Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
California, State of - Coastal Program 1976 to 1987 - includ
REQUEST-OR CITY COUNCIL XCTION , r ft. Date July 6. I9R7 , - Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council nn Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administratorl.� PrWaTed by: Doug Lal;plle, i3irectar, Community Development Subject: NEW LOCAL f'OASTAL PROGRAM GRANT REQUEST Consistent with Council Policy? K Yes I ) New PoNcy or Eveeption Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Souroe,'Alternative Actin �` -10 • AppKpYED$ 7 1 CITY The Coastal,Coinmission approved a grant in the amount of$10,944 for Phase II'and III work o:� the "white hole"areas. The work is close to completion; however, the City will need to hire a surveyor to survey the legal boundaries of the two areas. The estimated cost of the surveying work is$4,000. REcohlMEriOAWN: i Adopt the attached resolution requesting a new grant for surveying work on the white hole areas. The Coastal-tCommis.4lcn'approved a grant in the amount of$10,944 in'1985 for;Phase H and III work-on'the "white hole"areas. The grant period was.extended uniil June-, 1987 to allow additional time to complete the work. Land use designations were approved by the City Co;mcI1 for both"white hole"areas, however, only the designations for the area between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River have been submitted to and approved by the Coastal Commission. The new land use designations for the "white hole"area adjacent to the Bolsa Chica will be submitted in the near future. In order to bring the zoning into conformance with the new land use designations, stafi'must process the appriopriate zone changes. A legal description of the areas showing proper zoning boundaries must be provided based on a land survey. City staff is unable to survey the areas; therefore an outside surveyor will be hired. The previous grant augmentation provided funds for staff salaries,printing and advertising. Funds were not requested for surveying because., the need was not anticipated at that time. FUNDING SdUSCi California Coastal CommUlon 1 t r r $1yATWE AC"1' H. ' y Do iiat request the new grant funds. In this case, the additional work costs will be"absorbed: by the Depat tment budget. AUAC 1. Grant Augmentation Application 2. Work Program 3. resolution DLH:LC:gbtm 1 7 1 ! l RCA—July 6, 1987 —2— (852zd) =S t+r «~': • ' ! ? t"' �*jA ,ya�:. `ta.:.: ,`:ij;:' .-».= _i �:.: :^il•h:::s"`T:."y�.,ti t f +k+tr.(34 � l • _- . a .•1`4 LOCAL COASaAL PROGRAM APPLICATION FOR FUNDING TOTAL WORK PRCGRAM Flame of Aool 1 cant: CITY OF HUNT t NGTON BEACH DOUGLA5 LAi3ELLE Deputy City Administrator Pen et;L' Director: Title: Community Development r Address: 2000 ,Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Phone.• (714) 536-5271 Deputy City Administrator/ FiSC1l1 Officer Robert Franz Title: Administrative .,rviccs Address: Same as above Phane: i 714 5-16-52 tate 5tate -. Distrii*t s •Con ressi nal. 34 40 Sen7ate. Assenlbl . 0 69 Months Reouired to Conlolete Totia1 Work Prcaraiti: 1 'year ~ Grant reqWstedm 4,000for Total'Cost of Pro 'rain:' S 4.000 [Grant Period: 9-'97 to 5-ee List the Oates of Ado -tion or Status of Your General Plan Eletrents s Open .6: cen C Land Use Circulation Housin Soace Conservation Noise Seismic Safet, Safety Hi hwa 12/76 12/76 12/76 12/76 12/76 12/76 12/76 12/76. "i APPWCATI(N VATER = M BE`SUBKTTTEa . � 1. Application fort (this sheet). + 2. Total work prog=, relating tasks to costa. 3. Producta, schedule and milestones dcsarigtiom, 4. Budget Allocation SutamarT sheet (attached). 5. Resolution authorizing grant application'(sample attached). Subi t two �21 conies of e2Weted etaalication to the Coa�a1 Coamissian.rrl��n r r w�rr.rr fir.Irl rf � rrr.rr+w�IrrwlAast w ■ ssicn. �wrrt I -- First copy, rri-,h origins.?. signatures on it=s 1 and 5 above, to the Catitmissioal a state offica Att"s 631 FAr*azei Street - 4'th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-•3973 - Attn. Rill Vas Beal= -•- Sac=dcop:r to the Coz=Lsaioa1 s district office. CA yrti. Q-4YN6 (dioorto��r Authorized Official Si r Date Charles W. Thompson , .. xt g :. t e: z City Administrator vow l•tii'af1.r..iiT."..�..7'.�.w-X.T..13s=„eery.. •_ .... :•rr—r. w��.r r w� ,.Vti^:•'..�"..;:� .-..i.,.:..++...--------'.--.....•.....•-.+..—�.—..r,.,wu..r+ecPw7gaC x�,v 8/8g LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAIi Bt1t)= ALLOCATION SUMHUT Grant Applicant: CITY OF HUNT I NGTON BEACH Address: ,min tCCrI Y■ � ■,��I r.r.ritirrr���,fa�r.�.. S:e Huntington Beach, CA zip Code: 92646 i_ Project Title: Survey of "White Hole" Areas Grant Amount Requested: ,..._ 4,COO Grant Period: _9;87 Current Grant Request Personal:- Services. Ez Salaries and Wages !: Benefits " Total Personal Services Operating .,Expenses , Travol P rofersi oval. and'Consultant Services , ,,,,,,,�.00e,�,,,_„r„_r,,,, •Ind3.rect=:(overhead) Coe;� --�- see reverse ,h, Oiher,(Itami=e use separate sheet i required) office supplies postage `# printing of reports • j. 1 Total Operating Expenses S ' 4,000� Total Sudgjt S 4,000 * Please round off all lhuuet amounts to the nearest dollar. {{ya a --�---+.r..r..a�v.C^riaau�trsr3::+yrir.cr r....�.•-•..----^— .-..,aY+-:=M>-r:.w.....�.....�.—• ..... I'' a i+ FROPCSED WORK PROGRAM 1.0 Introduction The Coastal Commisslon`approved a grant in the amount of$10,944 iri.1985 for Phase 3 II and ill on the"white Bole"areas.. The grant period was extended witll June, 1987. • Land use designations were approved by the City Council for both"white hole",areas, hoK�ever, only,the designations for the u,ea between Beach Bouleyard and the Santa Ana.River have been submitted to and approved by.the Coastal Commission. The land use designations for the"white hole" area adjacent to the Bolsa Chica will be submitted in the near future. 2.0 Completion of Work for the "White Dole" Areas 1. objecttyc To hire a surveyor who will survey the ''white hole" area; in order to provide a legal n for he processing of the zone charges. dscriptio t p g B , In order_ta bring the.zonina,into conformance with the new land use designations, staff must`process the appropriate zone changes. A 1�gal description or-the areas showing proper zoning boundaries' must be provided based on a land survey. •City stafr,as unable to survey.the areas:, therefore an onside surveyor,will be aired...-.The'•prevlWus'grant f augmentation provided funds for staff salaries, printing and advertising. FWWs were not requested for surveying because the need was not anticipated at that time. j lAaks and t%d a (a) Hire a professional surveyor 4,000 } $ 4,000 Products Legal descriptions of the "white hole" areas showing zoning boundaries : i (11524d) . s.r.w+s:YiC•ii,'sILW��:a«=}R i:ir..r.ee+—�^^ .—+++ax r..:='.Gt L:;:..i.0:er 'a..s...r.......n�.r�•',pwrsC'�,.'.r��i.. City . of Hunlifigtih 2M MAIN STREET . CAUFORNIA 9 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Tekphme(714)53"553 September 16, 1986 Honorable George Deukmejian State Capltol Sacramentd, CAU(fornla 95814 bear Governor Deukmejian: Enclosed, please find Resolution 5710 adopted by the.City'Council"of Huntington Bea6. This.Resolution strongly, supports SB..2061 (Dcddehl which, as you knowp,,would make-. available up to Up000,000-for-waterfront restoration enhancement .projects along oaar coast Sand would be administered 'through the California Coastal Conservancy. We are requesting that you sign the bill Into law. Thank you for your consideration of this request. T 5lricerely,` Robert P.AAandlc, Jr., Mayor City of Huntington Deach RPM0a) Enclosure 'r xc:..CIty Council i City Administrator 5I$TER CIITc:S {taitetnasa,Nc,►Zralud r""'�--•"'+'^"�:..�++ utar„a;�y.•.fia'/ J..'.,..•.,�-.^i«.:L*`w'G•7. •ti�.w«wr.!-���....':a.~d"�++oN.+n."'