEANING - MSC-184 - EMPIRE PIPE CLEANING & EQUIPMENT CO The City Clerk presented a communication from the Department of Public Works regarding the cleaning of the existing 54" storm drain from the south side of Ocean View High School to the south side of Slater Avenue at Central Park. A motion was made by Pattinson, seconded by MacAllister, to approve the proposal for cleaning the existing 54" storm drain from the south side of Ocean View High School to the south side of Slater Avenue at Central Park; ,adopt Resolu� `on No. 4963 - "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AUTHORIZING THE LETTING WITHOUT ADVERTISING FOR BIDS ON PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT MSC-184, STORM DRAIN CLEANOUT, DUE TO URGENT NECESSITY FOR THE PRESERVATION OF LIFE, HEALTH OR PROPERTY," and awarded a contract to Empire Pipe Cleaning and } Equipment Company. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Pattinson, Thomas, Finley, Bailey, MacAllister, Mandic, Kelly NOES: None ABSENT: None J CITY POSITION REGARDING BOLSA CHICA CLARIFIED - LETTER TO BE SENT TO COUNTY The Mayor presented a communication to Council regarding the clarification of the City's position regarding the Bolsa Chica dated February 2, 1981 . She stated that she would like to submit the information to the County Planning Commission public hearing on February 10, 1981 . REQUEc.> FOR CITY COUNCIt- ACTION s Date May 10, 1982 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council ..//�� Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administratolov, Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director of Development Services J Subject: BOLSA CHICA ANNEXATION G� d�►,� �o�N�y w,�t„N d YS _i aA�Ay'. Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: f I STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The City Council has directed staff to prepare a packet of information on the annexation of Bolsa Chica for discussion. If the Council wishes to proceed with annexation, a resolution of application must first be adopted and submitted together with an approved public services plan and pre-zoning of the area to the Local Agency Formation Commis- sion (LAFCO) . RECOMMENDED ACTION: If the City Council desires to proceed with annexation of the Bolsa Chica, direct staff to prepare a resolution of application, a plan to provide services, and pre-zoning of the area to be annexed. ANALYSIS: On May 3, 1982, the City Council directed staff to compile a packet of information on the annexation of the Bolsa Chica. Attached for the Council ' s discussion are a history of City involvement with the Bolsa Chica, a description of the annexation process, and an estimated time frame to complete annexation. The first step in the annexation process is for the City Council to adopt a resolution of application, public services plan, and pre-zoning for the area to be annexed. These tasks should be undertaken simul- taneously and will require approximately six months to complete. Upon City adoption, the resolution, plan, and pre-zoning must be submitted to LAFCO. From the time of submittal to LAFCO to completion of all annexation procedures will require between 175 and 415 days, depending on the nature of the area to be annexed, the actions affected by the proposal, and the resultant steps which must be followed. After approval of the annexation, the City' s Local Coastal Plan must be amended. If the Council wishes .to proceed with annexation, staff should be directed to prepare the resolution of application, public services plan, and pre-zoning for the area. P10 4/81 Bolsa Chica Annexation May 10, 19.82 Page 2 FUNDING SOURCE: None required. ATTACHMENTS: 1. History of City involvement with the Bolsa Chica and past City Council minutes (1976-1982) 2. Annexation procedures and timing JWP:CC:df ANNEXATION PROCEDURES AND TIMING Now thaf a conceptual land use plan for the Bolsa Chica has been adopted by the Board of Supervisors and the Phase II LCP/LUP has been approved by the County Planning Commission, the nature of the future development in the Bolsa Chica is becoming more predictable.' Also, through development of the Public Facilities Management and Finance Plan, the fiscal impacts of the recommended land use plan are becoming evident. Since final planning (LCP Phase III Specific Plan preparation) may soon be underway, the City will have an opportunity to provide significant input to the County regarding services and other responsibilities the City may have in development and maintenance of operations in the Bolsa Chica. With that input and the increased knowledge of the nature of future development, the City may wish to renew consideration of Bolsa Chica annexation. The purpose of the following section is to explain the procedures the City _ would be required to follow should annexation be seriously considered. I LAFCO REQUIREMENTS The California Municipal Organization Act of 1977 established revised procedures for annexation of unincorporated territory and continued the responsibility of the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to oversee such requests. The stated purpose of LAFCO is to encourage the orderly formation and development of local governmental agencies based upon local conditions and circumstances. The Local Agency Formation Commission follows a detailed set of guidelines for annexation which vary depending upon the size of the area to be annexed and whether or not it is inhabited. The following procedures apply: 1. If the City wishes to annex the Bolsa Chica, the first necessary procedure will be to prezone the entire area to be annexed. The prezoning must also be accompanied by an environmental impact report which must include detailed information on how the City would provide services to future development in the area. At this time, it is likely that the public services plan would be based on the County's adopted Bolsa Chica land use plan. It is anticipated that the prezoning, EIR and public services plan could be prepared and processed concurrently in approximately six months. Upon Council approval of the prezoning and EIR, the City must adopt a resolution of application for annexation. 2. The application is then filed with the Executive Officer of LAFCO. The application must include: a. Resolution of Application b. Public Services Plan C. Prezone Report & EIR d. Completed "Justification of Proposal" Questionnaire e. Appropriate Filing and Processing Fee 3. The Executive Officer reviews the application. If the application is deficient, the City is given opportunity to correct the deficiencies. If it is adequate, a Certificate of Filing will be mailed to the City. 4A. After the Certificate of Filing is issued, the Executive Officer will set a proposal for a LAFCO hearing and, if necessary, publish a legal notice in the newspaper. The notice and hearing can be waived if the application is accompanied by written consent of all landowners in the area to be annexed and if the territory is uninhabited. 4B. The Executive Officer will request advisory reports from the Director of EMA, the County Assessor, the Planning Commission, the Airport Land Use Commission, the County Sheriff and any other agencies or individuals deemed appropriate. 5. After the individual advisory reports are received, the Executive Officer will prepare a report and recommendation on the annexation proposal.' The period of time between when the City's application is filed with the Executive Officer and when the Executive Officer's report is released may be 30 to 90 days. 6. If required, the public hearing is held. LAFCO must approve or disapprove the proposal by resolution within 35 days of the public hearing. If the proposal is disapproved, further consideration is precluded for a period of one year. If the proposal is approved, LAFCO designates the conducting agency (City Council or Board of Supervisors) and transmits thereto a copy of the resolution. LAFCO may authorize the conducting agency to proceed without notice and hearing or election if all of the affected property owners consent to such in writing. 7. LAFCO adopts the resolution within 105 days of the public hearing. 8. The conducting agency must initiate proceedings within 35 days after LAFCO approves the proposal and must hold a public hearing within 45 days of initiating proceedings. The public hearing may be waived, however, if the proposal is for annexation of uninhabited territory and if all affected property owners consent to the proposal. 9. Within 30 days of the public hearing, the conducting agency must take one of the following actions: If the case of an uninhabited annexation, the conducting agency could: - Order the annexation if landowners who own less than 50 percent of the assessed value of land and improvements protest; or - terminate proceedings if landowners owning more than 50 percent of the assessed value of land and improvements protest. In the case of an inhabited annexation, the conducting agency could: - order the annexation without an election if less than 25 percent of the voters and less than 25 percent of the landowners owning less than 25 percent of the assessed value of land protest; or - order the annexation subject to an election if more than 25 percent of the voters or more than 25 percent of landowners owning more than 25 percent of the assessed value protest; or - terminate proceedings if more than 50 percent of the registered voters protest. 9A. If an election is required for annexation of inhabited territory as described above, it would be determined by voters living in the affected area. 10. The conducting agency adopts a resolution of annexation. The period of time between when the conducting agency sets the public hearing and when it adopts a resolution of annexation may be 45 to 135 days depending on whether or not an election is required. 11. The Clerk of the conducting agency must transmit a certified copy of the conducting agency's resolution with applicable State Board of Equalization fees to the Executive Officer of LAFCO. 12. The Executive Officer examines the resolution and determines whether it is in compliance with boundaries, modifications and conditions specified by LAFCO in its resolution. If the resolution is not in compliance, the Executive Officer will return it to the conducting agency, specifying points of non-compliance. If the resolution is in compliance, the Executive Officer will issue a Certificate of Completion. 13. The Executive Officer will record a certified copy of Certificate of Completion with the County Recorder and file copies of recorded documents with the County Surveyor and the City Clerk. The effective date is the date of recordation with the County Recorder. I 14. The Executive Officer will file a Statement of Boundary Change and submit appropriate filing fees with the State Board of Equalization. The period of time between the final action and step 11 may be 30 to 60 days. Outlined above are the basic annexation procedures required under the Municipal Organization Act of 1977. Total time between when the initial application of resolution is filed with the Executive Officer and when the procedures are completed may be 175 to 415 days depending on the nature of the area to be annexed, the actions of those affected by the proposal and the resultant steps which must be followed. After approval of the annexation, the City Local Coastal Plan will require amendment. STATE LANDS COMMISSION REQUIREMENTS Apart from the procedures just discussed, however, the unusual nature of the Bolsa Chica may require that additional steps be taken for annexation. Section 35009 of the Government Code contains a separate set of procedures for annexation of tidelands or submerged lands owned by the State. This is significant because the State currently owns approximately 300 acres of tideland in the Bolsa Chica. If the City wishes to annex the entire 1,600 acres of the Bolsa Chica, the following procedures will also apply: 1. Section 35009 prohibits annexation of State owned tidelands except as approved by the State Lands Commission. If any such lands are to be included within territory proposed to be annexed by a city, a description of the boundaries along with a map must be filed by the proponent with the State Lands Commission. This filing must be made prior to filing the Resolution of Application with the Local Agency Formation Commission. 2. Within 45 days of receiving the boundary description and map, the State Lands Commission must make a determination regarding the proposed boundaries. The determination will be final and conclusive. If no determination is made within 45 days, the proposed boundaries will be considered to be approved. 3. The State Lands Commission will report its determination to the Executive Officer of LAFCO as well as the annexation proponent. After this has occurred, the City may file its Resolution of Application with LAFCO:" PROPERTY TAX TRANSFER AGREEMENT While the procedures outlined above constitute the major steps the City must follow in order to annex the Balsa Chica, there are still some additional steps required. In association with the annexation procedures, the City must also negotiate with the County to reach agreement on a property tax revenue allocation formula for the Balsa Chica. In October, 1980 the City Council entered in to an agreement (called the Master Property Tax Transfer Agreement) with the County which provides for property tax exchange in areas annexed by the City. Under the terms of the agreement, the property proposed for annexation must first be determined to be either "developed/substantially developed", or "undeveloped". The Balsa Chica, however, does not fall into either category as defined in the agreement. As a result, the City Administrator would have to file a written request to the County Administrative Officer to jointly determine the area's status. The City and County would have 30 days to reach agreement or the Executive Officer of LAFCO would make the determination. The determination must be made prior to filing the Resolution of Application for annexation. If the Balsa Chica were found to be "undeveloped" as is likely in its present state, then the Master Property Tax Transfer Agreement would result in the following formula: The County would receive 100 percent of the general fund tax revenue in the first fiscal year following annexation. All tax increments in subsequent years would be distributed to the City until the City-County historical tax ratio was reached. The master agreement sets the historical ratio at 56 percent for the City and 44 percent for the County. It would take a number of years to reach this ratio. If the Balsa Chica were found to be "developed/substantially developed", however, as is likely if the City were to wait until development occurred before annexing, then the provisions of the master agreement as outlined above would not apply. Rather, a separate City-County agreement would have to be negotiated. The County Administrator's Office has indicated that if substantial sales tax or other revenue generating uses were existing in the Balsa Chica at the time of filing for annexation, the County would likely negotiate for a larger proportion of the property tax revenue. The negotiations would occur concurrent with processing of the City's application for annexation. FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS A fourth City responsibility prior to annexation of the Balsa Chica relates back to the Board of Supervisors' Resolution 81-479. Among the other items included in the resolution was the following: "In the event of application for City annexation of all or part of the Bolsa Chica Area, a Fiscal Impact Report shall be prepared by the petitioners to assess the cost/revenue impact of such annexation on the County and the special districts serving the property to be annexed." The fiscal impact report would be the City's responsibility and would be in addition to any similar studies the County may do in conjunction with the Management and Finance Plan. The report would be submitted at the time of filing the Resolution of Application for annexation and would be analyzed in County Advisory reports to LAFCO as part of the annexation process. It is likely that such a study would be beneficial to the City as well as the County in determining the benefits and costs of annexation. :de r HISTORY OF CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INVOLVEMENT IN PLANNING THE BOLSA CHICA AREA Bolsa Chica is an approximately 1600-acre unincorporated area within the City of Huntington Beach's sphere of influence, surrounded on four sides by the City as a result of annexations between 1960 and 1971. Because it is within the City's sphere of influence, Bolsa Chica has been the subject of City planning and annexation efforts since 1972. In January 1973, Signal Bolsa Corporation, owner of nearly three-quarters of the surface title of the area, requested the City of Huntington Beach to annex approximately 263 acres of land located primarily on the Bolsa Chica mesa. The annexation request was withdrawn pending completion of an environmental impact report for the undeveloped area. The prospect of annexing a portion of the unincorporated area led to the Planning Commission and City Council policy of comprehensively planning the entire area prior to any annexation, with input from the State of California and Signal Bolsa Corporation. (Prior to 1976, all property annexed to the City was automatically zoned R1 upon incorporation. It was felt that partial annexation at R1 would be deterimental to comprehensive planning efforts.) Bolsa Chica was addressed in both the Phase I Land Use Element and Phase I Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan adopted in December 1973. The Land Use Element designated a small portion of the area near Edwards Street as low density residential and the remaining area as planning reserve. The State owned and leased area was designated as an ecological reserve. A network of arterial highways was also shown extending into and traversing the Bolsa Chica. The Open Space and Conservation Element identified significant resources in the unincorporated area as first priority for preservation efforts along with the beaches and central park area. Policies relating to annexations are contained on pages 30-31 of the 1974 Policy Plan compiled by citizen steering committees and adopted by resolution of the City Council. (Resolution 3760, September 4, 1973). Between 1973 and 1975, annexation efforts were deferred and a Bolsa Chica Annexation Study Committee was appointed to work with the State and Signal Bolsa Corporation to formulate recommendations to the City Council. A significant event during this period of time was the 1973 tidelands boundary settlement between the State and Signal. Through this agreement, a consolidated tidelands area of 300 acres was established and title received by the State. An additional 230 acre area was leased to the State at no cost for a period of fourteen years; the fee title of which would be conveyed to the State upon construction of a navigable ocean entrance. If, after fourteen years, no entrance were constructed, the lease would expire. Other events affecting the Bolsa Chica during this period included the State Department of Fish and Game Marsh restoration plan and development of the ecological reserve, acquisition of a 400-foot wide utility corridor by the Metropolitan Water District, and Army Corps of Engineers Study concerning feasibility of marina development. In October, 1975 Signal Bolsa Corporation submitted another request for annexation of the Bolsa Chica Mesa. The City's reaction to this annexation request was tempered by the State Coastal Commission's January 1976 inclusion of the Bolsa Chica in a list of potential statewide acquisitions to provide coastal lands for public recreation, wildlife protection, and other purposes specified in the Coastal Act of 1976. (Three other parcels within Huntington Beach, located between Pacific Coast Highway and the Santa Ana River, were also included in the list of potential acquisitions). In response to the Coastal Commission proposal, a position statement was drafted by Councilwoman Harriett Wieder as an individual citizen, stating concern about the size of the proposed acquisition (1450 acres, including areas within City limits) and the proposed purchase price ($16 million). The letter also supported a mixture of development and preservation and questioned the Coastal Commission's disregard for the fiscal implications to the City of such a large acquisition. This statement was endorsed by a 3 - 2 vote of the City Council on February 9, 1976 with two Council members absent. Throughout 1976, the City continued planning and annexation efforts for the Bolsa Chica. In February 1976 the City applied to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for a 701 Comprehensive Planning Assistance Grant to formulate an intergovernmental effort to develop a long range plan and implementation program for utilization of the Bolsa Chica and surrounding areas. Because project funding had not been requested in the previous year, the grant received a very low priority and no funding was recommended. The Bolsa Chica Annexation Committee presented its final report, findings, and recommendations to the City Council on May 24, 1976. Areas of agreement included recommendations that total general planning take place prior to any development within Bolsa Chica, holding zones be used to prevent development if annexation takes place prior to planning, and that Council come to a timely decision to (a) not annex, (b) delay annexation for a finite period of time, or (c) initiate proceedings necessary for annexation. At this time, the Council directed that proceedings be initiated immediately for total annexation of Bolsa Chica with the intention that tax revenues gained by the City would provide funding to support the preparation of a comprehensive general plan for the Bolsa Chica. In order to maximize revenues, Council set a target date of January 1, 1977 for annexation to be completed. The direction to proceed with annexation prior to pre-planning was contrary to previous City policy as stated in the Policy Plan and Phase I Land Use Element of the General Plan. The comprehensive General Plan document adopted in December, 1976, while containing general land use, open space and conservation policies related to Bolsa Chica, was silent on the issue of whether planning should occur prior to or after annexation. As a consequence, preplanning now appeared to be discretionary with the City Council (although still contrary to the Policy Plan). At a budget retreat on January 10, 1977, Council adopted a policy "to plan for the ultimate development of Bolsa Chica." Public acquisition efforts were stalled in September 1976 when the Bolsa Chica area was somewhat surprisingly removed from the statewide acquisition list. The recommended area for purchase had been reduced to 560 acres, and environmental interests were optimistic that acquisition would take place if the $280 million Coastal Bond Act (Proposition 2 on the November 1976 ballot) passed. The Department of Fish and Game had omitted the Bolsa Chico area from the list of potential acquisitions (which included land areas in Dana Point and the Irvine Coast) because plans for the area were not resolved and that ultimate use of the Bolsa Chica was a number of years off. The City's attempt to prezone and annex the Bolsa Chica by January 1, 1977 suffered a setback in October when, in response to substantial opposition to the proposed RA (Residential Agricultural) prezoning, Council directed staff to initiate adoption of LU (Limited Use) prezoning for much of the area, which also required a revised environmental impact report. A target date of July 1977 was established for annexation. -2- In December 1976 Assemblyman Dennis Mangers initiated a proposal to submit a bill to the Legislature to appropriate funds to purchase land within the Bolsa Chica for the purpose of preserving wetland areas and expanding the State ecological reserve. An interagency taskforce was established to determine reasonable boundaries for the proposed acquisition. The total area suggested for state acquisition varied between 560 and 1450 acres reflecting the various local, state, federal, public and private interests involved in the proceedings. A 924-acre area extending from the Wintersburg Channel to the base of the Huntington Beach Mesa bluff, between Pacific Coast Highway and a line generally 1000 feet from the City boundary, was eventually settled upon for acquisition. Assembly Bill 643 was introduced to the Legislature on February 24, 1977 with the intent of providing the State Lands Commission with the funds necessary to acquire the 924 acre area. The City at this time postponed annexation proceedings so as not to hinder State acquisition efforts by inflating land values in the area. AB 643 reached the State Resources and Transportation Subcommittee of the Assembly Ways and Means Committee, where it was referred to the State Budget as a line item for acquisition. The specific uses and proposals mentioned in the Manger's Bill were deleted, and a total of $4.6 million was appropriated, with $1 million of this total to be reimbursed by local entities. The State offered Signal Properties, Inc. "$3.6 million for the property; this offer was rejected by Signal, who estimated the market value of its' Bolsa Chica holdings at $36.9"million. Negotiations between the State Lands Commission and Signal concerning an acceptable acquisition offer were subsequently initiated. Additional planning efforts affecting the Bolsa Chica were initiated in 1977, when both the City of Huntington Beach and County of Orange began work on preparation of their respective local coastal programs pursuant to the California Coastal Act of 1976. On January 2, 1977, the County Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution 77-131, declaring its intent to prepare a local coastal program for unincorporated areas within the coastal zone and directing its Environmental Management Agency to work with coastal cities "to insure the jurisdictions in Orange County have a united program going forward." The County at this time also requested nominations for regional park sites in northwest Orange County. In June, 1977, the City requested consideration of a linear park linking Huntington Central Park to Bolsa Chica State Beach, as well as a regional park designation for Central Park. The City also agreed to undertake planning of the Bolsa Chica financed by revenues from annexation and to take no stand on a marina pending the legislation mentioned previously. The City's decision to assume planning responsibilities for the Bolsa Chica was realistic only if the property were annexed to the City. The County Board of Supervisors on June 21, 1977 adopted Resolution 77-1022 reaffirming support for the proposed State acquisition of 924 acres of the Bolsa Chica Lowlands, reallocating $2 million for the planning, initial acquisition, and development of minimum lands necessary for the linear park, requesting that the Bolsa Chico be incorporated in the work programs of both the County and City of Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program, and assigning a high priority to the Bolsa Chica for early certification under the California Coastal Act. Faced with the prospect of losing local control over planning the Bolsa Chica, the City in July, 1977, considered a number of alternative annexation proposals and on August 15, 1977, directed staff to proceed with partial annexation of the Bolsa Chica Mesa. This decision was influenced by Assemblyman Mangers' concern over the effect of annexation on negotiations between the State and Signal and his preference for the County as lead agency in planning. -3- On September 19, 1977, Council reconsidered its previous action and requested staff to provide additional information regarding impacts of annexing certain portions of the Bolsa Chica, in.addition to the mesa area, in comparison to total annexation. The possibility of including alternative proposals on the ballot in the upcoming April 1978 City Council election was also discussed. Assemblyman Mangers addressed the City Council again on December 12, 1977, reiterating his concerns that the annexation might jeopardize the State's negotiations. It was also brought to Council's attention that the Coastal Commission had assigned the County to be the lead agency in preparing the Local Coastal Program for the Bolsa Chica, and that portions of the City's LCP work program relating to the Bolsa Chica had not been funded. The City Council subsequently voted 5 - 2 to take no action on annexation at this time. On January 3, 1978, the City Council adopted Resolution 4580 urging the County to give the LCP for the Bolsa Chica a high priority so that said plan could be completed concurrently with the City's LCP. 'In a letter dated February 7, 1978, County Supervisor Lawrence Schmit indicated his support for concurrent submittal of plans to and review by the Coastal Commission, and referred to the Bolsa Chica's high priority status as directed in the previously mentioned Board of Supervisors Resolution 77-1022. In February 1978, City staff transmitted comments on the County's LCP issue identification report for the Bolsa Chica. At this time, December 1978 was the target date for completion of this portion of the County's LCP. In spring 1978, the State Attorney General appointed a Bolsa Chica Study Group consisting of local, state, and federal agencies and private interest groups, intended to provide an informal planning process to resolve issues surrounding the Bolsa Chica. The firm of EDAW, Inc. was selected as the lead consultant to the Study Group to collect available data, explore issues, and compile recommendations of the group. Following the passage of Proposition 13 in June 1978, the City Council again considered annexing the Bolsa Chica. On July 3, 1978 a motion to annex failed by a 3 - 4 vote. Both the City and County continued work on their respective LCP's. On September 14, 1978, City staff transmitted a letter to the County Environmental Management Agency requesting close coordination and information on the County's planning direction. In December 1978, the City received a status report from EMA on the Bolsa Chica Study Group and regional park planning, including a draft of the EDAW report. In January, 1979, the Amigos de Bolsa Chica withdrew from the study group and filed suit against Signal Landmark and a number of State agencies, claiming that the 1973 boundary settlement agreement violated the State constitution and that dumping of oil drilling wastes in the Bolsa Chica violated the Coastal Act. Portions of the case were dismissed by the courts and appealed, and litigation ensued. On January 29, 1979, representatives of Signal Landmark, Inc. made a presentation at a joint study session of the City Council and Planning Commission concerning various alternatives for development of the Bolsa Chica and related financial impacts on the City. A number of prezoning alternatives were discussed, at which time action was continued. On March 5, 1979, the City Council voted to defer prezoning and annexation of the Bolsa Chica until City staff has had time to prepare a comprehensive study for alternative land uses and amendments to the General Plan; such study to be undertaken once the City's Fiscal Impact Model has been developed and in use. (A consultant was selected for preparation of the model that same evening). Staff was also directed to cooperate with the County in preparing its LCP for Bolsa Chica. -4- On April 16, 1979, staff reported to the City Council on the impact of preparing a comprehensive Bolsa Chica plan prior to prezoning. A motion to proceed immediately with prezoning and annexation failed on a 3 - 3 vote. In May, 1979, Council forwarded a letter to the County outlining a cooperative planning effort for Bolsa Chica. At this time, Signal Landmark, Inc., applied to the County for a general plan amendment for 218 acres located on the Bolsa Chica Mesa. On May 21, 1979 Council reconsidered its previous direction to prepare a comprehensive plan. A motion to rescind the previous Council direction to prepare said plan failed. The plan was to be initiated once the Fiscal Impact Model was complete. On June 4, 1979 two Council representatives and one staff member were appointed to the Bolsa Chica Planning Task Force. On June 18, 1979, a motion to annex the Bolsa Chica with 1315 acres prezoned ROS, and 235 acres LU failed by a 3 - 4 vote. In December, 1979, staff prepared an agreement providing for cooperative preparation of the Bolsa Chica LCP and timing of removal of the County's Reserve status and annexation. This agreement was never submitted to Council. On February 4, 1980, Council adopted Resolution 4840 requesting the County to accept additional City input on the Bolsa Chica portion of the County's LCP, including Council review and recommendations to the Board of Supervisors, and sponsoring joint public workshops. On March 17, 1980, a City Council motion to declare the Bolsa Chica lowlands as environmentally sensitive wetlands to be preserved for future generations and urging the State Coastal Commission to declare the lowlands as a wetlands as defined in Section 301.21 of the Coastal Act failed by a 3 - 3 vote. City staff completed preparation of its Coastal Element (including analysis of coastal issues and recommended land use alternatives and resource protection policies) in October 1980. The Planning Commission on November 4, 1980 substituted language related to the Bolsa Chica as recommended by the LCP Citizen Advisory Committee. This language identified the Bolsa Chica area as an environmentally sensitive habitat, indicated that remaining wetland area provides valuable habitat for various endangered species, and referred to a number of governmental agencies designation of the area as wetlands. At the December 15, 1980 City Council public hearing, a motion to delete all references to the Bolsa Chica in the City's LCP failed by a 2 - 4 vote. A motion to delete the Planning Commission's reference to Bolsa Chica carried by a 4 - 3 vote but upon reconsideration, the motion failed by a 2 - 5 vote. At a subsequent January 19, 1981 Council public hearing, a motion to substitute new language pertaining to Bolsa Chica, including a request of appropriate State and Federal agencies to accelerate efforts to positively define specific scientifically justified environmentally sensitive habitats and provide recommendations as to the economic feasibility of rehabilitation of such areas. When such determination has been made, the City will totally support preservation of environmentally sensitive habitats. The City would support development of compatible land uses in the remaining areas of Bolsa Chica and intends to initiate annexation as soon as possible. City staff coordination with the County during the past year (1981) has consisted of submittal of all available resources and information pertaining to the Bolsa Chica area, attendance at public workshops, review and comment of County issue identification and progress reports, review and comment of the draft EIR on Signal Bolsa Corporation's proposed County General Plan Amendment, and attendance at the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisor's public hearings. -5- The City made official comments on the proposed General Plan Amendment/Local Coastal Plan GPA/LCP at the Board of Supervisor's hearing on December 16th. Comments centered on impacts to the City's circulation system and public services as a result of future development. Recognizing these comments, the Board of Supervisors included in their resolution the preparation of a Fiscal Impact Report specifically dealing with impacts to the City of Huntington Beach. (Preparation of this report is currently underway.) On January 20, 1982 the board unanimously approved the_GPA/LCP. At the present time the Bolsa Chica LCP is being reviewed by the State Coastal Commission. At the April 22nd public hearing, the mayor clarified to the Coastal Commission that the City has no official position on the proposed development plan. The next public hearing will be next month. 4 -6- i� Page #12 - Council Minutes - 2/2/81 A motion was made by Bailey, seconded by MacAllister, to submit the City's ' ,' position regarding the Bolsa Chica as outlined in the Mayor' s memo dated February 2, 1981 ; the information to be sent to the County Planning Commission .fi.` .. and Board of Supervisors for consideration at the County Planning Commission public hearing on February 10, 1981 . The motion carried by the following roll ,; . call vote: �l AYES: Pattinson, Thomas, Bailey, MacAllister, Mandic, Kelly NOES: None 'i. ABSTAIN: Finley A41I ABSENT: None , USER FEES FOR TRANSFER/DISPOSAL SOLID WASTE DISCUSSED <f ! ' The Mayor referred to a letter she had received from Bruce Finlayson, President, :i;°r of the Midway City Sanitary District, stating the Districts opposition to user =xt' {�1f, fees for the transfer and disposal of solid waste. ,. g ;J The Director of Public Works expressed concern regarding user fees. A resolution ' ; that will be coming before the League of California Cities was discussed. REQUEST TO BE ABSENT - APPROVED Councilman Kelly stated that at the meeting of January 19, 1981 he had i nadvertently.;x . f requested to be absent February 2nd rather than March 2nd. !V, On motion by Pattinson, second MacAllister, Council approved Councilman Kelly's ? �$ request to be absent March 2, 1981 by unanimous vote. " RESIGNATION - RODGERS - COUNCIL ON AGING - FROELICH - NEW PRESIDENT . On motion by MacAllister, second Kelly, Council accepted the resignation of Mikek .Pr# 11� Rodgers on the Council on Aging and directed staff to prepare a special award of appreciation for his participation in the organization. The motion carried unanimously. ' ` Councilman MacAllister stated that Mr. Fred Froelich is the new President of the r Council on Aging . REPORT REQUESTED - HCD/DISASTER FUNDS - STORM DRAINS b° Councilman MacAllister stated his concern regarding flooding in the City and �j directed staff to investigate the feasibility of using HCD and/or Federal disaster{ , funding for storm drains. He requested a report on the matter before the next i'! public hearing on HCD funding. PERIPHERAL CANAL LEGISLATION - A B-9 - SUPPORT OF BILL APPROVED The City Clerk presented a communication from Councilman MacAllister regarding a ' referendum to bar construction of the Peripheral Canal, on which Californians are scheduled to vote at the June 2, 1981 election. Councilman MacAllister urged c, t, support of AB-9 (Johnson) which calls for an earlier special statewide election in June, 1981 to decide this matter. t Page #12 - Council M tes - 1/21/80 On motion by Pattinson, second Thomas, Council approved the recommendation of the Director of Public Works and directed staff to: (a) Restrict parking only during daylight hours when students my be i ! riding their bikes to and from school (7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. ) to serve bicycle riders going to Lake View School in the morning and Ocean View High School students returning home in the after- noon. (b) Restripe Slater Avenue to provide a parking lane on the s/s of 7 feet at a cost of $2400 if the changes are restricted to 330' w/o Van Buren to 330' e/o Jefferson - the area near the school cross- walk at Geraldine Lane will remain free of parked vehicles to ' a. maintain visibility on the approaches to the crosswalk. The motion carried b the following roll call vote: Y 9 � AYES: Pattinson, Thomas, Mandic, MacAllister, Bailey, Yoder, Finley - � ( NOES: None ABSENT: None PUBLIC CABLE TELEVISION AUTHORITY - REPORT FORTHCOMING Mayor MacAllister reported on the Public Cable Television Authority meeting and informed Council that a report on the proposed channel allocations would be made available to Council . DOWNTOWN CORE - STAFF REPORT REQUESTED - ALLEY LIGHTING AND GROUND PATCHING f A motion was made by MacAllister, seconded by Pattinson, to direct staff to deter- mine where lights should be placed in the alleys and the monthly cost of operating same, together with a study of the ground patching, to be submitted to Council . ` ' The motion carried unanimously. -1 REQUEST FOR LOCAL COASTAL PLAN CHAIRMAN - CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTED - APPROVED Mayor MacAllister stated his opposition to a member of the City' s staff chairing ' the Local Coastal Plan - Citizens Advisory Committee. ! Following discussion, a motion was made by MacAllister,, seconded by Pattinson, that the Local Coastal Program - Citizens Advisory Committee elect a chairperson from their membership. The motion carried unanimously. REQUEST TO BE ABSENT - COUNCIL MEETING 3/3/80 (MacAllister) - APPROVED j . j A motion was made by Bailey, seconded by Finley, to grant Mayor MacAllister' s ' request to be absent from the_ 3/3/80 regular Council meeting. The motion carried ;f unanimously. BOLSA CHICA STUDY SESSION 1/24/80 (BOARD OF SUPERVISORS) COUNCILWOMAN FINLEY AND JUNE CATALANO, SENIOR PLANNER TO ATTEND Mayor MacAllister stated that Council had been invited to attend a joint study session with the LCP-CAC to discuss the defunct Bolsa Chica Task Force Committee at a meeting to be held in the office of the Board of Supervisors on T.hursday, January 24, 1980 at 10:00 A.M. Page #17 Council Minutes 5/21/79 Considerable discussion was held. The Clerk was requested to locate the minutes of April 16, 1979 which approved the selection of Mr. Pollyea' s firm for the real estate consultant work and directed a ' , ,' i ,• the preparation of this agreement. Amotion was made by Mandic, seconded by Pattinson, to reconsider the motion Wade by Pattinson, seconded by Yoder, to approve and authorize execution of the , agreement. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Pattinson, Mandic, MacAllister, Yoder, Finley I `, U'OES: Thomas, Bailey ABSENT: None Amotion was made by Pattinson, seconded by MacAllister to approve and authorize ( _ � execution of a real estate consultant lease agreement between the City and Charles �(! ; J. Pollyea & Associates. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: lr�j t AYES: Pattinson, Mandic, MacAllister, Bailey, Yoder, Finley (f; ,F , TOES: Thomas q +. ABSENT. None Considerable discussion was held. On motion by Mandic, second Finley, Council directed staff to investigate a proce- dure whereby in-house expertise in the area of lease neyotiation could be utilized; by possibly having a vacancy that occurs be filled by a person with such experi- ence. The City- Attorney stated it might be possible for a member of her existing staff to attend classes and become proficient in this area. The Director of Harbors , Beaches, Parks and Recreation stated he believed there could be in house capability at a future date. S The motion carried by the following vote: ' , AYES: Pattinson, Mandic, MacAllister, Bailey, Yoder, Finley . ' yOES: Thomas ABSENT: None PLANNING FOR THE BOLSA CHICA - TASK FORCE - DEFERRED The Clerk presented a communication from the Department of Development Services/ ' Local Coastal Program regarding the formation by the County of an Interagency Task Force for the Bolsa Chica which was approved by the Board of Supervisors on April 24, 1979, and the recommendation of the Local Coast Program - Citizens Advisory Committee that the task force, if formed, be formulated around the "technical " group to benefit interagency and staff interchange and coordinative planning and that additional citizen groups , duplicative of the mandated Local Coastal Pro- gram participation not be formed. Councilwoman Finley stated she believed it was premature to consider the matter at this time. She suggested postponing action until completion of negotiations now taking place. On motion by Finley, second Bailey, Council postponed action on the LCP-CAC recom- ' mendation regarding the formation of an Interagency Task Force for the Bolsa Chica. ! The motion carried unanimously.' Page '#2 - Council Minutes -/-`!24/76 i RESPONSE TO HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INQUIRY BY GORDON OFFSTEIN The Mayor stated that a report had been provided to Council relative to Mr. Gordon Offstein's inquiry regarding the City's second year Housing and Community Development grant application. Mr. Offstein stated that he was satisfied with the information he had received that the city would be hiring a person who had special expertise in coordinating Housing and Community Development implications. TRANSFER FROM GAS TAX FUND - REPORT REQUESTED On motion by Siebert, second Pattinson, the Council requested that the City Attorney prepare a written opinion regarding the validity of the action taken at the April 5, 1976 Council meeting to transfer funds from the Gas Tax Fund to the General Fund, - for report at the June 7, 1976 Council meeting. Motion carried. JOINT MEETING BETWEEN COUNCIL & BOLSA CHICA STUDY COMMITTEE Mrs. Ruth Bailey, Vice-Chairman of the Bolsa Chica Study Committee informed Council of the citizens who served on the committee and the groups which they represented. She then outlined the areas encompassed by the committee. She referred to the Bolsa Chica Report dated April 29, 1976 and the documents presented by various departments. Mayor Wieder stated that for the record, she would like to report her resignation from the Bolsa Chica Annexation Committee. The Planning Director presented a viewgraph of the Bolsa Chica area and identified the property owners. A letter from Mr. Dave Garofalo dated April 21, 1976, was provided to Council, recommending that the request which had been made by Grace Poperties for annexation by the City of their land be supported. Mr. Donald Datko, representing the Economic Advisory Commission, addressed Council and stated that they believed no position could be taken as there is limited information regarding the potential economic impact to the City. Mr. Brian Parkinson, representing the Planning Commission, stated that the Planning Commission and staff had twice reviewed the Bolsa Chica Study Committee Report and that the original recommendation of the Planning Commission remained. Mr. Lee Rebman, representing the Environmental Council spoke regarding the importance of preserving the cogstone site. Mrs. Margaret Carlberg, representing the Environmental Council spoke regarding their position on the annexation. Mr. Herb Chatterton, representing the Amigos de Bolsa Chica, reported on their areas of concern relative to annexation and pending legislation which could have an effect. Councilman Shenkman stated that he believed clarification should be given to Council relative to the letter received from Gretchen Hoad, Attorney for Amigos de Bolsa Chica, which urged that Council adopt a cautious attitude toward annexing the land. Discussion was held between the Council and Mrs. Hoad. f� � 3 Page #3 - Council Mi-"-tes - 5/24/76 Discussion was held between the Council, Planning Director. , George Stringer, property owner and committee members regarding the portion of the report regarding annexation impact on Recreation and Parks services. The Planning Director reported on various aspects of the Bolsa Chica properties including the archaeological and environmental concerns. He spoke regarding the manner in which he believed the annexation could be accomplished with the most benefit to the City. Deputy City Attorney O'Connor reported on the legal ramifications and reference was made to the communication from the City Attorney's office dated January 21, 1976 regarding Legal Implications of the Bolsa Chica Annexation. Discussion was held and the Director of Public Works reported on the ways in which the annexation would affect his department citing such areas as sewer lines and the water system. Mr. Gordon Offstein, inquired as to the future of oil activity and Mr. Bill Woods representing Burmah Oil Corporation reported on the anticipated effect. Mr. Marc Porter, addressed Council and stated that he did not favor annexation until legislation is adopted due to the impact on schools at the high school level. The Planning Director spoke regarding the annexation as it pertained to the Coastal Plan and stated that .this aspect could be discussed at the joint meeting between the City Council and Planning Commission. A motion was made by Shenkman to oppose annexation at this time for lack of proper information, too much pending legislation and lack of enconomic variables. The motion died for lack of a second. INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS FOR TOTAL ANNEXATION - BOLSA CHICA WETLAND 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, Shenkman, Wieder NOES: Siebert ABSENT: Gibbs 4 � EXECUTIVE SESSION CALLED Mayor Wieder called an Executive Session of Council at 10:55 P.M. for the purpose of discussing pending litigation. RECESS COUNCIL Mayor Wieder called a recess of the City Council. r 1� 3 Page #2 - Council Minutes - )/25/76 Councilman Shenkman stressed the need to adopt a plan in concept only, to show the private sector the city's intent, as he believed the only way downtown redevelopment would occur was through private capital in conjunction with city government. + ^` Discussion was held between Mr. Dodge and Council regarding the role of VTN in the downtown redevelopment. The Planning Director was then given general direction by the Council relative to the Council concurrence in concept with the VTN plan. ROLE OF COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AND PAC IN REDEVELOPMENT Discussion was held between the Council and Planning Commission regarding the role of the Planning Commission, Council, and Project Area Committee in the Redevelopment Agency. Deputy City Attorney O'Connor read from the Government Code pertaining to Redevelopment Agencies for Council clarification and discussion was held. AMENDMENT TO GENERAL PLAN The Planning Director reported on the proposals for the next amendment to the General Plan. Among those anticipated being the central industrial corridor area and requests for general plan amendments from land owners, and time permitting, commercial zoning on Beach Boulevard. He recommended that joint meetings between the Council and Planning.Commission on the amendment be held. V ` i BOLSA CHICA ANNEXATION Discussion was held regarding the action taken at the � 24, 1976 meeting regarding Bolsa' Chica annexation and the necessary guidelines and procedures which must be followed. , Mayor Wieder stated that it would be helpful to the Council and Commission if the procedure were available in written form. She commented on the need to explore Section 208 relative to regional master planning for water quality. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION DEVELOPMENT PHILOSIPHIES Discussion was held regarding the relationships between the City Council and Planning Commission regarding development philosophies. Councilman Pattinson stated that he believed industrial and commercial planning was vital to the city's tax base. Councilman Shenkman stated his contention that boards and commissions were purely advisory. lie stated that he did not want "rubber stamp" commissions, but that .::'adversary situations could "not exist between Council and commissions. Mayor Wieder commented on the ways that she believed the functions of the Planning Commission and City Council differed. Councilman Siebert spoke regarding the reliance of Council on Planning Commission expertise and the importance of the Council receiving unbiased, straight-forward reports. Councilman Bartlett spoke regarding the importance of the Planning staff. Councilman Coen arrived at the Council meeting. r.. Each Council person and Planning Commissioner stated their opinions as to the _ function each plays in the community. The Council also spoke regarding the vital Areas of concern to which the city should address itself. 60 Page #7 - Council Minutes - 9/7/76 On motion by Bartlett, second Coen, Council waived further reading and adopted ` Resolution No. 4314 by the following roll call vote: X AYES: Bartlett, Pattinson, Coen, Shenkman, Wieder NOES: Gibbs, Siebert ABSENT: None �ti,yao• r' � i� PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CASE 76-20 - REZONE BOLSA CHICA APPROVED - ORD. NO. 2112 - FIRST READING Mayor Wieder announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing to consider a prezone on 1603.12 acres of land to RA-02 (Residential Agricultural Distric combined with oil production) to ROS-0 (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. The property is commonly referred to as "The Bolsa Chica.11 The City Clerk informed Council that all legal requirements for notification, publication and posting had been met and that she had received no communications or written protests to the matter. The City Administrator presented facts, relative to the desirability of prezoning. The Acting Planning Director presented a resume' of the Planning Commission's reasons for recommending approval of the proposed prezoning at this time. ,YY t! +: Discussion was held among Council members. Mayor Wieder de.:lared the hearing open. Mrs. Sallie Mook, Vice President of the League of Women Voters, Huntington Beach/Seal Beach, addressed Council stating that they support the zoning of the entire parcel for recreation and open space. Mr. Keith Lewinger, Chairman of Huntington Beach Environmental Council, addressed Council recommending that a complete environmental study be made before annexation and requested the City to draw up a master plan before annexation. Mrs. Diane Finer, Huntington Beach Branch of the American Association of University Women, addressed Council, requesting ROS. zoning for the Bolsa Chica Area. Mr. Don McAllister, Vice President of the Huntington Beach Union High School Board of Trustees, addressed Council in opposition to the prezoning of Bolsa Chica by the City of Huntington Beach to a residential zone. Mr. Robert Smith, City resident, questioned the Council regarding the City's right to annex or own property and further questioned whether or not there was any environments impact report. required. Mrs. Aileen Brock, City resident, addressed Council regarding the need for j environmental protection. Mr. Herb Chatterton, President of Amigos de Bolsa Chica, addressed Council questioning the prezoning of open space until the master plan was completed. Page #8 - Council Minutes - 5, //76 Dr. Kenneth Martin, City resident, addressed Council cautioning against allowing time 4� constraints and the desire to have the property on the tax rolls by January 1977 to force an early decision on the Bolsa Chica annexation. Mr. George Stringer, representative of the Signal Bolsa Corporation, stated his belief that the plan is a fair compromise between the land owners and the City. Mr. Darrell Ward, President of the Chamber of Commerce, presented Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce Resolution No. 1976-77 recommending, for economic reasons,__the_ prezoning of The Bolsa Chica to expedite and consummate the orderly annexation of these properties. Mr. Robert Prock, representative of W. R. Grace & Company, a subsidary of Kendall Development, which is listed as owner of 41 acres of The Bolsa Chica, stated his belief that the present plan is the best way for his company to finance their total plan. Mr. Thomas Whaling, City resident, addressed Council concerning the importance of the revenue involved in making an early decision, and stated he favored prezoning. Mr. Gordon Offstein, City resident, addressed Council regarding the Financial Impact Report on Bolsa Chica. Mr. Offstein stated that the information on revenue and- the lack of information showing expenditures is a disservice to the community. Following discussion and there being no one further present to speak on the matter and there being no further protests filed; either written or oral the hearing was closed by the Mayor. . The City Clerk was directea to give Ordinance No. 2112 a first reading by title - "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING SECTION ' 061 THEREOF TO PROVIDE FOR PREZONING ON REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN UNINCORPORATED PROPERTY REFERRED TO AS THE BOLSA CHICA (ZONE CASE -NO. 76-20) ." On motion by Coen, second Pattinson, Council adopted Negative Declaration #76-68, approved Zone Case 76-20 and waived further reading of Ordinance No. 2112 'and directed staff to immediately study possible additional zoning designations for report to . Council, by the following roll call vote: , AYES: Bartlett, Pattinson, Coen, Wieder NOES: Gibbs, .Siebert, Shenkman ABSENT: None RECESS - RECONVENED Mayor Wieder called a three minute recess. The meeting was reconvened by the Mayor. PUBLIC HEARING - CODE AMENDMENT 76-11 - HOME OCCUPATIONS - REFERRED BACK TO STAFF Mayor Wieder announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing on Code Amendment 76-11, initiated by the Planning Commission, to amend S. 9730.21 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code (Home Occupations) to allow swimming instructions as I" a permissible home occupation. t 42 �� Page #5 - Council Minutes - 9/20/76 On motion by Shenkman, second Pattinson, Council approved Code Amendment 76-9(B) , and proposed Amendment to Section 10:44:060, and waived further reading of Ordinance No. 2115 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Bartlett, Pattinson, Coen, Gibbs, Siebert, Shenkman, Wieder NOES: None ABSENT: None 11-7 . PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL TO DENIAL OF USE PERMIT #76-36 d CE #76-32 - REFERRED BACK TO STAFF Mayor Wieder announced that this was the day and hour set for apublic hearing on an Appeal to Denial of Use Permit #76-36 & CE #76-32 by the Board of Zoning Adjustments - (said denial sustained by the Planning Commission) Use Permit No. 76-36 is a request to permit the construction of a carport to satisfy the parking requirements pursuant to Section 9106 and Conditional Exception No. 76-32 is a request to permit a 12 ft. encoachment into the required 22 ft. setback for a front entry carport in lieu of Section 9106.2 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. The subject property is locate( on the north side of Devon Circle approximately 60 ft. east of Channel Lane in the R1 (Low Density Residential District) . The City Clerk informed Council that all requirements for publication and posting had been met and that she had received no communication or written protests to Appeal to Denial of Use Permit #76-36 and Conditional Exception No. 76-32. The Acting Planning Director presented a resume' of the reasons for the Planning t:? Commission's recomn..:ndation of denial of Use Permit No. 76-36 and Conditional Exception No. 76-32. Considerable discussion was held among Council members and staff. Mayor Wieder declared the hearing open. Mr. Edward Brady, City resident, addressed Council and submitted affidavits to the City Clerk from various neighbors stating their lack of objection to the present garagc conversion which now exists on Mr. Brady's property. Mr. Brady presented facts relative to his need for the space provided for the use of his garage as an additional room. Mr. Brady asked Council for guidance in solving his problem. Additional discussion was held among Council members and staff. There being no one present to speak further on the matter and there being no protests filed, either. oral or written, the hearing was closed by the Mayor. On motion by Coen, second Bartlett, Council referred the matter of the Appeal of Denial of Use Permit #76-36 and Conditional Exception No. 76-32 back to Staff for consultation with the City Attorney. Motion carried unanimously. �,. PUBLIC HEARING - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 76-3 - (BOLSA CHICA ANNEXATION) - EIR TO BE REPOSTED FOR 30. DAYS Mayor Wieder announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing on Environmental Impact Report No. 76-3 (Bolsa Chica Annexation). Said EIR assesses the potential environmental impact 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. Page #6 - Council Minutes - 9/20/76 The City Clerk informed Council that all requirements for publication and posting had been met and that she had received no communications or written protests to Environmental .�i Impact Report No. 76-3. ` The Acting Planning Director reported on the matter and stated that every due process step is being followed. He further stated that adoption of Final EIR 76-3 is needed prior to the City's act of annexation as the Local Agency Formation Commission will utilize it in their proceedings to fulfill the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Councilman Shenkman stated that he believed the Environmental Impact Report No. 76-3 was vague concerning the impact of the annexation on schools, groundwater and traffic. Councilwoman Gibbs, spoke of her concern for the inconsistencies she felt existed throughout the report and questioned why it was necessary to approve this at this time. Mr. John O'Connor, Deputy City Attorney, addressed Council concerning an opinion he had written on. annexation when former Councilman Henry Duke was Chairman of the Bolsa Chica Annexation Committee, and answered questions concerning prezoning. Mayor Wieder declared the hearing open. Mr. Herb Chatterton, City resident, addressed Council, quoting key comments on inaccuracies and inadequacies by some of the 16 agencies and organizations that responded to the draft, and requested Council to continue the public hearing so that the public will understand this complicated report. The Acting Planning Director stated that staff feels this document adequately addresses the normal impacts of the acts of annexation. Staff does not feel that it is an adequate EIR for master planned development; but only for the purpose of annexation. Staff feels it is adequate or they would not have brought it to the City Council. i Mr. Don McAllister, member of the Board of Trustees, Huntington Beach Union High School District, addressed Council, commending the work of the Planning Staff in time spent in reconsidering the areas affecting schools, especially the development fees, endorsed by several organizations and the planning department. He brought minor corrections to the forefront, one of which was the surplus the school districts may see. The way the taxing is set up presently in the state, the local school districts db not end up with the surplus - that money ends up going to the state, .even though the local tax payers pay for it. There being no one present to speak further on the matter and there being no protests filed, either. written or oral, the hearing was closed by the Mayor. Considerable discussion was held among Council members.. On motion by Wieder, second Shenkman, Council moved to repost Environmental Impact Report 76-3 for a 30-day period and that staff take this Environmental Impact Report to make it adequate and acceptable to the majority of Council for presentation for annexation. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: i • _AYES: Gibbs, Siebert, Shenkman, Wieder NOES: Bartlett, Pattinson, Coen ABSENT: None u-n Page #10 - Council Minutes - 9/20/76 ,j ORD. NO. 2114 '- ADOPTED - PLANNING PROCEDURES "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE } CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 9802, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CHAPTERS 3 AND 4 OF TITLE 7 OF THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE.',, ORDINANCE 2112 - DEFERRED - PREZONING - THE BOLSA CHICA (ZONE CASE NO.` 76-20) Th6 City Clerk presented Ordinance No. 2112 for a second reading by title - "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)." Councilman Siebert presented questions relative to prezoning of the Bolsa Chica and requested clarification. On motion by Shenkman, second Siebert, Ordinance No. 2112 was deferred for further clarification by staff. Motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCES - FIRST READING On motion by Pattinson, second Gibbs, Council directed the Clerk to read Ordinance No. 2116 by title; and waived further reading of same by the following roll call vote: AYES: Bartlett, Pattinson, Coen, Gibbs, Siebert, Shenkman, Wieder NOES: None ABSENT: None ORDINANCE 2116 - FIRST READING - AMENDS CODE - HYPNOTISM "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTIONS 9.60.010 AND 9.60.020 THEREOF AND ADDING SECTION 9.60.030 THERETO, PERTAINING TO HYPNOTISM." CHARTER REVISION COMMITTEE - TOM LIVENGOOD - APPOINTED The City Clerk presented the request of Mayor Wieder for the appointment of Tom Livengood (Home Council) to the Charter Revision Committee replacing Gldn'Frazier.' On motion by Bartlett, second Gibbs, Council approved the appointment of Tom Livengood to the Charter Revision Committee. Motion carried. �f CITY COUNCIL RETREAT - SEACLIFF COUNTRY CLUB Mayor Wieder presented the plans for the City Council and Department Head Retreat for Friday, October 29, 1976 from 9:00 A.M. - 10:00 P.M. at the Seacliff Country Club. Councilman Coen stated he would be unable to attend. On motion by Bartlett, second Shenkman, Council approved the plans for the City Council ; and Department Head Retreat for Friday, October 29, 1976. Motion carried. `n SAY: +SPECIAL EVENTS COMMITTEE TO BE FORMED Discussion was held concerning the Fourth of July Parade and the need for a committee to study all aspects before a decision can be made. �.. �On motion by Pattinson, second Bartlett, Council approved the formation of a Special '� .tvents Committee, with members be:!Pr appointed by Mayor Wieder. Motion carried. MINUTES Room B-8, Civic Center Huntington Beach, California Monday, March 21, 1977 Mayor Wieder called the adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach to order. Present: Bartlett, Pattinson, Coen, Gibbs, Siebert, Wieder (Shenkman arrived 7:30 P.M. ) Absent: None PRESENTATION BY DIRECTOR OF HARBORS, BEACHES AND DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE PROS AND CONS OF CITY OPERATION OF THE STATE BEACHES - NEGOTIATIONS AUTHORIZED 'The Director of Harbors, Beaches, and Development addressed Council regarding pros and cons of the City assuming operations of the Huntington and Bolsa Chica State Beaches. He referred to his report entitled Estimated Operating Expenses For Huntington and Bolsa Chica State Beaches, dated January 1, 1977. Discussion was held between Council and staff regarding the feasibility of the City assuming State beach responsibility and the type of contract which would be negotiated,. Councilman Coen stated that he believed there was a need to review the previous financial status report on the City beach operation. njt�'v A motion was made by Siebert, second Gibbs, to direct staff to initiate negotiations between the City and the State for the City to assume operation of Huntington and Bolsa Chica State Beaches. Following discussion, the motion carried unanimously. PRESENTATION OF CHECK - SENIOR CITIZENS' OUTREACH PROGRAM Mayor Wieder introduced Supervisor Laurence Schmit, Second District, County Board of Supervisors. Supervisor Schmit presented Mayor Wieder with a Federal Revenue Sharing check in the amount of $18,000 for the continuation of the Senior Citizens' Outreach Program. COUNTY SUPERVISORIAL RE-DISTRICTING Discussion was held between County Supervisor Laurence Schmit and the Council regarding the various county proposals for re-districting. Supervisor Schmit stated that the re-districting plan which he believed would be adopted would result in the City of Huntington Beach being placed in his district, with the exception of approximately 10,000 ,residents who would be represented by Supervisor Thomas Riley. BOLSA CHICA WETLANDS Mayor Wieder stated that in response to a request from County Supervisor Laurence ..... Schmit for additional City input relative to the future of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands, she had suggested that his staff meet with the City staff. I Page #2 - Council Minutes - 9/27/76 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT #76-3 BOLSA CHICA ANNEXATION #7 L The City Clerk presented a request from staff for Council to reconsider their action on September 20, 1976 to re-post Environmental Impact Report 76-3 for a 30-day period and that staff make this Environmental Impact Report adequate and acceptable to the majority of Council for presentation to the Local Agency Formation Commission, for annexation approval. Mayor Wieder acknowledged the request and stated that she felt that the public had insufficient time to meet with staff, and requested that Environmental Impact Report #76-3 be taken off the agenda. The Mayor's request was granted by Council. REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF DRAINAGE FEES FOR H.B. INDUSTRIAL PARK - APPROVED The City Administrator presented- a memorandum from the Acting Director of Public Works relative to the drainage facilities being constructed by Huntington Beach Industrial Park, which are a part of the City's Master Plan of Storm Drain Facilities. These drainage facilities will serve Drainage District 2A. According to Huntington Beach Municipal Code, drainage fees in the amount of $90,802.00 are payable prior to issuance of building permits. It is contemplated that Huntington Beach Industrial Park will apply to the City for a Reimbursement Agreement to refund the difference in construction cost and drainage fees which will e $40,509.61; said fees to be collected from subsequent development in the area and refunded to Huntington Beach Industrial Park. On motion by Bartlett, secoarl Gibbs, Council authorized the issuance of building r permits, with the requirement of a letter from Huntington Beach Industrial Park agreeing to formalize a Reimbursement Agreement with the City. Motion passed by the following roll call vote: -AYES: Bartlett, Pattinson, Coen, Gibbs, Wieder NOES: None ABSENT: Shenkman, Siebert ✓ CITY COUNCIL RETREAT - SEACLIFF COUNTRY CLUB Councilman Pattinson referred to the facilitator to be utilized to conduct the Council Retreat, on October 29, 1976, questioning the authority by which, the decision had been made, further stating that he was against having a facilitator and felt it was an unnecessary expense and that he would not approve it. Mayor Wieder stated that at the time the Council approved the retreat, the cost and the facilitator were also approved. When the retreat was postponed, only the date and place were changed. Mayor Wieder further stated that this was not the time to discuss the matter. J JOINT MEETING - CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE HANDICAPPED Advisory Committee on the Handicapped - Members presentM �t McIntosh, Stephens, Gerson, Trumaine, Miller, Alganzar, Himes, Vogelsang, Stein, Engle 't 8 �w- Mr. Ron' Miller, acting chairman, addressed Council stating that the committee has tried to educate the City of Huntington Beach on problems encountered by the handicapped in Huntington Beach. He stated that their aim is to bring the minority groups into the main stream of life. �7✓ 4.(A � Page #4 - Minutes - 2/28/77 '-"\ Police Explorers' Funding - Failed A motion was made by Pattinson, second Bartlett, to approve $9,000 in funding for the Police Explorers. The motion failed by the following tie vote: ' AYES: ' Bartlett, Pattinson, Wieder NOES: Coen, Gibbs, Siebert ABSENT: Shenkman .t REMAINING HCD FUNDS - TO BE SPECIFIED BY COUNCIL On motion by Siebert, second Gibbs, Council directed that the remaining allocation of HCD funds ($41,700) be designated for unspecified local option activities, to be specified by the City Council. Motion carried unanimously. ND 77-3 - ADOPTED - ATTORNEY TO PREPARE RESOLUTION APPROVING FUNDING A motion was made by Gibbs, second Siebert, to adopt Negative Declaration #77-3, approve the Third Year Entitlement Housing and Community Development Program and Housing Assistance Plan, and directed the City Attorney to prepare a resolution effecting same. Motion carried unanimously✓. ✓ PRESENTATION OF ASSEMBLYMAN MANGERS AND SUPERVISOR LAURENCE SCHMIT REGARDING AB 643 STATE PURCHASE OF BOLSA CHICA WETLANDS Assemblyman Dennis Mangers addressed the' Council and audience regarding Assembly Bill 643 which he had introduced, -requesting the State to purchase the Bolsa Chica Wetlands. He spoke regarding the history of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands, its importance to the City and County residents, and reported on the legal channels by which the acquisition would r fully take place. mblyman Mangers elaborated on the possible purchase for open space of the lowlands private development of the bluffs in the Bolsa Chica area. He stated that there five alternative plans for the proposed purchase of the Bolsa Chica lowlands and he would report back to Council .at a later date on the progress of the plans. With regard to the Huntington Central Park, Assemblyman Mangers stressed the need for input from the City. Meanwhile, he stated, he would continue, with the assistance of Super- visor Schmit and Congressman Hannaford, to explore plans for a fresh seawater flow needed to maintain the marshlands. Supervisor Laurence Schmit, Second Supervisorial District, addressed Council and stated his hope that State acquisition could be accomplished. He. spoke regarding the County's role in the plan and the possible linking of the Huntington Central Park to the Bolsa Chica area. On behalf of the Council and community, Mayor Wieder thanked Assemblyman Mangers and Supervisor Schmit for their presentation and assistance in this matter. RECESS - RECONVENE Mayor Wieder called a recess of the City Council at 9_00 P.M. The meeting was reconvened by the Mayor in the Cafeteria at 9:20 P.M. , with Councilmen Shenkman and Coen recorded absent.. 75 4 O Page #6 - Council Minutes - ; 20/77 Tom Livengood,, Vice President of the Home Council , addressed the Council and distributed mounted photographs of the aircraft towing banners near Meadowlark Airport. Mr. Livengood read a report urging Council to put a halt to banner-towing airplane flights from Meadowlark, charging that operations by the Sky Ad Company constituted a hazard. He reported that banner towing is done 10 to 15 times each weedend when regular air traffic is at its heaviest. He claimed that Sky Ad Company has a City business license to use only one airplane in banner advertising, and further claimed that his photographs showed three different planes engaged in flights. COUNCILWOMAN WOMAN GIBBS ARRIVED AT THE MEETING AT THIS TIME MAYOR PATTINSON INTRODUCED SUPERVISOR LAURENCE SCHMIT AND HIS ASSISTANT WAYNE CLARK RECESS - RECONVENE Mayor Pattinson called a recess of the Council at 9:25 P.M. Council was reconvened at 9:35 P.M. 1 MEADOWLARK AIRPORT - BANNER TOWING - PUBLIC HEARING SET On motion by Coen, second Wieder, Council directed the City Clerk to set a public hearing, as soon as feasible, to consider Mr. Livengood' s allegations regarding banner towing by Sky Ad Company at Meadowlark Airport. Motion carried. BOLSA CHICA - HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK Assistant City Administrator, Richard Harlow, informed Council that he had talked i to Assemblyman Dennis Mangers regarding the State acquisition of 923 acres of the. Bolsa Chica Marshlands and that the Assembly Bill was still in the Ways and Means Committee. Supervisor Schmit addressed the Council in regard to County involvement in Huntington Central Park and the related linear park area. He stated that he was in support of the State Budgeted Item 396.5, declaring the Bolsa Chica as a regional park and linear area tying into Huntington Central Park. He stated that study and negotiations were still going on at the State level with the Environmental Management Agency, and that he expected a report to the Board of Supervisors to be submitted in 90 days. Discussion was held concerning funding methods with a Joint-Powers Agreement as a possible solution. Mayor Pattinson stated that Councilman Bartlett had consented to represent the City at the Orange County Board of Supervisors meeting on Tuesday, June 21, 1977. On motion by Shenkman, second Gibbs, Council unanimously supported Supervisor Schmit's proposals, as well as the City Administrator's following proposals. 1. Urge the County to assume responsibility for all of Huntington Central Park as a regional park; 2. Support the linear park concept linking Huntington Central Park and Bolsa Chica State Beach; X a� Page #7 - Council Mi es - 6/20/77 3. City to undertake planning of the Bolsa Chica to be financed by revenue generated by 'Bolsa Chica to City in the future, or by revenue generated to County in past; j 4. City to take no stand on a marina in the Bolsa Chica, pending State legislation. On motion by Shenkman, second Siebert, Council directed that a resolution be forwarded to the Governor requesting that State Budget Item 396.5 be retained in the 1977-78 State Budget . Motion carried unanimously. RECESS COUNCIL - CONVENE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Members Present: Bartlett, Wieder, Coen, Gibbs, Siebert, Shenkman, Pattinson Members Absent: None MINUTES - APPROVED On motion by Shenkman, second Gibbs, the minutes of the regular meeting of June 6, 1977, were approved and adopted as written and on file in the Office of the Clerk. Motion carried unanimously. .J, RESOLUTION NO. 14 - ADOPTED - AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT - URBAN PROJECTS INC. The Clerk presented Resolution No. 14 for a reading by title - "A RESOLUTION OF THE _REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING A PLANNING SERVICE CONTRACT WITH URBAN PROJECTS, INC. " On motion by Wieder, second Shenkman, the Agency waived further reading of Resolution No. 14 and adopted same by the following roll call vote: AYES: Bartlett, Wieder, Coen, Gibbs, Shenkman, Pattinson NOES: Siebert ABSENT: None ,i INTERIM AGREEMENT & PROPOSAL - BUSINESS PROPERTIES - APPROVED The Clerk presented a transmittal from the Redevelopment Commission of an interim agreement and proposal to enter into an Owner Participation Agreement between the Agency and Business Properties in the Warner/Goldenwest *Small Lot Area. On motion by Wieder, second Coen, the Agency approved and authorized execution of the Interim Agreement and proposal to enter into an Owner Participation Agreement between the Agency and Business Properties in the Warner/Goldenwest Small Lot Area and directed negotiation of a final Owner Participation Agreement for future consideration. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Bartlett, Wieder, Coen, Shenkman, Pattinson NOES: Gibbs, Siebert ABSENT: None r RESOLUTION NO. 15 - ADOPTED - SCHEDULES JOINT PUBLIC HEARING The Clerk presented Resolution No. 15 for a reading by title - "A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CONSENTING TO A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE WARNER-GOLDENWEST SMALL LOT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT." PF .7 Page #8 - Council Minutes �"77 RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED On motion by Shenkman, second Bartlett, Council directed the City Clerk to read r-- Resolution Nos. 4506 and 4507 by title, waived further reading and adopted 'same by the following roll call vote: AYES: Bartlett, Wieder, Coen, Siebert, Shenkman, Pattinson NOES: None ABSENT: Gibbs fRES NO 4506 - ADOPTED - EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY - AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLAN "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLAN CONCERNING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY." „i RES NO 4507 - ADOPTED - REIMB AGRMT 74-Dl - CLASSIC DEVELOPMENT CORP. "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AUTHORIZING PARTIAL PAYMENT ON REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT NO. 74-Dl TO CLASSIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION." BOLSA CHICA ANNEXATION - PARTIAL ANNEXATION - APPROVED The City Clerk presented a communication from the Planning Director regarding annexation of the Bolsa Chica, together with resolutions of the Chamber of Commerce. The matter had been deferred from August -1, 1977. The Mayor introduced Assemblyman .Dennis� Mangers who gave an in-depth report and recommendations on the Bolsa Chica. He informed the Council of his opinion as to what that area held for the future. Assemblyman Mangers discussed the 900+ acre purchase of the property by the State. He stated that the State Lands Commission plans to enter into negotiations with the Signal Landmark Company following`a Signal Landmark appraisal which will take approximately eight- months to complete. He stressed the importance of the cooperation between the Governor, State and Board of Supervisors to consider the regional significance of linking the Bolas Chica to Huntington Central Park. Assemblyman Mangers reported on the impact of total annexation at this time, stating that with price escalations, it would be a risk. He suggested a possible compromise with the City taking action to annex the bluff properties not under consideration for purchase by the State, county or others, thus leaving the lowlands. The Assemblyman stated that he had no personal choice on the lead agency, but preferred the County rather than the City, if possible. In conclusion, Assemblyman Mangers stated that he preferred that all seven Council members be present when action is taken; that the City move as quickly as possible; that the City Staff cooperate with the Environmental Management Agency and Coastal Commission; and finally that it was his hope that there would be a regional park in the future through the efforts of the City, County, and State. General discussion was held on the various involvements such as the Signal properties, oil revenue and limited use on bluff area. Wayne Clark, Administrative Aide to Supervisor Schmit, spoke briefly on the County's views. He stated that annexation of Bolsa Chica probably would not affect the County's viewing the property as a potential regional park site. Discussion was held by Council regarding their views on the annexation. Page #9 - Council Minu/1� 8/15/77 Following the discussion, a motion was made by Siebert, seconded by Shenkman, to defer action and to request Staff to prepare a report on partial annexation of the bluff area of the Bolsa Chica for September 6, 1977. The motion failed by the following roll .call vote: AYES: Bartlett, Wieder, Pattinson NOES: Siebert, Shenkman, Coen ABSENT: Gibbs_ On motion by Bartlett, second Coen, Council directed Staff to proceed with partial annexation of the Bolsa Chica bluff area. The motion passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Bartlett, Wieder, Shenkman, Coen NOES: Siebert, Pattinson ABSENT: Gibbs RECESS - RECONVENE Mayor Pattinson called a recess of the Council at 9:35 P.M. Council was reconvened at 9:50 P.M. by. the Mayor. COUNCILMAN SHENKMAN LEFT THE MEETING AT THIS TIME. ORANGE COUNTY LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES - ACTION DEFERRED TO 9/16/77 "2. Mayor Pattinson reported on the O.C. League of California Cities meeting he had &: attended on behalf of the City of Huntington Beach, in regard to dues. He stated that the City of Anaheim had decided to drop out of the League and the Mayor requested Council to consider what the best action would be for the City of Huntington Beach. Following discussion between Council, a motion was made by Siebert, seconded by Bartlett, that Council deferr making a decision on the matter of dues to be paid to the League of Cities to the September 6, 1977 Council meeting, at which time there , would be a full Council and staff would have had the opportunity to determine what benefits the City derives from the League and the ramifications of dropping out. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Pattinson directed that the matter be brought before Council as a regular agenda item at the next Council meeting. BOARD AND COMMISSION APPOINTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS - ACTION TAKEN AS FOLLOWS.: The City Administrator presented a list of the vacancies existing on the various boards and commissions for Council's consideration together with the recommendations of the liaison officers for appointments and reappointments. Councilwoman Wieder made a motion that Council move the recommended action of the staff liaison officers. Following discussion, Council decided, upon the Councilmens' suggestion to consider the appointments separately. Councilwoman Wieder' s motion died for lack of a 'second. ALLIED ARTS COMMISSION On motion by Wieder, second Coen, Council reappointed Rosemary Buckley, Marilynn, Tom and Vera Maureas, and appointed Roger Morrison to the Allied Arts Commission. Motion carried unanimously. Page #13 - Counci. mutes 7/18/77 Councilwoman Gibbs stated that Council had received a letter from the Martins, Co-Presidents of the 'Amigos de Bolsa Chica' and stated that the arguments presented in their letter should be considered, adding that she would not vote for annexation. A motion was made by Gibbs, second Siebert, to receive and file the communication and proposed resolution. Motion carried unanimously. REQUEST FOR LAFCO CONTINUANCE OF BOLSA CHICA ANNEXATION The Planning Director referred to his recent transmittal relative to the proposed Bolsa Chica Annexation and stated that the matter would have been put on agenda; that an Environmental Impact Report had been made and that: the Local Agency Formation Commission agenda was carrying the Annexation issue, scheduled for July 27, 1977. He stated that it was hoped that some direction would be given by Council as to how to proceed with the issue. Mayor Pattinson directed that the matter be placed on the August 15, 1977 agenda, The Planning Director suggested that Council request a two month continuance on the Local Agency Formation Commission agenda. On motion by Bartlett, second Siebert, Council directed that LAFCO be requested to continue the subject of the proposed Bolsa Chica annexation for a two month period. Motion carried unanimously. .•.'„ EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY 'COMMISSION - FUNDS REQUESTED - APPROVED The City Administrator referred to a communication received from the Equal Oppor- tunity Employment Commission requesting funding for a planned "Job Fair" to be held at Ocean View High School October 1, 1977 and recommended that the matter be referred ,to the Personnel Board for their advice and recommendation. A motion was made by Pattinson, second Coen, to refer the matter to the Personnel Board for their advice and recommendation. Councilwoman Gibbs expressed concern as to the manner in which the matter was being handled. She stated.that since the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is a separate commission, it should be autonomous and not'subject to the consideration of another board or commission. Discussion was held between Council and staff regarding the procedure of consider- ing requests from separate bodies. The motion failed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Coen, Pattinson NOES : Bartlett, Gibbs, Siebert ABSENT: Wieder, Shenkman Following discussion, a motion was made by Gibbs, second Coen, to grant the request �. of the Equal Opportunity Commission in an amount not to exceed $250 to be derived � '' from the Administrator's Contingency Fund. Motion carried by the following vote: Page #14 - Council Minutes - 9/19/77 A motion was' made by Siebert, seconded Coen, that Council meet with the Charter r Revision Committee after they have submitted their final draft. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Bartlett, Coen, Gibbs, Siebert, Shenkman, Pattinson NOES: Wieder ABSENT: None LEAGUE OF CITIES CONFERENCE - ASSIGNMENT OF MEETINGS Councilwoman Wieder requested the City Administrator to assign meetings to Council people in order that there would be no duplication at the forthcoming League of Cities Conference in San Francisco, and suggested that following the conference, a presentation be made in order that other Council members may be informed as to what transpired at the various sessions and workshops. SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS 3 & 11 - PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION - RECEIVED & FILED The City Clerk presented a communication from the Planning Commission requesting that Council request a status report from the Sanitation Districts on efforts to meet requirements of P.L. 92-500 and an estimation of the cost to City taxpayers over the next two years. Also a. recommendation from Commissioner Gibson that Council appoint an ad hoc committee regarding various aspects of the structure of sanitation services affecting the City. On motion by Shenkman, second Siebert, Council received and filed the communication. Motion carried unanimously. VEHICULAR ACCESS RIGHTS TO HEIL AVENUE - PLANNING DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION The City Clerk presented a communication from the Planning Department transmitting a request from the property owner of the easterly half of Lot 1 - Final Tract 3622 that the City relinquish vehicular access rights to the property in order to allow for development. She stated that a communication had been received from G. L. Schultz,. property owner, requesting that the matter be continued. On motion by Shenkman, second Siebert, Council continued a decision on the matter of vehicular access rights to Heil Avenue to the October 3, 1977 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. BOLSA CHICA ANNEXATION - PLANNING DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION The City Clerk presented a communication from the Planning Department regarding the Bolsa Chica Annexation. A motion was made by Shenkman to approve boundaries of area to be annexed, as indicated on the map submitted by the Planning Department entitled Bolsa Chica Proposals: 1977, and prezoning of Limited Use District. Motion died for lack of a second. Councilwoman Gibbs directed Council' s attention to a letter received from the Amigos de Bolsa Chica dated September 15, 1977, suggesting that the long finger of the Metropolitan Water District land and the Wintersburg Channel be removed from the study. Councilwoman Gibbs suggested that Council concur with this request. Page #15 - Council Minutes - 9/19/77 A motion was made by Gibbs, seconded Coen, to direct staff to eliminate the long finger of the Metropolitan Water District land and the Wintersburg Channel from the study. The Planning Director in response to a question from Councilwoman Wieder, presented reasons why he believed the property should be included in the partial annexation. The motion failed to carry by the following roll call vote: AYES: Gibbs NOES: Bartlett, Wieder, Coen, Siebert, Shenkman, Pattinson ABSENT: None A motion was made by Coen, seconded Shenkman, to approve boundaries of area to be annexed, as indicated on the map submitted by the Planning Department entitled Bolsa Chica Proposals: 1977 and prezoning of Limited Use District . Mayor Pattinson stated that he would oppose the motion as he was in favor of total annexation. Discussion was held by Council regarding the objectives for the Bolsa Chica area toward which Assemblyman Mangers was working. Councilman Siebert stated that he believed every effort should be made to study the effect which the partial annexation will have on the City. Councilwoman Wieder concurred with the point made by Councilman Siebert. Councilman Bartlett offered the possibility of deferring the matter. until after the forthcoming elections. �. The motion £ailed to carry by the following roll call vote: AYES: Coen, Gibbs, Shenkman NOES: Pattinson, Siebert, Bartlett, Wieder ABSENT: None On motion by Wieder, second Shenkman, ' to refer the matter back to staff for additional information as to the total impact of partial annexation of the Bolsa Chica including alternatives, a comparison of the staff recommendation for total annexation as opposed to Assemblyman Manger's proposal for partial annexation, the effect on the City's Master Plan and further; that staff provide input as to placing the proposal on the April, 1978 election ballot. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Bartlett, Wieder, Coen, Siebert, Pattinson NOES: Shenkman, Gibbs ABSENT: None BID AWARD - STREET LIGHTING CONSTRUCTION & MODIFICATION - MAIN STREET - SMITH ELECTRIC CC-414 The City Clerk presented a communication from the Director of Public Works stating that bids for the construction of and modification of street lighting on Main Street between Beach and Garfield had been openedon Monday, September 12, 1977, at 10:00 A.M. , in the Council Chamber by the City Clerk and the Director of Public Works. The bids submitted were as follows: .. h;µ Smith Electric Supply - Stanton $33,347 Cal-Lite Inc. - Maywood 33,408 Steiny and Company, Inc. - Anaheim 39,600 MINUTES �' Council Chamber, Civic Center Huntington Beach, California Monday, December 12, 1977 a A tape recording of this meeting is on file in the City Clerk's Office 0 Mayor Pattinson called the adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach to order at 6:30 P.M.., ROLL CALL Present: Bartlett, Coen, Siebert, Pattinson (Gibbs and Shenkman 6:45 P.M. , Wieder 7:00 P.M.) Absent: None DISCUSSION RE: BOLSA CHICA WETLANDS Mayor Pattinson introduced Assemblyman Dennis Mangers who had come to the meeting to give his opinion on the future of Bolsa Chica. On behalf of the citizens of Huntington Beach, Assemblyman Mangers was presented with a plaque by Mayor .Pattinson. AAssemblyman Mangers addressed Council and the audience regarding the possible acquisi- tion of the Bolsa Chica lowlands. He stated that money had been placed in the State budget for the purchase of the lowlands of the Bolsa Chica and that the Deputy Attorney General of the State Lands Commission has made an offer to the principal owners of the lowlands of the Bolsa Chica of 3.6 million dollars. The landowners, he stated, have indicated that before continuing to negotiate, they would like to do two things (which hey are now in the process of doing) ; (1) arrange to have an independent appraisal of the value of the property, and (2) an engineering study is being done which will. be devoted to the checking out of the removal of certain drilling facilities, which would cause more land to be available for development. Assemblyman Mangers stated that in the interim, the State. and the Federal Government Department of Fish and Wildlife (following President Carter's statement regarding endangered status of tidelands on both coasts) have continued to pursue the issue, and the County, through Supervisor Schmit, has continued to take a very affirmative action in this area. He referred to the Coastal Commission and their recent indi- cation that they would like to see the County as ' lead-agency' in the planning of the entire Bolsa Chica, and the City as 'lead-agency' in the planning of the balance of the coastal area within the boundaries of the City and have provided funds for that planning to take place. Assemblyman Mangers continued that acquisition of the lowlands or the bluffs would significantly impact the negotiations of the land at the present time. In his opinion, there is no real value to the City, other than the short-term realization of a very minimal tax revenue in going ahead with the annexation of this property. He stated that at the present time, we have an exem- plary situation in which all four agencies, the City, the County, the State and the Federal Government realize the precious natural resource of the Bolsa Chica and have developed an unprecedented and co-operative action, with the Coastal Commission providing an official framework within which that action can take place. Assemblyman Page #2 - Council Minutes - i�/ 12/77 Mangers stated that he could see no advantage at this time in annexation and taking the possible risk of jeopordizing the negotiations by the State and the County for the properties in the lowlands. Q_ The last time he addressed Council, Assemblyman Mangers stated that he had uninten- tionally 'muddied the waters' but that in assessing the situation, he got the impres- sion that a vote by the majority of the City Council-might move the City towards annexation of the entire Bolsa Chica area, which was why he had come before them and suggested that if they thought they must move for some reason on annexation, he had suggested a compromise. He stated that the input he has been receiving is heav- ily in favor of purchase, preservation and restoration; people are not very concerned with who the 'lead-agency' will be, but rather with the outcome of the matter. Un- less Council 'feels very strongly about the minimal financial advantages to be gained, the matter should be left the way the Coastal Commission has established them for the moment and we will subsequently see what transpires; whether we will be going to court and in negotiations. Mayor Pattinson inquired why it was felt that the County should be the ' lead-agency' , to which Assemblyman Mangers answered that he believed the Coastal Commission had felt that the County had the appropriate resources and, unlike the City, had demon- strated an interest in making purchases in the area. Perhaps he stated, resources, had been a key factor plus the considerable task ahead for the City regarding the plans for its territory exclusive of the Bolsa Chica. The Planning Director stated that the local coastal plan did include addressing the Bolsa Chica, even though it was not part of the City's incorporated territory and that the Coastal Commission had excluded that from the work program, as being something they did not want the City to be involved in as the ' lead-agency' . In his opinion, the rationale of the Coastal Commission was that as a regional resource, it could more appropriately be dealt with by County government, rather than City government. Assemblyman Mangers spoke of the tidelands in general. He emphasized that he does not have a preconceived mind set on the recreational uses or people-oriented uses of the buffer zone, but would like to see as much of the area as is practical to preserve and restore to its natural tideland state. Assemblyman Mangers stated that he was convinced that the County's plan which proposed a linkup to the City park and a proliferated trail system and the holding out of the possibility of some kind of passive, people-oriented recreation back in the buffer zone, has great potential. He stated that these plans enveloped considerable time and pro- bably would not be developed during Council's terms of office; he would not like to see the debate boil down to who wants a marina there, or a "Mission Bays' a campground, etc. Mayor Pattinson inquired just what the minimal financial gain to the City would be in tax revenue, to which the Planning Director replied that it would be in the vicinity of $195,000 per annum. The Planning Director stated that the City's plan is projected over 18 months, as long as the County can keep up with it. Further discussion was held on the revenue to the City. ,In conclusion, Assemblyman Mangers stated that the choice the City Council was facing was partial annexation, full annexation or no annexation and he was strong- ly in favor of the latter. Mayor Pattinson thanked Assemblyman Mangers for his presentation and announced that there would be a recess for the purpose of meeting in Executive Session. Page #14 - Council Minutes - 12/ L2/77 RESOLUTION NO. 4564 - ADOPTED - CHANGE OF STREET NAME - "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY �} COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PROVIDING FOR CHANGE OF STREET NAME FROM PRODAN STREET TO PRODAN DRIVE." RESOLUTION NO. 4568 - ADOPTED - SALE OF SURPLUS PROPERTY - "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SURPLUS AND STATING ITS INTENTION TO SELL SUCH SURPLUS PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE VICINITY OF MCFADDEN AND SUGAR AVENUES." RESOLUTION NO. 4570 - ADOPTED - JUVENILE COURT LAW - "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ENDORSING REVISION OF THE JUVENILE COURT LAW." BOLSA CHICA ANNEXATION - NO ACTION TO BE TAKEN BY CITY The City Clerk presented a communication from the Planning Department submitting alternatives of full vs. partial annexation of the Bolsa Chica, together with the feasibility of placing the matter on the April 1978 ballot. The Assistant City Administrator announced that Wayne Clarke, from Supervisor Schmit's office, and Bob Fisher from the Environmental Management Agency and Project Coordinator for the Regional Park were present to respond to any questions that Council might have on the matter. Councilwoman Wieder stated that she was not present at the earlier meeting on the Bolsa Chica and referred to the recommended.-alternatives submitted to Council. She expressed interest in the suggestion of a publicite poll and inquired whether it had been discussed. Assemblyman Mangers addressed Council and the audience and stated that he had seen the' alternatives but that they had not been discussed at the earlier meeting because it was his recommendation that Council take .no action on annexation at this time. He gave reasons why he believed a publicite poll to be unnecessary and the disadvantages in having one. Assemblyman Mangers reiterated his earlier comments on the Bolsa Chica; the Coastal Commission has made some decisions as to who will take over the lead in preparing the local plan for the Bolsa Chica; it appears the City and the County will take approxiamately 18 months to two years to complete those,plans; it is clear that the negotiations over the sale of the land will take that long or longer, and if the only benefit to the City is the minimal tax revenue to be realized by annexation, it was his opinion, there is no reason to take any action on annexation at this time. Councilwoman Wieder discussed another alternative, that of taking a poll with a professional opinion survey, to which Assemblyman Mangers responded. On motion by Gibbs, second Shenkman, Council directed that no action be taken at this time on the annexation of the Bolsa Chica. Discussion was held between Council on the matter and the question of annexing' the Bolsa Chica or taking no action at this time. At this time, 'a vote was taken on the motion made by Gibbs, second Shenkman, as follows: AYES: Bartlett, Coen, Gibbs, Siebert, Shenkman NOES: Wieder, Pattinson � ( ABSENT: None Page #20 - Council Minutes - 7/3/78 on for so long. - Councilman Thomas suggested that the ordinance be enforced firstly by warnings for a period of perhaps 90 days, after which violators could be ticketed. n Considerable discussion was held between Council on the matter following which the City Attorney suggested that the ordinance be adopted as .a regular, ordinance. The Clerk was directed to give Ordinance No. 2294 a first reading "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY. ADDING THERETO SECTION 10.40.125 PERTAINING TO THE PARKING OF VEHICLES FOR SALE. " On motion by MacAllister,: second Thomas, Council �waived : further reading of Ordinance No. 2294. The motion carried unanimously. ; It was determined that planning and police personnel would also issue warning notices to the vehicles involved. ORDINANCE NO 2295 = TABLED - GENERAL PARKI14G REGULATIONS The Clerk presented Ordinance No. 2295 for Council 's consideration - "AN ORDI14AIlCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING SECTION 10.40.230 PERTAINING TO GENERAL PARKING REGULA- TIONS. Mayor Shenkman stated that he was opposed to the Ordinance. Councilman Mandic did not believe that such an ordinance could be successfully enforced. On motion by Pattinson, second MacAllister, Council tabled any action pertaining to Ordinance No. 2295 at this time. : The motion .carried, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Pattinson; Thomas, MacAllister,; Bailey, Mandic, Siebert, Shenkman NOES: None •ABSENT: None , EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION - EXPANSION TO BE EXPLORED The Clerk presented a communication from Thomas Nelson, Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission requesting that the commission be expanded by an additional two members. Mayor Shenkman stated his belief that another two members on the commission was in order. He directed the City Administrator to give applications for membership to Council- men Thomas and Siebert, who in turn would bring back recommendations and .facts, on the E.E.O.C. MEADOWLARK AIRPORT COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - LIAISON OFFICERS APPOINTED The Clerk presented a communication from Mayor Shenkman pertaining to the Meadowlark Airport Committee appointments and stating that telephone calls from both residents and pilots had been received requesting that the Committee be reactivated. He suggested that Council- woman Bailey and Councilman MacAllister be appointed to reactivate the Meadowlark Airport Committee and report back to Council their findings. ABSENCE FROM COUNCIL MEETINGS - APPROVED Councilman MacAllister requested, and was granted, permission to be absent from Council meetings held during the last two weeks of July and the first two weeks of August. ANNEXATION OF BOLSA CHICA - PROPOSAL REJECTLD A motion was made by Thomas, seconded by Pattinson, to direct the City Administrator to make preparation for implementing the Bolsa Chica annexation to the City. Councilwoman Bailey stated that she would not favor such a motion at this time and would need to consider �.r Page #21 - Council Minutes - 7/3/78 public input on the matter. Councilman MacAllister concurred with Councilwoman ryy;. Bailey. Discussion was held on the matter following which, Councilman Thomas withdrew his motion and Councilman Pattinson withdrew his second to the motion. A motion was made by Pattinson, seconded by Siebert, to ask the Planning Director and City Administrator to start proceedings for the annexation of Bolsa Chica to the City. The motion failed by the following vote: AYES: Pattinson, MacAllister, Siebert NOES: Thomas, Bailey, Mandic, Shenkman ABSENT: None OIL DRILLING AND REACTIVATION PERMITS - TO BE REVIEWED BY COUNCIL A motion was made by Thomas, seconded by Siebert, that the oil drilling and reacti- vation permits for the next six months be brought before the City Council . Councilman Pattinson stated that he was not in favor of the motion. The motion failed by the following vote: AYES: Thomas, Siebert NOES: Pattinson, MacAlli-ster, Bailey, Mandic, Shenkman ABSENT: None .y INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS x'.t Councilwoman Bailey stated that she would like to adopt recommendations of the Investigative Committee as soon as possible so that the Fact Finding Committee ' can be formed. Councilman MacAllister stated his belief that the Investigative Committee had been organized according to Council 's recommendations. Councilman Pattinson stated that he did not feel comfortable with the present arrangement and made various suggestions to Council . A motion was made by Bailey, seconded by Siebert, to adopt guidelines submitted by the Investigative Committee as set forth in the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee Minutes dated June 27, 1978 in order to form the Committee to hear citizens ' complaints. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MacAllister, Bailey, Mandic, Siebert NOES: Pattinson, Thomas, Shenkman ABSENT: [lone Mayor Shenkman directed Council members to make an effort to submit the names of their nominees for the Investigative Committee to the City Administrator by Friday, July 11 , 1978. FIFTH YEAR HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DLVELOPMENT CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE - APPOINTMENTS APPROVED The Clerk presented a communication from the Planning Department recommending appointments to the Fifth Year Housing and Community Development Citizen's Committee. ' Page 11 - Council Minutes - 4/16/79 9r j L, Following discussion, the motion carried unanimously. 3' 'Richard Barnard, Administration, informed Council of the administrative public '4 .Jearing to be held in May to obtain citizen input relative to expending Revenue Sharing Funds. {� II REAL ESTATE LEASE CONSULTANT - POLLYEA & ASSOC SELECTED - LEASE TO BE PREPARED .' The City Clerk presented a communication from the City Administrator recommending � F that Council approve the selection of Charles J. Pollyea & Associates as the City's ,,`,(Teal estate lease consultant. On April 2, 1979 the Council had voted to table this "item. r y'; A motion was made by Pattinson, seconded by Thomas to take the matter off the table. � `The motion carried by the following vote: ""'AYES: Pattinson, Thomas, MacAllister, Bailey, Yoder 'NOES: Mandic ABSENT: None A motion was made by Pattinson, seconded by Thomas to approve the selection of ,• �, i:Charles J. Pollyea & Associates as the City' s real estate lease consultant and direct s ,,'-, the City Attorney to prepare an agreement for presentation to Council . C-ouncilwoman Bailey gave reasons why she opposed the motion stating that she believed `:• the City could perform the work in-house. Mayor MacAllister and Councilman Thomas Radii, P spoke in favor of employing a real estate lease consultant. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Pattinson, Thomas, MacAllister, Yoder NOES: Mandic, Bailey ,s ABSENT: None ,COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE BOLSA CHICA - DEFERRED . 'aThe City Clerk presented a communication from the Acting Planning Director regarding the impact of doing a comprehensive plan of the Bolsa Chica prior to prezoning. This . .., ' matter had been deferred from the April 2, 1979 meeting. Tom Moseley, Administration, presented a report regarding the various aspects of pre- .paring a comprehensive plan. ,.:Discussion was held by Council . eA motion was made by Pattinson, seconded by MacAllister, that the Bolsa Chica be ;ail'I prezoned LUD (Limited Use District) and that annexation be pursued immediately. ' Further discussion was held by Council . ..,."Shirley Dettloff representing Assemblyman Mangers office, addressed Council and stated that the County desired that the City retain its present position as the County is sµ• in negotiations with the State. ;,µ#,Discussion was held by Council . Councilwoman Bailey stated the reasons why she believed F .: : this action consititued a reconsideration of their previous action and requested a h � , legal opinion from the Deputy, City Attorney. Discussion was held between the Council and Deputy City Attorney. ; Page #12 - Council M, -es 4/16/79 , l I; y ' ;ill� A motion was made by Bailey, seconded by Mandic to table the matter. The motion failed by the following tie vote: AYES: Mandic, Bailey, Yoder NOES: Pattinson, Thomas, MacAllister � j ABSENT: None I � The vote on the motion made by Pattinson, seconded by MacAllister, failed by the following tie vote: ` C + ' AYES: Pattinson, Thomas, MacAllister NOES: Mandic, Bailey, Yoder ABSENT: None ' Councilman Pattinson requested that the subject of the Comprehensive Plan for the Bolsa Chica be placed under his "New Business" items of the next agenda. SEACLIFF PHASE IV - 38TH STREET - CONDITIONS #3 & #7 The City Administrator presented a communication regarding Seacliff IV - 38th Street, Condition #3 of Tentative Tracts 10067, 10068 and 10069 and Condition #7 of Tentative Parcel Map #78-37 which Council had requested staff to review and report for any recommended changes. Tom Moseley, Administration, referred to a wall aerial photograph of the area. He informed Council of the rights-of-way which would have to be dedicated relative ;k ? to 38th Street and Palm Avenue to insure that no parcel is landlocked. He stated that the rights-of-way dedication do not relate to Conditions #3 or #7, but were added as they were inadvertently omitted. He reported on the need for emergency access and the fact that the improved extension of Garfield Avenue was on private property. Councilman Mandic stated that he believed this matter should go before the Planning Commission if there is new information. Considerable discussion was held by Council . A motion was made by Yoder, seconded by Thomas, that Council accept and impose Recommendation No. 1 and parts of Al and A2 of Recommendation No. 2, as presented in RCA 79-27. The motion carried by the following vote: r 'a ; AYES: Pattinson, MacAllister, Thomas, Yoder ; i NOES: Bailey ABSENT: None r 3;� ABSTAIN: Mandic OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS AT 18811 CRYSTAL STREET The City Administrator informed Council that they had been provided with a communi- cation dated April 11 , 1979 from the Department of Public Works responding to the j request made at the April 2, 1979 meeting, from a representative of -Ecology Tire ii Company to postpone installation of street imrpovements on property located at the �. southwest corner of Crystal Street and Ernest Avenue, when they expand their business. Discussion was held between the Council , staff and Mr. Ramsey, representative of Ecology Tire Company. i A motion was made by Bailey, seconded by Mandic, to waive the bond or cash deposit, contingent upon obtaining a lien on the property. i The Planning Director reported on the matter. Following discussion, the motion was withdrawn, and the Council directed that the City Administrator and the, Acting Planning Director meet with Mr. Ramsey to reach a solution on the matter. `I PREGNANCY/BLUE CROSS AND DISABILITY AMENDMENT - FUNDS AUTHORIZED The City Administrator brought Council 's attention to a communication from the Personnel Director dated April 10, 1979 regarding recent legislation requiring an amendment to the existing Blue Cross and Long Term Disability Plan which would include pregnancy coverage effective April 29, 1979. 1 ; Page #15 - Council Minutes - 5/21/79 BOLSA CHICA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - MOTION TO RESCIND - FAILED I' i u Councilman Pattinson stated he had asked that the matter of the Bolsa Chica Comprehen- sive Plan be brought back before the Council due to the costs which the City would incur. He asked Council to reconsider the matter. Councilman Mandic stated he believed the direction given had been that staff work in cooperation with the County, not prepare their own study. . � F ' The Acting Planning Director stated the direction given on March 5, 1979 was to pre- 1. pare a comprehensive plan but then to work in concert with the County. Councilman N" Mandic asked if there was a budget figure projected if they can work in concert with the County. Acting Planning Director Palin responded that work program or cost g analysis had not been projected at this time as it is not known yet what form the intergovermental task force is -'going to take, what the scope of the duties will be �! and what time will be devoted to, the program. He believed that for the City to pre- pare a comprehensive plan, it would require the position of a planner and a half from six to nine months to complete the work which would cost $45,000 to $60,000. Mayor MacAllister clarified the matter stating there were two different actions that Council had taken in the last several meetings. One was a direction to staff to do a comprehensive plan. Then staff was directed to work with the County and Supervisor Wieder's office. Councilwoman Finley stated reasons why she believed a comprehensive plan was necessary. , Councilwoman Bailey stated reasons why she believed Council 's direction to prepare a comprehensive plan should not be changed. A motion was made by Pattinson, seconded by MacAllister that the City on its own, not pursue a comprehensive plan of the Bolsa Chica and that $60,000 not be spent ! on a comprehensive plan which the County is doing. Mayor MacAllister stated that he favored the motion as he did not believe that � � { direction should have been given staff to do a comprehensive plan on land the a ' y � City does not currently own and the Local Coastal Commission and the County is ;1 �a pre-empting the City's comprehensive plan. Councilwoman Finley stated she saw no reason to negate the past action taken by Counci l . !fig Mayor MacAllister asked staff what their understanding of the direction given '! them on the matter was and their time schedule. The Acting Planning Director stated work would not be started on the comprehensive plan until the fiscal impact model was completed. He stated he understood direction ' s given staff was to do an individual comprehensive plan and to use that plan to help influence what happens in the Bolsa Chica. !, I The motion failed by the following vote: AYES: Pattinson, MacAllister NOES: Thomas , Mandic, Bailey, Yoder, Finley ABSENT: None �<� CAr 6P 4� Ec CITY F dlI TINGTOEACH a INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATI(AN 28 1982 �Jl I�NIT M(TfIN Rf.I(H CITY OF H�U�NpTINGTON GEACII I I Am INISWRIIT�I 10RCEDirector To Charles W. Thompson From James City Administrator Develo me erv� �v✓ BOLSA CHICA Janua y 28 1982 St_ihject Date y On January 27 , 1982 , Mayor Finley, Councilwoman Bailey, and staff met with Jim Ragan, consultant for the County Environmental Management Agency, to discuss the Bolsa Chica Specific Plan. Many government agencies, public groups , and private organizations have roles to play in developing and implementing the Specific Plan. Mr . Ragan was con- tracted to recommend an interagency coordination and public involvement program to assure development of a Specific Plan consistent with the Coastal Act and local planning policies . The consultant has recommended using the authorization under the Coastal Zone Management Act to facilitate intergovernmental coordination and public involvement. The Act provides for the use of Special Area Man- agement Plans (SAMP) , a concept for making collaborative planning deci- sions for natural resource protection and coastal-dependent economic growth. The program contains five basic elements : 1 . Issues of greater than local interest can be grouped into three categories : "salt marsh restoration, public recreation, and engin- eering and financing. The County of Orange will present working papers for each of these categories - papers which will present and analyze the technical and political options and issues to be re- solved. These working papers will go through several iterations , each more detailed and focused depending on the discussion of the participants . 2 . The County of Orange will convene a Task Force of representatives from Federal, state, and local agencies with regulatory, ownership, management, development, or major review and comment functions. The main function of the Task Force will be to try to develop and agree on detailed and comprehensive policies, standards , and criteria to guide public and private uses of Bolsa Chica lands and waters . 3 . The County of Orange will convene three Technical Committees to discuss and provide input to the technical studies . There will be one committee for each of the working paper categories : salt marsh restoration, public recreation, and engineering and financing. The members will be professionals designated by Task Force members and others . 4 . The County of Orange will maintain an Advisory Committee of repre- sentatives of agencies not members of the Task Force, public groups , and other people wishing to participate. The Advisory Committee will be a forum for keeping people informed of planning progress and for the full review, discussion, and comment on the planning issues and conflicts . I Bolsa Chica January 28 , 1982 Page 2 5. The County of Orange will engage an independent party, with no standing in or bias toward any solution, to facilitate the pro- gram. The facilitator will help ensure that all participants are treated equally, have a full chance to make their views known, will be able to resolve conflicts (where possible) , and have their comemnts fully recorded, reported, and considered. The January 27 meeting focused on the Interagency Task Force and Technical Committees (roles and responsibilities attached) . The City of Huntington Beach has been designated as one of the representative agencies on the Task Force. Mr. Ragan indicated that the Task Force will hold its first meeting on February 16 , 1982 , and has requested that the City Council appoint one of its members as representative and another as alternate. I recommend that this be done at the City Council ' s February 1 meeting. JWP:CC:df Attachment INTERArCUICY C;O;a1^kVINATi NON AND PUB C IPdVOYN-t:1111EN ' The goal of the interagency coordination and public involvement program is to ensure early and timely guidahce from agencies and public groups to develop an. LCP and necessary implementing actions, "�;hic;h are consistent with .all laws, public policies, and regulations, and which try to accommodate competing public interests. A key ingredient to a success- ful program is a clear stritement and agreement on how the program will operate: in this case, what the program groups- arc expected and not expected to. do. 'I'h.is agreement hel fis avoid later debilitatinlg conflicts about .the process. lh this section we propose a charter for .the Task Force, the Technical Committees, and the advisory Committee. 7`lre chart on page 12 displays the proposed relationships among these groups i and between them and the County of Orange. The Task Forcle . Purpose. The purpose of the ,interagency Task Force is to ensure the timey consideration and resolution of issues of greater~ than local interest in L'olsa Chica planning. Functions. j 1. To examine and discuss the alternatives considered and the assumptions which went into Orange County's selection of the j LCP conceptual plan. 2. To develop detailed and comprehensive policies, standards, and criteria to guide public and private uses of l.,olsa Chica lands j and waters--to be -reOceted in the LCP, other plannky docu-ment, and ncccssni-v irnplenrcnting Fictions. In the event that there rare (jiffcrences Wt cannot be resolved, the differences will be cicari,; articulated: J 3. To give guidance on Fcderal EIS rand state, environmental impact report (EIR) policies, standards, and criteria to ensure that they are consistent with all applicAde haws, policies, and regulations. 4. To be �forurn for trying to resolve interagency conflicts. Rlcnabcrs. ENIA (Chair),. EPP" the Corps of L:ngineers, TIVS, National marine hishcrics Service, California Co:astnl Commission, State lands Commission, California Department_ of NO and Game, C alifornirr Depart- mcnt of Parks and Recreation, California Department of Transportation, 11 ` 0R IG;V] 17AT I ON ��_-o..;.-��>�=.��>�.';�.:.:sv'-- ���-�,.:..—��.-_,;s:.-�=��s�_��,a:—�-gc;-,�-:-:=erti�_._:�z..,._ .-�-�-��=_s�� -t.=�.�zs�-��•��-'�,.---�^r-�,e.e�^c�;��G�r��=r�.� f 1 -f it f�i! �-j i) CV StI„ 1::?1.S0Iz5 -,-•. _ UCGIS 1,�1 7 T 7 d•--� _ (� T {,0�..`.. 1'f�� {'. �I.:l�+iiliSlA i.iJ:.f ,1�:.��Vi'i zd:Ya�I�ys:'yam.-..'`"._C✓.'�'o:_..:iw_�-._ram.-ems IN i �t � i; � 2 TECIIANICA1, CO';j;.;1'171`1 ES 3 t'�S1t F0 i1Cli E1iA (Chair) Environmental Protection CiLL U r`� ' AD`-UCOItY C07.1',M'ITfEE t :1Dency € L` =;--_—A=-•y A os de Botsa Chica . Corps of Engineers F E Sierra Club Fish �t t'r ildlife Service, . t 13olsa Chica lanco:,;ners tiational `.Iar,ne Fisheries Service -�- - ( Cal. �.Ia 'a \'avi ion Conf: rine Citizens for Clean V;ater California Coastal Comm. f State Lands Ocean Access Com fission f Cal. li�irine Parla Harbors Dept. of Fish & Game GI rm,ce tI Assn. <. Dept. of Parks Recreation Dept. of Boating u Water :ays Dept. of Z'rar?SUCI'tation f: U.S. .Coast Guard City of Hun (-ton Beach t c •- r. �a liomcos,:ner associations .