�.....w.ar,uy � �.+..+_�....�wti.++.l...�ra�.�•�—.•.-. -. I. REQUES'r FOR CITY COUNCIL, CTION Gt'`L '7 lg'" Date �Jul 86 '` gp '✓G SubmitWto: Honorable Mayor and city Council Subinittedby: Charles W. Thompson, City Administra* Properedby: James W. Palin, Director, Development S Subject: GRANT AUGMENTATION REQUEST FOR THE LOCAL COASTAL PLAN Consintent with Council Policy? Yes [ j Now Policy or Exception Statement of Issue,Recommondetion,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The City; applied to the.-„California Coastal Commission in'October, 1984, . for a-,.grant augmentation for Phase IV funds of $15468 to complete' post-certification work on the Local Coastal Plan and Prase I`II,;funds, to _develop a plan for the. white hole areas. The . Coastal CanimisR,Ean: a grant of $10,944 for Phase I1 and III work 'proved a new _± on .the. white hole areas. Additional funds are now available to complete' the' work. The attached grant augmentation reauest is .for J171869.00. RECOKKENDATIOH: : Adopt the attached resolution requesting a grant augmentation fcr Phase II and III work on the white hole areas. wx.• _ANALYSIS: � �I in:'1985,,:the. City was awarded a new grant of $10,944 by the Coastal Commission..to develop. a land use plan for the white hole areas. Staff. developed land use designations for the area between Beach Boulevard and, the ,Santa Ana River (libite Hole ,I), which were adopted _ by .the City.•Council :on. June 2, 1986. All of the funds .have been c spent. to date. Additional work is needed to obtain Coastal Commission certification of White Hole I and . to develop a land use designation for the Metropolitan Water District property (White Hole II) , which is located in the northwest corner of the Bolsa Chica. Staff has determined that the following tasks should 7e accomplished .. for the final certification of the white hole. A complete :pork program is attached for your review. r 1. Develop a land use analysis for White Hole II. 2. Submit White Hole I• and II to the Coastal Commission for :. certification. ` F1o4r04 C.::�,. .� •..-t'•.-.-•s mow-. ......� .. .. ..: .; '.,..,q-. _ .....*........-.-.«•-_ _ -••e:-..+•-"-+►,+«,e'i-•;r7•fT.•r f w+:.r'j>;1A"e..;,ta�r„, ..r?i ,.`i• :..a'r ,i.�� ;, :r:'lf ~` .e ,. .. ;.. +'•., .ath f 3. Process a general Flan amendment to includo the new land use designations for the white hole areas in the Coastal Element . 4. Process a code amendment to add a new .-oning district,. "Industrial wnergy Production/Conservation" to Division 9. 5. Process zone changes to bring zoning into conformance with the land use plan. 6. Submit implementing ordnances to Coastal Commission for certification. PONDING SOURCE: California Coastal Commission. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Do not request grant augmentation :funds. In this .case, the additional work costs will be absorbed by the Department budget. I ATTACHMENTS: * 1. Grant. Augmentation Application It 2. work Program 3. Fiscal .,.Impact Statement 4. Resolutioi, JWP:LC:pb RCA - July 7, 1986 -2- (5513d) i (� _ '�}i�.w�.7V+ i:�4t. �wwrssrrr:y;'*1.�.... �.... a .�ii'•�C'.�.77Y-7.1{.:'i++.w"":'..�.;1 ..�... ....w.w ,.,w•^��-•{•.y5�;�•�q \Y...w.JtThM./'1( fli ki'.'Tr•!�i.,5* )a i LOCAL COASe L PROGRAM APPLICATION FOR FUNDING TOTAL WORK PROGrnAM ne of Apol i c8nt': Cite of Huntington Beach ; pirec,or. James V1. Pa?in e:Drector, Development S rviceEProject i 1 Adc'rpSS : 3000 main Street Hunt,incton Peach, CA 9264 8 Phone : 536-52'll Fiscal Officer: Robert Fran-, Title:Chief of Jhdgm. Services Same as above I-Addr' ess: _ Phone: r,I t -: 36- 522C rate,: . tale. Disr;eels): Congressional : 34 L 40 Senates Assembly: 50 a 69 j I Months Rml'red to Complete Total Work Programs ? -vear Grant eques tefl _I765.i10 Or Total Cost of Procram: S 1 , EG9.oo (Grant: Per -i 6 :o ,,..._.�..._.-. ...,._.......�_ _,_.�._ I List the latex of Adoati on or Stetia of Your General Plan Sl ern is: � J rici ( +Open ( I I centc L UseCirtuiatian tliousinelSaacalConse: vatinn,Noise Seismic 'Safetvi Safetvl!Hichwev' 14/76 1?/76 . 112/79 112/761 I2/76 j121;4 12/76 112/76 I ?2/76' t� A_a?LS�A 01; VA^'EF.-;.ALS TO BE SLs, ' Arr;.cation corm (4w.14s sheet). 2. Total work P:ME:•a:, :elate "asrs i. pry,ducts I scned-.Ll a arid- ate?ertoaes description. 4. ✓a4&, L11 O ce-!.= sheet (a tfached). .. ' . soirt*on authe_..-ins sr ant a i c ..4- -2 (��r�..S.e et ached). ' t' t' S;tbert ;;wn (2) cries of each-1 e:ed a-ar0lcati on to -he Case..L? n=st cops, with orgy s:g:atti-es on :.:.ers 1 A.-L-L 3 above, :.o the j 4 h saz !'-8 !-sco, CA 94-103-3?73 Becr= se--Ond c. Py to the Ca ssioa's �'..:s�..�t�.. _' c,= Autnorizez vfFicial 51 Gna u `•� I �,/ate _ iT Charles W. Thomnson City Administrator � . ...1...,1.,.....;:.-... ,,.,s err—.'""-"---+—...,rr,•s,,, � PROPOSED WORK PROGRAM; AND BUDGET AUGMENTATION LCP GRANT NO. 5-434-163 1.0 INTRODUCTION The City. of Huntington Beach applied for a grant augmentation in Octoberg of 1984for LCP Grant No. 5-434-163. Rather than augment the old grant, the Coastal Commission awarded new LCP Grant No. 5-434-163, totaling $10,944 for Phase 11 and III work in the ..'white hole area. " The City is now requesting a' grant augmentation tocomplete the remainder of the work . The work is being completed in two phases, White Hole I and White Hole ' II. f White ,Hole . I encompasses the area between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River (see. Figure A) . The City Council adopted- l6bd. use designations for the area on June 2, 1986. Staff must now- submit the proposed land .uses to the' coastal Commission for -certification. Implementation of the revised and certified C�LUP will require a „general plan amendment, a code amendment and a zone change. White Hole 11, is 'located at the northwest corner of the Bolse Chica .(see* Figure B) . staff is. preparin g`a, land use analysis for, the area and is scheduled to begin the public, hearing process in,.July, 1986. After adoption by the , City Council , the revised.'C-LUPrand Coastal Element must be submitted to 'the . Coastal Commission-, for, certification . h general plan amendment and zbne`�change will be required .to implement the adopted land use .de'signition. If. possible, White;- Hole II will he processed concurrently with- White- Hole I. However, it is more likely that they will be processed separately due to a time lag 'for i White Hole II. The f ollowinq work , program assumes that White Hole I and II 'will be processed separately. 2. D PREPARATION OF S?HITE HOLE II REPORT Objective: Prepare an an of land use designations for White Hole II for submission to the Planning Commission and City council . Discussion: An analysis fiimilar to the White Hole. I report is being prepared to analyze the white hole property which is adir-cent s to the Bolsa Chica. The recommended land use designation is expected to be conservation. The report will be submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council in the near future. i I ti....*+.�.—.�+N.++-+�.+...www+u....r..�—�...�---- —�*6.:? w a.. ..., r!...i.+:.a.ww..s w+w..4u6..S.JJJ� �•'. Tasks: a) Preparation of the White Hole II analysis. b) Preparation of staff reports for Planning Commission and City Council . c) Provide public notice through legal ads and mailings. d) Prepare for and attend public hearings. e) Revise text to reflect revisions. Costs: Rate Time Total Senior Planner $20/hr. 66 hrs. $1320 . LCP Planner $15.50/hr. 198 nrs. $3069 2 Legal Ads and Public Notices $250 ea. $ 500 Print 100 copies 120 3.0 COASTAL COMMISSION CERTIFICATION OF "WHITE HOLE I AND II Submission of adopted land use designations for White Hole I and II to the California Coastal Commission for certification. Discussion: A revised Coastal Element, including changes to the..C-LUP, will be subntitted - to • the Coastal Commission-. for certification to ` :reflect the new land use designatioris which were adoyteil by the City Council for White Hole I between Beach Boulevard .and the ,Santa Ana River. The 'new. land use designations include 7 acres af.Visitor Serving Commercial, 124 .5 ac:res of Conservation, 93 acres of Industrial Energy Production and 17 acres of Industria. Energy Production/Conservation. The White Hole Il land use designation will be adopted in the near future. Tasks: a) Revise sections of the Coastal Element to reflect the addition of the new land uses. -2- ( 5487d) b) Submit Coastal Element to the Coastal Commission for certification. c) Incorporate suggested modifications into the text revisions. Costs: ltate Time To White Hole I Senior Planner t20/hr. 45 hrs. $ g00 LCP Planner tt15.50/hr . 135 hrs. $2092 White Hole II Senior Planner $20/hr. 15 hrs. $ 300 LCP Planner 115.50/hr : 45 hrs. $ 700 Print 100 285 copies of Coastal Element A.0 GENERAL PLAN F:MENDMENT Objective: , Submit certified and revised Coastal Element for White Hole I and. II to Planning Commission and City Council for adoption into 'the General Plan. ` -Discussion: S '`After the Coastal Commission has certified the LCP and the 'C-LUP, and the suggested modifications have been included i» the text revisions, the Coastal Element must be suh�mitted to the: Planning Commission and City Council for adoption-. Tasks: a) Make text changes to rhe' Ccastal Element to reflect the Coastal Conmission's suggested modifications. b) Prepare staff reports fo- Planning Commission and City Council. c) Provide public notice through legal ads and mailings. d) Prepare for and attend Planning Commission and City Council public hearings. e) Resubmit to Coastal Commission for administrative approval. -3-- (5487d) Costs: .. -'�"'..._. Rate Time Total ` Wh�.te Hole I Senior Planner $20/hr. 20 hrs. $ 40C LCP Planner $15 .50/hr. 75 hrs. $ll5? 2 legal ads and public notices $250 ea. $ 500 Printing 25 t-2087 White_ Hole ?i Serinr Planner $20/hr. 10 hrE. $ 200 LCP Planner $15.50/hr. 35 hrs. $ 542 2 legal ads and public notices $250 ea. $ 500 Printing 25 :° 12 5„0 CODE AMENDMENT - WHITE HOLE I Ob ectfve: Deve.lor-ent of new zoning district to implement thy: land use j designation: "Industrial Energy Production/Conservation. " Discussion: A new zoning district is needed to implement the land use designation "Industrial Energy Production/conservation" for the seventeen acres adjacent to the Sonthern California Edison plant . The new zoning district will allow for future expansion of the facility, if needed. asks: a) Submit proposed code amendment to the Coastal Commission for approval. b) Revise to incorporate the Commission's suggested modifications. c) Prepare staff reports for Planning Commission and City Council.. -4- ( 5487d) .w.�..+ �.......� ..-..�.r�Arttw'i:_:T:i.-a.� rRlt}w...+-�.•_......"�-rr+'+KK { 1.7 M d) Provide public notice through legal ads and mailings. e ) Prepare for and attend Planning Commission and City Council public hearings. Costs: Rate Time Total White Hole I Senior Planner $20/hr. 18 hrs. $ 350 LCP Planner $15.50/hz . 72 hrs. $1116 2 legal ads and $250 ea. $ 500 j public notices Printing --25 E- 2001 F i1 6.0 ZONE CHANGES ObJective: (►r Change zoning designations for White Hole I and II to conform ff with certified land use plan. Discussion: Zoning designations in the white hole must be changed to conform with the certified C-LUP. Tasks: a) Draft proposed zone changes. b) Prepare staff reports for subiritta]. to Planning Commission ;;. and City Council . c) Provide public notice through legal ads and rr sings. d) Prepare for and attend public hearings. e) Map zone changes. y IIi ! l I -5- (5487d) __ ..__ .__ .... w _...� . .... .i;.•�...«. ._.._r....ti..... .o.!_r •..iD+'h.t�T'i.AiC.i.«.'i�'.i..�a.;K,�xe��. 5 i-. ,t , .. ., .+a....wr..w.+..._..:___. . _.. -i� ; d0.•.t'fiCt+tl�'"'l1<R iY� .. �� i Costs: Rate Time Total White Hole I Senior Planner $20/hr. 7 hrs. $ 140 LCP Planner $15.50/hr. 30 hrs. $ 465 Drafter $11 .8t1/hr. 3 hrs. $ 35 2 legal ads and publi.: notice $250 ea. $ 500 Print 3 district maps $20/ea. 60 *1200 White Hole II Senior Planner $20/hi . 2 hrs. $ 40 LCP Planner $15.50/hr. 10 hrs. 155 Drafter $11 .80/hr. 2 hrs, $ 24 2 legal ads and public notices $250 ea. $ 500 Print 1 district map $20/ea. �0 739 7.0 SUBMIT IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCES TO COASTAL COMMISSION ObJective: Approval of code amendment and zone changes by the Coastal Commission. Discus:. %on• Cole amendment and zone changes must be submitted to the Coastal Commission for public hearing and certification. -jpl.4ted modifications must be adopted by the Planning Ccjnr:.iosion and City Council . Tasks: a) Submit code amendment and zone changes to Coastal Commission'. b) Attend Coastal Commission hearing. c) Incorporate suggested modifications into code amendment . . ' --6- (54 87d) f d) Submit to Planning Commission and City Council for adoption. e) Provide public notice through legal ads and mailings. f) Prepare staff reports and attend public hearing. g) Map zone changes. Costs: Rate Time Total White hole I Senior Planner $20/hr. 15 hrs. $ 300 LCP Planner $25.50/hr. 30 hrs. $ 465 Draftsman $11 .80/hr. 2 hrs. $ 24 2 legal ads and _ public notices $250 ea. 500 2TV 80'U WORK PRODUCTS A. Land Use Analysis for White Hole 11 B. Revised Coastal Element and C-LUP C. Adopted General Plan Amendment D. Adopted Code Amendment E. Adopted ^one Changes Y -7-- (5487d) f*a;7=v:� • r % PJ� CITY. OF HUKTINGTON HVACH � '• INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION To cHARLES W. THOMPSON From Renzia J. FRANZ, chief City Administrator Administrative Services Subj�ri:t . REQUEST,10 t CITY FUNDING Date JUhE 27, 1986 TO ACCO*WDAnE EXTENSION OF LCP"GR-ANTS, PHASE II AND III T F.I.S. 086-28 As reuuired under the authority of,Resolution G832, •a fiscal impai:t ntate:ni:nt. hss_ been:prepared and submitted relative to the Cityts successful application`. to; the California Cpstal'.•eammission`.for uupplemental funding to. allow,for Che' . sariafactory completion of the sundry outstanding•tasks attendant'to the.land une analysis/white hole areas. "The grant. funds total, $17,869. The only immediate fiscal-impact of<'thin trans—, action-will be to likt.'the City's e.ariiing 'capability during the interim ». ' prior to 'reimbursement of these funds from the aforementioned source. BER , ief Administrative Services Departmen `RJF:AR:md W. ` CITY CW HUNTINGTO91 El m IN1 ER•DEPAR/TMENT COMMU TIQN ; Ta Robert Prar' , Chief J�:;es V. Palf.n, Director Administ �ive. Services v Development serviciis Subject' LCP PHASE_ IX. AND PHASE, III Date June 24, 1986 . :- GRANT AUGM£NTATI011 REQUEST staff. is preparing an' application to request a grant augttentahion 'f'.b4is,the Coast�il Conmissian .to.,complete Phase 3:1 and III work on the;, "white:`hale ;areft" . Please prepare .a fiscal :impact •st:atement:.and. indirect .cost -rate certification (samples are' attached) for ; i'nclision, with the application. The City Council will discus's the I .. application at L-he July 7, 1986, meeting. _ Please return both item by Friday, -3une 27, 1986 for attachment to the RCA. JWP:ic:�r i j Attachments ` 'I ` ..5 ,- •f. .. .1 .. ' ! # ��'.�,rig iI FISCAL. IMPACT STATEMENT 1. Budget Status: The project was not included in the current budget because the funds were only rode available to us this month. Z. Total Costs: A. Direct: None B. Indirect: , 1) Cash flow- The. funds must be appropriated from the general fund and will be reimbursed by the California Coastal Commission after they are expended. 2 Maintenance None 3� Overhead-. :Wi11 be absorbed as part of the Department's regular operating budget. 4) Grant requirements- Normal accounting and reporting procedures will be utilized. No matching funds are required. 