� . Others �nr__.7 T 7 ' y - v t and the City of Huntington Deich. The members should be persons who can present and discuss the policies of these agencies (as contrasted with people who concentrate mainly on technical planning aspects—who will participate on tile 'Technical Committees). T i-k, Forcc Associnte. The mtijor 4indowner, Sir;nnl 1,rundmark. j'dhile the cornlrany does not have 'the same public rasponsibilitics as the members and therefol'e is not a nicrnbcr itself, Signal has a major stake in "Ind influence on T."Isk Force deliberations since it can resist proposed land uses which it does not find in its interest. Task Force Focus. The T1 )sk Foi'ce will deal mainly with the silo- cessive ituotion: of Uolsa Chien working papers on salt marsh restoration, public r'ccreatlon, and eia_,J a_eerlwr and fimincing. Task ]Force Opcl'ntiorl:;. 1. The Task Force will meet monthly through the February 1982; after an April meeting, it will meet approtimatcly once every three months through initiation of implementing tictions (C.g., permit applications). 2. -All meetings will be publiCIZCd and open to the public. The . public will have the opportunity to make presentations to the Ta k Force. 3. 1�.11A will prepare the ngcridn for till meetings and chair than. An independent facilitator will conduct all discussions. 4. No votes will be taken.. The moctings arc n forum for con- sideration and resolution of issues, and not for making group re.comillcndatioils or cornnaitting the mcnlbcrs to p-u'ticular positions. 5. All RaCeting COinrnentS will be SUmnini,il.ed before the gl'oup on an easel plad. J Tasl< Force SubgIoup"'. From time to time issues may concern only some of the Task force members. Subgroups of 'appi-oprinte membel's of the 'Task Porcc may .be formed to deal with those issues. Results of these subgroup sessions will .be reported back to the Task Ponce. I risk _F_or .l rm�ce nfoit ion. Ai;cnd<is, workin;r p,lper rind din Jts, other Id backgrou niratcri il wilt i>c distributed to the T;.isk force mernbers and inter.estcd publics prior to each meeting. Sunlnl"lrics of crick naeetinr will be prep,,wCd, hi[,;hlil;htiri senses of ngrccment Lind disiigrecment. The summaries will be distributed to Task l;once nacmhers trnd other persons interested in the SAM1' process for l;olsn Chico such as concerncd Con- gressmen .and st,lte legislators, hend(luarters officials of the member Fed- eral _agencies, and members of the Advisory Committee. 13 r r Relationship to other elements of the intcragency_� coordination and publicinvo(vcnient_prol r�irn. Tic res---ilts of TasF horcc�d�cTi�;orations will guide Orange County's JLCP planning and any permit applications by the landowners. 'TIfe written results will accompany planning .and permit documents for review by approval zrl-encics. 1'hc rcwrlts of Task 1'orcc mectings will also l;uide deliberations by the tierce Technical Committees and will be presented to the ,Advisory Comrnittec.. The Technical Commit>teics The Committees. 'There will be three: on salt marsh restoration, public_recrention, and cn ineering and financing. 1'urposc. The purpose of the 'Technical Committee, is to e5jure that the technical studies in each area satisfy the requirements of all laws, regulations, and profcssioiml criteria. Functions. _ 1. To examine and discuss the technical data and analysis which went ,into the Board of Supervisors' selection of the LCP con- ccptual plan. 2. To share other information, and analyses which the individual. members may have or know of. I 3. To give information on appropriate laws and regulations guiding the technical studies. I_ 4. To give information on and discuss professional criteria to { guide the studies. 5. To oversee the technical studies. 6. To develop tcchnically feasible options which conform to the policies, stancl;irc) , and criteria developed by the Task Force. 7. To be a forum for trying to resolve conflicts based on profes- sional differences. IVlcmhers. Professionals (ey,, scientists, engineers, economists, plan- hers) dcsip—lated by Task Force members and Advismy Committee. mem- bers. Technical Comi-nittee_Focus. ']'lie Technical Committees will deal mainly with tile ni e techcal portions or the Bolsa Chica working papers, including the backup informution and analysis which goes into each paper, 1'4 1. The Salt INMarsh _Restoration Technical Committee will address such su jccts ss productivity anc�livcssity, t}ic—}izibitat/species mix, the. mutual hetrcfit potential (compatibility), buffer con- _ cepts, tidal flu:=hinr; water duality, oil production considerations, circulation and public access, land planning, habitat manage- mcnt, and compatibility with l marina. - i 2. The Public Recreation Technical Committcc Will [vainly address boating-oricntcci recreation--the marina and related visitor- serving facilities. It will also loot: at a linear park from n recreation use point of view. The committee will study such subjects as the number and perccnUq,,e distribution of boat slips, the -size rind acreage requirements for support facilities, Wind patterns, tidal flows, access channels, nrrvif,ntion criteria, bench recreation considerations, the market' for visitor-serving facilities, the type and numbcr of such facilities, the stzc and acreage requirembnts, the regiomil rind local linkat,,es for a linear regional park, its location, and the acreage required: 3. The I_r inccring and Financial Technical Committee will address such subjects as earthquake hazards, sc,Fw ter intrusion, the Huntington Harbor connection channel, .ocean access design, navigation critcr,ir[ the littoral sand transport I>roccss flood control Considcrrltioils! bridge considerations, tidal flows, artcr- ial roadways; collector road,,vays, .bridgc loci.itions, .coastr_11 access; primary water systems, primary sewer systems, cots, and .financing. Technical Committee Operations. 1. _ Each Technical Committee will meet monthly through the spring of 1982, and as needed thereafter as the EIS/EIR is being prepared. 2. All meetings will .be publicized and open to the public. The public will have the opportunity to present technical info"rma- tion to Cach Tcchnical .Colirmittce. 3. EMA will prepare the agenda for all meetings and chair them. An independent facilitator will conduct all to ensure that all information is presented and considered in an orderly and efficient nuInner. 4. No votes will be taken. The meetings rue, a forum for con- sidcrritiori and rc<<elutiOn of technical i:,sucs, and not for rnak- ing group recommendations or committing the members to particular positions. i � ' f� 5. All meeting comments. will be summarized before the group on an easel pad. Technical Committee Subgroups. From time to time issues may concern only. some of the 'Technical Committee members. Informal. sub-. groups of appropriate members of the Technical Committee may be formed to deal with those issues so as not to demand, unneccessary time from the other members, Rcsults of these subgroup sessions will, be re- ported back to the 'Technical Corrrmittce. Technical Com_mittce_ Information. Agendas, working paper drafts, and other background material will be distributed to the. Technical Com- mittec members prior to each meeting. Summ<rrics of each meeting will be distributed to Technical Committee members, and 'Task Force members following cacti meeting. ' ticl-rtionship to other elcrnerats of the interrlgcncy coordination and public involvement The results ,of Technical Cornniittec delibcr- ations will I;uide 'Orange County's technical planning and any_ pern)it appli- cations bV the landowners. The results will be basic information for- Task FOrCC- discussions. The 'Task force will guide the work of the Tcchnical Committees, requesting issues -to be examined from a technical standpoint. Pic L1.(AVLn�ry CamRjittce Purpose. The purpose of the Advisory Committee is to give the broader public the opportunity to keep informed about and. comment on the planning studies. Punctions. 1. To receive information on the progress of the planning studies. 2. To discuss and comment on planning issues. J 3. To identify issues for 'the EIS/EIR (part of the scoping process). Members. All agencies, groups; and individuals interested in. the future of 1301sa Chica. Advisory Comnuttee .Focus. The Advisory Committee will deal mainly with the succcssiwe iterations of Bolsa. Chica working ps. Advisory Committec Operations. 1. The Advisory Committec will meet approximately once ,every three. months throur,,h initiation of implenicnting actions. 16 /i •�/ J'\. t!w• ,j^ / j'/ `•� / `/• •\•� r'�:�`.{',yam .�l"'-V�_l�r/� ,•+ �� `, `\ �, f porn / � �y'•' '�a.:. 'ram$- .. ; '•• � .. .. '���.. � � i 1g. r- '�:.a �•..�`.. 7.: i:.i:" m.•• � `ix,a�:,ri�%}'.�/C..,�sA,� - ( (.-� , ".` n . ji,e�,�Q°•LR�"" '^s(�`�%�71C', � �yi.. ,C'•. :. �..r.�..+r.r li° �C`�{�:s�°.°I` �.,r/�,. ..�� -...RF>_ �� 'k'1e. - 'V- �.f� '',' '-���w'u�i�+�A r wry w,•sue,.�.�w++'.yi �Yr.%: 4 : .`"\\`•> ., M-. / ( : . fiY _ ��+ �, •�•S��^i�flr,t;l rf `�i::_ �.s�' _f`• IXJ:.:_z�-';r-"�zi�'`;,. .�_ .,. L 5 i' ��>/ r!�'�` ;.f .Y , r?./� Al\tiY N �/�J��� //'!��` �I�•(z��r `r =' ' t' _ a J jEii am w 4.0­+w�r+�:. l' �\ r�� a�__� - =.C.> r•��-- -✓(; �T,�� ifs • �,., _- .._.___ ........... S'1' �` ,• ar �W-� OATE:o/M FEET: 0 400 Boo +200 ;000 2000 IIA D 79-104 huntington beach planning department staff 11port TO: City Council and Planning Commission FROM: Department of Development Services DATE: January 24 , 1979 SUBJECT: BOLSA CHICA PREZONING 1. 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: 1) Provide Staff with comments on prezoning alternatives. 2) Provide Staff with a general statement of intent which can be refined by Staff into one specific prezoning proposal . 2. 0 GENERAL INFORMATION: The joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission has been scheduled in order to present alternative prezoning proposals for Bolsa Chica. The joint meeting is a first step toward preparing a final prezoning proposal which will incorporate the concerns of City Council and Planning Commission members . The decision to prezone Bolsa Chica is a separate decision unto itself. Whether the City continues to pursue annexation or not is a decision which will be made later and will involve not only the City Council but also the landowners in Bolsa Chica and the Local Agency Formation Commission. Prezoning Bolsa Chica serves two specific purposes . First, it serves as a statement to all interested parties as to City intent in Bolsa Chica. Secondly, it safeguards against existing city code requirements that property without prezoning must enter the City with the low density residential district upon annexation. Finally, no distinction can be made between the fiscal impacts of the proposed prezoning alternatives without speculation on ultimate land uses . The City has not performed any planning for ultimate land uses. Therefore, the fiscal impact of each prezoning proposal is based on the assumption that Bolsa Chica upon annexation will remain undeveloped until a comprehensive plan has been prepared. As such, the fiscal impact of each prezoning alternative is equal and is as follows: 1 Fiscal Impact The City will incur yearly costs for the provision of services in the approximate amount of $65, 000. Tax revenues generated by the annexation would equal nearly $219, 000 per year. Of this, approx- imately $128 , 000 would come from the oil barrel tax, $22 , 500 from the storage tank fees for 45 storage tanks , and the remainder of $68, 500 would be in property tax revenues'. The City would realize a net positive revenue flow of approximately $154 , 000 per year. 3 . 0 SUMMARY OF ISSUES: Three alternative prezoning proposals are presented. Alternative I is an open space alternative. Alternative III is consistent with City planning efforts to date in Bolsa Chica. Alternative III is a compromise between Alternative I and II. 4 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: An Environmental impact report will be prepared on the proposed annexation and prezoning. 5 . 0 ANALYSIS: The analysis of the prezoning proposals is contained in Section 6 . 0 of the attached document Bolsa Chica Prezoning Alternatives. 6 . 0 RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff prefers Alternative II but has no other recommendation at this time. Respectfully submitted J mes W. Palin Acting Planninq Director attachments : 1) Bolsa Chica 'Prezoning Alternatives, January 1979 * f Signal , Landmark, Inc. 1� -.:iO Skypark, Circle -,e,California 92707 JAN ,,none: (714, 973-690J 181979 eirn R.ALLEN -CITY OF nuNTING1'O ares,aenf M!NiSTRATIVE QFF���M ^erel Counsel January 16 , 1979 City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Sir: This is to request that Signal Landmark, Inc. be permitted to make a presentation at the scheduled joint meeting of the City Council and the Planning Commission on January 29, 1979 at 7 p.m. It is our understanding that the second portion of the agenda for that evening is to be devoted to a discussion on the proposed annexation of the Bolsa Chica unincorporated territory within the Huntington Beach sphere of influence. We have previously met with Mayor Pattinson so that he could evaluate the appropriateness of our 20 minute, narrated, color-slide presentation; and he has suggested we should make it available for the January 29 meeting. Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly, Wm. R. Allen, Esquire Senior Vice President WRA/db cc : Mayor Ronald R. Pattinson Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator `J ono of 1 he Signal Companies °� i TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: TOM LIVENGOOD - PRESIDENT HOME COUNCIL ti SUBJECT: EIR 81-250 3.12 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION How can the County level of government make a decision on the devel- opment of the 1 ,609 acres of Bolsa Chica, that has such an impact on the City of Huntington Beach? Beach Blvd. within the City Limits in 1978, was experiencing aiddily average traffic in a 24 hour period as high as 57,000 vehicles. ALTERNATIVE NO. ONE Largest increase on Bolsa Chica and Ellis - no amount given. Generate 120,960 vehicle miles of travel per day. ALTERNATIVE NO. TWO Warner Ave. east of Edwards, 48,000 vehicles anticipated. Street can't handle capacity. Some motorists would use Slater and Ellis. The key phrase "The additional traffic would, however, incrementally increase traffic noise and potential safety concerns along these predominantly residential routes1°. Generate 365,390 vehicle miles of travel per day. ALTERNATE NO. THREE •Relocation of PCH. Bolsa Chica Street would carry an estimated 35,000 to 50,000 vehicles per day south of Warner Ave. - approximately the same as Beach Blvd. Bolsa Chica would have to be upgraded to 8 lanes. Traffic would be more than double than the existing traffic. Another quotable quote - "The combining of Warner Ave. traffic with other traffic projected to use Bolsa Chica St. and PCH both non-project and project would result in potential.jy substantial overloading of these roadways in the area". ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - CONT. Ellis could become a main a-rterialwith approval of County & City (a pre- dominantly residential route) . Warner and Ellis is projected to have 33,000 to 47,000 vehicles .- another Beach Blvd. l Alternate No. 3 would create 424,860 vehicle miles of travel per day. GALLONS OF GAS, FUMES, CARBON MONOXIDEL CREATED BY THE PROJECT Gallons Per Day Gallons Per Year Alternative #1 8,060 2,941 ,900 Alternative #2 24,360 8,89i ,400 Alternative #3 28,320 10,336,800 None of these alternatives can be acceptable to the residents of Huntington Beach. We don't need 3 or 4 Beach Blvds. crossing through residential areas of our community. The cost to a he taxpayers under these proposals is staggering, monetarily,. and environmentally. There is no freeway direct access to the Bolsa Chica, and any pro- posals must be under the reality of limited access of existing streets to reach freeways. The City of Huntington Beach should take immediate action to annex the Bolsa Chica, to that a plan can be developed that enhances the area for the residents of Huntington Beach, and the thousands of people that visit the area. � I a,+..sjca•I<.w -- CITY OF HUnTmGTOn BEACH DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUILDING DIVISION (714) 536-5241 PLANNING DIVISION (714) 536-5271 P. O. Box 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 TO: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator FROM: James W. Palin, Director DATE: February 7 , 1980 SUBJECT: STATUS OF THE BOLSA CHICA LCP TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE I The first meeting of the Bolsa Chica LCP Technical Advisory Committee was held on January 24 , 1980 . The purpose of this committee is to assist the Orange County Environmental Management Agency in preparing the Bolsa Chica segment of the County Local Coastal Plan. Council- woman Ruth Finley and staff member June Catalano were in attendance. The meeting included representatives from the Coastal Commission, the State Resources Agency, the Department of Fish and Game, CalTrans , Amigos de Bolsa Chica, and Signal Landmark. i This . first session was intended to familiarize the participants with the status of the County ' s efforts concerning the Bolsa Chica and the role of the committee.,. The committee agreed to meet monthly and to attempt to gain a consensus planning for the area by early summer. The County agreed to develop d prioritize a list of "issue areas" relating to the Bolsa Chica by e next meeting - March 6 . The intent of the committee is to utilize is list to organize its work program. V:JWC:df �L� CITY COUNCIL WETLANDS STUDY SESSION February 4 , 1980 I. Staff Presentation : Purpose of Session II . Coastal Commission Presentation : Role of Coastal Act and Commission; Policies related to Wetlands III . Fish and Game Presentation: Methodology Used in Mapping Wetlands in the City; State Resources , Policies Regarding Wetlands. IV. U.S . Corps of Engineers Presentation: 404 Permit Process; Mapping of Areas in the City. V. U.S . Fish and Wildlife Service Presentation: Re- view Role; Authority Related to Wetlands. VI . Questions VII . Council Discussion i� i �a REQUEST FOR. CITY COUNCIL ACTION ----' Submitted by James W. Palin Department Dept. of Development Services Date Prepared August 28 , 119 7 9 Backup Material Attached XM Yes No Subject US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS BOLSA CHICA/SUNSET HARBOR STUDY City Administrator's Comments A-''PRO VLD 7uY CITY COUNCii, Approve as recommended . L,4TIo ��f 2�CLERIC' Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions: qG t1 Q STATEMENTr OF ISSUE: /�' The Department of Development Services recently received a packet from Congressman Daniel Lungren concerning support for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sunset Harbor Study for the Bolsa Chica area. Included in this packet are communications from the State Resources Agency, Orange County Board of Supervisors, Assemblyman Dennis Mangers, the State Lands Commission, and the Department of Fish and Game, all supporting the continuation and completion of the Corps of Engineers study. The City of Huntington Beach has been asked to indicate whether it supports the continuation of the Sunset Harbor Study. RECOMMENDATION: The Department of Development Services recommends that the City Council indicate its support for the continuation of the Sunset Harbor Study via a letter to Congressman Lungren. ANALYSIS: The Army Corps of Engineers has had the authority for several years to conduct feasibility studies on alternatives for the Bolsa Chica area. While portions of the studies have been completed, no funds were appropriated for the 1979-80 fiscal year. Several state agencies have indicated their support for the continuation and completion of the Corps of Engineers studies, which reportedly can be finished in a period of three years. A total of $70,000 in federal funds may be Plo 3/79 Page 2 requested from next year's budget to initiate a numerical model study of tidal circulation and its effects on the salt marsh. The information provided by these continuing studies will assist the City and County in planning the Bolsa Chica area at no cost to the City. The City should indicate its support for these studies to assist Congressman Lungren in securing federal appropriations for their continuance and completion. FUNDING SOURCE: Additional studies will be funded by the Federal Government. ALTERNATE ACTION: Do not indicate support for the Corps of Engineers studies. Respectfully submitted, O ames W. Palin, Director Department of Development Services JWP:BH:df Attachment: Packet from Congressman Lungren DANIEL E. LUNGREN MMITTEES: 34TH DISTRICT,CALIFORNIA DICIARY SUBCOMMITTEES: ROOM 1313 CRIMINAL JUSTICE LON WORTH HOUSE Or WASNNGTTON,DC'C 205115 DING Congremq of the Uniteb �ta�te� IM MINTERN TIONA LA AND INTERNATIONAL LAW (202)225-2415 3bouge of Reproentatibez SELECT COMMITTEE DISTRICT OFFICE: HuMn' N BMH ON AGING 5514 .CALIFORNIAN DR NING��77DEP fL71��TMENT Ula4ington �.C. 20515 LONG 5514 ITTONORSUBCOMMITTEES: B�C (213)594-9761 HUMAN SERVICES (� HOUSING AND 0 1979 August 15, 19 7 9 CONSUMER INTERESTS P. 0. Box 190 Hundn&n Beach, Calif. 92648 Mayor Don MacAllister City of Huntington Beach P .O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mayor MacAllister: This is to inform you that I have been requested to seek federal funds to continue the Army Corps of Engineers Sunset Harbor Study in the Bolsa Chica area. The attached communications indicate a wide variety of support to continue the study. It appears that the results of the study would be of use in planning efforts, among other things. As you may know,the Army Corps has had the authority for some years to conduct studies on alternatives for the Bolsa Chica area. They have completed a portion of the studies , but they did not request funds in FY 1979 or FY 1980 . Reportedly, the study can be completed in a period of about three years . If funds were to be provided in the next available budget request, the Corps would probably be able to utilize about $70, 000 to initiate a "numerical model study of tidal circulation and its effect on the salt marsh, " and to update their previous study efforts . I would appreciate knowing whether the City of Huntington Beach is interested in having the Corps study completed. If the City supports efforts to continue the study or if there are any other comments , please forward them to my District Office by September 7 , 1979 . Thank you for your continuing cooperation in this and other matters of mutual interest. C- i�rs. rely, ,Daniel Lungren ( Memo of Congress attch: cc: See attached �qi�Q� ftCFf - 2 - rN r, August 15 , 1979 Aiir. 20 Mayor MacAllister 1_ 79 P. 0• Oox 190 Honorable John G. Schmitz ern. Calif. 92648 Senator, Thirty-sixth District California State Legislature 4600 Campus Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 Honorable Dennis Mangers Assemblyman Seventy-third District California State Legislature 16371 Beach Boulevard, Suite 221 Huntington Beach, California 92647 Honorable Harriet M. Wieder Supervisor, Second District County of Orange P.O. Box 687 Santa Ana, California 92701 Col. Gwynn Teague U.S . Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District P.O. Box 2711 Los Angeles, California 90053 CALI 10 It r.'I A SA.I .......... ...... • PoV,nnM Water 0­iho/ and Gn-v Inc-cy Re'O.J.C.5 Col.'.17( w,gat.on and Devolvi—ont Con­..s-..on of P&,k N and 1Z.cre oit,on of Wnter Fteio.,ces • THE RESOUPCES AGENCY OF CALIFORNIA SACRANIENTO, CALIFORNIA MAR y 1.970 Colonel I-Tugh G. Robinson District Engineer Los Angeles District Corps of Engineers P. 0. Box 2711 Los Angeles, California 90053 ..Dear Colonel Robinson: .,.Please be assured the Resources Agency supports the Bolsa Chica study of alternatives to be completed as soon as possible. It *is understood the study shall consider both navigational and non-navigational alternatives. Since it is imperative these alternatives be presented in public hearings at the earliest opportunity, I am requesting the Department of Fish and Game and the Department of Navigation and Ocean Development to assist -you in every way possible. To provide for this assistance, it would be of some benefit to have from you at this time estimated dates for completion of studies and public hearings. • Sincerely, I J.UZY D. i 0:7,,Nso Huey D.. Johnson Secretary for Resources cc: M. Mercado E. C. Fullerton State Lands Division -' HUNTINGTON BEACH INNING DVAMWENT i 2 nifr. 2 0 1979 P. 0. BoxUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF I u.:tingtan Beach, Cali190 3 H f' 4l ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 5 July 25 , 1979 6 On motion of Supervisor Wieder, duly seconded and carried, the 7 following Resolution was adopted: 8 WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 79-586, this Board authorized the creation 9 of a Bolsa Chica Planning Task Force to develop a comprehensive, defiriitiv 101 plan for the Bolsa Chica area; and Ill WHEREAS, such a plan will consider the opportunity for developing 12i a new ocean connection to provide a navigable channel for a proposed 1311 public marina or enhanced tidal flushing for an expanded march habitat/ 14 � wildlife preserve; and 15 WHEREAS, Congress has authorized the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 161to undertake a feasibility study of a new ocean connection for these 17 purposes ; and 18I WHEREAS, this Board believes the work of the Bolsa Chica Planning 19ITask Force will be substantially aided by completion of the authorized 20 Cor,os of Engineers feasibility study. 21 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: i 22 ' 1 . The County of Orange is willing , to serve as a local sponsor of f .231the Corps of Engineers study of the feasibility -of creating a new ocean 24 connection for a public marina and/or expanded marsh habitat/wildlife 25 preserve. 26 I 2 . It is understood that such local sponsorship involves assistance 27 1to the Corps of Engineers in obtaining local input to the study and in 28 ' coordinating related planning activities , but does not involve a : jc ( Resolution No. 79-1140 lCounty Sponsorship/Army Corps of Engineers ' F oFi�-: _', i t-v St-udv 1. I commitment to the proposed marina or expanded wildlife preserve at this 2 Itime. 3 3. The Director of EMA is directed to transmit this resolution to 4 the Corps of Engineers . and other interested parties. 5 �I 6 7 91 , 10 11 12 131 - 14 15 W 16 ` u z 0 17 18 AYES : SUPERVISORS HARRIETT M. WIEDER, PHILIP L. ANTHONY, EDISON W. � MILLER, RALPH B. CLARK and THOMAS F. RILEY 19 NOES: SUPERVISORS NONE 20 ABSENT: SUPERVISORS NONE 21 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) i ss. j 22 COUNTY OF ORANGE ) �3 I, JUf,!E ALE]XANDER, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted h_;~ � 24 the said Board at a regular meeting thereof held on the .� . Jul Y 19 79 and passed by a unanimous vote of said. 25 = I IN WME'RMF, I have hereunto set my hand an3 seal this 25th. clay of 26 July 19 79 . `r 27 u�r is t 1 JI VE ALA kI Ti-ER j 28 Clerk of th? Board of Supervisors of } Oranq-a, County .� I 2. i ' ram, - • COMMITTEE{: HEALTH _C 1 1J RULES EDUCATION SU{COMMITTEE{I EDUCATIONAL REI011M ■(/'/■,�7'1/ +�. ����...rrr w MENTAL HEALTH AND ■wCwwM[MiD•DDw[[• ■ , I � �r ■( ■, DEV[OMMITTEE N AoI t1T1[{ ■TAT[CA►I TOL Af,f.[M{LV COMMITTEE T[[ON AOING SAC11AM[NTO, CA {Tel• C I{1S) •45•{277 "V-TAICT VW/ICE 1e 371 B[ACN BOUL[VAIID _ SUIT[22' H UNTIN714 BEACH,CA 112ea7 (7u) eae.tte• DENNIS MANGERS ASSEMBLYMAN, SEVENTY-THIRD DISTRICT HUNTINGTON.BEACH,COSTA ME{A, FOUNTAIN VALLEY. e EAL BEACH.ROSSMOOII. SUNSET BEACH AND SU"FSIDE August 7, 1979 Mr-'.,Gwynn 'A: :Teague.; COl.oneI 'L-E. HUNTINQTON PAN Di stri ct. Engi veer PLANNING DEPARTMENT Department_.of.the Amy P.O. Box 2711 1, i, 107,9 Los Angeles, Ca. 90053 P. O. Box 19U Dear Colonel Teague: IJ:::tincton Cezch, c�!ir. "GAD As the State Assemblyman for the 73rd Assembly District, which includes' Anaheim Bay, Sunset, Surfside and Bolsa Chica areas, I wish to communicate my strong support for continuation of the Corp of Engineers' Sunset Harbor- Bolsa Chica study in Orange County, California. It is my understanding that no appropriation for fiscal year 1979-80 has been made and completion of the feasibility study for a new ocean connection by the Corp .is likely to remain at a standstill unless immediate action is taken. If you have any questions or concerns whatsoever regarding local thoughts on this matter, please don't hesitate to contact me so -that funding for the study can be expedited. Sincerely, DENNIS MANGERS Assemblymember 73rd District DM:swmd __cc: Dan Lungren; :Congressman, 34th District ✓ STATE Of CALIFORNIA EDMUND G. BROWN JP_, Go—mor i. STATE LANDS COMMISSION EXECUTIVE OFFICE 1807- 13th Street KENNETH CORY,Controller Sacramento,California 55814 MI KE CURB,Lieutenant Governor RICHARD T.SILBERMAN,Director o1 Finance WILLIAM F. NORTHROP Executive Officer 6i » HUNTINGMN BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT h 11 C j P. O. Box 190 August 1 , 1979 Hu;1tln" Beach, Calif, 92648 Honorable Daniel E. Lungren Member of Congress House of Representatives 1313 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D. C. 20515 Re: U. S . Army Corps Study - Bolsa Chica/Sunset Bay Area (Sunset Harbor) , California Dear Congressman Lungren: The purpose of this letter is to indicate the strong support of the California State Lands Commission for continua- tion- of the U. S . Army Corps of Engineers Study regarding a project to provide an ocean entrance or enhanced tidal flushing for an expanded marsh habitat/wildlife preserve at Bolsa Chica. As you are aware , Bolsa Chica is one of the few remaining coastal marshes in Southern California. Through a 1973 Settlement Agreement between the State Lands Commission and Signal Properties , Inc . , the California Department of Fish and Game has established an ecological re- serve at Bolsa Chica and has completed Phase I of a marsh restoration project . Further restoration work cannot proceed without additional tidal flushing of the area through develop- ment of a direct water connection between Bolsa Bay and the ocean. Indeed, the future of the recently restored marsh is threatened due to pollution problems unless better water circulation can be obtained. In addition to the 300 acres of land owned by the State at Bolsa Chica,, the State occupies 230 acres under a lease option agreement with Signal Properties , Inc . Under the lease option agreement, the State uses this property as a part of the Ecological Reserve without payment of rent and will receive title to the property at no cost , provided a J Honorable Daniel E. Lungren -2- August 1 , 1979 navigational ocean entrance system is constructed by 1987 . Construction of such a system , by that date requires immediate ,h -resumption of the U. S. Army Corps Study and its continuation to completion without further delay. Not only will the Corps Study permit the States continued use of the 230 acres , but it will also provide the necessary data concerning all alternative future uses of the Bolsa Chica area so that a fully informed decision can be made. All persons and agencies concerned about Bolsa Chica are in agreement that the Study should continue for this reason. It is therefore requested that the funding for the Study be restored at the earliest possible date. Cost for fiscal year 1980 is $70, 000 . Your support and assistance in this regard would be most appreciated. Cordially, .Kenneth Cory State Controller Chairman, State Lands Commission cc: See Attached 4 1 Honorable Daniel E. Lungren -3- August 1 , 1979, cc : Honorable John G+.• Schmitz Senator , Thirty-sixth District rf California State Legislature 4600 Campus Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 Honorable Dennis Mangers Assemblyman, Seventy-third District California State Legislature 16371 Beach Boulevard, Suite 211 Huntington Beach , California 92647 Honorable Harriet M. Wieder Supervisor , Second District County of Orange P. 0. Box 687 Santa Ana, California 92702 Col . Gwynn Teague U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District P. 0. Box 2711 Los Angeles , California 90053 NIA tDMUND G. BROWN 1R-, G--or TE, '.A11"NJS' COMMISSION EXECUTIVE OFFICE 1807- 13th Street L'JETH COR 1,Controller Sacramento,Califomia F,513T4 - CURB,Lieutenant Govemor P DS CO� 1ARDT:.SILBERMAN,DirrctorolFinance i\���Ill��i``/�f WILLIAM F.NORTHRpP �1 O: Executive Officer `n�'• ;� �, %; Q HUNTINGMN BEACH PUNNING DEPARTMENT �f C AL\�� riir. 201979 i P. 0. Box 190 August 1, 1979 � Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 Honorable Clair W. Burgener Member of Congress House of Representatives 343 Cannon House Office Building Washington, -D. C. 20515 Re: U. S. Army Corps Study - Bolsa Chica/Sunset -Bay Area (Sunset Harbor), California ter, Dear Con ssman Burgener: Enclosed is a letter to Congressman Lungren urging the continuation of the U. S . Army Corps of Engineers study regarding a project to provide an ocean entrance system at Bolsa Chica. Data to be obtained from this study will enable the State agencies to make appropriate decisions for the future use of Bolsa Chica, one of Southern California' s few remaining coastal marsh areas ; The State is currently occupying 230 acres of property in this area under a lease option agreement with Signal Properties, Inc. If an ocean entrance, system is completed by 1987 the State obtains clear title to this property at no cost , The property is currently being used as part of the Bolsa Chica ecological reserve. An ocean entrance system is vital to the restoration of a marsh as well as in connection with water quality and recreational uses of the area. Unfortunately, funding for the continuation of this project is not included in the proposed 1980 budget . Your rable Clair W. B -,gener -2- i--",August 1 , 1979 ..r ipport and assistance in getting these funds restored or . reenacted at the earliest possible time is urgently reque,sted. Cordia Ke"�ineth Cory State Controller Chairman, State Lands Commission OFFICE ;METH CORY,Controller I B07 - 13th Street E CURB,Lieutenant Governor �s Co" Sac.rarnento,California &5814 HARD T.SILBERMAN,Director of Finance A< IN WILLIAM F.NORTHROP Executive Officer ("'A HUNTINMN BAN N�_ KA"'NG DEPARTMENT 79 August 1 , 1979 Hul' s P. 0. go 92648 Honorable Tom Bevill Chairman Energy and Water Development Subcommittee House Committee on Appropriations 2305 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D. C. 20515 Re: U. S . Army Corps Study Bolsa Chica/Sunset Bay Area (Sunset Harbor) , California Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed is a letter to Congressman Lungren urging tte: continuation of the U. S . Army Corps of Engineers study regarding a project to provide an ocean entrance system at Bolsa Chica. Data to be obtained from this study will enable the . State agencies to -make appropriate decisions for the future use of Bolsa Chica, one of Southern California' s few remaining coastal marsh areas . The State is currently occupying 230 acres of property in this area under a lease option agreement with Signal Properties , Inc. If an ocean entrance system is completed by 1987 the State obtains clear title to this property at no cost . The property is currently being used as part of the Bolsa Chica ecological reserve. An ocean entrance system is vital to the restoration of a marsh as well as in connection with water quality and . recreational uses of the area. Unfortunately, funding for the continuation of this project is not included in the proposed 1980 budget. Your is honorable Tom Bevil.L -2- August 1 , 1979 support. and assistance in getting these funds restored or reenacted at the earliest possible time is urgently requested . f, Cordiaily, h / Ike Me Cory State Controller Chairman, State Lands Commission EDMUND G, . jy,'N JP-, Go. —or •STATE LANDS COMMISSION �� EXECUTIVE OFFICE KENNE'TH CORY,Controller 1B07 •13th Street �l1 S �'Q/ti: Sacramento,California V>814 MIKE CURB,Lieutenant Governor �p, �i� .�. RICHARD T.SILBERMAN,Director o/Finance %��� �' �if � WILLIAM F.NORTHROP Executive Officer ' cp��� D'r B EACy �O>F��C Nt `� , Hu7tinftn 8070 x 190 August 1, 1979 Ca�;f 9p Lieutenant General John Morris Chief, U. S . Army Corps of Engineers HQDA-DAEN-ZA Washington, D. C. 20314 Re: U. S. Army Corps Study - Bolsa Chica/Sunset Bay Area (Sunset Harbor) , California Dear Lieutenant General Morris : Enclosed is a copy of my letter to Congressman Lungren indicating the strong support of the State Lands Commission for the continuation of the U. S . Army Corps of Engineers Study of the Bolsa Chica/Sunset Bay Area, for an ocean entrance system. Restoration of funds so that this project may continue is urgently needed . The State of California is currently using 230 acres of property at Bolsa Chica in connection with an ecological reserve under a lease option from Signal Properties , Inc . If a Corps study is completed and an ocean entrance system constructed by 1987 , the State of California will receive title to the 230 acres at no cost , The ability of California to meet this deadline has been seriously jeopardized by the failure to fund this project for the 1980 federal budget . Your support of the continuation of this study is urgently requested , Cordially, Kenneth Cory State Controller Chairman-, State Lands Commission '4TE OF CALIFORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor ,EPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME . :'h NINTH STREET n .CRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 FIUIVTjN N gFACH 16) 4 4 5-35 35 PL.ANNiNQ DEpARIEN 1979 HU,n! P. 0' Box 190 �'on beach July 30, 1979 Calif, 92qg 'F j Honorable Dan Lungren Representative in Congress House Office Building Washington, D. C . 20515 Dear Congressman Lungren: ` Recently Mr. Gibson of your staff was kind enough to arrange a meeting to discuss obtaining federal funding to continue a Corps of Engineer's study of the feasibility of an ocean entrance at Bolsa Chica. w In attendance at this meeting were Michael Deegan of Assemblyman Mangers' office, representatives from the Corps of Engineers, County of Orange, Signal Properties, State Department of Fish and Game, and Mr. Taylor of s the State Attorney General's Office, counsel for both Fish and Game and State Lands Commission. It was our understanding that all present at the meeting supported a Corps of Engineers feasibility study to obtain the necessary data on which to make informed land management decisions on the future of the Bolsa Chica area. Unfortunately the Corps budget does not provide for continued funding for this authorized study. The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the Resources Agency and the Department of Fish and Game have officially supported the feasibility study as evidenced by the Secretary of Resources letter to Colonel Robinson of the Corps dated March 9, 1978, a copy of which is attached. Obtaining federal funds for this study is urgent as the State's agreement with Signal Properties requires an ocean entrance at Bolsa Chica within a very tight time frame. If the time frame is not met, 230 acres of lands devoted to wildlife now under public control will revert to private use. An ocean entrance for additional water for flushing is also required to keep the lands presently in marsh of sufficient quality that wildlife use will not be impaired. j norable Dan Lungren -2- July 30, 1979 F I urge you to seek continued federal funding for this authorized study at the eery earliest possible time. Sincerely, Directo cc: Mr. Chuck Gibson Ms. Harriet M. Wieder, Supervisor Orange County Honorable Dennis Mangers Col. Gwynn Teague, Corps of Engineers Los Angeles Enclosure i � H I a I j J t i I; I is ® CITY OF HUnTmGTOn BEACH J� DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES P. O. BOX 190, HUN IN ri%A ityNI t 92648 (714) 536-5271 T O .--�Ir--------..----------------- MAY i 1919 TO: Honorable Mayor and ity .................. DID OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ATTN: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator FROM: Development Services/Local Coastal Program ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE DATE: May 3, 1979 RE: ITEM M-4 , MAY 7 COUNCIL AGENDA - PLANNING FOR BOLLSSAA CH1I7/CA7'/� ZG Statement- of Issuer The Orange County Board of Supervisors has approved the idea of f Supervisor Wieder to form an Interagency Task Force for the Bolsa Chica. A tentative plan is to organize it into two tiers, the upper as a technical group and the lower for citizen input. Recommendation: That the task force, if formed, be formulated around the "technical" group to benefit interagency and staff interchange and coordinative planning and that additional citizen groups, duplicative of the man- dated Local Coastal Program public participation process not be formed. 6 Actions and Analysis: . An Interagency Task Force was approved on April 24 , 1979 by the Orange County Board of Supervisors. • The Local Coastal Program - Citizen Advisory Committee on May 2, 1979 voted unanimously (14-0) to present this recommendation -on the organization of the task force. Their deliberations noted the following: 1. An interagency group could follow on with the Bolsa Chica Study Group data into evaluations of alternatives. 2. There needs to be a continuing communicative mechanism for con- tinuing planning for the Bolsa Chica. 3. The Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program presently has contracted work tasks involving the Bolsa Chica. 