3. Fundi'69 Source: A. General Fund Unappropriated fund balanrd=- 1-71 $bq B. Revenue Source--California Coastal Commission 'Grant C. Alternative Funding Source--Department Budget 4. History: Funding from this source has been used for work on the Local Coastal Program since 1977. There have been four separate coastal grants, plus augmentations. This is the normal fun4ing source for this type of work. ' • % i i :1,in:•.:3. .• 17.1.��,. ..ra.•�... :rY.•r;,r'�r<w".C:i�S.K�i;r.1c r.i,�I.r141,tY►.7 GtIP9 ti Ill. .. __..._._ -. • ,. •._ ,r ' .. • .. - • / 1 1MV 8185 LOCAL COASTAL. PROGRAl4 BiIDGEP ALLMTION' SU IPM I. Grant Applicant: city. gg-9-Hun i r►Ct$M n€ach '.R Address: 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach ,-Calif. Zip Code: 92648 Project Title: „ cE GEC Alloen AtIgI3,.Fbilse_..11 and IiI,_,,,,__.�.. Grant Amount Requested: $17,869 Grant Period: 9-86 to 9-87 �• j-; Current Grant Request * �' Personal, Servicas Pars .�.._, Salaries and Wages k.J 3 6724 ' Benefits ` Total Personal Services s Operating Expenses Travel Professional and Consultant Services Th iract (overhead) Coate — aee•reverse Other UteAise. use separate sheet if required) office supplies . postage printing of reports . __....55 .,.,�..,. „Pgb iNY„lic otice 31540 Total Operating Expenses ?7_a2- ,..._,. ..._.._. . ¢, Total Budget S 17,869 +* Pleaea round off all budget aunts to the nearest dollar. .. is - +- .»-- .�w.u.,.::..;,.wt1....,._._.._.....•_ _�z�.:-:,: ... , rr..:.....- ......... _t,.,,.'T ,,,•_ 0. ti PF &STATE OF CALIFORNI � . 1 � O Sao Lip, k qpR Q JOHN SEYMOOR SENATOR L/,7}• Ul`lTJ O,cF/C�Cy April 10, 1984 (1OFP, titre Ovr at ter Vic re �so+rs� Chairman Melvi . Nutter and Californi `' astal Commission Members 245 W. Broa , `Suite 380 Long Beac 90801 Dear C a' an Nutter and Members: appealI writing on behalf on the City of Huntington teach, who is to before you', on April 12 for certification of tfeir Local Coastal Program, of the zoning portion As a representative 'of this region, I ask. you to certify. this program as quickly as possible and issues involved. I also want �o urgeith sensitivity to the local you to kee in Huntington Beach is providing and preserving nine milesinofthat beach and an historic fishing pier for the public to enjoy. The specific mcdifications to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program that I request you adopt are: (1) `a ten foot. wide easement along the bulkhead on waterfront lots without any beach area; (2) lining the existing flood control channels; and (3) the decking of existing parking .lats no higher than Pacific Coast High*vay, It is my belief that these modifications will prove beneficial to • the City of }luntinv!:on Beach, .and at the same time, will cause no serious problems in terms; of the goals of the Coastal Commission. We are all working towards the rational protection of our coastal resources for our State's citizens, and I herefore hope you will approve the above-mentioned three issues in the interest of local sensitivity and coastal protection. Thank you for attention to this matter. ; Sincerely, JOHN SEYMOUR JS:gve SACSIAMM70 0"=2 8tAY1 GA►tro1.Roaw Goss ,.. fACRAhI MT0.GALL. 9DS14 TtLap" l t91a)LiIIi;Q� ..1 ---"'—+..w tir,.»:::=.:S::tifi'tr.:.t:'s.'1n«,xww....-----•-- . j '? C W Comm EES • fp .trtullENTUAUOREss HEµ•TH s WE.CAMOL '.!L'RAMENTO SS01A p TRANSPORTATION 1J1Bt 445 U377 *if a ruin M r'f� �i► LITIIfTiE5/�1DC.O1tMf:KCE pl;fpl[;fOFfKE u t({ �"r � a ifs •4ti f�d1JGEMPLOYLESAND RV1REMEf47cOMMfT1FE 1/�'►�f iL'•.� IUf'F ST1IF.ET -.r,UITE 201 4r1Uf 11A1.`4 VA1 LEY.r_A 92708 'T A I-.4 1714)662.5W3 AT55 0 9557.4140 x� • ,'P 7 y..ta rs.I• rrsrd' NO FR1Z7_ELLE Vam ASSEMBLYMAN.siXTY•NINTH DISTRICTt HUNTINGTON BEACH.COSTA MESA FOUNT4N VALLEY. IRVINE S*:)IOH SAWA ANA April 9, 1984 I Mr. Mervin Nutter, Chairman coastal Commission C/o Rose May �Q Sales Department .9� Holiday Inn L.A.X. r 9901 La Cienega C �,r �'l�� Los Angeles, CA 90045 ��y�G,yr • ati�r© Dear Mr. Nutter: �O,cF�49�c This letter is in reference to the long-standing a&eikt of f the City of Huntincton Beach to obtain agreement and certification for the zoning portion of the City's local coastal program. It is my understanding that: the general land use plan was adopted. in late 1982 but there i is a lack of agreement regarding the impleimentstion of zoning ordinances and a potential concern about Lining parts of the current flood control channels. Regarding the latter, these channels, as well as others in the City of Fountain Valley, were the subject of Assembly Bill 2181, which I carried last year. AB 2181 was set aside in the Assembly Natural Resources Committee by the Chairman, . Assemblyman Terry Gogg_n. Assemblyman Goggin assured me that it was his understanding the City and Coastal Commission had worked out a satisfactory compromise and if there were any further problems . sthe Natural Resources Committee should be apprised and r.,: attempt would be made to resolve them. As you may be aware, Huntington Beach, lying at the outfall extremity of the flood plane,. ten0 s to be more impacted than other communities and the flood control channels are less likely to ltcaintain their integ::ity without such special lining. In any evert, I am sure the remaining issues are minor relative to the overall importance of the general implementation plans. Before making a final judgment, I urge you to consider K--7-7_.'� �_. �w..r...v]a+t�:i."'Ll:,,t^r.... _._... —..,+t»."..M 3;...:'.:. .....r.+......._-•------.........,«...a.owc7r..tsA+.swcrii7s.rilLTwYltiiTit'21�i.'.f:�L ii4"1+1 "! 1 `� ,. Mr. Nutter April 9, 1984 Page Two I � the' small or narrow lot sizes and therefore the appropriate width and heigh t of easements for public access. . In considering parking areas, Huntington Peach has a tremendous flood of people during the summer months from outside 4 the C?ty and county. I urge you to give consideration to the attendant difficulty accommodating them in parking areas that allow significant access to t"'ie beach. Hopefully, the final permits can be accomplished in :a fairly short time to enable the, City of Huntington Beacis to, not only gets an with the business of accommodating the annual deluge of I: people, but also look forward to paying for it with the aid of the revenues the projected new plans may bring about. ' a Sincerely, t NOLAN FRIZZELLE, O.D. Assemblyman, 69th District 'NF:rim • Members ai the Coastal Commission bcc: Hon. Jac.. Kelly, rlayor o% Huntington Beach :� + I i 1 I I • ice.. MMNRA COASTAL CQlYlMtoiK .heu/� • ��x, �: �.a►� ,s.���toa...�4tf��s.atamcs G..t �`' "- �t Novdwwr 19, 1984 HUNTINGTON BEACH � DEdLOOMENT SERVICES TO: Commissioners fond Interested Persons . : NOV 2 6 1884 FROM: Mirhnel L. fisrher, Executive Director ' Tom Crandall, South Cocst District Director P.O. E3QX 19O " Jack Liebster, Froject Planner Huntington Beach CA g2648 Jtsa•Mrathe Coastal Analyst • SUBJECT: BOLSR CHICA HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, SUSSTANTIAL 15ZE DETI MIMATION (For Public Hearing and Possible Action November 291p 1984, Holiday Inn, LAX, as indic&W In the rmclosed fte''ing notice) 1. STAFF.RECOMMMATION . Tim,-staff rec�.meends that the Cognission find that the Bolsa Chica hiraitat Conservation,Plan raises substantial issues with'reprd to-Wetlandr. and Other- Envirarwntally Sensitive Habitat Areas; Public Works; and Recreation; and that the effect of these substantial issues are not limited to cartain geographical areas. In order to implement this ftea tyRndation; the staff recommends�a IAA vote to the following motion: 1--move that °the Coaearission determfnn :bat. the Sol sa Chica Habitat Conservation Plant asp-.rbnittard by the State*Coastal Conservancy and the D3pau townnt of Fish and Game raises no rubstantial issue as to conformity with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. A mjority of Comodfs2loners present is required to pass .the nation. STAFF•.itDTf . . The' effect of the recommended action is to enable..the Coweission to 'consider the modifications to tNe MCP suggested by the Conservancy, the Departmont rf Fish and Germs' anal others, as explained in the .-staff import., Key :concepts arising from the HGP process are incorporated In the rec6m ended Suggt.ted fodifications to thwOrmnge Coun*,y Nolsa Chico LUP, It* •BACKGROUND.AM PROCEDURES Semite Bill 420 in 1983•awnded into the Coastal Act'Section 3O2a1 to establish the Habitat 'Cdnservatioa Plan (RCP) process. The MCP wee to be • prepared by the Cwastai Conservancy and the Department of Fish and Gaane in consultation hith Orange CountV arA the for landowner. .Signal -Landmark,, . Inc.,, The Conservancy was to be the lead agency for the purposes of Identifying land use alterraativas, while the Department would be the lead for • wetland 4 dentification purposes. The HCW process has been extremely..valusble in ex&zining alternatives that d promise for bringing the diverse interests closer to iigrn:eeent on a Plan. The legislative deadline of July 20, 1984 did not alltm resolution of w� mp � :all i lssu8s."in,the hCP. Honver key enncrpts were developed in the HCP :w;,1!PnXm.3s,:4ncliud1n9 a fundamental coWrmize that DIS acres will be restored to high qualify wetland on sfte at Bolsa Chico. - Sunaan' of•NCP The;plan .as.adopted,and subreittcd to the Comilssion is Included: in Enclosure C. The Plan Hip"is" attach d as Exhibit 1. Features of this �Aan include: t • the rarout-Ives of hcfffc Coast Highway (PM) around the site, about. �4 acres of private rtstderttial }derelaprent including land 'available for waterfront housing with private boat slips, . 915 acres of restored wetlands located in the existing iEcologf Cal Reserve, a large area of adjacent ofl producfn9 lands, a "riparian wetland excavated on the.Balsa Mesa, and a proposed now flood control s*dfinent/mixing basin and channel, • a new navigable ocean ontrance, a 1300 slip public marina with an associated 17 acres of marina cawrcial and boat launching facility.on Balsa Chica State Beach, i and i a linear park along Huntington Mesa providing pedestrian and equestrian access between'antral Huntington Beach and the coaaste and s:caseodaOng the proposed relocation of non-wetland Envirvnaentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs). .In adeptiny.this plan,- the Conservancy Board recognized that.uny issues had not been resolved in the HCP. In its resolution of adoption and tranmittal (Enclosure C) it specified that certain additional worts be dome. Prior to HCP approval.it provided that the Conservancy: (a) datermfne an appropriate location for the rerouted- M in the dow mist Me. wetland) portion of the study area; and-the spacffic location of all secondary roads to the NCP area. (b) resolve the issue W—acquired wetland and ESHA buffer i areas within the HCP; and (c) develop specific criteria, location and acreage for the &,%Sign of the wetlands and ESM ' The Conservancy was also to continue to: - (a) work with concerned parties and interests to further define acceptalie mitigation batmen , the proposed rerouted PCH and the existing residential devolopment, f (b) consult further with the various landcraners, Including PAD and the Fieldstone COMM (agents for M.R. Grace), regarding the Impacts• of the plan an their respective parze7s, and r (c)•asddress any other issues identified by the Coastal C"wission staff in order to in- . corporate the Habitat Consery M00 Plan into LUP and The Cons*rvancy Resolution also provided that the final Local Coastal Plan (LCP) incorporate a detail id Vatland and ESHA Restaratiori Plant-and a Project Agreement. J The Raztorction Plarr was to specifically address the phasing of the restoration, f the financing of restoration work, and the utilization of agreed upon standards addressing the quality of the restored wetlands. .The,project agreement was to Provide specific-aissuraneis on the -iMMPIeWntation of i the wetland, ESHAs, othm-r pubic facilitios, and private developmnt. t . Finally, the Conservancy provided for the option of a navigable Huntington Harbour conryactiorn subject to additional detailed studiass prior to finalization of the ."CPO pyarsyant to this Resolutions the Conservancy held a hearing October` 10 N64 in ECid�tgan day aOd subsequently tmnsaritted an Infarction supplement to the raMMrrission (Enclosure 0). , Surd of R"iew PRC Section 30237 establishes unique procedural requiras>Mehts for the CoeMriss9on's action .on the, HCP, It provides,. Upon cdapletian of the habitat conservation plan and'on or before July tie. 1984 '_ the: Departmint of Fish and Sierra and the State Coastal Conservancy shall jointly forward it "to the comission ,fav approval. Thee, cownission shall approve 'the plan 1f• .it finds •it raises no substantial .issue as to the a:onforn ft,, with, the planning and nnagewnt policies ,of this chapter. If the plain is approved by Us COMIssion, it may be incorporated into the county's local coastal prograue. Four points need to be raised to clarify the procedural issues. (1) The'Rabitet Conservation Plan under cdosideration by the' Commistion is the Plan submitted on July 10 1984 and depicted In Exhibit 1. • .(2) The HCP is not equivalent to a :and Use Plan . under the Act and Is not obligated to tit the re- quirements for specificity described-in PRC Section 30108.5. (3) The Comission ashy either approve or take substantial t issue with the HCP as submitted. If the MCP fz approved, the County of Orange potentially my be able,toAn- corporate it into the County's RCP irrespective of any dP t of the Condsxiun on the LUP. action on tim other hind. t action the mission finds substantial issue with FOr, the Coetwission is nevartheless free to include nyi any is or provisions of the kCP it deests appropriate orProcations the Cowssion my suggest to the,County's wdifiLUP. ' (4) M-11e the information supplement (Enclosure G) is tot art of. the HCP before the Coisslon for action, the CCo�sission MY s concepts and in or- similarly util1ze it mtiNi in its ectian on tlle County LUP. IUiAt.YS1S-0F.M.11sioNs THAT RAISE SLI85TOJi'r'Ii►L•ISSt IC• t- C sistton finds that .the IICP raises substantial issue As to confan�i y the Coastal Act; including tha with the planning and managementPolictes of issues described beloW: Wetlands•and Other•Enviror+ooantall .Stiensitive Habitat.Areas } A. «r 1 rote rt MCP rises , substantial issue because it fails to ,ad*V,-.t* y p Tim . fired 5y PRG section.3Q2�09 does not environmentally sensitive habitat areas daaa feasible ,alternative required by } •proyide for-.the least aivironmentIlly s Inca and e,wet S .ti �, �0 3, and does Mt assure rrstoratlon anSectian anu a 302330land t0 { sufficient biolcgical praductirity as required by } see provides: !•.. . (:) Enrirorrenta1ly sensitive habitat areas shall be , protected against any significant disruption of habitat va�luds, and only uses dependent on such resources shall be a110Wed within such areas. , in areas adjacentrtc environmentally, sensitive habitat (b) Development ' areas. and parks and recreation ,areas s1�►11�rS� .sited and, deal geed to Prevent iepacts which would signiftcant'y degrade such ��as.