4. Both the County and the City Local Coastal Programs have obliga- tions to work with other agencies through Intergovernmental Coordination Tasks. 5. Other agencies and special districts are .mandated, by the Coastal Act to cooperate in their planning with the Local Coastal , Program. Bolsa Chica Planning May 3, 1979 Page 2 6. The County Local Coastal Program is also scheduling work on several tasks involving the Bolsa Chica. 7. The Local Coastal Program - Citizen Advisory Committee of Huntington Beach is presently charged with receiving public input into the local coastal planning. Other input procedures are also a part of the Local Coastal Program - Public Partici- pation process (i.e. , hearings, newsletters) . 8. The Local Coastal Program for the County has plans for Local Coastal Program policy workshops as a major public vehicle of input. 9. The existing legislated concept is that the decision-making for planning in coastal areas shall proceed via the Local Coastal Program process. 10. Duplications of processes at the public input level will tend to reduce coordination of the information into policy consensus, will be more costly, and less time effective. Funding: The Local Coastal Program public participation processes are funded by federal Coastal Zone Management grants. Interagency Task Force funding is undetermined. Respectfully submitted, s am� Palin Acting Planning Director ?Mary nn Norb Y _ Y Local Coastal Program JWP:MLN:df cc: H. Wieder, County Supervisor ® CITY OF HUnTInGTOn BEACH J� 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: Development Services DATE: April 30, 1979 SUBJECT: PLANNING FOR THE BOLSA, CHICA AREA Attached herewith is a copy of a communication that was submitted to the County Board of Supervisors by Supervisor Wieder for action on the intergovernmental agency planning task force for the Bolsa Chica. It is my understanding that the Board of Supervisors endorsed the approach; however, in reviewing those agencies as spelled out in the attached resolution I see that the City of Huntington Beach was not selected as one of the prime agencies for membership on the task force. There is, however, a provision whereby other- interested parties to be identified by the Director of the Environmental Management Agency may participate in such task force. As additional information becomes available I will immediately forward same to the City Council as a continuing update on this subject matter. Respectfully submitted, o James W. Palin Acting Planning Director JWP:df Attachment 1 D 90 OFyUf /191� ,�Oto 0, HARRIETT M . NVIEDER SUPERVISOR, SECOND DISTRICT ORANGE COUNTY HALL OF ADMINISTRATION ` 10 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA.P.O.SOX 687.SANTA ANA.CALIF0PN!A 927�2 hyn,� =r PHONE: 834-3220(AREA CODE 714) i :,Apr 1 1 17, 1979 i r Q Honorab l e Board of Supervisors P. 0. D_ox 190 t County of Orange Hunlinpton Beach, CA 02648 Santa Ana, CA i Planning for the Bolsa Chica Area _ ! ' SYNOPSIS: A comprehensive, definitive plan developed cooperatively by affected agencies, landowners and other interested parties is needed to resolve -the complex issues of the Bolsa Chica area. The plan would be prepared in parallel with and augment the Local Coastal Program process. A resolution j calling for a Bolsa Chica Planning Task Force is submitted for approval of the Board. t Honorable Board Members: The Bolsa Chica area is an approximately 2,000-acre unincorporated County- island surrounded by the City of Huntington Beach. Please see attached nap. The State, County and City have long recognized the importance of the Bolsa Chica area. The area currently functions as a major producing oil field, state beach park and ecological preserve. Among the uses proposed for the future are expanded wetlands wildlife habitat, a regional park, a small craft harbor, tourist recreation/ co:-arc i a.l ,uses and residential development. In 1973, the State and the principal landowner in the area (Signal Properties, Inc.) entered into a boundary settlement and exchange agreement for the purpose of resolving a dispute over title to the property. The agreement provides an option to the State to acquire at no cost an additional 230 acres in the area if by 13,37 the financing .of a new ocean entrance and navigable channel to serve the balance of the property is authorized. The agreement contemplates a 1750-boat marina ':rich Corps of Engineers participation in the cost of constructing the ocean access and c".-heel . Vlore recently, funds have been budgeted by the State to accUlre a ^uc' larger 'area to expand the ecological preserve without the navigable channel ane' -•arina. The negotiations for the purchase are stalled over widely differing oriri ns of value and tlje funding appropriation will expire arithin a year if not ex_er_`_d. There is appare-.tly no authority or proposal to use the po'.,rer of eminent cc ai;, and litigate the issue of land value. '1 n the .^:ant ir:;e, the County and the City of Huntington Beach h r.- publ i c i•rorks proje-cts and significant land-use decisions a':raiting a of ..:;ether the HUN11NCTONEILACH • L05ALl'.1.7<)S G:OSS'.t:J'J;: __ _ SUhSET P.EACr: Honorable Board of Superv,-sors. page 2 April 17, 1979 Stag ::ill implement the 1973 agreement, press the current acquisition proposal or pursue some other course of action. In 1977, the Board of Supervisors allocated ' S2 nil lion .for a Bolsa Chica Linear Regional Park and directed that a general plan amendment and Local Coastal Program for the area be undertaken with high priority. The Board authorized EMA to negotiate cooperative planning agreements with affected ! State agencies and the City of Huntington Beach. These agencies declined to enter for-al agreements at the time, but agreed to form a study group with the landowners and other interested parties. f . . The Bolsa Chica Study Group; led by EMA, has been busy at work over the last year clarifying the facts and issues and seeking to develop a cooperative planning approach which night reconcile the diverse interests. A draft report prepared at the direction of the Study Croup was completed in November, 1978. It has been under critical review by the Study Group participants since then, and a final report is expected in May, 1979. My office has reviewed the work- of the Study Group and found it to be an important contribution to understanding the problems and opportunities of the area. It should be a very valuable information base for the LCP process and for other planning activities in Bolsa Chica. However, a suggestion in the report that a planning task force be forsm...ed to resolve the remaining issues by developing _a comprehensive plan more definitive ' than the LCP is likely to be, seems most appropriate. I believe it is the approach now most likely to succeed in reconciling the divergent points of view and producing a plan that is realistic and implementable. Without such an effort, the LCP prepared by the County on its own and with limited funding may not be so successful . I have discuss_] the .idea of a Bolsa Chica Planning Task Force with EMA and the prin1cipal o landowners; t`e� endorse it and are prepared to make a substantial contribu'ti:on. to the effort. No additional County staffing is. contemplated. It appears the City and State " i agencies may be ready to participate, as well . A draft resolution calling for the task force and a preliminary scope of work are attached for Board approval . A financial plan for task force work will be required. I am prepared to suggest that some funding be made available from the Harbors, Beaches and Parks District funds budgeted for the regional park. Signal Landmark is ready to make a major financial contribution too. The resolution directs that as a first order of business a refined scope of %..ork and a nancial plan be developed and submitted to this Board for approval . CO!'?L IA-NCE WI TH CEQA: The recommended action is not a project as defined by CEQA. CEQA would be complied . in the subsequent planning/decision-making process. rEC "M=,;DED ACTION: Adopt Resolution. �Reejs ect'u l ly submitted, V.. WIEDER Su,,�_rvjsor, Second Distri t F.I .aCh7^ nt . RESOLU T 1 ON OF THE BC D. OF SUPERVI SORS �D r%pri1 17, 1979 WHEREAS, the County of Orange is responsible for preparing and maintaining a general plan and Local Coastal Program for the unincorporated area kno!:rn as "Bolsa Chica"; and i WHEREAS, this Board also is interested in seeing implemented certain proposed ' park, road, flood control and other public improvements which are awaiting land-use I decisions in the area; and r WHEREAS, this Board recognizes the. substantial interests of State agencies, jthe City of Huntington Beach and other parties in planning and development of the area; I _ and WH=PEAS, as participants in the Bolsa Chica Study Group the affected govern ment agencies and many other interested parties have demonstrated the willingness and capability to work cooperatively and have prepared a report that can serve as an infor- nation base to develop a comprehensive, definitive plan for the area; and a WHEREAS, an interagency task force to cooperatively plan the area appears to constitute the best mechanism to reconcile the diverse interests and resolve the co::7:l ex issues in the area. THEREFORE, this Board of Supervisors does hereby resolve as follows,: 1 . The. Chairman of the Board is hereby authorized to -issue an invitation to the following: . B The Resources Agency ® The Coastal Commission D Department of Fish and Game 0 State Lands Commission ' ,Resolution of the Board of Supervisors April 17 1979 i 0 Attorney General 's Office 11 Department of Parks and Recreation I Department of Boating and Waterways 0 Coastal Conservancy • Department of Transportation i Major Landowner (Signal) t Conservationist Interests 0 Recreational Boating Interests I ('and other interested parties to be identified by the Director, VIA) to participate yin a Bolsa Chica Planning Task Force; I " 2. 1he preliminary statement of purpose and scope of work attached hereto a is approved as a basis for discussing participation in the task force F. with interested parties; a recommended, refined scope of work should be developed as a first order of business by the task force once constituted; 3. The Director, EMA is directed to present a reco-.;.ended final scope of work, including a plan for financing said wrork, to this Board for approval before any substantial County expen'-'itures for task force work are authorized; 4. The proposed Bolsa Chica Planning Task Force is intended to support, not displace the County's Local Coastal Progrzn process . • ....•.....«•w.r•r-r•. � .a.n», .,w.,.,,nxar'rJ••�.''Yl1..Yi.YN^�JLr�:.n.uwi:i�aLW11.',::hW\.1�^::t:.'...:.laS1..W{.i✓ tY�1..Iw4«�«wrw.�.•w..:•ti,.rww.}d......«.1..A....+..bw.'.i::in'::...+•:w.::...?.,.:.,+.........,.....u,..:.w..i.:...........r......ur._..«..«....w..e».....r....._r.yi.. ' Regional Location ` i . • •• ,•��'�it -.. :.1�,,,-I�i�.1,,•,1, ll , r \I , :,`_•�..1 � IN111), '.(A ' ! I .I 'J, -��i• i 11'YI i f\ may./+ 1,�r) 1�' ' � a I r y,.,..'.J,.,II , r.11tll l: 'r•, n......:.:... .. / �' ` _ , YI �; C ''� tt,�..j,�r 1/,{ �%•''.� .. .� .'�.. r l �i'll l{'i t..1.,. .rl•rMI,\n•°�, rl'� �' '•rr•, y l ,- 1 i i 1 •Illi tl.l ��1,/ 1' '1.'I 1 1 •M1 „' / ) , • 1,•11 I..,r I' f �., v. p. `7 r '\ '\ � •1 '''1' fp,l )/ +� yy, r I r� /� •{ / �!• rI�1��R' � 1 .ra,,r. ,lr \� �''1{]'�'• 'r, ,I /,�Snllll.))}ii Dal .•I,� ,riY� \Iri� ' • i�P �r. ,1. ✓. FS !�, rr`I( ll. C (.�� � 1 � t ,..11. ff R I ''1/. ,. � �' .,�1+'1.1�!'l i '� 1 r• .1 /. { '� ��\, t rui � R ' 1' 1C,IJII��I(t ti, ////)//,,{`•\, .f� •r / •d ��' ,�Il;� ,.. � ii�}••') (; r,t..,, I 1.1. hln �Y `�-' 1 r - II t 7 V. tr i� ,? , .�••1 ' I•t. ,c/I• , ,f •' ��,',:• � 1 l �_,' I ,.` ! IIt,I Ir ( C I! ( 1 'I' ,, 1 dollrn t, r(111, � ./. / .� M r+ ',�, I '+ r'.r •�' ,, ;� \ •,• •(•J`:.1•..,.r 1 " ,rl , It 1 '11 111 •lr�', 'r I /• , / Y'• t. , q„ r' !o Ir�t fiuyl/. r It •',�, 1 ;\ \ v t IAIllr ��'., 1.,� 11 Illta ! 1,1ry ly,l;rl•.Illl. r'r �(, 1%, /. 1 \ i rr, jI 1, i �' ( 4 r• 1Irtxr 1 •, '1 :� ( „ '' /� {�'I � �1. ,1'llr d ll�: �\'�I11,) �kl....l_'. � ,'1 y /��,r A 111,h► �'" 1(I' \�' , j+ r '�,' ,• ;.,_,/. t. t • 'tea. .,.tom , .,,. Y" tr•.,• �., r 1 i\•: ` ItA\' lil;l,ll , ,l. 1 ' 'l )i> 1 �IJqu �;i�''� '/� � 'r"1'• Clrlll "� '1.�.,�,,,',I `' .ti'„I+�Ih;. '�\I, MAIIHA11Ah1 R('ri<'.I( �' '� t vttiAt 1 l i;� ` 1. �, t „J li r /'',i� r ,. �•.1 1r.11...r;(,., 5.1.1(. .'t•,. t' . . 1 tit 1 r ll'.y,` t i l \LI( q r • 1•. I v i' 1 �.,.,/r a;,�f iP� 1r, { ° i/•1�„Iltr,l,ll r,�`i'�: 1 l \ \ •�'," '` ,71.`•. /� .� 'r' \ titl 1 1••`' � r� ~•1'I��� ' 1 •,y' � / `U\Unli11 ;, ,,.�'t r'1',.r�r f�.-,:`W/'�.�/�.•-',' ;(`''. ./'1 Nurmui� �\ I, 1' ?j�� J N\. �I �Iill n: �' 'r �� (n' Inti�••w1.11 •('I � t �/1,1 ' '•" _ ��'• ''. �y'�r,.. L,._.-� �.,r.,�~ {'�„ii ,"1"r.,�.�j+�� I,\\ ` •r, , ri': ;�.. j �1 r t1' lnF. A14 �I II�,. -�'I`ti� r r;, 1 ,t•;. \ •,I i �.�' _ tl' '+' II . ((Irll J / )\{•,1 4 ,( �• /'� �1 � RL(6-ON06 i I1'A , tl I�• �/ c'�) C)+ • w 1 �{' r t1t�C` ``� .!' �•� ( <: It r�l �I:� �� rl�- rw I •'r. f••{` f( ',. •,,r.. :�f ' ::�' I ' / �l',L�'Y1,, ) . I �` r {. {,f ' ,�•, JI (t: I y i ° ! �\ r �, S. :•,l'. / r ,r r�' • � 1.�t � Il 4• ' 11 fi :L,,,,,.! 1 ' .rule ' �, , I^ ., t ,+•n,rn,`„I,w r /brtAtr„,f, r�t'(�lullt, ` '1•l,r , I •'' fit. t•'f..,..L,t„r t. ,•�",, fl'.'.�}_i -\ •t:e ...ixl ,1 �' .� }r .I \`� ' r• Pulo`Y��Ilcs `.r•r((rr ')I rVr. I LrI�. `r'!' I i .�• f 1 ( 11 lDl"`J '1 ,n I .t �r }� t�{� 1 .I 1 •` 1 i 1 a r.mlo ,(��IZU '1� r I,Yub.--'LL \•� `.1{ ^/�nn I :►. GkC. 1's _ T— �l`."� ,1� �•aa.i �`I tt�' '��t �'�" Y�j:• 'r `,rt. �'` � 1 I. 1 .1 1 ( t. �n .rIf fit. •-a' .�.t.. •�- ...,. \ t _ .t LI 11 tl r L •�„�, .1_.,, l„��7.� � .l'- s�f t •- l .� .\♦ l I' t I 7�! •w•: k 1� Bdaa.H lln } ESTh'l 1ST[ ' �lr� `2 r V 'r';• < R.✓r,vr7:t,• Q�;). O '1t�1��� ll-�- •� ±'iliGli,a-tn. t�� '1,, l/'1'�« ��t ��i. � '�'. .iA ""' - - `' \� `�! ���•l1 ;jtr.�ItF'w,�, _.._ { '`�} �,'1••- �; J. AVAI11 t �: \•� �xulq: SI/ .e• .1.,A ti.tr+t rt �•'' ' �i�� /// y ' lg4�.t••Agh„1 l'e ayr R'awiMa r•: �•, a...urw o•..1�..�». ..-..__.... ` l r S �N.u, N t p.4Ahn �,a•\t ►'o.. �rA,+al if, �'1'�l ro �, Wti(i.f•Pi•.,`:.�J ,'1!R r Ru . "P+t .i`.• "11 .I', n{�ut F 1rY,I 1 ' •h.l N. / �!•, , :'• \•``WiI R.lr.^��' 4r� t o \ i. FOUN� tl r L.r ti iY)` r:. . ! ai d. \. LOCATION Lr+!.;rl+ VA`tt r -f. t 2'1 1l tip S (�)t 1 :r'\ �rr � r; HUNTING'tON DIACI ` .l1 'B4 h {�, ;,;1!• RM``>, ~`�: l - • \ C,fiIC �'\ \,• � IJ,.,p' �l l3, a �l�n: ayrt \.r I. ; 1•+: r 1 %•� ,Yt ••; Q' ' NdWJ)br - �/`` (lrk, �11q�•! t' .h, i4:`' 1,� r '' '�• I/ .1'•1''' /• i 1 rrAt . 'tlll'Ida(Lj.�•r•` '. t.•l j",Cr�,�•F,I,I� �/ A ' CIT1F OF HUNT@ GT®lol BEACH ` 2-11 ? INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH J 41*9 To Floyd G. Belsito From James W. Palin City Administrator Acting Planning Director Subject BOLSA CHICA ANNEXATION Date December 6 , 1978 The major steps to be taken toward annexation of Bolsa Chica are (1) prezone the property, (2) apply for annexation to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) , (3) a hearing by LAFCO, and (4) a hearing by the City Council to consider protests to the annexation by owners within the area. Step #1 , Prezone: A joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission should be I scheduled in late January to discuss prezoning alternatives . After receipt of this input staff will prepare an environmental impact report on prezoning/annexation and return to the Planning Commission for a public hearing on proposed prezoning on June S , 1979 . A City Council public hearing will follow on July 2 , 1979 . Step #2 , Apply to LAFCO : On July 2 , 1979 , subject to approval of the proposed prezoning , the City Council will adopt a resolution of application for annexation. Staff will then file an application with LAFCO. Step #3 , LAFCO Hearing': On August 29 , 1979 , approximately two months ,after the City Council adopts a resolution of application, LAFCO will conduct a public hearing and make a determination on the City' s application . Step #4 , Protest Hearing : Subject to approval of the City application for annexation by LAFCO, the City Council will adopt a resolution initiating proceedings toward annexation on September 17 , 1979 . A public hearing will be held October 29 or November S , , 1979 , at which time property owners V within the subject area may declare their opposition. If a majority of the property owners protest , them, the City Council adopts a resolution declaring a majority protest and annexation fails . If a t, majority of property owners do not- protest , then the City Council may adopt a resolution ordering the territory annexed and inform LAFCO accordingly . Oft;,kttachiiient : Bolsa Chica 1979 Annexation Schedule t BOLSA CHICA JAN. ATRIL :4,Y JU111Z inn I AL . SEP'r. OCT. 1979 ANNEXATION SCHEDULE 51219262916 3 2 9 16 3 0 i32Q2 82 2 296132027 3101724 ! 7 ^2' Ltanning mission and City Council _, nc= 2 _nal EIR prezoni-ng 2 crAJ r.=_nce - _ — _ 2 City Council Resolution of Application Second reading of prexKLing ordinance 16 29 _ LMCO review and hearing -City Council Resolution initiating proceeding //'' `19 Protest hearing City Council resolution declaring majority protests or ordering territon, an. 9 i �;s , J� City of� Huntin ton Beach 9 P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR i 'I May 3, 1979 The Honorable Harriett Wieder Orange County Board of Supervisors Ij _..10 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 i Dear Harriett: The following outline for a cooperative City and County planning ! effort is being proposed in view of the joint interest of the City and County for the ultimate land use of Bolsa Chica. This proposal does not contradict or supplant County efforts to develope an inter- agency task force to deal with the various issues relating to Bolsa Chica. Rather, this proposal would formally tie the 'Bolsa Chica planning efforts of the County and City as a positive approach to dealing with an inter-agency issue. i jThe City Proposes: 1. The City enter the County Planning effort on a formal basis, j City involvement to include at least: a. The Huntington Beach City Council will become .the defacto Orange County Planning Commission for the review of that portion of the County Local Coastal Program relating to Bolsa Chica. The method used to accomplish such status is not an issue to the City so long as the City Council is placed in the posture of being the final advisory body to the Board of Supervisors on the one time issue of developing an LCP for Bolsa Chica. j b. The City- Council will be regularly updated by County staff in similar fashion as the County Planning jCommission is updated. j c. City Staff will work cooperatively with County staff and will be involved in all staff decisions relating to the plan. j d. The City of Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Advisory Committee will coordinate citizens workshops to fulfill the requirements of citizen participation. Justification - Bolsa Chica is surrounded by the City of Hunting- ton Beach and is recognized by LAFCo as being in the sphere of influence of the City. Bolsa Chica has regional importance, I j TELEPHONE(714)536-5553 f / I Supervisor Harriett Wieder -2- May 3, 1979 however depending on the final decisions the greatest impact of land use in Bolsa Chica will be on the City of Huntington Beach. Although the proposal may be precedent setting and therefore looked upon with some concern,-'there actually are few other signifi- cant unincorporated islands wholly surrounded by a city. 2. The County will not remove the reserve area status from Bolsa Chica prior to incorporation in,the City of Huntington Beach. Justification - According to the Orange County General Plan where a .r-eserve•, area is within a city's sphere of influence as established by the Local Agency Formation Commission, consultation will be held with the city prior to consideration of removing'-the reserve area designation. In this case the city maintains that at such time of consultation the City would recommend'that incorporation be the act which fulfills the requirements of the nine criteria as stipu- lated in the County General Plan for removal of the reserve area designation. . 3. The City will commit to an annexation but not prior to completion of the Local Coastal Program for Bolsa Chica. Justification - Delaying annexation until after completion of the Local Coastal Program will serve to add stability to the planning 'effort. ' Commitment to annexation will guarantee the land owner no I undue delays in the implementation of the Local Coastal Program. Sincerely, i Don MacAllister Mayor DM:ik • CITY OF HUnTmGTOn BEACH J� 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: Development Services DATE: April 30 , 1979 SUBJECT: BOLSA CHICA MESA DEVELOPMENT - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (COUNTY) We have received a Notice of Intent to prepare an environmental impact report on the proposed general plan amendment for the Bolsa Chica mesa pending before the County. We have 45 days to submit our comments to the Orange County Environmental Management Agency in regard to our areas of concern. We have projected that a draft copy of our department' s comments and those of the Local Coastal Program-Citizen Advisory Com- mittee will be prepared about May 18 and could be forwarded to you for fj final review and recommendation at your May 21, 1979 meeting. If any of you have comments that you may wish to have inserted in the recommendations, you may do so at your May 7 meeting, or you may contact the Planning Department by phone prior to our preparation of the draft -recommendations. Respectfully submitted, c� ames W. Palin Acting Planning Director JWP:df Attachment ' 9p oFy 1 l9i' 9 O ti�srAA a* f� COUNTY OF CRANGE ENVIR��9E6� AL MANAGEMENT 9Ei�1 AGE( f 11:4 jE'LYI �:a.Lia111 ON T O : City of Huntington Beach FROM : (Responsible Agency) COUNTY DK URA-NDE Planning Department ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION 2000 Main St/Box 190 p . 0 . BOX 4 1 0 11 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 _ SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 ATTENTION: Mary Lynn, Norby ' Subject. notice Of Intent To Prepare A Draft Environmental Impact Report ' Project Title: Bolsa Chica Mesa General Plan Amendment And Reserve Removal Applicant: Phillips, Brandt, Reddi-ck For P. 0. i .c�)( 1.' 0 Signal Landmark Properties Inc. `Wir•Eh;;,-; Wa_L CNN 92613 i The Orange County Environmental Management Agency has conducted an Initial Study for the subject project and has determined that an Environ- mental Impact Report is necessary. The County of Orange will be the lead agency for the subject project and will prepare the EIR. In order for the concerns of your agency to be incorporated into the Draft EI.R, we need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information relevant to your agency's statutory res- ponsibilities In connection with the proposed project . Your agency must I consider the EIR prepared by the County of orange when considering your permit or approval for the project. i. The project description, location, and an analysts indicating the probable environmental effects of the proposed action are contained in the attached materials. Pursuant to Section 15085.5 of the. State EIR guidelines, your res- ponse must be sent as soon as possible but not later than 45 days after i receipt of this notice. The contact person for the County regarding this project is .lames Swanek —__ who can be reached at 834-2071. If any changes in the proposed project occur, we will advise you promptly. Environmental. Management Agency H. G. Osborne, Director l y' C Date. A 2- , 103. 0/78) my COUNTY Of ORANGE DJI ....... -rJTAL MANA( 11" T AUNCY ENVIII10NIME %gp IN ACCORDANCE WITH I HE POLICIES OF, THE ORANGF COUNTY [o_f A I',D OF `.,U PE Ii V1',`,0P H E G A H I r,I I%1PI-E M F.N I A'r I ON OF THE CALIPORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL OUALI1'Y ACI OF IfI10, lill' COMBINED W1 1 1 IHE'AT TACt4 E D c-r,I v I Ro N MENI AL, INFORMAI ION" F OFINI AND SUPPOI'll ING DA*1 A (Y)f 4 S f I 1"U T F! F 11'!I T I A 1, S'f(10 Y 0,14 T I i F S Ii B j E C r 111 1 F(,I-, I I41S INITIAL STUDY PROVIDES THE BASIS FOH I lit" L)Cl LHIvIIINA I ION WI11­114C.H rHI.. PROJECT MAY HAVE A SIGNIF ICAI`,jj EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT, IF IT IS DETERMINED THAT THE Ppaji-cT MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT, AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT HEPORT WILL BE PRF-.i)ARF:D WHICH FOCUSES ON THE AREAS OF CON- CERN IDENTIFIED BY THIS INITIAL STUDY. ("C-HECKLICS T: ITEMS NOT MARKED HAVE SEA'N DF.TFRPLIP ED TO HAVE NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT, 1, f,A A LLI WILL THE PROPOSAL RESULT IN y I- Z`QLt I-L -It.L THE 09 BE AFFECTED BY: PIP,OP -AL PLSULI IN: A. UNSIAIILL EARIIA CONC1I1JON, QU IN I,,? CHANGES IN GEOLOGIC SUBS7RUCTUPts? s I- Es, , U MW OF ANY SPECIES OF PI.ANIS CP ANIMALS 0NI:I,!JDING 8. DISRUPTIONS, DISPLACEMENTS, COM- 7prr.," "IRuBs, 6RaSS, cwc;pl" PACTION OR OVERCOVERING Of THE SOIL? MICROFLORA, AQUATIC PLANTS; BIRDS; ,-AND ANIMALS REPTILES 'FISH SH AND CHANGE �N TOPOGRAPHY OR GROUND SHE L t FS1 I, BICTHIC �<)RG�Nl,IMS cl C _ S 1�14 (F 0 SURFACE RELIEF FEATURES? INSCCT 0; M R) AUNA) D,- IHE DESTRUCTION, COVERING OR B I RE DUC I ION OF THE NUMBERS OF ANY MODIFICATION OF ANY UNIQUE rEO- V"4 IQUE, AEST,IE r I C ALL I SIGNIFICANT, LOGIC 00 PHYSICAL FEATURES? RARE OR ENDANGERED SPEC IIS OF PLANTS OR ANIMALS? E. ANY 1,NCREASE IN WIND OR WATER E;0 5 ION Of SOILS,, EITHER I H ER ON OR or . I N 7 A UTUC T ION (,IF NE. SPECIES OF THESITE? 1 T C C.PLANTS C;: ANIMALS IN70 AN AREA, OR � � MENT OR MIGRATION BARRIER To It'CHANGESNOPMAL REPLEN- F, CHANGES IN DEPOSITION OR EROS- GRATION OF EXISTING I Off Of BEACH SANDS, OR CHANCES IN SPECIES? I I L I A 11 Cl., OE POS IT I ON OR EROSION W4 I C" M 1,, M DOILY THE CHANNEL OF A D. REDuc r joN IN ACREAGE OF ANY V Rl 1A OR STREAM OR THE BED OF THE A(,QICUI,I1UPAL CROP? OCEAN OR ANY BAY INLET NLET OR LAKE? OC!EVICRATION Or EXISTING FISH G. EXPOSURE OF PEOPLE OR PROPERTY UP WILDLIFE HABITAT? TO GEOLOGIC HAZARDS SUCH AS FAPTH- QUAKES, LANDSLIDES, MUDSLIDES, GROUND 4S FAI LURE, OR SIMILAR HAZARDS? WI Lt. THE F RZIO S AL RESULT I'. AN A!.TE;RA!I f,),N f,F A F.I C Si,Nl A,R C,H A f,- 7. AIR WILL THE PROPOSAL PESULT IN: OLOGICAL OP H SI 0 ICAL TE' SiRuc- TvPr, c(1,JFCI OR 'IJ 1 1";14r,, 2.";1,0-4- A. JIILPI,ASFf) AIR EMISSIONS OP OF- T(11 L I C I IMPORTANT TER ICPATION Of AMBIENT AIR QUALITY? IC. PC S, -- CIJL1lJRa,L1 SC IL Ni if B. CRLAT ION OF CBJSCT IONAOLF 0111OR 5. 2b L5 I L L iHt j t I IN A1.11,r:AI ION CF AIR -C,1VL-!NI, A Ih( -1 A.;I ill I-If 01�!! Of U111 i't ml.W.,Upt OR ILMI'LWAIUVI , OP ANI ANY t+AI C MANGE C L I MA 1.E, L I I HE A L.C-C�t L L I ✓,M OR REGIONALLY?N fl Vt I,t,t 1:0.11 0, Ai0 Nl>Wr?IE1-A!:I_r ­A.T-JR,L IF OUP rI D. EXPO!,uRt. Of PERSONS TO LOCALLY L t LE v A L 0 1LVLLS Of AIP I'D L L U I 10 P 4 I WATER k 1 Lt, I f4f PPQF OS AL W E!,UL I IN: U 1. 1I.r Q.V. r;I," Q "NY I,�C V 1 S I A:,ILL T, Y.I p2l�,P!"0',A L , TO T H A CHANT,F.S R T,E P,j VIL , CAP '- �r. C IN 'COURSE C1. "IRECI., 0 wA O Ico MOVE. HLNTS, P l 11, r,,f (IlfATI1.)N 0' Af, IN EITHER THE A MARINE OR FRESH A I:1,7 10 1 1CAL�.' 31TI. OPEN WATERS? PutkL Ic vlf`�? B. C P,At,!,C,S IN A61,!,,Pf'I ION RATS, , DRAINAGE PA17 ERNS, OR THE RATE AND D I)NT 0 r S U P�f A C E wAIEP RUNOFF? Utlt it C. ALT(WATIONS 10 THE COUPS( OR CI' FUEL ()k I 41`4 G I FLOW OF FLOOD WATERS? B. IN"PtASE O!7mAN,) QP',04 1)(151INI D. C?I"4E IN OF SUP- A.1 1,0QPCE!, Of FN[P',Y, OR VFI)QJP[ THC FACE wATIR IN ANY WATER SOCII? LIEVF Lff'M FNr OF WW SOURCES OF C. uis(HARGE W INTO 5VPFACE AIEPS, OR II. A 1+I At I 1.9.AT 1014 Of SURFACE L WILL THE PROPOSAL WATER QU,ILIIy, INCLUDING 01JI NOT fsYx IN: L 7 EMPERATURC, DISSOLVED A rW,F*i,!CI WITH OV (*,tN- OX Y C C N 00 1 LIR 6 1 C,I T T EPAL PLAN DIL`SIG 1AT EONS FOR It-If f. ALIVRAIION OF I-e DIRECTION OR PPOPF.PTt? RAIL OF ff,OW Of GROUND WAIfPS? ADJACENF, fx I S I G. C HAN(,I, I N I HE QUANTITY OR Q-.'!AL- I Nr OP PLA f4Nf D LAND U,f IT I CF 6UOL040 WATERS, LIT-CR IHPDUGH C. INLIVCEMINT 01' URBAN CPOWtH? DIRECT ADD I TICINS OR W;THORAWALS OR THROUGH IN I C a(CP I ION OF AN AQUIFER By C Ul 5 OU I,K(AV AT IONS s 1 0 1 PANSPOR I AT JON/C I PCULAT I ON WILL THE PROPO AL RE SUL 7 IN: h, PEDULIION 5 IN THE t AMOUNT Of A FNfPAT Ot,I OF ADDITIONAL YEN;- WA 0 7 11 wi E AVAILABLE FOR A At PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES? CUL A MovrmTNT EXPOSURE 0 F PEOPLE OP L r C?o p a 0 P f R I Y B. t C. S ON E I IPARTING I- RELATED C, C, s ft, FA(IL I T I t S, 04 DEMAND F(`,A Nf P, TO �EL I HAZARDS SUCH AS Cwl PAP.,I N� FLOODING OR TIDAL WAVES? .Eft) c I—,(: .11� flisli, 0 1 '4 I %'Glt I AI ID' 1 1 v- 0. ALT(,, 'AftfIll 'All1 I CULAT IOI' nOV 1z ni r" A DODS I f AL I Ell .11 f-I 61)l�"r O,,II !,I A Qf 5 1 1 111% c ll? 4V RC .A I"A D 1 7 0 c % 6 1`F TO C, r Of ST.1-1 1 A.I Olt If 1 -1 C-f-T IC—L t, t 0 t,I I F% '-k Ltj,0 I NC 01)A.1%t "ILL IIUIOIAL. AL T I A 7. c ,,A I A"I I Olt r, POvrr nA 4A 1 11 A I I, (A o0w,, RA II 0, 1 POPUL AT I DN OF A14 All A 7 C C✓-t,4 IC,A I I DFI% its i r s 17. "(0_0 i WILL I P Ill'OS A L f 7 65 A GIST IN: N011.11 1 1". G. IT 11 1 1 A T A Of .Arlo ,0. OQ:I I ol-L";",", E I NODS I ;, T 04 AT!4 cl A A,(7 i. 0. f c l. 11-C v o"n ru"1 1 1 f 1. F t�1 0 1 1 n w k f AN I 1111F')tAL'1 0 0 V t s 1011 Or LOvt: INCL.,[ NUJS I 11L±_Tj W;Lt -11 0 0 10'�A L I SUL I I k IMPACT ltFlFA C T Ij I DI I", �'IAL- I", T I IS1 ,TY Of tY Al f C "y "" 2 1 It AIIONAL OPPO T LN I S7 TNFpmopc,$Al. A I 111_11 I'll"1 1 11 1 11 1 l" D, Tn' I I I, A I, oP A Vajs Yj$- 1 T.111 INCLUDING Of( FESTICIUS, ,C. 11.11 04 RADIATi(Ni TO a. EXPOSE PERSO." OR P'OFE�11� Fillf. MAtA t 5z WILL 7 KC 04DPOI,AL 1 f',tJL T IN: A. INC.At AW, Of I I I I I I w. 110 1'1, 19 6. f1POSUAt Or IFD'Lt 1C, 1101'd Lfyf L$ IN I ICESS OF Cll!-fl ',TIND- Wjt� THt L'Ski, PtkCVjCE Kkw L1611T C4 rLAkf? 0A T f 1," ,I N GSAIF7 [1IL ,L , - - A. Ln w '(LIE DOES PROJECT' 111;,VE THE PO'IFNI IAL TO i DEGR DE. THE QUALITY OF THE uj co z 'ENVIRONMENT, SUDSTANTIALLY REDUCE THE HABITAT OF A FISH OR. WILDLIFE POPULATION TO DROP BELOW SELF-SUSTAINING LEVELS, THREATEN 10 ELIM- INATE A PLANT OR ANIMA2-. COMMUNITY, REDUCE THE NUMBER OR RESTRICT THE RANGE OF A PARE FNDAN'GERED PLANT OR ANIMAL OR ELIMINATE IMPORTANT EXNMPLLS Of- THE NWJOR. PERIODS OF CALIFORNIA HISTORY OR PREHISTORY? B. DOES THE PROJECT IiAVr THE POTENTIAL TO ACHIEVE SHORT-TERM, To THE DISA[)Vf0,:'T/l,(,F OF LONG-TERM, ENVIRONMENTAL. COALS? (A SHORT-TERM IMPACI ON THE ENVIROtVIENT IS ONE WHICH OCCURS IN A RELATIVELY BRIEF, DEFINITIVE PERIDED OF TIME WHILE LONG-TERM IMPACTS WILL ENDURE WELL INTO THE FUTURE,) — — — C. DOES THE PROJECT HAVE IMPACTS WHICH ARE INDIVIDUALLY LIMITED, BUT CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE? (A PROJECT MAY IMPACT ON TWO OR MORE SEPARATE RESOURCES WHERE THE IMPACT ON EACH RESOURCE IS RELATIVELY StIALL, tiUT WHERE THE EFFECT OF THE TOTAL OF THOSE IMPACTS ON 'THE ENVIRONMENT IS SIGNIFICANT, ) D. DOES THE PROJECT HAVE CNVIRON�MENTAL EFFECTS WHICH WILL CAUSE SUB- STANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS ON HUMAN BEINC5, EITHER DIRECTLY OR IN- DIRECTLY? 0 ON THE BASIS OF: THIS INITIAL EVALUATION.' I FIND THE PROPOSED PROJECT COULD NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE — ENVIRONMENT, AIND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I FIND THAT ALTHOUGH THE PROPOSED PROJE(--r COULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT — GIB, THE ENVIRONMENT, THERE WILL NOT BE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THE MITIGATION MEASURES, DESCRIBED ON AN ATTACHED SHEET HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE PkOjECT , A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I FIND TIE PROPOSED PROJECT MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRON- MENT, AND AN FNVIR94MENTAL IMPACT REPORT IS REQUIRED. �J ENIVIRO METAL t-`JNAG�HENT AGENCYY N N H. G. BY DATr rt Explanations for Bol-sa. CI_,Lca Mesa G.P.A. and M Removal JwLtiul Study (19PO4003) I.a. The project area includes coastal bluffs highly susceptible to erosioll and sliding and arvns which may be subject to I LqueNction in the event of a major earthquake. Portions of the project area are subject to sub- sidence. In addition, the impacts that petroleum extraction may have had on subsurface stability must also be discussed. Lastly, the escarpment cutting across the mesa may be inherently unstable for adjacent develop- ment, as would be the marshy flatlnnds and the Sunset Bay remnant next to Warner. I.b. The intensity of development proposed w0l inevitably result in removal of most of the existing snil. I.e. the intensity of development proposed will ineviltably result Ln sig- nificant changes in the site' s topography. This is especially important in light of Coastal Commission restrictions on grading of coastal bluffs, as well as guaranteeing the physical intcgri.ty of Bolsa Bay and all tributary channels. It should also be noted that any landform modification on the lowlands would require Army COE approval under Sec. 404 of Clean Water Act l.d. Both coastal bluffs and marshlands are considered unique physical features by the California Coastal Commission, and this project will adversely im- pact these features through grading and adjacent development. In addition, a tributary (one or more) to Bolsa Bay appears to cross a portion of the site. Lastly, a remnant portion of Sunset Bay exists on the property and receives tidal influence through groundwater percolation under Warner Avenue. l.e. The reduction of the area available for natural absorption and drainage by development will inevitably increase runoff and result in increased erosion of the coastal bluffs. l. f. Increased urban runoff from this project will increase (to some extent) erosion of the coastal bluffs and will thus result in increased siltation of Bolsa Bay, its tributaries, and marshy lowlands, both on and off-site. The remnant of Sunset Bay on-site will similarly be afilected,if it Is not filled. Future residents of this project will he exposed to extreme earthquake hazards. The Reserve removal criteria will need to be addressed in this area. MO.& The Intensity of development proposed w111 significantly Lncreasu area! air emissions, with potential yoncentration in the "Bo lsn Cap" when day- time winds are not blowing inland. This is also one of the Reserve removal criteria, and must be discussed in that light. 2.c. The intensity K development proposed and consequent increased air. emissions, .landscaping irri.gat.Lon, etc. , mNy NdverseLy impact the highly sensitive climate of the adjacent State Ecologfcn] Preserve. 3.a.c.d. Since portions of a tributary (one or more) to Balsa Bay appear to cross part of the project site, grading associated wish adjacent development may impact current flow in these marine waters. If. Flow has stopped , forming ox-bow ponds, development may impact the amount of surface water in these ponds. Lastly, the remnant of Sunset Bay will certainly be affected by development. 3.1). The project will change a relatively naturaL setting to a highly urbanized one, with absorption rates, drainage patterns , and rate and amount of run- off all being changed. Ne. The inevitable increase in runoff due to Mensive development may, increase turbidity (clue to both urban runoff and erosion) and siltation. This also relates to one of the Merve removal criteria . Lastly, how will- development affect the eQnclusions of on--going Bolma Chica water quality studies 3 f The proximity of the project sit", to 11'(Asa B;v'T i t1l'-it 1,10VC111k.:rIL of saline, brackish groilndwzltk_'r. 111:1y 1-)e lllodifh d by for Certainly the remnant of Sun ;et f,".ly influenced by groundw.,itur wLIJ.- he affected , If r groull(hrzite I i, . inland (,)I the Nc f itilt zone cont nue!-, to be used for urban purposes, the ,tcluifer there will continue to be degraded in quantity. 3.h. The area is not currently within the service area of any water service agency, and will thus rffll.lire new service, Froti, -)TI ridi.;icent district or use of the underlying aquifer, If the ;)(Itrlfer is not used, that water may not otherwise be available for public supply. 3.1. Future residents of this project will be exposed to extreme, tsunami hazards and flooding hazards - as portions of the prODerty, are near or below sea level, and the areas around the flood control channel are regarded as being subject to flooding during heavy rainfall as a result of channel overflow. This is one of the ,ireas to be ,addressed in the proposed Reserve removal. 4.a. Stands of eucalyptus (and perhaps salt marsh type vegetation) will. be removed by the proposed project and its intense development, together with their associated biotic communities. If the lowlands are affected, part of the significant Bol.s.a Chira wet-hind environment may be lost. . See 4.b.e. for additional. It.b.c. The project proposes a thin strip Of opc.11 prce h('cweell the, proposed intensive development and the State Ecological Preserve in Bolsa Bay. However, this open space (if recreationilly used) im,.iy provide easy access for intrusion :into the adjacent preserve, instead of "buffering" the preserve from urban uses. I addition, several significant n rare., endanger d , and/or protected species,' have been associated with the project site. Both the eucalyptus trees and the coastal sake scrub have her identffii,ed as prohnble rookery,roosL- ing and nesting sites, and the entire �.irea i,.q regarded as siI;nificant for Forage. In addition, the eucalyptus .'Ind coa:-;tal s;ige scrub are considered very significant as ve "('tnuive coillmo,111[ties rare, in this area and worthy of protection. Lastly, a significant liabit:,,-tt in the form Of a remnant of Sunset Bay tideland nUal.- Warner Avenue will. be adversely affected. 4.c. Feral animals commonly associated with ijir!rt will increase Jn the area due to urbanization and will compete with native wildlife for survivaL. /4.d. The area is zoned for agricultural uses, and L-_m;,e portions are currently plowed. 5. The area contains very significant archacolopJ'_.'al. resources. In ordUr to make a full. assess'll-'ent of: t IWISle rCISMIT-Ces' all professional reports prepared for the property shall. be submitted to the. County's, Cultural Resources Planner for re- view. To assist this evaluation , a county-cerrified archaeologist shall be re- tained to: I)synthesize 'Ind E!Valu::lLe pr.lor wcirk; 2) ldontif y,locate_ '-.)lld ovaluate remain Ing- resources, as well. as r(--_!sources lost 'Ind/or :3ULV"""'cd; alid 3 mitigation measures, onpropriata to Llie pf_-,LenL1.�0- on the resourc.e.s. The possible 111_storica1 of VI)e 1?oh':".l C'hi_(_'.a Gull Club milsL also be discussed. All of these arens MUSt be CX;,1nl.1'_1`)(-d in light of the reserve cri-Lerin 6.a.1). If development.: precludes 11'rChOr "!;(.' C'I the, site for oil and g is ext):,Jc- tioll, add.itioiial energ_,y i:esottrccs will 11.-Ive to be folInd to Make lip for the supply currently beliig .d frol�l the S-kice portions, ()f the area are currently in r.-i-c .Il L[I r;j] ll�;e "Ind the Or-,"Ingle County General. Plan Land Use Element desi.ml"Itcs Hle "Iro­�"l for rocr(".IlJon' both ")s"r soils and substantial rucre'ItJoll.-I-1. 01)(1111 ',!L11 he lost. Lastly' natural- resources in LhA.jrm "I CODSLUMLYn MNVI- fal!; to be 1.1rscd in construction will be expended. 7. The project will result in the urration of an e5r-m- 1y urhNnized vista from tho nearby State Beach and other rucruNiKn& Nrnns , alid .wLIL "b- struct the current scenic vista frnm the upper bench bluffs of the Balsa Chica Mesa, If oil and gas extraction are continued , associated structures will have a negative visual Impact. LaWy , there is no provision for public access to the bluffs overlonking the lowlands,. 8.a.b. High levels of energy will he used during the construction process For the proposed development, and the large number of residential units proposed will add significant new demand for gns and electricity. See also discussion in 6.a.b. concerning the possiblenermination of oil and gas extraction. 9.a. , The proposed project is inconsistent with the County General Plan Land Use Element designation of recreational use for the site. This proposed General Plan Amendment will alleviate that problem if approved. However, the proposed project also appears to be inconsistent with the County Recreation Element and Master Plans of Regional Parks, Bikeways, and Trails. The entire area is on the County Master. Plan of Regional Parks and recent studies have indicated that development of a bluff-oriented linear park should be actively pursued by the County. In addition, the City of Huntington Beach (the site is within their sphere of influence) regards the area as a "Planning Reserve", with annexation or development inappropriate at this time because sufficient studies have not been con- ducted to establish prezoning appropriate to the site. The proposed project area is also subject to County A" Reserve guidelines and all Reserve removal criteria must be addressed . Lastly, the proposed project is inconsistent with the present ngrV"lrural zoning. "9.b. The proposed project is inconnistont with the WuHry 's Lnrnl Coastal Program for the Balsa Chica area , inasmuch as the work racks for thh,; program have only recently been speci-Ved , and mnny months of land use planning lie ahead before Land use recommendations Pan he made. Thus , both the County and the City of Huntington Beach considar this proposal_ prematureby at least several months. Planning for the area to date has been a good faith effort by the County, State, City of Huntington Beach, landowners, environmental groups, and other responsible agencies, but considerable planning remains before projects K this type can be frilly considered. For additional information, sue the discussion in 9-n . con- cerning potential park development. 