�as' and shall be cmnpatible with the continuancs of suds ion 30233 provides in part;: 'act (a) diking, fi�ling,.' or dredging of open coastal waters; +�etlartds, estuaries, and ,lakes shall 6e permitted there in accordance sno feasible less applicable provisions of: this divire envi ron+�tal l y 43mgin.q a1 ternative a an adverse eenvi rro insentai i effects, measures have been provided to minim and shall be �i�ait!d to the , (1) RM or expanded port, ener'�Yfiandshi nfacil�es dent Industrial • facilities, including coam rcia g In wetland areas oly, entrance channel for +' ► or expanded ( n in facilities; and in a degraded wetland; identified by the boating f Section Department of Fish and .Sm pus uairti con�undcttc�laiChbsuQch boating 30411, for boating facilities , 4 ,i,31tffi 1-INg qlrlf 7-1 s P-11 1 j "tiq � AL ai N JVIf -kNlJJ "'4 L' 1V . Vy jo 14 " 4" X i� R? V'h "S P , tl m �fN WV • tL I facilities, it substantial Portion of the degraded vetlarid is restored and maintained as a biologically productive wetland. The size Of the wetland arna used for boaift.9 'facilities, Including berthing spares turning basins, necessary navigation ChAnels, and any necessary support servf-.e facilities, stall not exceed 25 percent of the degraded wetland... (C) In addition to th-a other provisions of this section, dikfn9offilings or dredging in existing estuaries and vmtlands shal?. waf ntafn or enhance the functional capacity of the wetland or estuary... Sectlan-30411, provides in part: (b) The Upartment of Fish and Sm. In consultation W10, the ccmdszfon and the Departmnt of Boating and Waterways, Xay study degraded wetlands and identify, tho3a which can most feasibly be restored In conjunction with 4jvelcpftnt of a bc�atjnq facility as • provided in subdivision (a) Section 30233. Aqy, such study shall Include consideration of all the following.. . (1) Whether the wetland Is so severely degraded and Its natural processes so substantially irgaired that It ' is not capable of MCDverfng and #WInt4Infnq a high level of biological. prc-ductivIty With out for restoration activities. (2) Whether a substantial portion of the degradea wetland. but In no event less than 75 percent, can be restored and maintained as a highly PrOdLIctive wetland in C00JUnCtion with a boating facilities pivject. (3) Whether restoration of the wetland's jmtujAl values. Includfng Its biological productivity and wildlife Habitat features, can most feasibly be achieved and maintained in Conlunctfon with a boating faC57ity or whether there are other feasible ways to achieve such values. The ..2epartrt*.jt of Fish and Game has ideniff' fed the weiland5' add Envim'nwntally U.�a� A SenSitiv,- Habitats Area in two reports. Environmental nSItfve-ffAb1tat.Areas.1qt Bolsa -ChIca (Slate 1982) and. Determf nation.or status W1011 Ill - 0j.--sa-__-0 twc, 198 RE I T). hereAY 1"corporga-be—d- by refereejj--in—fils repo"7—IT has—47"S'80"datemirred that the BOlsa ChIca wetlands constitute severely degraded wetland SYStm in need of or restoration. The Coastal Act Permits boating facilities to be lwaW in a degraded wetland rame (Section (Section 30237 (a) (3)) identified by the Department of Fish and C 30411(b)) If a substantial portion 75 pamant Is 8!'34 maintained as a biologically productive wetlaind. The Comission mayVestomd L ) Of the degraded tratland also Pe'Vit uses other thiij those listed under Section 30233(a) if these um PrOvf'-% less e0virommntally damaging feasible alternatives to wetland restoration than are provided by boating facilities, this Procedures and standards for f 3 1L4% tter approach are set out in ttle C miSS10q's Statewide Interpretive Guidelines. lipqA N I , N ; W l Xg� g K1M is I1Ri mtAi M% AN1 , ►���.t+1 � .� Z�� '�fY•� � }� � � � . , j t l ��t t '�> ,1�1i.? . 'Y'"'r"��'.�t r �� a 1 i j' p�{" t' Q:1 � �h r t �'� The Department of Fish and 1ame found in the MCP (Encloiure C. Appendix A) tj',at 10a total of 913.5 acres of severely degraded wetlan'd system must be restored in the Bolsa Chica area in order to allow development to proceed in accordance with Section 36411 of the Coastal Act. The principle parties to the SS 429 effort agreed to a total of 915 wetland acres. In additions 86.5 acres of Environmen- tally Sensitive Habitat must also be protected within the study area... The Oepartment was also pursuaded to agree to this revised acreage by several cupelling coozo nts [including that]: . 0;*Tfilm,Wi 11. be at least-652 acres of goods viably functioning wetland habitat retained.throqhout the various phases of developvient with full restoration of 916 acres of tep quality wetlands occurring con- cMmIt to the final phase of development...' soreement to,�restorinq 915 acres to.,"top'quality wetlands". is the essence of tha iicp.- The f0l restoration of the -wetland to the hieh;.!:level of biological productlif ty required ,by- ,.Mctions 30411(a)(1) and 30233(a)(3) hMver would. be frus,tratod .by several provisions of the HCP,, warranting a finding of substantial Issues -As depictidin Exhibit 19 the MCP would locate a substantial"-portion of a rerouted Pacific Coast Highway through the area to be restored as wetlands. The Department of Fish and Sam has repeatedly expressed concerns that such Z. routing would create management constraints and divide up the restored wetland In a way that would impair its full ftnctioning. Thi HCP does' not"provlde that the reroute would. be elevated an pilings to Insumv the maximum +low of watarg movement of mamme!s and avian species and clearance -,.j permit periodic maintenance. The Comission has prevftusly founds in Its Ballona findfrgs (CCC, April 25, 1984 p. 23, 64) that precisely tuch measures are necessary to comply with section 30233(a). Absent such feasible mitigation wasumss the HCP raises substantial issue. Sections 30233 and 30411 set forth -six tests that must be met by. uses other than those permitted by Section 30233, such as a read, and residential and ccmarcial development proposed by the HCP. These are: Them Is *no feasible less environmentally damaging - alternative...(Section 30233(a)) Feasible mitigation measures are provided to al nimize adverse effects...i5ection 30233(a)) The sirs of the wetland used for boating shall not be greater than 23 .percent of the total wetland to be restored...(Section 30233(a)) 1 11�• ;����� : '' � ;; �� J!��d� `f�+; '1J"`A•'�i�YI.�/ �sl�i� $ 4���� fi „r�'e� ��.�r 'Seer �� ?r� i '�.i.�}���i,,. ,t ����� w.,, .� �S �" ..t �; y1`!�� h,'�, �'t ,t' ,Y �d�Y t��5� t i Sr��Y t�� �� � i •`}` *`I�'t1 }t,� k .� '.'�, fk1 � (� t �. ,,� �� '{ � F :;`r��• a ��' e -' �+p�, �; }'+1 r. tf���i r�t! t. ��,'• A t� � � �' r �• �•t ...�,�:'� r, .3' • '7i5.}. , r.�- ,.�}• �'(t ,�yl' y : /4 v:�y=. �4 fR�• p�,{ � '� . y 1;'..� 4'� ' � aY'�T 1 iv' t'&`��ti t.,.r t, �J� � }` �� i'• .�.;. l']:�' �`'li��..,� ( � .�"!t�l�:,`'�,��,t� t � "J," �r�:�' .��r� i � '�. ��'4i�1!^Y .1�'� �;'t* r�{ . ` y {?+�i,� '�3 1��/ . � �r'�. 1a !{,I,r�� �"+�'i It.Ij(� d•Yt�� y�4�.�t'�jr ,,•�{ ,f .Yt1 J�i, y,� ,�.>i�y3r . �'i7'' { i� a f.. + rr,+ �� ti x ,{y�'F. ry� ►�iCY'i .�:r •Ilia' rt� .���}+. +r� ,.• 1 t „r.�' .. y a,itYy��.. ,.i, '�..�, f h. ��i � �"•fi. yy�rf[ , r+�'!ry �1� .� ,: ,t.. � fJ1.•.�{q([•f,�yi? +,s .� .J�(). ' are • )��dr ,,•!�1(y`yi�} � .a ,. ;�r,� �, !'• �,{„�+'��5�r• •►��/� P' i {�' 'r� `? tY,.y if�1 i%\i 1� .� 1f4i' t. �ifi R'Y'�': !, ° Y ?•{ �y. 1?,� .h.'S [ ,�1i 45 � 8 S1I='�� �. , �'`t,� "�'•�'r� 't ti� 't � ,. ,{ � �� �St;i�+ 'S t,1'���f- f � ,, �«+� t,r�xt�y', � r�' t�� �`'} S! c. S f ,}-8; j"�' 'a C,'S .,•�y '. '.`{{ t.•, i t }Tf7p,• t i 6t +,u �'T,(. � A A .• a•�' 1 r,'k! r..re r r: »;tc;l: �,. �. �i.�r:��. � r: a « � �� !' ? ir i 34 .� 4 wRY • c L v ; t }'�. a�; k + "r7' 1� fi.L ' F E '14 � }fr; �t+'ey`+�1 �1r�1t,} :ISM f �.y ; {1' t1 .{ �r j(�r r a hr�r{'•!+�S , ,t t qxi i(�i '}" i 1,,fa y. L,! �C �.St li�l! Slur ��' "+L �r �, r�i �•' 'f� l�•t[,'r3° .t �,y K y; .i �, � •;. ,! � (ny;(j'aw, 1 c .. h;,.�.Py '�r 7 � i` Y�. i.!, r"�;"-.�f 4' rlit�s'� 1-� �,t".a; �SY�'.v +'`,� t:�t�i, rt,� 1f• t41 *1+?{�'r : i ��. •{�i' t L��,y"b� ..)1�',. �;�,��-1�y�;�.)t�.� ,.'t� �,��:;r1�tR.y;c�tt;;t�,"�i ; f' �L•i}•�,y�,.ti. ��.!�'� ''� T', V ('., r 'Y .t +t; . fi y. �r „?� .f f •r f C", r,! 2�' f..({--- 1,F('��y'. h•�r�:f ..�!'a i1,..�� �i. a.a�f f ' --• The watland mst be identified by DF6 as degraded in need of major restoration...(Section 30233(s) (3) and 30411 (b) (1)) -w DfHfng, dredging or filling shayl retain or enhance the functional r capacity of the metlands...(Section 30233(c)) -» No less than 75 percent of the d raded wetland shall be rostored...(Section 30411 (b) (2j) 'the C clssion finds that. the HCP raises substantial issue because there is a feasible less environmentally damaging alternative to the HCP as submitted. In effect, the HCP parties have articulated one altenative, Alternative 9, in the supplemental infarnnsion (Exhib•Jt 2). The alternatives descrlb& in the sugg*sted Wdfficatfons the the Balsa China LUP accompanying this report also represent such OtRrnatives. All of thesi alternatives avoid the extensive routing of roads through the wetland. Several oilier `policies of the HCP raise Issues of whether the areas Identified f for restoration could be restarad and maintained at a ',high level of biological f productivity" as required by Sections 302411 and 30233. Policies 6 and 7, for J ' example address -the compatibility of wetlands and continued oil operations. This question -is critical since the area to be restored for wetlands Is crisscrossed with roads, fill pads, dikes and other non-wetland areas (totallfng approximately 188 acres) associated with continued oil production. Policies 6 and 7 imply that the needs of thistoil productfor~ would have precedence over the creeds of wetland restoration and maintenance. policy 7, for ex&ple, designates the area as "petroleum reserve" and raises the specter of oil spills, With only a vague reference to existing rules and regulations 'to protect against ahem. The policy also limits the water level in the cols to -1.5 feet mean sea level, which my limit the ability to fully rester+e wetlands, contrary to the rrequirements of PRC 20233. rijvse restrictions have apparently been fncluded to respond to ithe expressed concerns of the current oil field operator, Aminoll, that the designation of an area for wetland restoration not preclude or limit use of •� that urea for continued oil and gas operations. Aminoil's position is understandable, since the establishment of new sensitive areas amidst its operations offers the CmPany no direct benefit, while exposing Aminoii to liability for spills and other damage to the wetlands. However if these wetlands ara to fulfill the obligation for wetland restoration under PRC 30233 and 30411, the needs of the wetlands must take precedence, and policies must to included in the Plan to establish the preced&.aca. Measures which could compensate Aninoil for Inconvenience or limitations could be an element of a restoration plan funded by the parties who stand to benefit from the developerent of Balsa Chfca. But in the absence of a demonstration that these ifmltattons on wetland restoration are corcpatible with mighty productive wetlands, these policies raise substantial issue. Policy 10 raises substantial issue with Section 30233 which requires that- any devolopmnt in wetlands maintain the functional rapacity of such wetlands, The Departrmt of Fish and Came has found that them are 852 acres of viably functioning wetlands in Bolsa China. Policy 10 mould allow developwnt to proceed in a canner that would permit that area of wetlands to be diminished by an unspeciffed and untitaitarf amount for an indeteminattr f1 me. This orovfsion .fails to assure that such reductions would not dfainish the functional capacity of the wetland as required by PRC 30233; and thus raises substantial issue. !, ��� � Y,'�'!�.o-� ,S +�t!i..1 ��: '.'« �a �rt �} �� ��' i " r;:y�7• � tc��, �� d+'� s��� ���s� ? y�+���lYy� ��3^� �� �� y�c�' �1 f .� + i.r• ;� 7�'}:� �'� t 5 �rS7' •Fr S. 1+t,� f, 4 �i� � ` �y.y�� �j .t kr• 5 # ♦,il' .� � 'i•i , 1„ 1 � ).�f�, f� "7. 'Y (��� '�f"• ��'� •9+y� �.,'t..�+,.,,f��;�� .�t� r '� •1� { l��. �; t! w '�S 1 {(y�Yia[yTt 2,l t�C4 1/R Al �p4p �. ", r �t • h }i, L • Uj *;yd F,j . . 4 �1 Z }idf "i M �•�'1 � �'.R''�Ygy} ;{Y-'' `,F. p�'t/ �w+!�i ( �, r �X.' 4A'lY+ (•Sl;�� , ' �f��t Y � t��.� �t� lrt,, ��W � .<l{�'yy Y' �.����t'.A a�{: ;l. � . ( § � .'.,i�'t tit. �t.t` .{�.� '�'�' ,l �. �.4s�; ��5.,. .#���+� t-'r'ff. a R� �,� +,�c� � ,}l�'1 a 1� i�5! ����� '1 tt $:'1,7�'�it� ��,���. �;rfi�'�' •s ' �; °'fie��v'r.�r `�� 'E�' fir. y5p" "`j '+ '-��'1, ��Tr•�� d�. ��,1,•�'�� r`ci��� ��u'a7�"'t+�; .L'�{;t �'1�!�,�'�N �l ,�ti. 1 �',�Ilt' Sir"F M�7 ,}'' 1'i�"',e';�y+ � r , „1 �' } i �} w ��'tk� "! i.tt ry +'� ,`:•+} ��/,ht SF.' R. a. t.F� � ! ,ii t�.� f •c `a 3�� y `. a:{ S�i D' s{c �`. 't + "gi ��fi�� s, ?4�r.��f� �; ,++���,���j ro� ,'+' r�.�� �. '("1`. :,j , .. ! t �r ,.t t�`- ti K'�, k � 1r !,� i jt X.�" + 1 ,� •�,�$ ':n a �\�: d ,1 fi .t v•+'y zi,!' ��sy,r . ` �`y M �i �{} ',t}'" ri SY• ,t,�.'. '1?�d�1''lK�e � i c,�".q� •t?!� �r+}rya�4�a f ��-��.ixtr l .C�t� ,S i� C�,!,� S` fFi .��rt���•laf'yy J{�Iy,�f` a����� `! 'i• , i V�+�, . �' ��� .-��"`�1.��r�'lii' jt tl,E ,YC't�.,h�� y��;�`3J .r,tif�� 3' -�.' �.> � F'A s,;j.,'Rf,�� i��'# -�'% `��.� �•� �,�[\�:��''�� ;�'t 1+\yr�*�„r 5y` t•�}' '`�.•�\j\�l�^ � �r..S�f��•i�i ;}, r, ., ; i ;�.���. •t t�. t i ; e�i �lf. �i �" :5. 4Y��';��'}4..' +"• •,� 1"t '�, l 1...,.f?'1�'� �� ;tic. �'Q`�� �! i�ftthl'' Moreover, the policy rarely requires that "r,astoration...be phased concurrent with development grading". This policy is imprecise. It would imply Oat restoration �. need only be begun before grading could commence. This -policy would permrit 1 existing wetlands to be eliminated before their raplaecxxnt 1s• assured, 4 Furthermore:,-while the process of wetland and establishment restoration is still largely an art under the best of circumstances, the HCF sets out an even more difficult task„ It proposes to establish wetlands under less than idyal conditions: most of the acreage placed right in the middle of a corking oil and s gas field; 37 acres in an artificially created "Riparlan Corridor" cenyan parched � at an elevation raastrictred to the upper range of tidal fluctatim; 11 acm on an alluvial delta; and 53 acres in an active flood control sedimentation/01Xing b"in i and channel. The policies for Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs) are referenced to the wetland policies, and thus suffer the same def4cienci,is with regard to assurance of performance. In view of these uncertainties, the MCP � raises the substantial issue of whether wetlands will be successfully restored in a :!ufficient and timely manner to ax-et the requirements-of PRC 30233 and 30411. � Policies. 11 and 12 describes "edge treatments" which presumably are to be { considered buffers for the newly restored wetland areas. These buffers.-fall far start of the standards established by, the Coastal Act and raise substnntie.l issue. t Where PRC 30233 and 30411 set the re,quirewnts for establijhing and maintaining highly productive wetlands, PRC Section. 