11he Regional Coastal Commission also believes that the project in premature and not appropriate at this time. A great deal of State and Federal planning would he ndversely affected by approval of this project, including: I)the ongoing National Wetlands Map- ping Process; 2)the State Fish & Game's Resource Protection Zone Delineation (establishing future requirements for blufftop setbacks and protection zones) for the Coastal Commission; 3)the federal Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service' s consideration of the nomination of the entire Balsa Chica area (including the mesa) as a Unique Ecosystem; and 4) Lhe ongoing SLAG Section 208 Balsa Chica Water Quality Study, 9. c. The proposed project will. _LtLe_2, tly induce urban growth by beginning development in an area fur which land use planning has not been completed. This relates to one of 'the Reserve removal criteria. I.O.a.b. Significant increases in traffic levels and vehicle usage can be -expected if the proposed project is approved . This musk also be discussed in light of the Reserve removal guideline concerning vehicle miles traveled . ID.c.d. The intensity of development proposed will have significant impacts upon the capacity of Los Patos and Warner Avenuhs and Bolsa Chica Street in Huntington Beach. In addition, an interior arterial highway may be required to serve the proposed project, and n" p"hllc plannfng has been done for such a project. Lastly, there are studies underway to relocate Pacific Coast Highway to where it would cross the project site. This is one of the areas which must be addressed in the Reserve removal request discussion. 10.e. The proposed project will generate substantial demand for additional water-oriented facilities, and the proposed tourist recreation/commer- cial area appears to be on or adjacent to Bolsa Bay, thus generating the possibility of impacts on water-borne traffic in BnIsa Bay. In addition, the impacts of development an the existing oil pipelines must be discussed. 10.:f.g. The intensity of development proposed will require very innovative interior circulation designs to minimize congestion and associated traffic hazards. 1,1. Same as 9.c. 12.a. Same as 9.c. 12.b. Although the provision of low and moderate income housing is not dis- cussed in the proposed project, the area is eminently suited for low and moderate income housing, as a result of the relatively low property values demonstrated by studies for the acquisition of some or all of the proposed project site for the purposes of park or open space development This must be discussed in light of the Reserve removal guideline. 13. The entire site Is now des Lgriated for rucreMOHn 1. 1 Nnd use on the County General Plan. See also 9.n . 14.a.b. Unless oil and gas ex traction is ended , hazards L" nearby rcMuntLal, units in terms of both pollution and high fire potential will be present. Portions of the area are also underlain by potentially flammable pent: material. These areas will also have to be addressed in the Reserve removal discussion. 15.a. The intensive development proposed will generate substantial new noise. 15.b. Three possible sources of high noise generation are apparent: 1) Any water-oriented recreation associated with the tourist recreation/commercial portion of the project ; 2) High levels of traffic noise inside the project; and 3) The effects of continued oil and gas extraction on nearby residences. M. The intensive development proposed will generate substantial new light and glare. 17. Significant incremental increases in public services and utilities will be required if the project is approved , especially for alternative park development and the provision of water and wastewater service (as no water or sanitation districts cufrently serve the area) . Lastly, M parts of the area are subject to storm fl.00dIng because of Inadequate storm water drainage. These w:ill be some of the primary areas of emphasis in the Reserve removal regrtest discus si.on, COUNTY OF ORAPOW, fi np ENVIROWENTAL K—AAGEPAEINT AGENCY_4 FORM TION ENVIRONMENTAL INil 1 s a Chi ca PROJECT TITLE Proposed General 71an �d7n'14 Use Element Aniendinent/Bolsa Chica Mesa (GPA #79-3) a 2 PROJECT LOCATION The Study Area is a 218.5 acre site located on the Bolsa Chica Mesa. The site is bordered by Warner Avenue and Los Patos Avenue on the north, by coastal bluffs and Bolsa Bay to the southwest, and by the Wintersburg Flood Control Channel to the southeast. The Study Area boundaries are shown on Attachment 1. 3 PROJECT QESCRIPTION See Attachments 2 and 3. 4 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS See Attachment 4. LISTING F ATTACHED SUPPORTING DATA See following "List of Attachmients". I PREVIOUS COUNTY ACTION OR ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION None. G GOVCRNMENT APPROVALS REQUIRED County Land Use Element Aniendwent/Zoning, —J� T,permit Tentative Tract Maps/Grading Permit/Building Permit; Coastal Comm. dev. permit -7- 9 CONTACT PERSON Steven Ross Phillips Brandt Reddick �-75'2:-,'1223 ) 901 Dove Street, Suite 260 Newport Beach, California 92660 m � � 9 CERTIFICATION: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE STATEMENTS FURNISHED IN THIS FORM AND IN THE ATTACHED EXHIBITS PRESENT THE INFORMATION RE- 6- 'C E I�N4 N R 1�1-. CERTIFICATION: I S F-01 _ T QUIRED FOR THIS INITIAL EVALUATION TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY AND TH:,T 1 R E_ THE FACTS, STATEMENTS, AND INFOPMAT ION PRESENTED ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND 311EOLIF . rZ 6111 APR- 0AT E IGNATURE .. � 1 . i ✓ —ill• - > .l ate✓ 'i,. 20 Still-set Boicf 5.3 RECREATION E\�41 /A IN LA 1MID 0 1000 i U U � npro 4000 jj- x;,� .,.!"wr�l .,,.'' `, .n-,-n.,• ,�.'^,T� F•,, -°iTr,"yee•,. ,. •---;•nr•�n,--.•-,.,1'*�. i[@my�_i^,'-�' '�(e,•" {^� IFS,'., ^�'�;�p y 'l, t ^ F.,,.,....,., `Ll f=i� }:f;:�:. ' .� {B• �.".5Y.� 1� Y c ,' l+tk V \.::•lr., ~•., e. ¢; ti;ir J: S•'' t i.s�i'.�..m-,.l o...,-`;.��Iatf �t;.a JJ.i✓+" F° SIGNAL LANDMARK PROPERTIES,'ICES, INC. Attach cmt 1 ATTACHMENT 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant, Signal Landmark Properties, Inc.. , is requesting an amendment to the existing Land Use Element of the General Plan for a 218.5 acres site on the Bolsa Chica Mesa. The proposed land use designations include 1 . 3, medium density residential (65.0 acres) , 1 .4, high density residential (87.6 acres) , 5.31 , tourist recreation/commercial (20.2 acres) , and 5.4, open space (45.7 acres). The residential uses would accoRmodate from 796 to 1998 dwelling units (refer- to Attachment 3 and accompanying statistical summary chart) . The uses are situated so as to be compatible with the physical characteristics of the property and with adjacent land uses. The medium density area is located on the upper bench in the northeastern section of the property adjacent to single-family residential areas. The high density residential areas are located on the upper bench fronting the Bolsa Chica Gap and on the lower bench fronting the Gap and Bolsa Bay. The proposed pattern maximizes residential view potential by placing higher density units fronting the coastal bluffs. The TR/C area is concentrated at w 2•�� the northea-stern cornier of the property thereby affording maximum access to these activities. The open space encompasses the scarp separating the upper and lower bench of the mesa, the lowlands at the base of the coastal bluffs, and a band along the entire blufftop of the lower bench. � .\:' .. ,. ,•4 :.� .. . .i( .. , -Irr'•� rJ'. ., he !I Wf. 7rt r,r. 21 1,1.41io,I <� '+� fir.• •'1 _ R,,, > > . ,zx�xR�3'sars�+ m'.�fse. ,::rmf r m .rcErssnmamr a s �• 0000 ,, \Y11�, ,ram ....••:;� f - _ - . Door I - 00000 0000001 _oo r )no0cu �eA' `rat '�..r,;, 2.7 .:7•.._.. S)OUr ,b3U rtOOU �i`" n0n0o0 _ �: •j V�d��/ �(W t'.- � _ �f rl mil \� ....»,;., 0� - �� i• �� �� it f �\__ �_. .: ,Y� l f fill •I LEGEND 1.3 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 1.4 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL L 5.31 TOURIST RECREATION/COMMERCIAL . 5.4 OTHER OPEN SPACE • �`*•�'� t ,� _' •y•\ i.Yi~ter • .� MEfD LAND Ul"E ELEml SA G �a i �>•�+,"!� ��,..n'�:cl�..:.:y4 ;.'.'`""*w s�:+s;,.�,ti„a:y�^��^';""�'$i�i,,kr, . ARK PROPERTIES•! INN Attachment 3 BOLSA CIiiCA MESA STATISTICAL SUMMARY Land Use Category Acres Units Per Acre Dwelling Units Medium Density 65.0 3.5 - 6.5 227 - 422 High Density 87.6 6.5 - 18 569 - 1576 TR/C 20.2 Open Space 45.7 TOTAL 218.5 796 - 1998 ATTACHMENT A EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Physical Features The Study Area is located on the Bolsa Chica Mesa. The mesa , lying between the Bolsa Gap and the Sunset Gap, rises gently to the southeast where it is cut off by the stream bluff of the Bolsa Gap. The Study Area is composed of two levels, referred to as the upper and lower benches. The lower bench ranges in elevation from <10 feet m. s. l . to 30 feet m.s . l . ; the upper, from , 50 feet m.s.l . to 66 feet m.s .l . The highest point on the mesa occurs near i the northern property line. A twenty to forty foot west facing escarpment cuts across the mesa separating the two benches. This reflects previous dis- placement of the land surface across the Newport-Inglewood fault. A small portion of the Study Area lies in the flatlands at the base of the mesa bluff. Previous alterations to the landforrns consist of excavation of portions of the upper mesa for fill material . Roads , structures , and oil field activities have caused localized landform alterations. The mesa is representative of the Lakewood Formation geologic unit (Qpu) which consists of continental and marine gravel , sand, silt and clay. These sediments were deposited in late Pliocene and Ple-istocene times . Changes in sea level some 15-25,000 years ago resulted in coastal streams cutting deep \ channels through existing basins - resulting in the formations of the Bolsa and adjacent gaps. Subsequent sea level rise resulted in the filling of these gaps as we see them today. Current geological processes of importance within the Study Area involve po- tential seismic activity a��ng the Newport-Inglewood fault zone. Portions of this structural zone are currently seismically active. Earthquakes strong enough to be felt occur frequently. Although it is questionable whether sur- face displacement occurred within this zone in the past 11 ,000 years , the area along the fault (reference Exhibit 4-A) has been designated as a Special Study Zone under the provisions of the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act. The act requires that, prior to development, a geologic report be prepared defining and delineating any hazard from potential surface fault rupture. • ° ova 47.' , j t trt _ CLIU ED . VV r :Ct K CHIC Al�7 .;,, V�, k liv IOP ;r` ,' .�' , F Afoul r ' s \ � � •: to A fl '3 •.'4��M11Y 5 / a�"�,� tea. •tJ�� /���/,i The most detailed existing geotechnical information on the site is contained in the following 2 studies : California Division Mines and Geology, 1974. A Review of the Geology and Earthquake History of the Newport-Inglewood Structural Zone, Southern California, Special Report 114 . . California Department of plater Resources, 1968. Sea Water Intrusion; Bolsa Sunset Area , Orange County, Bulletin 63-8. Drainage There are no major drainage courses within the Study Area . Surface runoff is transported from the site by sheet flow with minor drainage courses found along the bluff slopes. Localized runoff from the site drains to Outer Bolsa Bay and to portions of Huntington Harbor. f The site is adjacent to the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Flood Control Channel which carries freshwater runoff from a 18,000 acre urban drainage area to ` Outer Bolsa Bay. No freshwater drainage from the Bolsa Chica area enters the Channel . Flood hazard conditions during heavy rainfall exist along the channel from Garden Grove Boulevard to Outer Bolsa Bay. The lower portion of the Study Area ( i .e. , within the Bolsa Gap) is within this floodplain. The 'Study Area sites above the large groundwater basin located below the � coastal plain of Orange County. The existing groundwater supplies within the Bolsa Chica area are utilized primarily for industrial purposes in connection with oil operations. Good groundwater quality is found inland of the Newport-Inglewood Fault; groundwater on the ocean sYe is characteristically saline. Previous over- drafting, surface disposal of brines , and disposal of oil refinery wastes have degraded groundwater in the Bolsa Chica area in the past. Biological Resources The majority of the Bolsa Chica Mesa , both upper and lower benches , were previously farmed. With cessation of this activity, the tops of the mesas have become dominated by various grasses and residual crops. The fringe areas of the mesa contain a variety of upland and maritime species including saltbrush, cacti and telegraph weed. A grove of Blue gum eucalyptus is established along the base of the bluff facing Bolsa Gap and at the south- western cornet- of the lower bench. The lowland area south of this bluff 'is composed of open sesuvium flats intermixed with spike rush and salt grass . This lowland area is part of the original Bolsa Chica wetland environment. A map of the Study Area vegetation is shown in Exhibit 4-B. A comprehensive analysis of the biological resources of the Bolsa Chica area is contained in the Dillingham Corporation study, "An Environmental Evaluation of the Bolsa Chica Area" , 2 vol . (1971) . I Archaeological Resources i Throughout 1970, Archaeological Research , Inc. conducted an archaeological survey for the entire Bolsa Chica property, of which Bolsa Chica Mesa is a part. Phase One entailed a complete inventory of the areas of archaeological importance and Phase Two was the systematic excavation and evaluation of these areas. During Phase One, a field and helicopter survey and an extensive record search was conducted. In addition , interviews and discussions were arranged with previous professional and amateur archaeologists who had studied the property in the past. Three sites were located in the Bolsa Chica Mesa and recorded as 4--Ora-83 , 4-Ora-84, and 4-Ora-289. Phase Two , initiated in November 1970 , excavated and evaluated eaN of these sites. Site Ora-83, located in the southeast portion of the Study Area , is a proven archaeological site with a large areal extent. It is the largest site on the Bolsa property and best known as the source of 150 cogged stones and a large number of stone discs . After a surface collection of the site , test excava- tions showed that previous farming disturbed the midden. Artifact materials collected include cogged stones, a steatite pipe , two stone pendants , a bi - facial manos, chipped stone tools , and bone tools . > / rnr •: J,,�r �.•, ry o��,.�ttir �'yJir,,,.v f. r/�// � 'err,, ;,�'!�"•i',,'�,.•�;1�:: 'l ii�,r ' ant;na fI:AJ, Cal Vol .r All oil: _j 1)ju /— . .......... (c7= l �{ , C// aa Erw� �'�� fP 4mx• a� �->.•�a �^ � �,'t�,„sat) � ���$ szsa, rc" os JF{tayh ) .t:iSuiL)1Y 4 m'tu'•.31�7�C`� me jy:YE tA',rilA ' 6 3' y will I_I ICA =� - � Site Ora-84 is located in the southern portion of the property and west of site Ora-83. After a surface collection, a test unit was excavated. A total of 70 artifacts were recovered , ten of which were too fragmentary to describe. Artifacts recovered include hariinerstones , handstones , nietates , flakes , and scrapers. Due to the shallow depth of accumulation of cultural deposits , combined with the extensive disturbance of the area , ARI 's evaluation of the site is that all meaningful material has been brought to the surface and further scientific investigation is not warranted. Site Ora-289 is located to the south of site Ora-84. A thorough surface examination indicated that the site was a secondary deposition. The archaeo- logical value of the site is minimized. Land Use The site is primarily vacant and contains few man-made features . Those structures present are primarily related to oil field operations in progress within the central portion of the property. A network of paved access roads ,�and ,oil pipelines cross the property. Three tanks are also located in this area, possibly for oil storage. In addition to the tanks and various other oil -related facilities , several structures are located on the southwestern portion of the lower bench. A 15 acre school site owned by the Ocean View School District is located in the interior of the site. There are no development plans at this time; the school district is studying the demand for new facilities in the area . Urban development abuts the north and northwest boundaries of the project site. A tract of single family residential units border the site to the north along Los Patos Avenue. The Huntington Harbor Marina corrununity lies to the north- west along Warner Avenue. Bolsa Chica Ecological Preserve, maintained by the State, adjoins the western border of the subject property. The adjacent area to the south and east is comprised of the remaining portion of unincorporated County land known as Bolsa Chica. Services and Utilities The following agencies and districts provide coniiunity services and utilities to the project area. Educational Services - The project site lies within the jurisdictions of the Ocean View Elementary School District and the Huntington Beach Union High School District. The schools located within the closest proximity to the site include Westmont Elementary School (Grades K-8) , Marine View Elementary School (K-8) , and Marina High School (9-12) . A school site owned by the Ocean View School District lies within the central portion of the project site; however, there are no immediate development plans for this' site. Fire Protection - The project area is served by the Huntington Beach City Fire Department; however, because the project site is in unin- corporated County land it is technically within the jurisdiction of the County Fire Department. The closest fire station is located at Heil Avenue and Springdale Street in Huntington Beach. Police Protection - The project vicinity is served by the City Police Department; however, the project site is in County unincorporated land and within the jurisdiction of the County Sheriff' s Department. Water Service - The project site is not currently located within the \ jurisdiction of a service agency; however, it adjoins the service area of the Huntington Beach City Water Department. Wastewater Service - The project site is not located within a waste- water district. The surrounding development is served by Orange County Sanitation District -t11. Electric Service - The project site lies within the service area of the Southern California Edison Company. Natural Gas Service - The project site lies within the service area of the Southern California Gas Company. n 9 � 2 -�S+<'?L`� -..is:h 3 1 �v t _ y;- •55.M Yi 4 f 22 ?, ,,c`,. 4 ? 4 .. ;v,,- KQ- t d ;'-2.. _, • w.�`?iss"e. .,x. _Mn �" ^bw,a ..,3-, •=� ,.so:.:,;., , ro.,,., 3„3,�J<) ,., :,: .:'a s,.dz n ;�`.,. ^s.. ,..s.�' '�•i.£: .a -��:,.M..o @s �{ .. :.. .`� e ... ... x.,a,.. x . ,.-: -o .,., .v,`�..♦, ,", <{'P. -i s,. E. :<'o«., •,kw b*4z s'- vc> x.- ..s ,a.. ,Y, ,w �.Y:>. .d.�Y �. ..r. J v :L, v„ � �',i.'i*. E.�o„. . ..� ,:r:�, � C Y •Yaa":L :-i<ci: T. E� .'�i. K�.S,.+t '3 ..'"t3s.. .4?: ..., ,�-�-'�f y-, .,�.r :.."LC.� v .s Aa',Y`,3c �3'. K.< .,:'C, .�" �h. . �??. ,na s: .,. .'ya `-.ca ehx,.. ,..�?r,s::c:. z, ,;:Y\1: „••z`°.,tz ...:.sp �;c" :a.,� .::.;ow.,a,.>�'s.,' �. •,�..�,.>.a � ...,sue. >.,,��ht�a,.. 6.., �' `w. <.�;.r .� ao, �;al;o,�: .�v, ,�:..> :.r:. �s?:.:, i r ,�.t:. . ��" 'Yka � "�' o,�-"e�.x'ykc- R'` ,'f 'tea..� ��'r '�c. x.� { � �o>`,.ss' L ti - ,fo 3�. ,.,�.. :f. �;r?yq;•.,,,:5"0 :. ., ' '..,.'Fc::z..a^,. ;,,r. "�,.,?,. ," �& \ d. \,.,.. s.. yx.: C:.l..z nw , .. ,-'x��'',3� x ax:..',. ,. ,fi,�- �?^ ;.«-'+�,`•<- N.: :. , v } :us �.�3r;v"',< .,. ;;. %s�" o,,, ..<>`�,. �',�","_.Sr W� � ,;:.^ 't';c f�W" �� '� `i '2.?�3�<a.a \x ,. a. <., s;^` �r"„,,<�� `ti' :�i°a,. ♦-� 5,: ..>.z� i'- � �, a.: ,t •,,��>a��\"z: ..?'f'. s. ,....•-, . .,M.:.�:.... >r,, { Kg.:�a"a.. '$�... �� �os:�.'�•�' 'Rr.. �r- � w.Sea2. •, *, ...:X:r`i'+ ,.,. s. e ,, r. .: :_.,. s.:........e i`r^,Y,.. .:..w.>,..0.. c3 ,3.2+." -.r""''.-. r.S .1 a..;fl ,ice.>t 0.�`. ,h ,1dv`�, w.S .. r s .,,.,.?,.,:� .'�s'•;-2�`�?s2 r �3:.J �•"3N" ��... R:... w,,. Y .d...." .:} uPi ,„•,: fSy,,'?:.5.� 'kA-3 k�� "4.. .eU�..<.�i�`:J \ a+-+i�. rSv { ,� ,.?::.. �,:.v. .,::. apt ,,co or s�+,'�i.... ;'?x-<n e ,-H�- c, o.,. @,: tee,,,. •vim, x�, s a ..r. a: ,`ro- .s.,.. ...;..,.... .•.. .„ �.. ..<: r .,. .w. .:. fEr mi!.", .Sa :,�, rfc:., :'``C§�S 2 . ,- ,:._..... .> 4. :x... ., `,-32s,(# +,.- .::c �, � �' �v- „'\"H, ., >" Ef+,s�EK .a:F r�. F ��` �. �i�.. F. , .,��•:-; :,_.>; .•. .:.. + �-a' :':•: z^ >,r:. 2s" -;:: "� ... ,. -.. �t ? ?.,v s :~s <d.�:�,,. \ §. r awC, '� x„, . ..,•.. �- _ ..:. , r,. .,. , ,., „.3�.. „ � 3,r ,_x�o-, . R. i'3�'\^,,z. �; 3 : ,,r...,... u.>• ,,.. , �.; ,, .. . a"- . 2 }. .4s� .., � ,.t2� ,� y i"?`� �� ..".:,.,.,.n�'3',' .:!a ,. ?. r-,•wz > -". -.� .,>_„. '<:;;: �. w-fix:;:>,, �,s a� � '<.• . 'r+ rr „G'y+£, es- a „���.,,: ,� �?:.k�zy«"'z�a -k sfisa�"i�-�'r. k ':+...:�1 zY� i < �"S\^E+¢+•x ? ;'n'�� e.� _F,> xa `*' • .:-.i:* -. .,•. '"' '::, _. ,... i „.� ":. c a'� $t3 ro53' `�� .c,.y.. ,,� s •,s s y tt x `', �F":., .,,Y`xz:,. .. "eSi ,::..., _., , ?-> c ri •s \ o%+--a>-' �.';:.•�zr n= rt.� .s.,,: �: :. .. #'\ +. 5 3 a n.- ''r. ,,y. . 2�,., "::;«.. ;� - £ %tzs .•^ W .r? 1 4, w` �,:?s.a. x ,<s>x §. .: - >'"c=� ...ad.. ,. .r :'>:: <,,.•„ vfi.i*.y. r•.,;. ., , M sR , �z ..�.0 n. > "y r 7 .*z:' ,.� `w?�l< �- ;'\., .:.' ,. .S <, a .: >. :-. ,...... ?�... Y uS•.. �c'!Y::,r{i A`nraur- A Y'�.., t v,)(�`�'4 � '� \.?C.,. �.i 4 ., ..-. > :;•w. ..;,. '•.svx.�: - ,,,� .....,�. � .,„ ,.r> a �;. :. .;°" ,z,. S� �r. .:'�`'r�' *� x;,: Y^ m.a r,H.:-t � ,s�. ;:.: M. '!¢ 4.:E: f �'' ...::s'a'a3.3 r a :,.. -\ `E r a.. ' .'� t�h :e„ ',m_'•s.,. •. �,., :"�,.A2 2 a r a£""O, '• - v- •:` ..; < i:t t` �v: • Qx w >E e "X` fii,.d .:a.,>,,;'' .>'x,.w' .. >}^.'w� ±..,, S, �..s..i <:Q. c'�o•w ♦ >i.'tCIL ,.. ,.. - ..,,• w 'eu s, ;-:✓Ycs' :,,,,.. `o� v `a° L,. fi �E •,....::. ..`K A. ,9 yk '`'�'�.�5'f•A ?'yy J h:' Y: v "�' 2GhG:� �.5' w.< fi, X 5k•u,"Y< �?,S �'ar' ..,. �� h� ,�,2rz ,r,.�; s;s � 'k :� �'s �,� � "`�� ._`� ,s •� � � � '� :��a`� ¢8 a �6r', �� �, � :;;.,� •?x'�.0 2,xr, h a,..,�„rS '� aY,a ��,.�...\2y� *v t 3 '.&`c,a ,r: •z � �,• f,:•Faa>tf'.' .,s.. w,.a. .,.. �r >^�,z x.•E 4, .o\ ;s �F ".` s �' �;ate,-a ?s5�'`, � �F x •"�s'a a a a"•.'<_x.,'�saE�'� t Ms,a.'<1". �"' ,,, z`t. �� „,z. .. -�,� _.. H, a � 7 )e � x ^t�iYma. '�,' ON it,x x. ` `'= � '• .fit 'a. `�' "ta'aC '+��` ..�� 2Ym.,„„>rc.>">Ff"S..'x3� a s , k # ,...z, 2,• �,zar,�.. ._,. gz Y r F £eta "'s t�.�$i+>��,s' 'x'r� ��� ��`��y�' �< v�fi•,rk', ` `d cr"`y"-s.eEFa,r"'�.:. ,� ..s t �'9;".'Yfi?.�� �� �~ •W.s^:'> ,,,"A:, $„p <y; E., ,mot,, ,ur ��c Y;-r - _P,� I kc k, '" s .»+, a•, >f r Q .:1 t" t y,n .a` �,�5 ✓,fit -'? It IV - v:r " A Y .:y &' aF+. .r.. •'�" �t�,rgy' -L'�. 3 w ' 1 ' r , , PACT A VICTIM OF ITS COMPLEXITIES Bolsa -Chi(a Land Agreement ion 'Vanger of Collapse BY JOE W.ANGUTANO At one time the Signal Companies also included the Signal tion and exchange of land with Signal.would be in the best In 1973,one of the most complex land exchanges in recent Oil and Gas Co., but Signal is no longer in the oil business. interests of the public. history between the state of California and a private recent For the sake of simplicity in most discussions Signal Bolsa The settlement between Signal and the state contained hi eras executed h the area known as andBolsa Chica,a coastal Corp.and its parent companies are referred to as Signal. three major elements—a land exchange, an option for the section a Orange County between Sunset Beach and Hun l for to the turn of the century there was an ocean en- state to acquire additional land,and a plan for development tington Beach. trance to Bolsa Chica and the area was subject to the ebb and of the property. Six years later this agreement threatens to collapse,a vic- -flow of the tides. In new tide gates were built across the The state received 327.5 acres in a cons�id�aded-Orcef-ad—- nrai of the bay. h new channel was cut and Bols*n Bay acent to Bolsa Chica State Beach on the inland side of Pacific tim of its complexities, drained through what was later to beec►nre liuntitigton Har 1 �'t the:-eg' the land exchange was made,it was lauded as born.and Anaheim Bay.The original opening to ablsa Chica �� way south of.Warner Ave.Title to Ehe remainder --- a _.Y r le accomplished-W f14i1 �u��ue gntl pr! silted of Bolsa Chica was conveyed to Signal. vatiwftk MenziesY , ei,This agrcernent included nut r, An option for the state to pick up an additionar-230 a, the state retains an easement over tidelands within the _ ain4y'a t art a plan by the state for development-of.- - - t the 3fl0-acre plot was another-element of �..: the property. <`_.'-. andr hrp bier l submerged lams in$ol- ent:This 230 acres was is am*d to the st ato a' no ief,by 4n.ediEia1 in t-he 1 :A reles Times laic?". . _ t.Se �i: sa Chica as of' `e'date the lands la existed ina natura# µ ^�F_ _ �Y 1 at the.time of agree— the - : - "lhua,i,+ 13-0 Vila-,0411 l ac(luirM 2, �'i �'' ts•����1�` - and of a11_those involved is a lesson in how_` ' land,including 1,6�acres rrt�wn as l3olsa Chica,foe$ _tnr- state would receive title-tolhis-tatm and private business should go about trying to Wse. }ion, r := eritt�attool °Chica was reestablished. its title was clouded bY.trAstate.claims. ; ' e land wisely.,` „p � This entrance was to be a marina,which when buitty-ttie--= R_ resentat". s�f met W th officit"in Sa snento The lessoif may not have gone too far as the property is state would give it a total of 557.5 acres of Bolsa-Chlea.Un=— in an effort to reWye:ttte dispute. -now in controversy. The issues surrounding the An.interagency task.foi�ce,the,`nit ever,°was establisheddoutiledly the marina would also greatly enhance the value tte meat,or lack of development,of Bolsa Chica are a di; to repr�qsent the state in this matter.The task fbrce ' ted of Signal's land in the area. sect result of the 1973 agreement. of the Department of Parks and Recreation,'Office of be At- The state's plan for development-wav - - Amon g the more timely of these issues is a lawsuit,filed in ney General,Department of Navigation and(? n. vet- phases. Phase 1 is the creation of 300 acres of--salt 9..��:-- January, claiming that this model agreement is uncanstitu- .__. - nptnent,-state Iaands Division and the Department offish and marsh,returning this portion 6t ineiarta iu'iin't141, arsw�: Lima A reclamation of this type and size is unprecedented in wild- Another issue is time.A 14-year"window"is slowly clos- Game.The state bands Division review of the title and boundary life management ing could cost the state the loss of 230 acres of valua- problems res in a.determination that the state had in- woukt xease the restored marsh to aci .A ble property terest in 52M acres of Chica.Some of the staters claims p marina(satisfying the co. Then of course, there is the environmental issue. Part-of were fragmented fingers of land jutting into the area. would be built including day use launching -r'amps per- Ow 1973 agreement called for construction of a marina on the (A similar situation may-be developing in Los Angeles manent berthing and related service facihtii-=- lard. ever,part of that same agreement calls for the re- County with the recent announcement that the Summa Corp. Amigas de Bolsa Chica has filed suit to invalidate this datfiU644 300 to 400 acres of salt water marsh near the plans development.of its holdings in the Playa del Rey area, agreement. Amigos i$an environmental group dedicatee° m - the maximum restoration of the salt water marsh. Am the last major remaining wetlands-in that county.The propo- „�,,,-„�.,, [�„w,,,,„e f, = im what gave rise to these issues and what W includes hotels, housing, a marina and a 72-acre nature was formed in 1974 partly in respa,.,,., t., the-agCVe.3GDYLj'--"` may or may not happen to Bolsa Chica in the near future it is preserve. However, 41�acres of the area have been desig- according to Dave Carlberg,president. n to understand the details of the land swap between nated a"significant ecological area"in the county's:general The major contention in the Amigos suit is that this agree- the State apd the Signal Bolsa Corp. land use plan.) melt violates provisions of the state constitution regarding Sivw-Btilsa Corp.is a subsidiary of the Signal Companies. it was decided that a boundary settlement and consolida Please Turn to Page 4,Col. I ------------------------------------------------- r� su LSA CHICA AGREEMENT Continued from First Page 19T3 agreement.The study group was, group,developed a 4%-page study of the protection of tidelands and sub- hsmed at the invitation of the Ate- 'issues and considerations in planning merged lands. Named as defendants; neyGenerar'sOffice. for the lonf-range uses of the Bolsa in the suit are the state and Sigmi. This b*rmal group was to, Chica area.' Other experts were also Lynda Martyn,one of the attorneys ermine 'ves far use of the retained,all at Signal's expense. for Amigos, said that basically the property.The group consisted of the. Amigos had fundamental differ- land exchange was "a gift of public Orange County Environmental Man- ences with Signal over the direction funds." She said the tidelands is a. Agency,city of Huntington the plans were taking for Bolsa Chica. public trust and cannot be extin- Beach, state Lands Commission, De- In January, Amigos withdrew from guished by the 1973 agreement of M and Came, Sierra the study group and Bled suit. The suit also alleges that there is ub, Assemblyman Dennis Mangers Amigos' objective for the property illegal dumping and filling presently (D--Huntington Beach), U.S. Army was the maximum quality wetlands ` being done by Signal on the property. Coepb of Signa[Latuimark restoration project possible. Amigos "The litigation could be a long, Inc., Amigos de Bolsa Chica, Coastal, said this wasn't reflected in the st drawn-out process,"said Ms.Martyn. Conservancy and the Coastal Com- group and a marina (per the 1 Amigos,up until January when the mission. agreement) was not compatible'with suit was first filed, was a member of Several deMiilled reports were this goal. the Bolsa Chica Sturdy Croup. The developed in conjunction with the 'The study group had become a group was an atteto. , study group. EID,AW Environmental back -for the developers,"_ cooperative efforts ftIV Plattper4 also a meo6w of the study charged Amigos President Carlberg:. According to a spokesman for As- ' semblyman Mangers his position is .somewhat more moderate but his ma- jor concern is for rapidly diminishing . wetlands like Bolsa Chica. To this end Mangers had intro- duced legislation last year provid' g $3.6 million for acquisition of 900 acres,which when combined with the. state's 300 acres (if the 1973 agree- ment stands) would provide for a I,- 200-acre marsh.Amigos supports this plan. "The Assemblyman feels that the 1973 agreement didn't completely . protect the public's: interest in the area,"said Michael Deegan,an aide to the assemblyman. He refused to di- rectly comment on the Amigos law-. suit. "There can be a balance between public and private development, the bluff areas.(overlooking the marsh) should be d available to developers,,' sai G Deegan said the implications of the g 1973 agreement were not clear which s is why some opposition has developed since then. Also, the assemblyman, according to Deegan,is not convinced of the compatibility of the marsh and marina. While the lawsuit may invalidate the entire agreement, just the fact that'the litigation is pending has had ' a chilling effect on plans for liolsa . Chica. In fact, even if the lawsuit should fail it may have cost the state 230 acres. a The Army Corps of Engineers (COE) must complete a study of the proposed marina, a fecommendation made to Congress and appropriation made by Congress so that work on an ocean entrance could begin. .At the moment the COE study is a minimum of two to three years from completion. According to a. COE spokesman this study.includes"about half-a-dozen alternatives including marinas ranging in size from 400 to BOLSA CHICA PAC) Continued from 4th Page state's option to acquire the additional However, the study can't'be com- land. pleted until the local representatives, Lindell L. Marsh,attorney for Sig- like the Bolsa Chica Study Group, nal, said the appropriation has to be reach a consensus on what should ac- made by 1983 and is of the opinion tually be done with the land. that time may have run out. He said even if consensus was So,what is the status of Bolsa Chi- reached tomorrow it would take a ca now9 minimum of sic years to complete the There is a 150-acre salt water study and get an I appropriation marsh,a designated wildlife preserve, throughCon on the property. "I've seen some projects die this Signal,has built five tracts of homes way,"he added with a total of 431 units on its uncon- A consensus is not likely to be tested property up to the county line. reached,especially by the Bolsa Chi- Two more tracts with a total of 216 ca Study Group. homes are now under construction on "Our last meeting was in February this same land. and that was to solicit comments from Oil and gas pumping operations on the group on the latest report," said the property continue. Bolsa Chica is Robert Fisher of the,Orange County an active oilfield. Environmental Management Agency The future of Bolsa Chica is still up and chairman of t*8tu*group• in the air. "We still havdWt,.received com- Signal has considered some alter- ments back from all the participants, natives, though nothing definite, and I don't expect to from at least two should the lawsuit succeed or the ma- of them,"he said rina not be built,said,Jeff Holm,sales Fisher was referring to the state and marketing director. Attorney General's office which was Amigos de Bolsa Chica envisions a withdrawn from participation because large wildlife reserve, 500 to 1,200 of "pending litigation," and Amigos acres,should their suit succeed and if who initiated the suit. Assemblyman Manger's appropriation Several participants of the study is enough to buy out Signal. group expressed the belief that the This could lead to a whole new s stalemated and had controversy because Signal says $3.6 study group was million is far from adequate compen- become an arena for "Signal and sation o and r the 90.0.acres Amigos to take shots attach other." Amigos are considering inntthe irspur- "No one wanted it to work," said chase plans. Greg Taylor, assistant attorney gen- Or the Balsa Chica controversy eral.Taylor was the person in the At- could enter a new era.The Bolsa Chi- torney General's office who initiated ca Study Group was just that,a study the formation of the Bolsa Chica Stu-i group with no goal of a final plan for dy Gam• the area. The next step could be an So what has developed is the domi. actual planning committee. no theory in action.The COE cannot Fisher said Orange County has to finish its study.until it has some di- proceed on the assumption that the rection from the local residents; existing land swap agreement is valid however the mayor group which could and"we are considering some kind of have done this is fragmented(and on reformulated group for planning pur- opposite sides of a lawsuit). Without poses." the COE study, funds cannot be se- "I imagine the same cast of charac- cured from Congress in a timely fash- ters will show up for this,"said Fish- ion, thus closing the window on the er with some resignation. o K 0 Signal Landmark, Inc. 17890 Skypark Circle Irvine,California 92707 Telephone: (714) 979-6900 Wm.R.ALLEN Senior Vice President& General Counsel January 16, 1979 City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Sir: This is to request that Signal Landmark, Inc. be permitted to make a presentation at the scheduled joint meeting of the City Council and the Planning Commission on January 29, 1979 at 7 p.m. It is our understanding that the second portion of the agenda for that evening is to be devoted to a discussion on the proposed annexation of the Bolsa Chica unincorporated territory within the Huntington Beach sphere of influence. We have previously met with Mayor Pattinson so that he could evaluate the appropriateness of our 20 minute, narrated, color-slide presentation; and he has suggested we should make it available for the January 29 meeting. Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly, Wm. R. Allen, Esquire Senior Vice President WRA/db cc : Mayor Ronald R. Pattinson Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator one of The Signal Companies REQUES f FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Submitted by James W. Palin Department Development Services Date Prepared February 26 119 79 Backup Material Attached X� Yes ❑ No Subject BOLSA CHICA PREZONING City Administrator's Comments Approve as recommended. 31 9 �54- z� ak, ® Lam,UAI Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: On January 29 , 1979 Staff presented Bolsa Chica prezoning alternatives to the City Council and the Planning Commission in a joint meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to determine the most desirable direction for Staff to proceed toward prezoning. The City Council was unable to provide direction however, without further clarification from the City Attorney' s Office concerning the possibility of inverse condemnation under ROS zoning. Attached is a copy of the City Attorney 's response to the City Council. RECOMMENDATION: Direct Staff to proceed with prezoning Bolsa Chica and utilize a transitional zoning district which will protect the City from possible inverse condemnation proceedings and retain future planning options . ANALYSIS: The analysis of the prezoning proposals is contained in Section 6 . 0 of the Planning Department document, Bolsa Chica Prezoning Alternatives . FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable P10 V78 RCA - BOLSA CHICA PREZO NG February 26 , 1979 Page 2 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1) Do not pursue prezoning or annexation. 2) Do not pursue prezoning, but continue with annexation with the understanding that presently City Ordinances would require entry into the City with Rl, Low Density Residential District. 3) Pursue other prezoning alternatives as detailed in Section 6 . 0 of the Planning Department document, Bolsa Chica Prezoning Alternatives. Attachments: 1) Memorandum to City Council from City Attorney, Februray 15, 1979 . 2) Planning Department Staff Report, January 24 , 1979 . Respectfully submitted, James W. Palin Acting Planning Director huntongton ,--) finning &jmrtment AL got repart TO: City Council and Planning Commission FROM: Department of Development Services DATE: January 24 , 1979 e SUBJECT: BOLSA CHICA PREZONING 1. 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: 1) Provide Staff with comments on prezoning alternatives . 2) Provide Staff with a general statement of intent which can be refined by Staff into one specific prezoning proposal . 2. 0 GENERAL INFORMATION: The joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission has been scheduled in order to present alternative prezoning proposals for Bolsa Chica. The joint meeting is a first step toward preparing a final prezoning proposal which will incorporate the concerns of City Council and Planning Commission members . ' The decision to prezone Bolsa Chica is a separate decision unto itself. Whether the City continues to pursue annexation or not is a decision which will be made later and will involve not only the City Council but also the landowners in Bolsa Chica and the Local Agency Formation Commission. Prezoning Bolsa Chica serves two specific purposes . First , it serves as a statement to all interested parties as to City intent in Bolsa Mica. Secondly, it safeguards against existing city code requirements that property without prezoning must enter the City with the low density residential district upon annexation. Finally, no distinction can be made between the fiscal impacts of the proposed prezoning alternatives without speculation. on ultimate Land uses . The City has not performed any planning for ultimate land uses . Therefore, the . fiscal impact: of each prezoning proposal is based on the assumption that Bolsa Chica upon annexation will remain undeveloped until a comprehensive plan has been prepared. As such, the fiscal impact of each prezoning alternative is equal and is as follows: Fiscal 'Impact The City will incur yearly costs for the provision of services in the approximate amount of $65 , 000 . Tax revenues generated by the annexation would equal nearly $219 , 000 per year. Of this, approx- imately $128 , 000 would come from the oil barrel tax, $22 , 500 from the storage tank fees for 45 storage tanks , and the remainder of $68, 500 would be in property tax revenues . The City would realize a net positive revenue flow of approximately $154 , 000 per year. 3 . 0 SUMMARY OF ISSUES: Three alternative prezoning proposals are presented. Alternative I is an open space alternative. Alternative II is consistent with City planning efforts to date in Bolsa Chica. Alternative III is a compromise between Alternative I and II. 4 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: An Environmental impact report will be prepared on the proposed annexation and prezoning. 5 . 0 ANALYSIS: The analysis of the prezoning proposals is contained in Section 6 . 0 of 'the attached document Bolsa Chica Prezoning Alternatives . 6 . 0 RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff prefers Alternative II but has no other recommendation at this time . Respectfully submitted / �-?- /James W. Palin Acting Planning Director �i attachments : 1) Bolsa Chica Prezoning Alternatives , January 1.979 2 ` CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION 1)9 N HUNTINGTON BEACH 90 Honorable Mayor and Members of From City Attorney . the City Council Subject Bolsa Chica Annexation - Date February 15 , 1979 Possible Inverse Condemnation Attached is a copy of a 1976 opinion from the City Attorney' s office which outlines the procedures and analyzes the alternatives relative to annexation of the Bolsa Chica. The type of zoning which should be placed on the Bolsa Chica is a policy consideration for the City Council, subject to constitutional limitations that the property owner be allowed reasonable use of his property. In response to the question raised by the Council at its last meeting relative to the desirability of zoning the entire prop- erty ROS, vis-a-vis , LUD ; we would suggest the LUD zoning district , since it is a transitory zone for the purpose of further planning and study pending development of appropriate permanent zoning. The city' s ROS zoning district is a permanent type of open space zone which permits the landowner certain uses of his property including arboretums , archery ranges , athletic fields , bird sanctuaries , apiaries , boating, fishing ponds , golf courses, picnic grounds , tennis clubs , recreation centers , swimming pools , visual art festivals and water skiing and, subject to a conditional use permit , other similar types of recreational facilities and uses . The LUD district was specifically formulated for areas such as the Bolsa Chica pending ultimate zoning. As we understand it , the area has traditionally been utilized for farming and oil production and those uses would be available under the LUD designation and thereby would less likely expose the city to in- verse condemnation litigation than permanent zoning of a more restric- tive nature such as the ROS. We trust this clarifies the matter for the City Council . GAIL HUTTON City Attorney GH:bc Attachment �� ►1 1 c f u r �1 CITY A'4 T O R N E l s QQr E,r ZIP HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA 92648 DON P. BONFA TELEPHONE CITY ATTORNEY (714)536.6%6 i January 21 , 1-)76 1 TO: Councilman, ,Ifenry IF . Duke , chairman , Bolsa Chica Annexation ;tud,y committee FROM: John O ' Connor, Deputy City Attorney i SUBJECT: Legal Implications of the balsa Chica Annexation, This memorandum responds to your request; for an analysis of the legal implications of annexation of the I3olsa 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 thy, Local Al;ency Fi'ormatlon Cormnission; (d ) An environmental analy:,1s ; and (e ) Compliance with the requirenents 1'or 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 : "Hach planlltn{; al;ency sha1. 1 jwr,parc, and the .l.et,l.,3.ative body of r,ach county and city shall adopt a comprehensive , loriC,-term j,enera]. plan for the physical development of the county or city , and of any land outside its bou11dnr1-( 3 which in the planning, al;ency TF judEment hear;, relat. .i.on Lo its planrninr. A 4 �L � 49 TO : Counc3' in Ilcnr,y If . I)ukc; + FHOM: John Deputy City Attorney r , ;U13JLJC1T:. l,cj,al Implications )f the I3olscc Cliic<< AcinexaLion 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 Clement . 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 . Land areas in a predevelopinent 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 . Reoource production rheas including land in 11:3c ('or '1ffr' 1cu1tUPe or 0.11 exti,acLion purl 0:ic:: . (011 extrac Lion may be comb 1 ned w 1 t:h land a:r industrial , rcSidc►;ti,al ag;r iculLurnl , 01, The Element further states that ' the intent. of t1i1 :, category Is not to preclude development , but to lderiLlfy such areas as deserving special attention and planning; efforts . ' As an additional policy for the I3olsa Chica, the Element states : ' Certain problems and questlons that are inherent in the development of this area should be addrer,sed and annexed prior to proceeding; with annexation. ' TU: Councl an Henry 11. I)ul;e ' FROM: Jolur O ' Connor, 1)upul:,y C.lt;y Attot•uc.)' SUBJECT: Legal Implications of the Ilol.,;a Chica Annexation Page 3 "The Open )pace and ConGervrit ion E'..1 ements of the General Plan (required by Government Code 'ectiorl 65536 ) adopted by Council Resolution No . 3313 on December 19, 19'13, designate the 13olsa Chica as a First Priority Area in the (, lty wl th lrreatest potential for preservation of open ,,p%ce and destined to serve as the core of the Open Space f Program. I "The Seismic-.Safety Llemerits of the General Plan (required by Government Code :,ectlon 65355 ) adopted by Council Resolution 140 . 39611 , desl)-,,nate portions of the Bolsa Chica area as IIli,h 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 ill Cor:si:,tency with the Adopted General Plan. Government Code Section 65860 requlren that C.lty 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- eery adjoining the city . This section reads : "A city may pre-one 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 . " eovernment Colo Section 653`;)l z c lrr 1 r'e;:, that prr „oriiirb; procedure,; Comply with the notl.ce and hearirit; rerlu.lvements of the Govfrr.rirncrrt Code. Section 65854 (c ) reads : " (c ) In prezoning, if the matter Is before a clty planning commission the notice shall be Published at least once in a newspaper of f;eneral circulation, published and circulated in the area rl.`1 sp r TO llr:nry PHOM John :3U13JLUT. Legal Lrrplicatlorls of the b(AS;1 Ghicri Annexation Page 4 to be pre�7.oried , or it Lherc 15 11011e , it sh;111 be posted in at least three public places in the area to be p:rezoned. 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 des.lrable . " Further, prezoning is authorized under 11untinj;ton 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 oC 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 Jf and when areas contained within such expanded plans to annex to the City . For that purpose prezonin{; maps may be developed and adopted In the same manner prescribed by this Ordinance Code , for the cla3stfication or reclassification of property within the City , includinf, procedures for and concurrent consideration of variances , conditional use permits and site plans . '.' Fluntinfrton Beach Ordinance Code Section 9823 . 1 provides , in relative part , a pre:;onini, map for an area has nut been ".adopted there such area tsh 111 , upon annexation, be deemed to be classifled I{1 " . LL is our firm lefral. conclusion that :-,onirrf; procedures must comply wltll pruvl.:,ions of the. Govcrnrrien1, Code and the Iluntington 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 mine..:ition into the City , or if a substantial amount of Planning I �AV TO : ("ounc;_ .r►,u1 11c liry 11 . FROM: Jrihn �.) ' ('onn��r, Dc1 ►' , ►.' 1t.;� �� ! i. � ►� :. AUE3JLUT: hugal impi,.icat,17ons or Lhe I uIs c Kh1c,i Annexation Pale 5 Department study is involved for approy riate: pre::oninE;, that the area be placed in a moratorium under Ooyprnment Code Section 65858 until such time as the :toning studied 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 . Goverment 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 rest,rtcted or regulated , whether or not purauant to this Dart , must be consistent with the local open-space plan. " 3 . Approval by Lhe 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 covunission 13 first ubtained pursuant to Chapter 6 . 6 (commencing With ::section 90173, fart 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 desI fined to eliminate the haphazard and undesirable annexa- Lion practices which existed to Galirornia prior to 1963 . Factors considered by WCO .in reviewing an application for approval are oet forth In Govorrumant CoU Section 50196 : "Factors to be considered In the review of a pro- posal shall include but not be limited to : i (a ) Population, population density ; land area and land use ; per capita assessed valuation; topogpaphy , C I n C 11,n"t I I Ilonry L",I ke FHOII: John 01C,()J1nUV, Depu� y City At LPvnv,/ 8UBJECT: kagal Implications of the Hulwa Uhica Annexation Page 6 natural boundaries , and drainare haWns ; proMmKy to other populated areas ; the Mcilhood of significant, growth In the area, and In adjncent Incorporated and unincorporated areas , durinC the next 10 years . (b ) Need for organized community services ; the present cost and adequacy of Covernmental services and controls In the area; probable future needs for such services and controls ; probable Muct of the proposed incorporation, Curnaulon , 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 adjacunt, 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 prencAlnr, of territory to be annexed [Governmenk Code Section 54793 (a ) ] , and has authority to condition annexation (Sovernmont Code Section 54790 . 1 ) . The complete provisions of the Government Code relative to LAFCO procedures are set forth as Appendix I to this memorandum. 4 . Annexation . Annexation of the Boisa ChIca would hq under the procedures or Nectlon 3500 et seq. Of the K0VePHMWnK COU ) which set forth the requiruments for nnnexatlon The complete text of the annexation procedures are set forth as Appendix 2 to this memorandum. i. Environmental Analysis . The Environmental Quality Act of 197(l , as consUrued by the courts ) requira; an environmental analysis be midu by (a ) the kooj) Or To : Co IIIci lruur Il11nrry ll . Irulcr. FROM .1OI111 () ' C4)Iinut',- 1)('pW,y Clt'y At or'nf:y SUBJECT: Legal. 1mplicaLlonn or the Bols i KhIca Annexation n Page 7 Agency Formation Commission prior to a' reconunendation of annexation (13azung v . Local AUency ► ormation Com Iss 1 on 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 HIR, will be deter.minud by the public agency conferring discretionary approval . 6 . Total , Partial or No Annexation . The determination of any annexation , whether total , partial or a dent of annexation rests with the Local Acency formation CommIsslon. Upon denial of an application, it cannot be' considered for a subsequent period of at least one year unless LAM consents to refiling. (Government Code Section 54799 ) . It should be observed that annexati 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 . A OHN 0 ' C0141JO11 Deputy City Attorney JOC: er �}ia9 {ro y +5t3a .tRf ,� ;;- �i�+ � {b .��y� §• �; .��a t � J t�,p W P3 p�`t + t Y drlr xJY #a tt"n ,. rf � '«. �.'?Fl,ry. x'rt?:ro.yF';.U�{ ;"k•�, ,n},"r, � ` � ,,y,I R�Aq"i ;rfi,'�Frc�',, x;�, t � .�. x ii! `�, ?t sk. i,, " t.:hfF :ti,•vs7E'R .h'�'r 7?'1°.rr .tyd. er• e,;S,,J' �'` :}i � ..'1x' i, f4: `', { .a '�' � i.•+3�.p' �y5cy,. e x �: i :.�;.',.g", .,�R Ii7T. p- �i�- '� ..pr ",u ?+.tt�, q!�t'��lr., .;' '1 :"'AFL"�tl$a.".r�Uit e.{, .Mt,:..fi ..� x:.�2f. Pr.a#�, {• .,,, "f,�''�/). t.: � y�,k{' ,r,•u� •.,'ir.'c,:; � t� ',r:Y'ivr y^.�u '� jC.,, •y''a'�r ,y'i .;j'a .+,w,} r :.�a �'�� �.Ty .y �drxa, ity `�: , !�3' ,��+ :a., `41�!� 7 `,a,rx'4 1, F �:+'�a fqri�, ,. s'r pv w'4�, Gr,,�,',�'d x"a ,r1i1�"! >°t�,' r s��• '`��+x { 1,y' `s•• y.�,i ' ',' ei( +�,11(:" '?� f.<:'- •. 1 ry. t; Alt ,P'> ,,7f#I'll ,Fp} .� ee. R—y" {tA.-+,' .; .,_r ;jy�",. ,.+•11 y�.w .t ; c� ,,Y'yr "x4nf'y, 'A}F' •`..ff;'t. ., :�e LA��!�1k. "'+�,}ir! r�r �'+2..71 C•F `JFSat "�f' , {.. �y1,{,� 1 .. * •`','` ,1 ^' Y i },(�,n ;, :.. 05. :�t t 5. �:' r � '� 4 l7• � '� a. M�.� 'A''` a/). .� t}z+.,'"`..'•p#� �<:. '�'r,}tl�''.�+�� ti,r 9.} r �� �s � �tk .�. tir�et� ^t r��l,;� r _J' y.5'•J ;3j§.. v.,: e7.�,�'reet}'"`"r '7., >�.r ct �:a.iy?�, �+:r•f}r� �a"'d'(`(•tS`,""�' Srtak�: F d. H -"r` r +^ �,.t�., r,1�;gY� ;j. a. •� '��M:. g�f�} ."A`{I. .�: .« ,��� t s s� �. ,, .� -x, 1 'R.,:fif.• t,,a'.r,r-.,�E, t .�?.raf'q ...+iv,"w,y�::♦,4, :dy�r:r t.. t�.l}�,fc :,t. X�, ;r. J .>,e-'*.y +�F i.,« v'tl �: �`F �.. �s'4t r.F ,{d,t; �� ,r '�,�� _J rd+a. Air. .J.,. .. •1 ., r� - d tyF6'f.F.:;' .t,F.,.t:�f.. ":w,...�•}*.�'b •.S,f t ee .,r.2`a4., �,. ,ry e.r t,"��:„su.�,"5^t`{" �. ,`�,efl 5;: .:, .,.t Stw. r,.�:x¢r 1�h.��..,,.qe .t' .;.s r„7 � YY 'a��,r t,.r e kt'F •r� til. ` YI'. i y. . •.'(y'1"� !,. s:�'AC , ,.a'.... ;1• � ♦:.�. :• •?S C.r. •�:�� r .�,t,,,� SI,Ca.h,,.kiP`a•�a�+,t„;,.,M,.,<.r. j ,4�''sr;•,1�a.�"a+ia"^'r '�v�.�3��` 'rt �t�.y✓~'".F, f. ��.Y �S'a'+'/ ,(� y ,r € ..S�2 { :- rl „ ,j.' M rah ,r,.p ? t •,u� �y .5,h;. W;, r sa t`t' �F .• r� 1+. lA yTF_tl, ;t��.. .y..P..s�r.. nr'Fu..':'�,.;•z.rr"5,: ..�.zt.�t. r g. „fir: :,:'w,,,vw. .y: t,� $a;s.,.- ,.�, R, •t,.tW:,t.r9�� F t`'Ex� .,1'��, sttS .t.q,�i". BX'.t.' {. •�'�,c�' MAN, .r :E..n.,ry f ,e..1f. t,.,,,r xt r f:.; ,. •�.`�.N�y. .�L . ,'4+""MI f��,..; . .v-':, 1:L'i. •?F*+.'^p'i+.,X 4-:, ,'4,Kt...� 0,.•.:.!, ..iY al'P ,.t,.:.,,..r: Fx!5rc at,Zazt ay.t ' z1�F ty, t ,.M Wibr i > .xa �,xxq.49 t'PY.!NA' _k(, -, 3.2J M «.a r,.x •t. ,•• •e. i t ..Y' 1 � rL'yx i 5 t .. `.. 3t d .: ' T w8• r" �... ,r .,.�c,at7A'. c �r;,L r rtr p i•PI.`•.0�? i'rt- �'„aa iy�{`' ar'�r Sf y,.. kr �'� ��.Tz#: �T7�F.L�..�x i.iy�� '�+,..i;'; t ,,,,;{. 5?...,:,ra}'. �',.n.,).r F '}�,.do5 )�:�•?�'yr:t�?Sit a!'.I«•.,,'�'"M'.Tr;'S",^'�p. � �Viy •x;;.�, �q'' 1{ � '..t :��'".F, �t `�:+i� '�R.iT 4aI�..,�}.,r 5.• � ....;t:�x J ..iN.�.y-t fa. �y{,.c�+; ,f S r..y}is'i kq: hj�.}",k�;,a x7'l�ti?'p�.�3'1i f�} fi�+k.n�; �d�? ,ii �f''�✓I��cvltr�'.•".�iy P.{li. �d-:.5� -. �' ':yi rM�'�._ � A;;5., k< tn:''b.. pF�, s r � ft'r 4.e+� a, a tt)'•" r P�;r � t.Y y 4 =,� a � .v� �• ti l s b k. � �. + 3'(( ;�{k at'?''tnk'aM' y#4N,'4�}iM. +X+ +fir..� � .,.., y„f.. .�.n. y 6.J,..n zP,.,t� {dyt�<.; V 'ftM1'=ti�.,•N:;,'Ft'� 'Ex�J.1F, .�. lgrvl?,�r!'y'.�_.r r'�Y�•tR,�'y.n !!')N��idt Ig1 t�y,+ 'Rs a 4 r Ffi�WyJ�• . r t l�r'tx yt }"��t�r•' 1 r;;•.a' R 1 Fiµ�iy�j��� «7y'.14'r'�Vl� 'y{�'�+rli' �i�+.1�tr f tti'1} n�r,F t 'HY�1{�. �� �r'•^-�'1 1��� Yr`4 y{� � F a ,���l t��� '�. t �i . #! "7�?•:tIY�r ♦ �111�. �ti Y�f'•p! `�'., r r t FL R /•�1a'�+Fy t� a � {�.l' Fu k ,M ' �, '' ! � , }ro!-.}� I - n t .r 1 r. 7. � _, ;�; r,��•�;., F. Ft, h fir 1`: b. F, 1.r- r•a �� � � a o 1, �. �•' OF � ,t�tS f#� +� �•'�. ,.�•� 1.t• u. :4�� � a �:. �' 1 r r .! I77'{[,j�,I 4 P tw,•p���,��'��''��{�."E'i4*"i� i ��''��-` a:��.�.i'�fdp y,�'F i� �• •�' �rr ¢tr { + ,Ytt f� �za )� 5,. P r�<h ti �+ f+ � M�S r}'�u�_j �tt } �y •R Y I S�;� i� 'F�+ f�� •�',}I,, �Oh ea }' Y K� k� '' F,n�1'l� s K' ��`3'�i, )tl r: +fi'yy t Y � /,; •T� 17 t r,� j,a,fs�rf > rp t �1�5 14rnY ^i��r �' M 4iU.xI { �.y'�"�h.:a�. •�� '�r' 1. '• �rr �'����►�q.�i( +':"�l��l. .St: �eaFat�� {it Kr+)I,{�jtp�'��7 1�,.��'��<Rr+ ti '�rY1't ;�P"tS'�•s ^f��! t�((y����F di 1t' r 1�.. 44 +r� � a �� Y +1s4 i "'lr �:• Y�' �: 3x ,r• ,# , . A<.,.srt •b e a ,'+,�' s nti:e'�' H:�!; t :a,¢;l lye tt}x, � 1.,, .5... rt`•�+� �:d': } M.�� fi'ry �trak,. �. a.�Sk a {a+' 'Sk< h # ..p � "+#,`s„ a a•,G d , �r �`.•r; !+ r< : 1 �.w� M '�• '�' a+iR'hj +r4.'`�f �.. �Sr: ,� i'�%. t•J�7. '#. 't*C� °+�"'��,.�r s�='n�` I..i?y��y�,�Y�j�pw�,�� y "*5i § t�`fr„�"rt "hl,"� ���';•a � ' .S oi+y+�• ., n •.,� +� r•5'' ;'�; m �:� ;�+.,�'�y��a SI.�„7..ns '�"���'0'^.�3� '�,'t i.+r�`y�t "�'�`�,�"��y�� �1� � � y} �n'j,,, •' § ,•t ,y ;. ���� ,x.;� i s "'•��x- �'� '� Fsv "t:�#�f} 4 �:'r4g',�+�xtY..q�,�w�„�. .q �E ..� �� F�, #•� r ,y,, r u t' rd" IZIS - , f 7! t a f �'' , ry +c3, .t ta �q, R,` ..rz+:.. dt ..FR?n.+ „' wl Rd r;.4x,r ie''t r fi+vt. ' •v' z t �. x{7 g^t;. 5r.. t i`'1': a A - A. '�'FS' �";. ? c# c" a?'.•Y,. ,�,ra ,x -- P' r +ri 5 �!Yj''i+ t Ff.K». fl.,° ' `' .;! ,,.r.x W k i isAr.W L. `.• � ::. r1. A...5`. '.a.' 1 r ;t k. t-r}. a , a 'j' ] .1 r.:� ,4 !; _,� •x:ti'rF.rF' >f s7 'i��.�y� .Y.a�'`F,..� + 4:fit. t,,d� ¢,..k v Wa.��'61;� �`� �,t.. � .:�'!F4'' •� pp �aZ 4 � •'C' ';" r�.}f7 .'�f �{d jx A, �.,`!{. rY�a ::t 1 'rFY». #s r!{T Fk"S W'44, z� r rr c t t !, y ., �r#S+tti � ,kt.'Pnf6wynrMgatfrf6 1 x 4a f�S�+} x na# r,�°', '3�1' � X�,e' a" i+•F a�^>,4� i '+"�-`:" 'd�rY. .J.��"�y � �iST...-;.p: �s'trq`�•,3+'1�Y^:,,�, yW.,,i ,.,,r+.._rc r�. t.y.. 30 ClccA r Holl's-1,111, St"s. 1977) 73 CA 3d 0 11, 140 CR 690. ')cc ;iko Stipp §§3.2.IA-3.2313. (2) C omly nrd cl?*-cl ol'l)lan andzom' V PlakitifT was granted jUdgment in an inverse condemnation action in lle;icock v Siicranjenfo, sul)r;i. Since 1958 plaintiff had been attempting to develop his property. Because it was near all airport being Studied for expansion, he was not given permission to extend sewers, and subdi vision permission was rejected twice. ]'here was also uncertainty over ej the exact area that the county intended to take. In 1960 the county adopted flight-path zoning for the area (see §8.6), apparently its all .Y' overlay zone. (Ali overlay zone is zoning for- a special purpose applied al zoning.) In 1963 the city changed to land in addition to convention, tile Conventional Zoning of plaintiff's property from one agricultural use Class. to another specifically designed for use around airports, with more restrictive height limitations. The county board adopted it land- use plilll for the airport environs in 1963. In 1964 the landowner Filed all inverse condemnation action. In 1965 the COL111ty abandoned the proposed expansion. Peacock contains several important observations: (it) Although neither the ordinances nor the plan in themselves were considered sufficient to constitute a taking (because (1) the night-path consl I zoning had been adopted as a temporary ordinance, (2) agricultural zoning is ordinarily proper, and (3) a plan usually does not constitute a taking), the court nevertheless concluded that the ordinances and plan k., lc�getlwr constituted it taking. —21403 subordinate ]and ownership .It (b) Although Pub Util C §§21402 I to it right of flight, including the right of flight to and from airports, the statutes deprive ownership only to the extent that deprivation is 'Al; .,Y I 'N lawful;1; 1 a 1, thus, the zoning did have an additional restrictive effect that Could C01I.StitUte a taking. (c) Only one landowner was affected by the regulation, creating spot Z011111g (SCC §5.35). tia� V. temporary (d) The extent of the taking was a fee rather than a tempor, CasCliicnt, apparently bCCaUSC the County Would permit no ti,,;e and had 1111CII(IM 10 aC(j wire'the land in Ice, and the land sub.CC( 10 the Plan Was the same asthat reclassified as the special agricultural zone. NV, (3) Dan);T" An action for inverse condemnation proceeds on the theory that government has acquired a property interest and should pay for it. Improper exercise of regulatory authority may permit an injured prop- erly owner to site for damages. Considerable restrictions, however, in- ALIC11CC such a Suit. Under state law, governmental tort immunity nor- tnallv bars actions for damages resulting from land-use controls. See, .NN F7 1 11 11''1 11111 tI,gj%11 11' %! 11 31 M.41 81 3! AMC* ' a ��b$y ii ,f?:' ' .tf •.'�' k*{ } 7 �: 4 ! ,j ii,, zt Syr +V f;,.d ' .n fir�• lhj;� a lFt r. 1 PFfr :.!' S'k";;M.. ;- , 4u� f�` �1yr�y `i�` " �t �" �✓Wr ,s t. °N w?* �� a �i�,'2...��. . v f ' ����.��� � '' ..+ " � t +-". ti •, rC���' 'i+,,�„p�q •',g•, �: �m � �q: t., � �iz.�., ?'*" ,{;�n'I'� ;ixhn., „J r •w 1 � ;� '� ,,! ,!;�� „r . c d ,.!„9F � •.� �%-� ',r:i$' sF' c1`�r.:.V: "�`',,�. 'S t.�e, 'gip, x3, �'.,H !n a' !k'9.� ati ��r a ,, z t ,�.•,:'�; ,�cy t ..�{ ,,rS w .dl. ��ii�fir ', �� �i�*,�'�.��C 'r�1°; ',ry, 4jj11 0,s. � 5 �r� 3' '�' rW!"ta• `+�� �i ,(>xsy.•.' ''Q- :3 rk1. t + .- `:'4'*tt•. ..rr.y a-d.. «f ;1 r . +ra, `;,"r't,�,{'` t*iP;? y (;F ,}. 9+ 'v .: fiy^ rf..t�+� •+;; 5.}� �!ll.�d..t`!-':;ri,.°t•+`',��.K'.T•f,,ri,4.�xl.am;,r.1;^a S�.'rC.�,.:,w r'.`a�a,".y Rnrx�*'t+".P1w."t�:,y.'o�.i'�,:.f1,a:�u3�r:s'�k,.!•�>'rHj�t�.ty,�t.a,,..R>.-,.r�a..v,���'Pt,+.r.•'�r.•:r�.�,�#'.+-�:',�,'.�.rt4((-I�l+k5d�'�`,6"'+.'g.`.Aj�,•*',..5`.t��<�r",,:,k.•�%�!'.1�.:.',:iI xxf.;;.�pPt e'e�,/�,q.i.rkve.`��l'Y��h rs tY'm'���,.:i 1.'r,#..��r4:br5:�.�'�ix v�tf,ia"...:<•,�.':".;:-Ft,,:•iar,:t1s�V�t'�n�.�a'.+sKm3�x�i>3r,A`�f�.'?:�..n�5 a.'j..,e�::':.:�,°t:,"„,,f�yy.e,,i N�,++r;,,.�r�r'��t�,.,+,�tf,"a�.i#se'.'qi�,a„,�k�n,w1+._:!�:.f,:�-:d"tri�I*+,i'?x&";Yr r n".Y t',,'�r�'r(a:�ta�';�i.:•3::;'R6+a x:k�o, KY i.�.:.?rwfi+. :z,.y„t:r,yyy.r.�+Xr,'�.,.,F,..":s�,a..w a!r nd 1o�ay.f'itz r�C,F}�x}1„r,c�,•�t,...�.+,:*'t4. .t,l zti t�}!.',,.;�fi'#"i+,i�s'1'G'}�7��`r,G'.'��r4,,'.��.!tz�Y:.r�.t rt�`.-r°..'44.r§•:7 R;•:.��a�'u„.�;p;c•t�n�'t"�y,c3zpt1:��''^,a44`�xC,ti;�1.�A1�"'.p�'..Ji; .•�.:�R'',•.�N,RE's �s�rx.,�.. F 3YJ{` r.�f �§Z+r.�•�1,,y�',1 i.� MR gg IN 1, 'i.i' in tV�b,§v"�. 'q �4 •�... ,� f�� � , w It x� r'•"'� �,x 1• t, � ,tea�}:v#�" d!+r YT'�ai a / 1 7FUitA`U i",• }§ a'� ��i x"�+�'�';� ��`7R>4 .. a • • b r o� i" `r 1 vk dt��'i {�'"ay 3 Alt ati � t�rF' ••• 1 {{ �'S nh���4i }�, max ' t jYjt,A Y'L • • • F q tr.�1t 4-4, *tt fa gl�� Nf,U +' f♦� � • /'9,�'�� :j�.�y, �1+},"aJ�� •ry`�5t r�k�r'�.,(^'�y"!{'S ;'XT WtKra r�4 tk+�iy��+Y'a4TJ y• ,rtSt� r�5��y 43Y'1 �+F'n rf����'��n�e�����i i{+#r���fi.; p� .�,�/�ijypr SA,r��� la�l�f•,�,� t,+M,N'�'�: � �a2�t�4 ,Ye , 4 �! f• F a {�'t�Ya2 ��3 � �.�"*w.f�Y�1l,E, � ,: '�' a 1:p. � � ��f 'Gf-. � -,r Me,.�,1�, �tf�},ky.`t �rd 3'�f�i�, ,h r �1 h t::,6 fx 1�25-�,�•'� `•,.�,;�?� sr y r i, r'- C +,•r J, w}. • " h't`I. y ,�� 4 .,, n�ti yy,,1`'ry' t !h 1rk�*�r ,"5s"'s",`�{iS,Y .� yk C f+ki, •� ��_ ► „ �.�.�,� ,��f'+� F',t p�.:� } ,,; e1''�•1 t�' w�'�• f k�'e� , ���yt+Mr, `'��n,�,z„�+r,' �� �x�, w,�,, • ,r. x '� , � t,.f," k�+i4•t. •t rf f''• 7 ''f:t i j] r1 W .+r�'t�i'aft - f`(` 't"• �;Je, � a'" ts.,.,�,y,- k t r U,,4(,� 32 j 112 CR 919., the Court (1974) 39 CA3d 303, unl 20 -icre lot size zolling, ordinance Could he concluded that it [III,, �0 validly applied to tIlldCvcIopCd agricultural land, despite tile Cx1s(clice designated 1,..4,,14 SI-lb(I'ViSi011 with (WO -i'lld-a-lialf acre lots of an old residential uses. for *on, relocation inverse condemnationact In the event of a successful alsistance payrnents may be obtainable. See Govt C §§7260-7274 on relocation assistance. reduction property value . ...... (4) IVO compensation for mere III-II, Ltd. v Superior Court (1975) 15 CM 508, 125 CR 365, a intersect purchase a parcel at one corner of an plaintiffs contracted to purch s conditioned oil rezoning from agricul- I oil for $388,000. Purchase was commercial and commercial The c rezoned the property total to coninici Five years elapsed during Which no develop"nent plI'liffl's purchased it. F plaintiffs turn use of the land took place. The city then placed a moratorium ;. or oilICII ilild plaintiffs' property was temporarily zoned agi oil IIlteIlslVC uses, and a general plan showing that some city then adopted Cultural. The cl neighborhood in the area of plaintiffs' property was appropriate for negzoning agricultural (I'd lot alter the temporary j, commercial uses, but It IOf the liIIILI general plan designated most of piallitiffs, property. The k,!�q,I., use. _density residential it, J near plaintiffs property for low ) lailltiffs then contracted to sell the property for $400,000, c0ndi- ( plication for coninier- • 17 1 iF tlollCd On rezoning to commercial. Plaintiffs' a I mykl� 0111 agr cul- I e city changed the zoning from C al zolillig was denied but tl nily residential while rezoning other properties at the to single-fill I Writ alleged that the property same intersection to commercial. Plaintiffs the use but did not allege that s for single-family residential was uselcs t4,htll less for other purposes permitted by single-family zon- property was useless deprived of "any reasonably belief- p Plaintiffs n,.s also alleged they were depr Ing. with its value." 15 C3d at to ,tuse Of said properties, coni niensu rate I icia the land As a result of tile city actions, 0 t 368 n2. 512 n2, 125 CR a declined in market value to $75,000. The Court held that no cause Of 1. The Court noted that tllc action lit Inverse condemnation was stated. Joy the allegation that plaintiffs cannot ell- value rebuts 1 000 residual -t held S7 5 *ther, the COLII bcIlCfiCIal use" Of the property. any reasonable d he denied use of the landatter of law that plaintiffs would is vested light tile only It, they had a vest COMM ate w th value cnsur, I e- -courts haveI previous zoning classification, a position Californiai 0 CR 41. jetted. Anderson I, City CoIllicil(1964) 229 CA2d 79 4 I'JIC Court distinguished 111`11, LIJ from cases in which a public agency takes inequitable zoning actions as a prelude to PUNIC acquisiPe,-IC0 peacock v It,111 t1jer 1972) 8 CM 39, 104 CR 1, and Y, .y. rr -T R ---------- I.................. .Y Y�t*,s,t..-� �1 t. »��,� ,1 Al A j�I :.�,`r_r�St� ��r r It rl`r1^��,f ti. �t �R.�f� ..•7t4y7:S l�nC,.� („ L, �•'r�,1, 1 II' t tl', r.^..!f:; a 4�}}ku4.r,- tV if, ,L,,11.1'. 1' 1": 'Irr���tplr�`,4.s'�1, �Ls� R4�•� ,YID `.:r � 1' ,t ' �yF lyr� .t it '.i: �-$h� ��Y N':�. rLt.¢. ! �.�` b- .:; f 5y,r� h,r :Ali l q ��, ,t t /'r,N r..4 t.{,,a r, ,i rS,y,r ,'��t .':9 � � �• +� tt., i r11 r�l�, .{,,Y,t rl. ,,ir, ,,�,1' .,fit l 1H,..f tiy�{.. ,R', •T , 1v�;t1"rY' Y :r ! h�',,£,; .Q,. , a,,. , t:. - ,.:t•�,. � +vrill Y i: 3 ?"} r ', ,,"{•,1 c , .�1: :"@ , j l +� ��4. 'Se'-�r~t?,�1 � a � +••�§t,"p�tj, � ``, n e11 "K�'�+�Y �'�1 ,��by 1 r.�, } ,�,�' 1 } , It t t�...1,, �'• �i p „�- t .y, ;ai.; :,( r, ,��(�C l�'.,'F �; . t 4`, S.".j. F.r w¢r' 7 >!,•��� .�, ,> 1 A(4.: ��,nr, k- :l� ww !�t�+r rf Y 1 ,71 ., i �� V§( �1'�t ii'� .�, 'V 9TM�'.;�if k � t� .Q7�' �!II", ,"''(r*' at`��t;�„�';"ai. r t��"* '� ;' �;��. 1,.', (t•tJ �+t�n.i !, ,V:.4 tYl,1`r., �,qA. a,r �+�r ka t;,, t ! '� «{ ..•st.�M } r. f;il Yi.la? 1��,t"il� i,"ttl��t}., 1�, ct! ,1 j +�l���i.N� �� ��` R,;� v'�+w, >n 9� ��M �',,Y7�:y�,��ra �yh;,V.4v ,1' •",�f,; �„ ��}tu Y!, ,�, 1': ,�.IT � f;1; t Nr�n,l,,, r t ': y £{`�r,�`,� y 1: rf e+� r,�r •w„.a�"9>;f -y,S' :'(.y;t, �1 1'� Y ..�•���� j'ig! 1 � �'f!' i i,�'It},, y � ��tt,t �1 �/I,'1� 1 {! �' 'S r��,''aMl r!�' ,pf" ft R � A :@ �f7rr :, !Y � ,r,l, '� r, � 11�i?x ��t,�r7„' �rltlt ti� ,�` :�f� •''�riSII,�V at"!�. a jn?"� 1a:` ,rl:. �tl a bt�nKG, R�'.!�1" a �I ,' 1. ,i}�Wik,'.,�. �t r_;t� ��C�+ r, c5 tt I�,r•� aI� A tlIw F � 4 '•t k �' MM !! ,A,1;t;}Y 1�'� ! t•':a. 41'�,�;�1 t� ,��! % #,x,'k? ��.�t,'y�,, r,t ' � �.�T. !,. .tY dr 'rf-i';Er '4J+y 11 ILV(,.,�" a !! e'�,Jr 1{�'i!,. E }4;t! �r.! •` Q 7�,4, t lt•�ti wlprt�yyy���I,t - S {§t.O,t '{4:. '"r- �;, �;' K * Q-�: .S d ! F��;:ail y R t,• t ,t.:�!.� �.:.. 1' .1'!{'�' I�!'�;y�7�S!J !}� +�r fir.i'.+ ,�, rr� , '.ik�',Y,.�� t• a'+ �+ li+lttlM1l I�..t� t . 1 rl� ,n�, ��1� ,r^ 1 i r ,�7,:t'ty n,, a P'1'' � .r a,,. SF.'�..�e�lF t 11"'y''rlM,1 +ti "•�j',�� r.�• "+' 1t' 1s: ti�1� �'t w� t n ° ,�rl�':irc n"1�•a. y� F "r.>?t� a Jl 3 1 q °; t � r n,. t, .,r.- :•` ,A t t t{.41_ .�F� rty} 't�?>c e 1a, `C�, ,!�a yr'_ � v 1�A!I;K� i� r � �dY t'"4➢ IS j 'A�.�y'a,``zl'3 J,, i�i���91.�1+��•R1 r�,►1!� .." � ,��{'�E.LS a'�i '. . yy.. A IV- ,ter. Fza� airy+,snt ,:,< I • . • . � • Mt'14 ap,�t !V., t r��"t��_r'k i at �``ht TMf '•. la �I�xS ; �>}�r•1`:�rP`a. j,.L.h `` ,{ � Y. • • •/ • :1 A� ;Q3yli"('�.�`/ - t,r w i'xrFy �' �f� x.,n w'.. • • R ,ft, xR brgl i7� N . yYI*I"a IJ�pL'F irfi 4 `i 4 • Y �T�!'i, i ` ' §1fr fi„••. Y t' ✓v • tf t, F�jy,4��.t11Fi, IrVt 49Fa:ry r V i � � ,r� s` a - 1 1 1 �� ��i �4• tt� lr�,}}ki.� s h c r F ta.t .t�i, }" '��.�• atte b. 1 � �F`, di ��'lIYY.•tl„ �'�.}t.-.,('�M.S, rey r o;v.,. t � �'. ;� y+� � u� h�➢ s1.i1 Y K t a�t}�'r�•u�'�ra�sL,��, • !� t'f�; � 1?'�ac,�y 3, ri wE tg - � ����p,•'1�r ' rr ti,.,'ela�r 4" t' � f ♦t 4 R y a tf 'h'1 f� tit"SJ. • . • I M:r� e �r 1}4r ,��.@(., ns nvaa S z' • I I � I FGI 4 � k�,d!a,,;h�s"L�R. K3 r 5� r d.� k 1 ,Krt.:,' a r:' ri.,:..:...r' ,.1. + A"-." l .. :r jtS:.V V ,i: ,: 'r+ltl p,n RS#A,{.!•t lr.�l L+}.�p r.t'� r�.,Ab il.>�,, ..«!, �,. r'.4 f`,r 74.,,-•.,x }k?.r'. 1,_".K r -.V�;,,t .,i. 4- f, ,,a �,. cf �: t, •„r ::; ks.., - +#� ,t th'r , ,A::.: !I:�} .alit{t{,;+:;@:K !�,!,,rt AO r`.A,:,a,;,,J�, 4 t,,n t r t ,,r 7C:�,,, t. .t.r ,:t,�w,.{ a[• I..L,i f,c 1. ,".„. t ryt:`t y.K. �,<$ .,+ # a. ,�: Yrc. � .t,y,i. .,r'I,,. t'a. �. +c a .�.. - L'r;r. "�•`'1 y,: s�.t ,�+ . 't., a;.. §r•�``r, >4 ,, �; :':a �s.�. �,- !.4 zd' K .,r,. , .y^.�l r,vct� x ,4, ti fir n a;,v S:, •r« a. '.,9la.a�.!v it ro. .1L' r7E.s. �'�...�rh,.'ti ,... t ,t.' -•s m.3.'::t� !,. :,s, �'.. k,'._r l,.s.t,�dr., :w,.., .,,{ nt y..:-.-,M. '" .n.�t ro ,.,.,..,rsrttS� •�..-:_: ..„t.,.•. � �.$d f r:r•�., ry#!r},.trc 4a, •�'. ..,w;;'s.,,! .Y� sl«.y..�ir, "ka -„nT.x,1...4 k.t.rT., tl�,:{.r� 1 ,i l.., :,�. �.,.f 4 w.�1„fir' !'L r•w•. ,..,.,r ' riV... :.s�;r.T, �•. ,a' r7!.,.r fi4 la' Jj,t. k, Y'+.,. :h s� Y{r• ..g•,...,,,� , a .,,. : L' ..,k�,{�'. t.'. ,'r.:: r..,s 4"ey o- :.-V,�'.. „•� •r�s•4� .r,E.1`• s: ': { d .4!; .pit" > �Y •I£'.4£'R .�: ,.(.� tS."°�t d7rf ii� .�, .h, !;`t7r a.,,. ,e. .,� ,r x -.,,::^..nr h:.. ,f' K.,,j" r+i^. .x'?�.r .,� L. .~ti,m„ ,y a;�tv ;., Y •,,:F xf„, 5 >.1-.. y. '.3t,... r� a :�,T': •t ,: � `�' t, ,� 'Yc? x-. •4 2 Jr sL 4 m 9 tt,, to y� Yr �i [ ! 1,K` '�l�d�+ �7 f r .1.�fi .fd.�S.4 . .. Lt+.. �,, J {Mdy,:�''S{J i..'r f ;, .:aa` h fi}4a'. Yx h,�e 1;';'. k, ty„. S ,A ..T..ry'X IIy Y�}IrJ� 1� iFN.� Yfi.. iT:'� r` ANC-., IM lS^1,h•C�'{ 1' �..G ;� i ,iq4+ 4C,�!��Kv ,x,. �.,. .c ,i'. yy, ,r,4'Vta q{-. n�t� ! ,Z a�. =,t �`-P.„r h. -..r, ., ,err»• 1 ,c. P '� t;„,,fFr U. :4,,- ,Rr y �;ti 1 r.fr F (�,..je. •. £e., °J :�+ r- ss. 4 w� �:',w .t 15 ., .,. 43 7,r•, W.{x:..�t. ,!..jf :'',. t. ,,t., J•' a' 1�:;.,r. S1}.J,:,..1�!iF•,�: .i#, �: �.s•,�!h 3;;?n :d. -t,+,,; , .w. ,,a,;rr m. r:'.':• .w+,,'..^ •3^'t i". �;15�v,'; d rL : r , + t it,. F ,` .,�,:3;, �:,,,r s :.g.,. ,r' rqt. t!, (ti;.l. .L;I,� ;.a i. : .,A.r. .ly:,!,r, ,. �,n,, llt� ,,.Y.:�r. ,..,.. � r .r•,.. ..>,. ,',r. ",.,,,, :.t!:+!:S �`�;,.f'...,,F :}t@�jt;l. ,r^,it F$.� -1.,t ,,".:--„,.,, rt��r'�i.'.s';"�!;.. - r. lV x .7 !NJ�, e •`.",+�.''"t ,t .,, �,,r. �a -:+.!e:.,ro,.X(,�.,K,(k+.f,-.s .ri,..ti, �, ,.. .},� ...3. :,,s•Tr~].12. F, ,1,t )i,;,yi„v,t., .F ,:y r L� ,Ct�,! � rt", f f. }. 3• ':��£ta. p ,.a 4, c.!,., „,.�. „nl y,w#+. ; :•„ z� '•. .- i n. : J:4,.. .�.,. Y ui f7 a}.7 -0 R .*., ,, x :..JJ �•., 1 r,,I,r„C �"' i Sgg. �v k S�''u, �.'.'4. '.!'' 4.."r r... 7 S.`4wa ;t,! ,, .a,S., v7+ t..,, a.{,,.r nS; !•w m t +.,.t.r: ..,4..,, ,:r F E1•,:w c ;-,$'.'�, s a :: k'f' r~,v'.!�.,. y. c ,k', "'4:..,+5 1 ,,:•,5,{a 1 ..i' ` .a.'IN ''k .�Gr... ••'r^*' ,Y.,. ,r tS1 J.r3 ,!.rt• y^,.u.r••^+ :fir :;.0 ,n::,, s .,».,. u !rKuu(rF. ,y:, t-.. v11 r-,-,,t,..x, tt;;. W r f.4,.yr I, ,�... ..eit.! 7 -wU .13:{. f �.n.;hr ....,,. ..�, •: +. ,Ar. ., -:�., '4.Y' L,,a,. �. ..,,.: ..!..',7rh.,,z, ,. ,,iJ4:- 52...,,..v' d,11•,I :,-s. {. ,rt.F.,iS,+ .,,f}, �'!''°r y..�.:.rA� _:Q{:v.',flf;Sj";; f,,:, 9..,. .�.. � .:>,. �,. .,•c4�`t, .:y. ,. ,,4t.r � �: ', �l:r,.a i,!rr. ar.,.Rkb��,t. �;x,ac,,, ,!..�'-.. t•A"�' r'•:�:.� gg�, ,.Sl $'H'I,,.r,1�a 7y > .trvF f ,p): t Y.,a ,�:..i{-:!� }. .:t a..,,�+{1,.ed�r .y.:.y a'.. y ,.. v'R•r",a.!L. n,.. •� '{ :: ,t,,..;urr'.. ',+,td,try!,, �4..`7. 1:K. ,: }.5'tik' 1�,_,:-i:!' rrr2'¢:3.1.7. p -;..„.} „S,n..} .,»k,-'�, s,.!. .•{ .n,' .s' ':rs ,L,• ,t t' C},,f:' a 1Y :�!D!5., .:P'I:r '{ •1 ( �4',`! r :,;V..ex, .f,r: y .,. t'?^e.?1 ..;�;it:,:rr..!' - .ti ,.: }.,k. � r�,;, .,. c, 1 .. e. ,. lu'.c^ �� .z� ! 1.,y r i t. � u ,A 4 f:+;!, (t f,},d• ;'�y !/ �3!-+m.:F+. „;M.,a ,@a^, F �{S.#>f i� �!, .?kri s d +,ik. !,j.f -, �, �h*,t .�, ;f M.i!s�S 4a i}:`�1I,ri•yF ;.,'4 1.,r✓, ..� Y ^ +:v'YK�}t Tn!.,• 't'!, :¢,A -.`�tr qqfi ,+t, 7 tr .:Y 4a. r � 4.,r. `9,.,..�r. ? :I ,.'� $ �5 ,,.y,Y:LS.rS 'Vr•� 3 {a, ,l..rl�,:kSr.. ,:t'tt-l. . +v't.Y �' � .f��t:a - � '"I 1 ,'`p.R ,v3: y.. t.,.vd, ,9@ra,.,.v. ,t'>',R± r l.. ..f!Ty:t .'1 'f tw! •+ri a r „rV n t ,t• �. F ! .i; 4 s b r ,� n y� f 7e..•r; r� ^7r' ;: •r ..r ,x ..v tt:(:,. ) Jr t .t-,l aL 1r;;t. :, ;. ,'VJ r.C�4 ,•xr,¢ `, Gt ��!'f ^}r•.i!,-.�,< .vr n, ,•i »L,.ai:`:ie. x 7.:..t. .tr`; .r.:/: i .,tfiS � ,1 t. n{, .!?•tr•a.,4rY. 7(I 4 .`/,. .,. y,j %l tl:.e„•'tfL ?. $`,� .a,_::.s�'*d l•,�"�'ar�tr !': ,:i'4 ;�a z ,�. I L.,.3, t:. A.' ..,y ,,�X }^,:wss•S+yri'. 1�L... �,� t''bx-f .rt5 �;�"w ,,r'@fk,t ,M'^��+�'�'• ,.t��a,§i, �} +.}.f .r.-: Y<rrtx. +;'+.. ? l,tti,' o,g., ;;�, tt >4 „o t. 5w' .`! :.•pt.. r r;:{ ..vra rJ t ,t. ,,+r� - !J.: 3,, .rw, A^r.ytt9 ,,F.r3 (}.,,v,5� .s:@i.1 ',x �:r, ,�} ,!aG,r, y,..s'(•.,.t w£e .,.,. .-P S Y rr. 5 it a Y 7I ..r.....4 ,t ).; b r h ";`n. ,i, Ir.".,A,} J. :•, a,. wr'4,a•+,' �vt�;i:.h: .d'a},. fir G,'le Jy,e 4 :4 .� . ;h.x ff�^' .f nl rr ?[�- -tR, ? •f j;r ,.3.,•.i„'rtl i ',,e a. 'y ..1 ,�E�,, ��p q{':1 +!t,,, i at, •.--1[i, '� -I:+Is �!. n t.y�l_.rlr,.. 4 t:rl �di' t r..t .r.,�:t,*+"i t. .,r. s..,,x-, .,.. by {;•.a' I .�,.T7• fn '�,, ra•�'�:{ I;t �Y, a>' �T,b .,, 5� ;�!.t,.ri.,, .d':1• t:w!_r,j'...' k t: • ' bt ..s. x P a. rT:a.:}f. rr"..�. a t w :,V- •,. ., e'a, ,t.,...6`,+c!e. L ✓.�!':...;;} �L:..Li �*?::a, ,. C _y,. .F A r,.,'l { k^...,�t u,r...gu r..l r � ^,y ..x �:1 t o.yl;t , r..,r, ;r R ry .t@.�. Y.h to -J: � 'il 4: -,.•:., i ;..:.. �,,, +,<. 'i„ t c :'i.,,, { 1.:<y..Y.„a � � �,,(. 'b,y, a7!j.t, r,"��.yyow �it "+''f�..n„_�i,�1. 4*„ G t'.. ..:.#�1 K t:.�;�w E• 'fit•.r' rk i,., v.�:., .A i r5. ..t 1 �`rnc ,.,++Pk'. � '*�`Yt�{, � �, "'�li ' }. �,a,!eV �`;.C... Jd,,.�'4"£M,_.t-...0 t.•... r., l. , .n i t, -,: - Y ..:y. i i ?n :h:, 4'4,x4 ryrr 7 di','�, .'d'' � r;�`!'-rtti:"dui d+� p121a.. b 5i R�! YK"g R t r {.t S•. ,� i �W r:a.o-.�•.-...Ry;.; :t .c.. •,+': . ,' i..'.rr" E --' a! s +t Q tkb .: f ,.f t.f.r..,:.-;§• ..t. :4 :� ,ft 1..Ytf:;:✓ ,SFtt<'Jt >: tt t " o,A u.r•i. •t ro �,..,i.Y.. y.le�,.A.{y, ...'{,c. 1.• .1! t£J ,�•`.• k. l °• .r f„«.<. A,rL, ,rf•.r ,f,,.h,.f. 1...a..: y ,<v r., r-t 4 i� �f Yx:,t c•,r."Yr. ,> # +,§t iq'f�� ,il, +�w.il � •,'-h.,.,;,�"'I Lw.Y �:.. .%k-,! .�!Y4r�'1:,. ,�, •�.r. ;r, r 9. ,.,V,r}#iN �.,a;,r 1.,t r. }r,,, ti!1`a.#r•"'t ; t .�,,L1 r>,1r,.yy'"�xi s: .utC�yi" uLi�,.}�I .§t.., ? E�;;,Flae. �b �4� , t i�-`rr�(+i�S. �:'��.�,: g/.,:4 . « � gtyr',, eyawx, t :�..t't;3.! •,4.�g uxss�,..s t: x,k �,sr�,4 ait ':x �,^!fit .,, rr! r'�'!t�`*i�•. ,;,..y' t7>.,v... l,.!. xr ?ar ar „ rk k. r R r,.t' ,:..�4'}.J.:,tr..,..i &.:,'ta,..:,,J G 1 E.} .:�.. WI „..1 far,. ;«r �':'►!� ., ,,..} • ,{.. .t.+w, s.Ir / n•.w'.i.c,l�krK. ,ry x`r,...y;r.i- ,. .".. .. y 'S - m 1.- L�#.TI.!! �.;,t� et'.;:.i ry k c1,� r`,r.,r... „,. �,t.,sy ,�,t.srV..w:,� rvi;r a,r'sy'4•�'�.ry'F'.' ^f.. y,-.,.)d,,'�`' .la.t v:F- aYat i^, ,•Li a :. ,4ir 5. yrlf;.Vn „1 '};7.1,1. .�. L j':} ,� r a i,..i".:a, {n.'•<a nth,'.. ..E"...r „r},-{x 2- SV j. ,:,J;`'�rf Ff .1'l+n 1.,,..�'e a,f" ,.a �E �rr,W.+k"' 7 tt ,n e�� '!!f, +Y.t p.t .IC s,J„1:, 'r, i.�d,,. 4 �-,4r."r, i. !• NS. ,,, y:j���'i rJ,^+ �4'4.,'w.7i; 1�: .'44 p !r, '1.J�.Y �. '���h,,-77'{•.. -7= r .tK'• 9 1 .;�y 3: ,te :'irp E� ,.r,- :�,."r'.•i.- \''P,.r'}5' �'•.3.":,,t •f s4.�f ,S,�, 7, 4,...+•.f� '�`r':�"'+.� {��:n b N5n ,! .ir;l,@•.,,y�apc. ! '. J }Yne:kY:Y� 1, T•!. 'L{' t a, !,•r t. .i a",,rl.hxx.r .,y„ ,,55��'tr4 't ,k,y.,, .s., '. n. •.,3F,. ,;,t, ±. lt,?u,t.. "d •.r f. ,"r tl.rr r•. Y. L �nf.,.an' is � ,r ,v.35,� . q ," ..{! 'v.,i '4.�r >:+Ft3' �` '�A ..R'-r �,r,. L.. 3�f :' •r. .,'S` 4:.{Y:fix i+a,,.r.r, 'Yt'4rc �` � � .'7:r,,�A„••� .f� � ij, ..�.a!S `�. fi„! ,t,:w..e ,t :.7, ..�1r ,..1. �!-;.t"r. : r'?"�, t',c'l-�5:�: y a+r.'.�:-,:. a' ,..t n:!.,N• aC• 1•• (. !' +�a��ra h, � r5,£�,.,,, ' "t '�i �a .r. "�. at/". 1,...,�,,, �r. .+',.n t: r+: - S,.Y ri :7 sa 5F""r1:,.5'?u a...,.,.,,t'. 5tr"s'�+r'?' .t,., ��:�r,f. t i •:i rr:c'u� ;•t ' °, ,nr. •x y �f�,,!6i ,t:�'.r. .eG ,w�tp. ,}J.c �w•i.. ' '4 .rv>; ?w d ,~ •fit +, 4 :.,t , + s. ,t 't dt7. '�'F-:, r `r•,. s., .,io�rt7 ;'fr, ..r,' r a. ..Jp,,n +'' :r' ""i'3, ✓<,. t.t«�y,q:'" M '4'•^•,r .;au;r"�!' +;r•)' �y�1':T. Y � :r%'� '^t,...,1 :.!,'t' T .. c. ,t.w -y.+/ ,�r t. . .!. `t3 '4.-any, } ..1' 'k'tq,. ,,;..rr -tL+ T. `F.Y !4., qF;'. -,1 ..^ :Jya wC'.•`tL i'..Kd e Y t.;.. ti V.e 4 xy + :F>'„ ,+:,, r k,tL' }` ,}., %,51 „/ ffi'- .a}. 'R.t.'4 e .1„V f {' a"4,W :. + ..� .< r ,, M; .., 4,, ,. ,. .: J ;.< at ,z, Ems, , : ,<, . ^ t' t'_K':ib r ...K-r#i.y. „J , k.r a:;•,.�. .tz'i."' .r' ;,h::... r a •} k N' ,r '!: r ;� '> r. +'+ r Ar•, < ; ,rtt,4 .l, t,,,,„ F, r:.} # {! ln. ,r r t:: .,c .fit,,.a.,t a t.,.,.+#' .,:i >. .F..y,•,: .:,`,`{�1', i,.. C`3 ..a rr.. f tY •, ,;.8. ., 'S! .� {.. r,.,."kvd.; -Sr.£, xn.>,r „✓,.. ,§#•.j y,t(t a`rV. ,t i!,+1 i!1 ',. w^.uh �;'",:k� l,. r..: ; .r(!S,f„.a ti.,{•CF,,.i,ii{ Yt:. -r. ?' ,fir ,�rGI v Sr'„r i,»x?....`r ? i:. , .eti r r,d,T,! �sC:N,•' ,•y;n,ri1 t. ,:�,?t .,� 1 t •}',U', �4. .;,,.y t §'`.'?s,. c$s,r,, r t w. .°'t"...tlt� , ,..tl r1:7r. 17.1;r:'J, j.:xEY uYtS'.,yy. a} h;:.t1 ? •' rfi.. Itar r c ,,e ';..E•M �., {' d S.; •w-.,,, 'F"ryc v.»;,a•;•i•'it}. ,e ,,'f A::.$-. ;`i.SE rf+^"1r !r._ i'Yr+ri§ 1.; ! n:4v. r,}� �av1 { .�, , t r~�-•c.,! d" ,'}r: rr*k .te. r fc" 7+ k-,::{. Vw+4;1;.ak. q iY,r,.�w 9 Nid, ra '4}:f•:'dfr.n, �i '.r:i G: .•t7;'k.. 'sF,.. ��p ;r, ��-F.ri, `�,t`j! .#:4. �#��,,.e.� '�..*ssl ylr ..r 3.,,r. ^r, ,s., h �3. .=sat. !i, t .v16R;t ,�ri:, a,.t.., �v,.<. ..T ,v. a ,a„4 E -7.S. Y, �,•,tt' {.� t r o.'�yff .T 1. ..�tr, .a�',:. 1,•+<>} IL , k,ri , ?" - ar?.a. � '�v;3h: ,3 >}y,.,, ,t+ +'�t rXa !+: .,+��; r±`f„s, r1,,.. .,.t5.. +H.Il,F:{ +?, S?n r, ' tt!.: :A•,.� „�� r .�:y .3.w £.^f p ."s.!fit !., u;] „f"t'�:� s•{""''� >�..:ie,}�`,i ,W, '�•rrro. ty�•§.-. ry } Y.. s,a'YA-r.,, t '`,� .,,y`q:r!z?T,r'.r -:r.,. .Y{'..ti''�,f t }:r ..r. r:,'lrx,1�7'F4,:l•'..M;. a �Y:t.� .c: ,, � ,L:..'1' .�;" • ,.. .�:.,, a3#r,Fc't•,�'+�a•*.44.,gN:r.,, r Ea?.:.... �Li+t�.,ry,, .,,X-,tr..:rr+;:R k,,,r>a -+,"A. , �..X .:�y ,"' ..?„r:"". `T V•.. � '',;; I; �'tf• .1.r9�:,iww.eei...tru�y,�'?ki _ ;... i, ..r F•,..3..s,,,d,k ..ntt,,,,. ;tr�R t..t ,t- o,.,,,:raw.a=r„, , �. ..c.,. 5 ..w:; "!1'f!.' ` ,:t'rr c;....tC ,c�1,4•.yla, 'r- ;- ti,.r ?, ,�' h•. ..P I 3r' V mod- �i --��aN `x;, {{ f � 4, •,44... ♦' S. '�r� 7 .,:.t dt„z. �5`:twD -a ryt,!•«�`,�.^' art fYrt-.x r.t::t;�fr ,. '� !'�"!"r�.ai;. '.3d ��•.v. ��:a4.. !4iPtr'`":1,!'r.,. "vLi ,,t ,zt .. },!v ..se,.. .s,~a �.,,i , r,, ,^F.,...,r�•,.,t F''CN..rt{. + �,wrs 'S. WSW Y,.;��<, sG�:1 •r �,M.,h,:`�," ,r, t,n ✓: Yh �&, n.-s t•. 3+F , .;� W .•:,;.. L -�'t .a. f r ;-. .,y„„vY?x. y; .,!•:ist.: .. <t.r:t tfSl'nt"i?i_P ,w s.a..,} .r i. 8. ..cr ,r,'&i :,"�a5V.} ,.:Y.,.�,• law ,,,�' 'S ,:h.$a'i "•', V r ;7 .YlI X .4.7a., ir. aYa; ¢p,v,..•}, t:G,. .,.+,., �,-. Y�E •k� rrt•Y7: � mA �.4 .?,. �. y!`:b:u t �.,,nz'-.M , r.,, wv k„i,t{ 4„ �{`:'4 ,<.3;,- .v„ M Av -k�.0,:,c :., x„ :.t ,'i�. �.N U {,� �,.!r ,t r,. i5x •.�r4 Y .in,..'<� e.`- {2,. ,�!�+9y..:.' Sr. I :Lu -�e`tr 'h 3,� r" 5•: � ', k ...,; k.+,.,q i..r.° ..,,..•-,,r+.. ,c,. .?r.:.,;.r. }: pr^f.£, .lk .�. .,.:Tc n };#?{,, � I,. ,,,t?, ¢ .,. t,.qEu, 4� , ';1:..'YG.•1� e7rt a t.,r..,�:, u+ . r17� .�•,:.il..d,rt�r, .k.t r•w...�`.,,,•, ,,r. .,sr,.?+;rt r>.,�",.,$,r�`ar.'L. ,.•1; t�. r ,•f .,�,,.,. r! 4-.,.r't.f ,��.:T"..: "� ,.ra,r. x , br, . ,r`'!r,. a ,�y,.,,< H air t;t i:r,a5 i r.,# rE a >.,. "3�s,.� t as£'•K o>, - !t. .. .,y�?; ,$s't,, :+f �� ��u., IS �.EE., ,� .,r<• f.� :u�,: I ,,�•,,..,. �r.`!t ,•r.,� ;•r ,, "E ,. a�,.. ,� • �, ,::.,v Isr!:. r >r,c, .,,o, ,.,,. ,i�y7 ..� y�.4!`"};^s•F•q }#>,e {•✓.`1,7�•,,d,S+: T..r�t a':E. �4'4,"•,;v ..i � .e; .:.�h. a.•v ac a ., ,vs .;rY, +`X1+: T ri y ,j� dt!.- ^Q t,�' fin:,., 4i .r: ia° •r „r55r., y ,�'r '},r .'F 'r,�,f e r rr zLs.l<.G,gg :t•. .lrc ,�.,,tiw ,r.'f$ f�.F.7',,,r�4ak"� 5;1,,,, t�:,f. H, x�1+1d1E rJa. d'�' •+7 J, ,�r rt r., ♦♦nt�f'i«i, ,z� � b ,+w+.. �+. d 5 �. y >,1 t a dr.'i'e:Y.� '1F h.-S;A i�..,�u� !� .4. .h..•?..- p^•f+ ��R�.. K� � iy�/y{t '.k. � !'.• .1� •,�t1r -de .k4'�'i ,� .f Ya` �.!I?. .F.��. S. 'r',FrM Y. :4 .,5 �f V;.+„ .Y, a.".'��:.: 5�,t?.Y�`"P't^,..�Iv.N,Y .3,r. i. r ,Mrren £"� '�4�':: o��.l ,,a,� Yr e: ,..•r _'+,ts" �.tY ,�i'?,. r r»• .Pl�x,rrt},v,rf� n�r...R,.,. 4-.,t t.`r� t - L ,i: ,.. M..' !J1,- ,, ..,r.+1 W''t'St`.:.. c a >s1:"t,i ! 5s:.rs,., X• .r,.. ...55i F•lu�•at !s', „ .k .n '�1;,i.. p .: ., .,, ,... �' �'' wl`•. ,. .,' a, i' ,.t:, tr c .;.. ,.n ......,.k,-�.,>x tr'�P ar- i,�„ :t,!i'+^e.n,- u'�• ., f4 f..,.. t s!,e„ `� .. bl.. ,. ,.�' -,�+�,,. ,,}. "ki; h �.., »-.s.,.."h.,.>� F�.,�;,•'`u.-�.s ,.�'.'1,� t C,.± k y .a,..Y^t,� ,,.wf, :.e.. ,-h.,....,�R.,n. t� , , .. • .. y o,. ,x . 4>w� r ?Fhs k! r§Ytt :*yy:'ir f. •.xa+ t Etwn kg{�"!d -,arr}iti ., r�. . � -,, 'S! +,.r + .:,;.�„ �":,.k'.a..,!�} &i•,, ,Y-..,4]:t. 3 , ..a,.. {iy .. �E,e„� ^�(.',��� •ar•... .a4 .�•' -,•vr�'.:..vy...m?� . z,4+ car ',`.a i y,.., x• .,:. .x.,tt. av-. -1 y, ;.,fL^.. ,e .�. I,.. r..., ,�K�'. •�.f..7•.�.Q 7 .,, r,,, f:•, .� '�§.M. � ->..,. .. ,�t,w� :V"'!r..�'�. I, .?„ 1.,AA>�F �'.C.° riY' 1}r;xx x� a* L� :!ta =. I"'�!. X4v.,F. r,,, Q ..'G; rt i rar.. k'+. ...- :.•V,t..naa ,„ar i.:.r6;;1:. y.,5 'ti'„..,.,, +f;., ., tr 7�,(t h..,. ,� .,1i,�1f,. ,t., ,' .per 4, �;iRI'".�E.•, vp.�' •i+�,+ ,�d.;, .s,':A.. .7i. ..,,,'•?i+ 6..�" '7..".,„T. :r�,�rfirr,,yt�'•,..,AV ••fig,+.� �t;..�� gr..,, S' v,,.y. ,ixa."�.,,;r..Y. •cl r .(I'` ,a�,-r a ,�•x- ,.:e:.,,a C a.,,. ,1tgy..».`}!a:,.,.is -0 -'->< :,.,:,.. �''�{i�,',•...,'�, a, „i ..i. f,..x ..�r 1,ti4, :t,:+c.YAJ� s,,::!,. 1.•i.x tt..art d1,• t.,.,4a!',t,it d„t�lr, ,k,-'i ,ti,.}„�..3... 'nG,. 1 "9 ,�»- ,A� r �� r�. �. ✓ ,a'% yi.. tJ.,J., 1 yG',.1,.,, t. F1.♦ 4 w,k, ,V.r w .{„S.. .�k„ p.r,E'E,ry.i,!X„ r.q ,A,x w..�j ti•. n, Jr.�;RV.tifky,,.F,` U-,, '4"a nA,4", S. y..i`:'.�.c.{G�•"7r�1 M,•r,a, k l fs'; '4+�'a r,F,• J .:�`�.y:r-' r xt,+ �gfi' ':A c,{ +J§ 1'%.',k`• r :y'.t� /S� rl:�i{'hS t r'al ,l r rt �rr: ,sr,'t'.; t(•�.,<•t'rL.a�.$ .>,r� k�.'"�`? ,.}:::,•�A' ':�'k- v '; ' � ° :ppA ;..f',:r .: t..,.."". }kty a •:a.. ,� 3 �,,-;'�i'C; 75� �irce ,y �r"',{�'`-�. ",,:5'. ry ,.�"ly.. ria. .. fi �.,��.�. £,^)t,°fits.•. `.:."..; '?�+'..:'y'��µ;'�' sia fis 5�v.;yy�:::, a rl M#,!L 0, fir'-> �.. ,•{..{:i+ : ! - tZ x,s`r r�Mhtv''l.,r e1t}' ,r:4fi U^`{{y:. %""^Y a.9 t�,ti`'y,;f ,y 7 � .:,< r ,@�.5. .�;: ✓ ..v.,:,';,< :J`',v'Yn> a'�:..,Iv. tf,,. :+, K,„gpr....vR,: ���`1,:.r A ,f.^; �,IJA �3�,.,,r:'b rt .:„t ea! �+-_ ,,}. aA'{:.t y t F+e ^, ••@:� r•N a X4 t 7•s ..trL.;�, �n1;F''t�.it�,,�'Ex ,� :s,�i, Mks @3:� ��:-, K �1 vy,;J.rkl3 �•':At ak •tt:rla x tSf V 5�1. f a rs ..5 r ,In`dJ '} ,r ,�? >r � t f+���F r� 'A f d t rr ytXr t rr •s iwr y .lv � re t � i s �',�i!r � 'ri.�lS k ;•ar K' :! n F ,• n t t,+.., � q .K.„ x �,rµ v} �att l t't 1 °,4'z.cirsX k"'Y,� !'r',��4L�' i , 1 1 M -r t. AIN O CA CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH f,. ,-� INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNIC I 'HUNTINGTON BEACH pj. 0 '4 � /��'>>�^ To Floyd G. Belsito Fro OJames W. Palin City Administrator Acting Planning 1V Subject BOLSA CHICA ANNEXATION Date December 6 , 1978 The major steps to be taken toward annexation of Bolsa Chica are (1) prezone the property, (2) apply for annexation to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) , (3) a hearing by LAFCO, and (4) a hearing by the City Council to consider protests to the annexation by owners within the area. Step #1 , Prezone : A joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission should be scheduled in late January to discuss prezoning alternatives . After receipt of this input staff will prepare an environmental impact report on prezoning/annexation and return to the Planning Commission for a public hearing on proposed prezoning on June 5 , 1979 . A City Council public hearing will follow on July 2 , 1979 . Step 92 , Apply to LAFCO: On July 2 , 1979 , subject to approval of the proposed prezoning , the City Council will adopt a resolution of application for annexation . Staff will then file an application with LAFCO. Step #3 , LAFCO Hearing : ✓� On August 29 , 1979 , approximately two months after the City Council adopts a resolution of application , LAFCO will conduct a public hearing and make a determination on the City' s application. Step #4 , Protest Hearing : Subject to approval of the City application for annexation by LAFCO , the City Council will adopt a resolution initiating proceedings toward annexation on September 17 , 1979 . A public hearing will be held October 29 or November 5 , 1979 , at which time property owners within the subject area may declare their opposition. If a majority of the property owners protest them, the City Council adopts a resolution declaring a majority protest and annexation fails . If a majority of property owners do not protest , then the City Council may adopt a resolution ordering the territory annexed and inform LAFCO accordingly. JWP : TM: ja Attachment : Bolsa Chica 1979 Annexation Schedule J BOLSA CHICA - JAN. M. KNRCH AP= MAY JUNE MLY AUG. S=. OCT. 1979 ANNEXATION SCHEDULE 5 12 19 26 219 11612312 9 116636oi41111181252 29 6 1 2027 310 1724 1 7 2 1 Planning Commission and City Council — 2 7rer-are F.IR or. Prezone a.-id ----- FIR oos`_ed 2 l 4 =final EIR case_ he prepared 4 5 Planning Co-laissicn action on Prezn,n.i^.n 5 City Council 7DUhlic nearing - ado^'_ prezoning 2 6 or r_ance and == e FI3 2 7 City Council Resolution of Application 16 g Second-reading of ordinance 29 9 LAFC 0 review and hearing 17 _0 City Council Resolution initiating proceeding 9 11 Protest hearing City Council resolution declaring majority 29 !-2 Protests or ordering territory I i • From the desk of: CONNIE BROCKWAY City Clerk's office 536-5226 eq (P� • N CITY OF HUnTInGTOP BE � CH ,ADEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, NIA 92648 (714) 53rg� J .Jj�l �_(3s _Wtjc_ TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council C� ATTN: Floyd G. lsito, City Administrator ...... " FROM: Develop e Services Department DATE: October 2t 1978 F R� L RE: ANNEXATIO OF BOLSA CHICA O1" W( STATEMENT OF ISSUE: ------------------------------------ Per the City Council' s request, the followinT-is an update on the status of the Bolsa Chica Annexation. ANALYSIS: In August, 1976, the City Council officially submitted an applica- tion to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for the annexation of the entire Bolsa Chica. After considerable discussion over a period of several months, including consideration of annexing only the uplands portion of the Bolsa Chica, the City Council at its December 12, 1977 meeting decided not to pursue the annexation of any of the Bolsa Chica. On December 16, 1977 , the City officially withdrew its application. In order to proceed with annexation a new application must be made to LAFCO. The processing of an application for annexation normally requires approximately six months. If annexation of the Bolsa Chica is pursued, the Bolsa Chica should be prezoned with an appropriate district. The Limited Use District is an appropriate district since it is a transitional or holding zoning intended for use on properties for which planning efforts are ongoing or forthcoming. Prezoning of the Bolsa Chica would take approximately two months. An additional consideration is the County of Orange efforts on the Local Coastal Program for the Bolsa Chica. The County may not finalize its land use planning efforts until January, 1981. Further, anticipated purchases of properties in the Bolsa Chica by the State and County may not be finalized by the January 1981 date. Since -:opposition to City annexation of the Bolsa Chica is founded on the belief of the potentially (though undemonstrated) detrimental effects of such an annexation on State and County efforts in the area, it may be infeasible to proceed with annexation before January, 1981. TM:df I �. loer - Alicia Wentworth , To City Clerk Date 10/17/78- BOLSA CHICA ANNEXATION Please schedule consideration of t'his matter under Councilman Pattinson ' s portion of New Business for the Council Agenda of 11 /6/78. PLEASE REPLY TO Sid ned- Floyd G . Belsito",- City Administrator i i i Date Signed Redif�rm SEND PARTS 1 AND 3 WITH CARBONS INTACT. 45 465 PART 3 WILL BE RETURNED WITH REPLY. - John Behrens , Interim To Development Services Dir. Date 10/17/73 BOLSA CHICA ANNEXATION Please Provide me with an update on the status of the Balsa Chica Annexation which would in- clude the status with LAFCO, Possible zonings, etc. , so that I can send this information to the City Council prior to its 11 /6 meeting . RETURN TO Signed Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator Date Signed Redil?rm SEND PARTS I AND 3 WITH CARBONS INTACT. 4S465 PART 3 WILL BE RETURNED WITH REPLY. MARK W. HANNAFORD ")!set wASHINGTONOFFlCe: 34TH DISTRICT,CALIFORNIA 815 CANNON HOUSE OMCE BUILDING WASHINGTON,D.C. 20515 (202)225-2415 COMMITTEE FINANCE AND URBAN AFFAIRS Congregg of the Mniteb btateg f �!E OFFICE: COMMITTEE ON 5199 EAST PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY VETERANS' AFFAIRS +p SUITE 300 N 3boua of Reprezentatibeg LONG BEACH,CALIFORNIA 90804 (213)498-3381 Na bington,O. C. 20515 �- August 29 , 1978sfy�J Hon. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Alicia: I want to bring you up to date -on- the Bolsa Chi-ca issue. On June 15 the Bolsa Chica Study Group met in Huntington Beach to discuss 20 different proposals to develop Bolsa Chica salt marsh. These alternatives were presented by agencies, indus- try, and private interest groups and ranged from developing the area commercially and residentially to keeping it in its natural state. At a subsequent executive meeting of the study group, the alternatives were narrowed, and EDAW, Inc. (the consulting firm retained by the Signal Landmark Co. ) was instructed to develop a time frame for the ongoing study process. On June 19 another executive meeting with the California Coastal Commission was held in San Francisco to discuss the methodology for the study of Bolsa Chica and to obtain the commission' s suggestions about the issue. Most recently, questionable dumping of petroleum waste and general trash was observed in Bolsa Chica. Orange County author- ities have put an end to this dumping at least temporarily, and some cleanup operations have been conducted. If the companies involved secure the necessary permits, it is possible that some of this dumping may be resumed. The target date for the presentation of the study group' s planning workbook is September 1. I will keep you apprised of my activities on this issue. Sincerely, 11�h� MARK W. HANNAFORD Member of Congress MWH:ml q , ® CITY OF HUnTInGTOn BEACH J'A DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-52� TO: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator � 1/11 FROM: Edward D. Selich, Planning Director a DATE: November 16 , 1977 REFERENCE: BOLSA CHICA ANNEXATION STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: On September 19, 1977, the City Council directed Staff to evaluate the alternatives of full vs. partial annexation. In addition, Staff was directed to consider the feasibility of placing the matter on the April 1978 ballot. RECOMMENDED ACTION: -121 Action is discretionary with the City Council. Alternatives are detailed in the "Alternatives" section. ANALYSIS: 1. Partial vs. Full Annexation A. Cost/Revenue Analysis: Partial Annexation - The City will incur yearly costs for the provision of services in the approximate amount of $12 , 000 . Tax revenues generated by the partial annexation would equal nearly $45, 000 a year, of which almost $38 ,000 would come from property taxes and the remainder from the oil barrel tax. The City would realize a net positive revenue flow of approximately $33 , 000 per year. Complete Annexation - The City can expect costs to service Bolsa Chica to reach nearly $61, 000 per year. Offsetting the service costs would be property and oil barrel taxes approaching $195,000 per year ($92 ,500 per year in property taxes) . Considering recurrent costs only, the City should realize revenue of $134 , 000 per year more than costs incurred. B. Local Coastal Plan: Staff will develop, in cooperation with the County, the necessary background information in preparation of the Local Coastal Plan so that Bolsa Chica, if and when partially or wholly annexed, can be incorporated in the plan without disrup- tion of the Local Coastal Program schedule. C . Timing of Development: Since the property is subject to a Local Coastal Plan irrespective of local jurisdiction, partial or complete annexation will not accelerate development of the annexed 1 Floyd G. Belsito Bolsa Chica Annexation Page 2 area. For all practical purposes, the Local Coastal Plan for all of Bolsa Chica will have to be adopted prior to any develop- ment taking place. D. Inflation of Land Values: Speculation has occurred that complete annexation of Bolsa Chica would inflate property values thereby increasing the purchase price of the wetlands to the detriment of the State of California' s and County of Orange' s efforts in this area. However, value of vacant property is generally deter- mined by its highest and best use with allowances made for en- cumbrances. Annexation has no impact on this issue since the highest and best use would be the same under County or City authority. Further, the proposition that annexation will have an inflationary effect on property values is based on the assump tion that development is more eminent under City authority. In actuality, the development of the Local Coastal Plan and the eventual phasing out of oil activities are much more im- portant to the timing of development than is the question of incorporation. If there is an inflationary effect attributable to annexation, then clearly annexation of only those portions of the Bolsa Chica that the State and County are not presently attempting to purchase would abet those efforts . E. Balance of Assessed Values: Property owners of vacant property proposed for annexation vote on the proposal based on assessed value. For instance, a property assessed at $100 ,000 is worth in effect twice as many votes as a property assessed at $50 , 000 . The following table details assessed values by two categories, land and improvements and also mineral rights. Partial Annexation Complete To Be Remains Type Owner Annexation Incorporated Unincorporate:; Land $3 ,715 ,740 $1, 932 ,530 $1,783 ,210 and Improve- ments State of CA ($ 433 , 230) ($ 433 , 230) Signal ($2 , 680 , 090) ($1, 353 , 660) ($1, 326 , 430) Grace Properties ($ .280 ,140) ($ 280, 140) Oceanview School ($ 144 , 380) ($ 144 ,380) - MWD ($ 124 , 590) ($ 124 , 590) Goodell ($ 29, 760) ($ 29 ,760) Crocker Bank ($ 22 ,300) ($ 22 , 300) So.Pac. Trans . Co . ($ 1, 250) ($ 1, 250) Mineral Rights $2, 956 , 700 $ 766, 890 $2 , 189 , 810 Aminoil ($2 , 658 ,140) ($ 766, 890) ($1, 891, 250) Standard ($ 232 , 820) ($ 232 , 820) Armstrong ($ 65, 740) ($ 65, 740) Floyd G. Belsito Bolsa Chica Annexation Page 3 Assuming mineral rights owners have the same voting rights as the owners of land and improvements then the following analysis applies. As the table indicates., land and improvements repre- sent the greatest assessed value in either a vote on complete or partial annexation. However, if partial annexation is pursued the remaining unincorporated properties show a new balance wherein mineral rights represent the greatest portion of assessed values. Assuming mineral rights owners have less incentive to be annexed, annexation of the remaining properties may be difficult. 2. Feasibility of Placing the Issue on the Ballot A. Time Limit: It is possible that a ballot measure against annex- ation if passed could so restrict the City that another ballot would be necessary to permit annexation at a later date even if all involved parties desired annexation. Therefore, the im- position of a time limit on the measure would probably be in the best interests of the City. B. Cost and Effectiveness : Costs would be minimal for placing a measure on the ballot. The measure would be processed along with other matters to be placed before the electorate in April 1978. All appropriate materials must be to the City Clerk by January 1, 1978 in order to be placed on the ballot. Effectiveness of the ballot measure is questionable because municipal elections do not attract a wide cross section of the citizenry and as a consequence election results can be greatly influenced by active interest groups. C. Local Coastal Plan: A ballot measure will not seriously disrupt progress on the Local Coastal Program since the necessary background information will be developed in antici- pation of possible annexation. D. Plebiscite/Poll: A plebiscite would provide the City Council with advisory information concerning the attitudes of the citizenry and would not be binding, thereby permitting the City Council to retain flexibility for future changing cir- cumstances. A professional opinion survey would provide the City Council with the best indication of the desires of the citizens of Huntington Beach. A 10% sample would cost approximately $20 , 000. An alternative method would be to solicit the response of the citizenry by mailing a questionnaire with the water bill and the responses returned with the payment for the bill. This method, however, is not as accurate as a sampling of the popu- lation by a professional pollster, but the costs are negligible in comparison. Floyd G. Belsito Bolsa Chica Annexation Page 4 ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are available to the City Council. 1. Proceed with partial annexation. 2. Proceed with complete annexation. 3. Discontinue Annexation Efforts 4 . Pursue a binding measure without a time limit for the April .1978 ballot. 5. Pursue a binding measure with a time limit for the April 1978 ballot. 6. Pursue an advisory measure (plebiscite) for the April 1978 ballot. 7. Contract for the services of a professional pollster. 8. Mail questionnaires with the water bills. Respectfully submitted, Edward D. Selich Director EDS :TM:gc Attachment : Locational Map :.......... .... .. BOLSA I Y .... . .^.......... PARTIAL 3 i .... ................{............... \,^..�...... AkFADOLN ANNEXATION ' `�' w�ww[ar»w n ¢�•'- \•\�\� EDWCiER : ...:... .....LX?`....... ..............._,y............... ................,..............�. ........ ....... ........................ \ .. ...... ... ...i i. 1' �\ WARNLR ................ ............ ............ .. 7y il. ........... 1 '.��\ S ..a. ...._.._... LALBERF .� ........... ............. ElUS 1 Ii . Xa'�::c!^:._.. ....,..__ _........... ...... ............^.i J:� YORNfOWN ' COMPLETE ANNEXATION, \ i y.......... ARAM$ \\ M ......_..........LkT.AX2.� INDIANAPOLIS ]3 ATLANTA NAMLION ! BANNING Figure 1-1 Locational Map Proposed Bolsa Chica f'- Annexation #7(Revised) City Of Huntington Beach 2 huntinagton beach planning department ® ( ITY OF HUnTmGT ® n BEA (W �® DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-5271 TO: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator SD FROM: Edward D. Selich, Planning Director DATE: December 27 , 1977 RE: LOCAL COASTAL PLAN FOR BOLSA CHICA STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Now that direction has been established on the Bolsa Chica Annexation issue and the County of Orange will be preparing the Local Coastal Plan (LCP) for Bolsa Chica the Planning Department is concerned that the City' s time schedule for adoption of the LCP will be held up if the County does not have the LCP for Bolsa Chica completed con- currently. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No.49 0 recommending that the Orange County Board of Supervisors give the Bolsa Chica LCP top priority and be scheduled to coincide with the City of Huntington Beach LCP. ANALYSIS : Unless the Board of Supervisors gives specific direction otherwise, the Bolsa Chica LCP will probably not have a high enough priority to be before the Coastal Commission for approval the same time as the City' s. This will cause the City' s plan to be held up for Coastal Commission approval until the County plan catches up. Thus gaining a commitment from the County Board of Supervisors will insure that the work done by the City planning staff to have one of the first LCP ' s will not be in vain. Respectfully submitted, Edward D. Selich Director EDS :ja . Rho No �� • �2 Z� i September 15, 1977 i To : City Council Members Mr. Ed Selich, Planning Director City of Huntington Beach From: Amigos de Bolsa Chica Ken and Rhoda Martyn, Co-Presidents Re : Partial Annexation of Bolsa Chica When you consider even the tentative map for the partial Bolsa Chica annexation, we would like to suggest that you direct staff to eliminate the long finger of Metropolitan Water District land and the Wintersburg Channel from the study. The City will gain no tax benefits from that kind of annexation. It isolates , as can be readily seen on the map, an important part of the proposed. State acquisition, and if not annexed, it could not be used as a device to get around fair and equi- table dedication of open space in any ultimate bluff development . For example, if Signal exercises its rights with the Metropolitan Water District , it might use that 80-acre strip toward its open space requirements on the bluff development. If this strip is not annexed, it cannot be used as a part of the open space requirement , so there would be no need for the City to "control" it . HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPT. SEP 16 1977 P. 0. BOX 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648, cc : Assemblyman Mangers �, 22 0 TY ® DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-5271 wl TO: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator j"h FROM: Edward D. Selich, Planning Director DATE: September 12, 1977 Jp- RE: BOLSA CHICA ANNEXATION STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: On August 15, 1977 , the City Council directed staff to proceed with partial annexation of Bolsa Chica. The area to be annexed is generally the bluff and mesa area west of the Wintersburg Flood Control Channel. Prior to proceeding with the annexation the City Council should approve the boundaries of the area to be annexed. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve boundaries of area to be annexed as indicated on attached map and prezoning designation of Limited Use District. ANALYSIS: Subsequent to the August 15, 1977 , City Council meeting the Planning staff compiled a map of what would constitute a reasonable partial annexation. The attached map depicts a partial annexation of all property not presently contemplated for acquisition by a public agency or already acquired. Included in the to be or already acquired category are the 924 acres in Assemblyman Mangers ' proposal, 50 acres in the Orange County EMA Bluff Park Proposal, and 307 acres currently owned by the State. This leaves 323 acres to be part of the annexation proposal and includes 42 acres owned by Kendall/Grace, 37 acres by Metropolitan Water District, 15 acres by Oceanview School District, '.6_acres by Don Goodell , 203 acre _ by Signal Properties and 20 `acres by Orange County_ Flood_Control_ District. Several impacts of the proposed annexation should be considered by the Council: i 1. Revenue: Major source would be property taxes at $.37 , 393 per year. Only 10 oil wells are in the annexation area and oil revenue is marginal. 2. Local Coastal Plan: The decision to proceed with partial annexation of the Bolsa Chica at this time necessitates some revision in our approach to the Local Coastal Program. At present, the County is Lead Agency for the Bolsa Chica Local 6 Coastal Plan. The City is serving in a consulting position on plan preparation. The current annexation effort, however, will conclude before any Local Coastal Plan is approved by Page 2 the Coastal Commission and will transfer Lead Agency status for the annexed territory to the City. To prevent delays or reconsideration of the Local Coastal Program work program by the State at that time, we will be revising our Local Coastal Program effort now to reflect potential annexation. This will involve modifying the issue identification phase to reflect incorporation of part of the Bolsa Chica and including any necessary data collection and planning tasks for the annexed area in the Work Program. It is doubtful that such tasks will be funded prior to annexation by the Office of Planning and Research, but including these items now should prevent disruption of the Local Coastal Program when annexation is complete. 3 . Timing of Development: Since the property is subject to a Local Coastal Plan irrespective of local jurisdiction, the annexation will not accelerate development of the annexed area. The Local Coastal Plan for all of Bolsa Chica, including the remaining County portion, will have to be adopted prior' to any development taking place. 4 . Cost to City: The City will continue to incur costs of processing the annexation as well as new costs of planning and zoning of the property without receiving substantial revenue. Also the City will be responsible for providing municipal services to the annexed area at an annual cost of approximately $12_, 300 . Also the staff feels that the Limited Use District is the proper prezoning designation to apply to partial annexation. This is the same as proposed in the full annexation. The partial annexation in itself presents no reason to change the proposed prezoning. Attached for the City Council 's consideration is a time schedule for partial annexation if the Council concurs with the proposed boundaries at the September 19 , 1977, meeting . ALTERNATIVES: Staff has previously delineated alternatives regarding Bolsa Chica annexation to the City Council in a transmittal for the July 18 , 1977, Council meeting. Respectfully submitted, jI o'VJ Edward D . Selich Director Attachments: Bolsa Chica Annexation Map Annexation Time Schedule 2 POTENTIAL ANNEXATION 1323.2 ac. PROPOSED STATE PURCHASE (923.79ac.) =^1 �' �� '%'`' " y •: ""`� :' i- --- __ _ PROPOSED COUNTY PURCHASE (49.56at.) ,'i � t•,'_jig �`''r:�: ��\':i-.t:S:.�'-'^.•\,�`:�:.��''x=�-!;'' .. `."�\ y ® STATE OWNED (307ac.)�NERS IN POTENTIAL. ANNEXATION Signal Properties(202.77ac,) \` 'r KendalVGrace(42.08ae.) :,; ,'�/ ">:<,<:>:<`:': Goodell (6.22 ac.) ;';':hY. : ":.X:. OCFCD t20.03ac.1 :. ..f... �' f ✓ :, / ... ' / MWD (37.18ac.) �__-- ' -- -- �/ :�:> - I.L"rrcr _- - �._ BOLSA CHICA PROPOSALS : 1977 V 3 BOLSA CHICA September October November December January February March April May .1977-78 ANNEXATION SCHEDULE 5 12 1926 3 0 172431 7 142128 5 12 9 26 21 9116123130 6 132d 7 6 1320 7 3 1017 4 1 8 152229 I Prepare EIR on Prezone and Annexation II FIR posted III Final EIR caused to be prepared 28 IV Planning C rmi.ssion action on Prezoninq V City Council public.hearinq - adopt prezoninq and approve FIR VI Second reading VII IAFCO review and hearin VIII City Council Resolution of Intent to Annex 2 IX Protest Hearing X. Ili-asolution Declaring Protests )XI Annexation Ordinance First Reading XII Annexation Ordinance Second Reading ® Specific Date for Action (i.e., Public Hearing) m ' Z 5 • CITY OF HUnTmGTon BEACH . DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES a` i:_, • P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-5271� TO: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator FROM: Edward D. Selich, Planning Director DATE: July 13, 1977 SUBJECT: BOLSA CHICA ANNEXATION STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The City of Huntington Beach has completed a Draft Environmental Impact Report on the Prezoning and Annexation of Bolsa Chica. The public comment period was extended to July 1, 1977 , to coincide with the Governor' s decision on the funding of $3. 6 million for acquisition. Now that the State budget includes funds for acquisition, the City should decide whether or not to proceed with prezoning and annexation. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Direct staff to proceed with prezoning and annexation of Bolsa Chica as outlined in Alternative 1. ANALYSIS: The City initiated prezoning and annexation of the entire unin- corporated Bolsa Chica area in the summer of 1976 in response to property owners' request for partial annexation. The City Council took the position that annexation should include all of Bolsa Chica and revenues to the City from annexation would be used to offset costs to the City for planning the area and providing services. Prezoning and annexation proceedings were initiated but were delayed at the EIR level in September of 1976 due to citizen concerns that the actions would impair the activities by the Coastal Commission and others to acquire and restore the area as a natural marshland. In November of 1976 the staff was directed to redo the EIR to include prezoning under the newly created Limited Use District with the annexation activity. The Draft EIR was completed on April 7, 1977, and posted for public comment to May 24, 1977 . On February 24, 1977 , Assemblyman Mangers introduced AR 643 to acquire 924 acres in Bolsa Chica for marsh restoration and passive open space. The Bill got the the State Resources and Transportation Subcommittee of the Assembly Ways and Means Committee where it was referred to the State Budget as a line item for acquisition. The specific uses and other actions proposed in the Mangers Bill were ^ not part of the budget item. It was for acquisition only and amounted. l to $3. 6 million. Since it appeared to staff that the Mangers Bill was no longer active and the acquisition issue would be decided in the State budget O 4 Page 2 it was decided to extend the public comment period on the EIR to July 1, 1977, to coincide with that decision. The budget was signed and $3. 6 million is now allocated towards purchase of the Bolsa Chica. Signal Properties has estimated the market value of the land to be acquired at $36. 9 million. This results in a large disparity between the funds allocated in the State budget and the Signal estimate. This could result in a lengthy negotiating period which could evolve into legal actions. In addition to the Bolsa Chica annexation two other factors have come about that the City Council should consider. First, under the new Coastal- Act all local agencies must prepare a Local Coastal Plan for the portions of the Coastal Zone within their jurisdiction. Under present conditions the County of Orange would prepare the plan for the Bolsa Chica. Second, the County Board of Supervisors has agreed to proceed with a regional park along the easterly Bolsa Chica bluffs to provide a linear linkage between Huntington Central Park and Bolsa Chica State Beach. The EMA Feasibility Study has suggested that the regional park and Bolsa Chica acquisition and marsh restoration are inextricably tied together. The Planning staff has reassessed this whole issue, including events subsequent to the City Council ' s direction to redo the EIR last November, and concludes the following: 1. There will be a lengthy period of time until the price for and extent of acquisition by the State is resolved, due to disparity in land valuation. 2 . Placing the acquisition in the Governor' s budget did not resolve the use to which Bolsa Chica is to be placed. Had Assemblyman Manger' s Bill passed, the use issues would have been partially resolved. 3. Prezoning and annexation by the City will have no effect on the price the .State will have to pay for whatever it acquires. 4. If the City does not annex, the County of Orange will prepare 'the Local Coastal Plan for Bolsa Chica which will become the determination of land use in the area. 5. The philosophy expressed in the EMA Feasibility Study on the Bolsa Chica Regional Park presents a predetermined point of view which could very easily manifest itself in a County-prepared Local Coastal Plan. Although the feasibility study and the Board of Supervisors' action on it called for joint City-County planning of the area, the reality is that the County as lead agency would be in control and the City a participant. Page 3 ALTERNATIVES: There are several alternative courses of action available to the City. Each is based on an assumption of City Council desires . Alternative 1 Proceed with annexation. Assumption: City Council desires to be lead agency in determining land use in Bolsa Chica and desires revenues to accrue from annexation. Course of Action: Finalize EIR; proceed with annex- ation and prezoning. Benefits : City plans land use for area already - in sphere of influence which will someday be in the City. City begins to derive revenues from annexed area. Liabilities: The public who oppose annexation until acquisition completed by the State would feel that the City was contributing to an increased acquisition cost by the State. Alternative 2 Continue annexation proceeding until acquisition resolved. Assumption: City Council desires to be lead agency in planning Bolsa Chica but feels that annexation will raise acquisition costs by State. Course of Action: Direct staff to place EIR in abeyance until acquisition issue resolved between the State and Signal Properties. Benefits: Public groups opposing annexation would feel that the City was helping to keep acquisition costs down. Door left open for City to prepare Local Coastal Plan if acquisition issue settled within reasonable period of time. Liabilities: If acquisition issue not resolved in reasonable period City loses planning ability altogeth:�r . Also revenue is lost until annexation completed. Alternative 3 Continue annexation until County completes Local Coastal Plan Assumption: Acquisition will take longer than preparing Local Coastal Plan and City Council desires County to be lead agency in planning Bolsa Chica. Course of Action: Direct staff to' discontinue pre- zoning and annexation activities until Local Coastal Plan is adopted for Bolsa Chica. a Page 4 Benefits: City would not have administrative burden of preparing Local Coastal Plan. Liabilities: City does not have lead agency status in Local Coastal Plan and does not receive revenues until area is annexed. Alternative 4 Discontinue annexation. Possibly revive after acquisition issue resolved and County prepares Local Coastal Plan. Assumption: City Council desires that County should prepare Local Coastal Plan for Bolsa Chica, feels that annexation will raise acquisition costs to State and does not desire to have area annexed to the City until these issues are resolved. Course of Action: Direct staff to discontinue prezoning and annexation activities . Benefits: Public groups opposing annexation would feel that the City was helping to keep acquisition costs down. Liabilities: City does not have lead agency status in Local Coastal Plan and does not receive revenue until all Bolsa Chica issues are resolved and annexation is reactivated. Staff assessment of the alternatives, based upon past City policies, is that the City should pursue annexation of the Bolsa Chica and assume the lead agency position in the preparation of a Local Coastal Plan. Waiting until the acquisition issue is resolved would jeopardize the City ' s ability to plan for this vital area which, unless there is a dramatic change in City policy, will someday be in the City boundaries. Also staff does not feel the City annexation will affect the cost to the State for the area that will be acquired. Respectfully submitted, (d4waAelich Director Attachment: Proposed Bolsa Chica Annexation #7 Map - �r• s�- ,--`• _...� _-- NORTH 1 - P K. Q. F,7WWA EXATION LIMITS ; - r F ,�'- :\LIMITS �'" ` 5 /.l r / -. ��✓f�' `a� • SIGNAL'"BOLSA 1 /) _/ - \.`'S/,, ". �". =- /' --r •�a"-''--_" "}:- { GARFIELD ANNEXATION 1 ."mac / W-02 G�� ? i i\ _'% — ' GARFIELD 3 GARFIELD 2 F i --POINT GE BEGINNING S.B9'12'50"E. 343.19'(REFER TO LEGAL DESCRIPTION) INCORPORATION- _ — r '<• n.,t --BOAST. 6 R H W ` BOLSA CHICA STATE PARKR 42 PROPOSED BOLSA CHICA ANNEXATION -l'-7 TO Figure 1-2 CITY .THE ¢i Y OF HUNTINGTON BEACH (1603.12 ACRES} = MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA CP <; f f� April S, 1977 �r We IN RE: LIFT FREEZE ON ONE ATTORNEY III POSITION PUBLIC DEFENDER On motion of Supervisor Diedrich, duly seconded and unanimously carried by Board members present, the request of the Public Defender to , lift the hiring freeze on one Attorney III position is approved as recommended in his letter dated March22, 1977. IN RE: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES OF BOLSA CHICA ORANGE COUNTY HISTORICAL COMMISSION On motion of Supervisor Schmit , duly seconded and unanimously carried by Board members present, at the request of the Orange County Historical Commission, consideration of the archaeological survey of the Bolsa Chica area, in order to develop 'appropriate plans for preservation and utilization of the property, is referred to the EMA, to contact the City of Huntington Beach, and to submit recommendations to the Board of '- Supervisors . IN RE: REVISION OF CLASS SPECIFICATIONS FOR STAFF DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST I AND STAFF DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST II On motion of Supervisor Diedrich, duly seconded and unanimous) carried by Board members present., revised class specifications for Staff Development Specialist I, Class Code 7091 and Staff Development Specialist II , Class Code 7092 , are approved as recommended by the Assistant CAO/Personnel in his letter dated April S , 1977. ®F1013.2.3 (12/76) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Richard A. Harlow From Monica Florian Assistant City Administrator Senior Planner Subject City Position Concerning the Date January 14, 1977 Bolsa Chica In response to your request for information concerning official city actions related to the annexation and the planning of future land uses in the Bolsa Chica to be distributed to the City Council .for the January 17 meeting , we have researched the following information. Concerning the timing of planning, both the Policy Plan adopted in September 1973 and the Phase I7;Land Use Element adopted in December of 1973 stipulated that, " (The City) use pre-planning of unincorporated territory (prior to annexation) . . . " However, since that time , the City has taken two positions which have been contrary to the pre-planning policy. First, on May 24, 1976, the City Council directed staff to initiate proceedings toward annexation of the Bolsa Chica and to apply an interim zoning designation rather than pre-planning prior to annexa- tion. The interim zone to be used was RA-02 but was replaced by the Limited Use District at the direction of Council. The direction to proceed toward annexation remained unchanged. The second action taken by the City Council was adoption of the General Plan in December of 1976 . The General Plan supercedes all previously adopted Elements. The General Plan as adopted, is silent on the issue of whether planning of an unincorporated area should occur prior to or after annexation. As a consequence, pre-pinaning is discretionary with the City Council although this is contrary to the policies of the Policy Plan which calls for pre-planning. Concerning eventual permanent land use designations in the Bolsa Chica, there are certain parameters stipulated in the General Plan which will influence final planning decisions in the Bolsa Chica. First, the 530 acres owned and leased by the State of California are designed as Open Space in the Land Use Element. The remainder 'of the Bolsa Chica except some minor acreage designated as Low Density Residential and Resource Production is designated as a Planning Reserve. A Planning Reserve is non specific in that eventually any permanent designation could be assigned to the area. However, in this case , the Bolsa Chica is specifi- cally addressed in the Open Space and Conservation Element as being an important resource. The Bolsa Chica is designated as Planned Open Space Development in the Open Space and Conservation Element and is shown as a high priority area where valuable resources exist and development pressures are high, making expeditious planning important. The Planned Open Space Development designation applies to special resource areas with the intention of maximizing open space benefits by incorporating natural resources into the development plan. In summary, it is discretionary with the City Council whether to pre-plan the Bolsa Chica or not. The plan itself , when determined, must address the Bolsa Chica as a valuable open space resource. The final or master City Position Concei�ng the Bolsa Chica Page 2 plan of the Bolsa Chica must integrate the various concerns of the Open Space and Conservation Element since it is a requirement of law that the General Plan be internally consistent. Finally, on the loth of January 1977 , the City Council adopted a policy "to plan for the ultimate development of Bolsa Chica. " MF:TM: s i, 1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH b5To Floyd G. Belsito From Ed Selich, Acting Directoi City Administrator Planning & Env. Resources Subject 1976-77 Bolsa Chica Date November 3, 1976 Annexation Schedule The attached schedule reflects the new direction taken on the Bolsa Chica annexation in response to the City Council' s deter- mination at their October 26, 1976 meeting. The schedule provides for the preparation of an environmental impact report on both the new prezoning and the annexation, a forty-five day posting period for the draft EIR, and an additional week to incorporate comments to the draft EIR. The LAFCO hearing is projected to occur March 23, 1977 and the City' s protest hearing to occur May 16, 1977. Upon adoption of an annexation ordinance, the effective date of the ordinance is expected to be July 6, 1977 . ��. New regulations for annexations will become effective in 1977 which will give LAFCO considerably more control over the proces- sing of an annexation after the City has acted positively on the annexation. LAFCO will coordinate State certification of the annexation and filing of the annexation with the appropriate agencies. EDS:TM:gc ' i I � > j BOLSA CHICA November December January February March April May June 1976-77 ANNEXATION SCHEDULE 1 8115122129 611312,1127 3 10 17 24 31 7114121128 7 14 21 28 -'1111IS123 2 9116,123130 " '3 20 2- I �"_"_: _ R on :rezone and on. sed to be IS' _ _._ _ ;==.issio,^n, action cn Prezol:--7_ V --.oil public hearing - adoDt ©1 c,r-=zcn---z: and approve -EIR Vi re-,dinq - _-- _e.__w and _,earing 2 Resolution o` in=e-=i to 'x Declarirg Protests 16 xi --rdinance First 'C7 - - =-.,r. _........wince Se—.n: \ S:�i`ic Da_e for Action (i.e. P•.:.�__c I 1