30240(b). sets the standards for buffers. It requires that- development in anaas adjacent to enviromentally. . sensitive habitat areas ii_tuding wetlandi) be sited and designed to prevent ,Impacts which would significantly degradethe sensitive area, avid that such develomn w., � compatible with the contfnuanre of the habitat area. The Coaarission has generally required that such,buffers be,a minimum of YW fist, as specified in the liatlamd Guidelines, HCP Policy 12 4splies that a ditch (which Itself would be counted as wrrtland) combined with a 3 foot high berm, topped by a low fence and vegetation would be an adequate buffer. The plan specifies no•width for the buffer. The plan contains no evidence that such a buffer would adequately function to protect the full functioning of the wetland It was intended to - protect. In similar situations, such as the Aqua iiedionda and Chula Vista Land Use Plains the Com Ossion has required buffers of 100 feet or more in width. In one atypical cese, the Los Cerritos wetlands, the Comission did approve a buffer of ; minfimum of 30 feet. This compromise was based upon consultations that sugge.ted that Beldings Savannah Spar, the expected resident species In the portions of the wetland near developed areas, weight not be as sensitive to disturbance as had been thought. The compromise, however, was based,upon judgement and that desire to gain agriet=nt on the project, not on experimental evidence. Recent field studies at the Tijuana Estuary conducted by Abby White of the San Diego State Graduate. Otology Department provide new data that call this jud ,gwent into question. In these field studies Belding's Savannah Spars, an endangered Garish species, were observed to flush and fly away froo a single approaching observer at distances ranging t>rw 30 feet to over 300 feet, with the average flushing at about 90 feet. The study did not indicate the potentially greater distances at Mich the birtdt' behavior, including feeding or reproduction, mold be. interrupted. This data indicates that Los Cerritos my best be left as the exce8tIion that Proves the rule that buffers of at least 100 feat Are necessary to assure that the wetlands they are Intended to protr!ct will be able to maintain their full functional capacity. The Commission's recent Berllona LUP decision provides an \t a 1{4,. y' t Ji° i 14 • A t T�(jl "! T ft ' { h5!J;4� '" 1 '. '� ' •] h � , x,. i, �• J� ; 11' c.Y/"�t( . •µ �'tr"� , 1 y,}}�q"VI"t , ,Vfi.Lt 3s1� }! q } f i i 11A sY�e 4 J { •st3 44titi t, syt :, y R ► t�'ra .y t" iw�i 4{ 1t� ! }� 'SLr I"y y 4�t• r �,. .(,, ,.tk� �`Ifi� `l • t ,�i �� !• `it,�. �! J!. r �t,, �I! t t' �,)z�t f1tY qAS lt� z 1 ,jf ,. i .i .1� t; .•,4 R # i1�3f � F' i• Y f. v ' Yft F «k S '" y• f( 1{ 'rl .1L� 1 � 1�' hly �y T,=•� �s ��tpa. y t13S�j ti 4 t � r Y 7< �' { ��e1'4 .' '1 }5is+ f'k�:1V7' k`, '7Vl}`S�yr{{. f 1tt .+f S? IC7.)r�Y j ',�: �t�.ryJ�f'k% '. e t�F •i� i1y1s .rtb ,�� Ytyy .1.�, �` t (( Slr y,•, 1 ��Sttrr.•V 't' ll ' 1 i .+� .. h 1�{ e `• t1+[ i .t� S�•1 r j 44/y2,q `?/n�' j i ,_l'H} �. ' .rR t'iµy.�}.{L 5 Al.. 1'1 ' S t T' jr. .�( . •� Jry � �1 r '�{ 4,3 y � 4� , .. 4 ` {/t �d >7E���pV;���+GGe ��.i{,�t y •111.� \ L<t R 4S`b�t�`.��s l ,yTN..j�• 1 1 } r Vl{fS! ,y� u �"'t} ? } ti 1 •r...�'• r 1 7' F^ • �'�t `� y t' . t! s�L1f t 'l44` +y C"l �:5�'�tat r+.�\.},ly . {�t}}!,/+' W 4a �� l 't "�y4 s`'ti ty• 'k` ! 'S 1�r.. Y ,( ;{ '}, 6 1. 'A L�L���..1s8 ' ext:; le much aware cowrabla to Soisa Chica. There the Comission required buifers of 100 feet fron the wetland, with an additional 50 foot structural setback abovs and beyond that. In any event, the minicsml buffer proposed in the HCP is inconsistent with any of the Cw mission's decisions. Provision of-an adequate buffer is all the more ioportant when considering that the compromise at 915 acres of wetland is only slightly more than the absolute - winiarum 913.5 acres that could conceivably to found approvable at 6olse. Chica. The DepartaiLint of Fish and Daoe made .this condition explicit in its mwmrandum agreeing to the 915. figure. It specified that it was critical that the wetlands restored be ".top quality" to justify the compromise. f A design which forces wildlife to flee from the edge to the daeper recesses of the wetland clearly fails to meet the criterion of '°stop. quality`. It in fact weans that the functional wetland'.ls actually much less than 915 acres. This situation is made even more serious by the selection of the configuration which entails a lengthy edge with the wetland. While such .a design my be more economically attractive to a developer, the wetland should not be diminished to accomplish it. For these reasons, the Commission finds that the wetlands' and environmentally sensitive habitat area policies of the HCP raise substantial issue with the Coastal Act. Ocean Entrance The HCP,proposes po icies to,.guide'the selection of a" ocean entrance frame among the "ny potential : entrance desfgns. It discusses three of,..these possibilities, but acknowledges that. the HCP policies wait based on a general recognition. that the entrance proposed in the LUP is the most likely to be utilized". In addition, policy 17(a) provides that; "the entrance . shall ire navigable". This policy, precludes conwrderation of a aeon-navigable entrance, which may be shown to be th►e least environmentally damaging feasible aiternat4ve when '.the full consequences of a navigable entrance are revealed. The findings for denial of the 5ois.3i Chica LUP describe why the Premature.coamiteent. to a navigable entrance is inconsistent with Recmition, Marine E;iviroiunent, Diking, Dredging and Pilling and other policies of the Coastal Act. Those findings are fully incorporated here by reference; and are the basis for the Commission findinC substantial issue with the UP Ocean Entrance . policies. - f i �I y *� Y v +e' �+ �f � $ ♦ Ii ' 1 � l 1 �'���+t'E' �{• '� `Y f� i� $ � "�� ; � ''ttt4 , :��4 � :y� l'�� �i+ ;r�D`K s��J''��f"� k A`r 1 � �'�� ���! ��,� � ��"A �FS��j„�7,1t 1 '� ' !�"���,�� '�� �� f .�I&���yr �`"t V:f .� � ��, �5;�r�, �'tSjIT1,♦rl�',ryjl, �f� C , „ Lr�'�i. ' "Y, ,,�� `' �'"'\ +tl H X�'4�i;���'�� `r4t � $rr•S {�dr2 1, +r , w ,t/ ��� Td�{ i'IS "r�`� �;!x 4�•�'�;+�'"'' �� ;�,d�l Y. •1'`bl�j� ;,� ��3 '�� �" r� t"', .r l'i k'♦" d� K '�• '�,�,i�. (.;�5}�, �,l,i, ° �) t �t '^i� .' :Y � 't11� 1"•t TN ♦ j '�"+ :;♦ �, 'K h 1 t,; icy` 1�t, t YY �� t'♦♦ Itx)" f 4; PY •y6j``+�t r, i `', t i 11�`a��`,.f `�• d ..:- t. � .A,i.4 ` . r�j Sir,�. y., j . ,r' .,�( �' ,. a?:t? f1#a i11,' 1i%I �' yr*Ak.• ., {;.� .ff' f Jr..'�'�, A ��.})ARA +� S R t"G � �.�� t`3 C4• i .t. 1� .�S „i�, 1 I ,� j 4h �, �"'y'►"1'�� � �'�' ,1'"}! f 'S�. �,y�� '4�•b I � +�¢ 6ij� 4" /i� �tY�.g t� � t,�:S' � t� /�e�� .tj'.rf A, a�7 ,I[- i:? dlt � 1 L I r' r' ;�•+ r�.��, }{ a .,+� •� ♦� tyr �'v t�t� { •�4��3,. YET 4 �y i % .��, 4,{i�'• "i i 'S�ti "t� I,t P.i t�Sl,��1ti:L� t: 'aT :L'j J`t..t1 �""5j)t t q,� tiK1 - c t �! �e ilM tit. }; t , i BEST PHOTU"GRAPHIC REPRODUCTION. 'OSSLDLE, DL1E TO AC'ME AND CONDITION 01UGINAL . ...DOCLTAMNTS VE"I Vzo 4400, 1 �tr`,+.,aa•.w.�+ _..�. ..�� .'t'7,''.;.tl',�;.�fx,-•v.•:�:.':'ryyR^�r.s'n....s�. • - •..V^:Cttih:�:r.�.w. nv,-...„yXt.�.........-•.«.o..,rr,�v� - , :li.l;v.".,...t,,: K-•` i!�} .�•�'7MR ^j'rF! •...1:„ . r ,YK •S. � i. �►, � +�_ � � •� a .r F y. 1 ate" __ •� �#I' .. •• •' A � S. '� � Lit f*� •S�5;,���I r x' y r• #, rn em 01. 40 t 2, : :i E 4 •� ' r� t."n>.:: �i}, •ef 7#rf: t .t:.�' 1 ' i t�"�i�� k;' �. .�,� 7 ;�i.,• � �. � },{I:� :f'":�i` r ro" '�`I' {k # Y��' ra} �i 1 a,; s t .7.� '� � i'�s� �e�t}' �fi��n�� 1 � 7, � � � ° �}'� 4,, , t� i> r • t h� }• r.� Y,l��,x�. ��-y�fi A�;I���!��'•�,r�• f i'�'?ri � �J jt '��xi1C.!C �''•� ':b�.4'� �' +J s� � i .�,�',• ! ,.�rJi���#S� t�S�•Zi".,# ?k "�y�.r�'i'" ��'r t�► i���1� '���•:�'�, {� Y ` `(y' '} 1 I;' it a !! s i •�'� ., . 4 2' � �> Ir s f ti �MMM ° i tyl �r `�tJ 4�t.it! � : t `� � , �' J }�r°��•., t�,`fY�. �� ':t�'Y�'��.i�3-tt,.d. �t�;,• ,� .�fj�.15,��1 ��, 3i t. � ��'' �` ;fir� •i 1� .�9' , �°x �� ')_I�i��: `( � �4�t7,�5, , c,. �1,� t ite�� a,. .� n �, ;s .;��' ��1�.; ;r� l� i '�',�� r��t � r "3 �•e .) t„'1S' 1. 7 b. ,.� ,l e ..f;g, Y, ti, � ''�� ,�``,.altayy.. 'a!r �' � '-'r"�. #.t y ,til .� tt,•,k� �4 ld .;�lu� s � i �,#+s ��, r ,� y } :� ��+�'��^ 3' �r # t Sr•�� C''4''ey�.i,''�, �:• s ii .�t'1 !} f e� * !. j;, i��:.,'f•� � �, !� ,�,�.' �)'���`� � "r-`1'S 't�l.'�� �'ti 11� a ._ ��R �'+� �iJ.�!`�� •r , � r. yr :�'t l� •�,}�4� �,� a. �,• -� ��'• � � � +l t �''1;'� #��; t{ i �'' .1K • Y 'Y 1 �' 1 *�}y,J, ( ((T.r C i l i �' �. � � � �'• •I' ,1��;(• t l����. k� r� y'1 1{, � �� '� Y• Y'.. r ��f�. 1 ' T. �• �F• 1' ♦ 1`�1 1 �� � ��, ,� "�.. ` yd pti, 'St+'(�({�y� , C. .,'K. �� {�1 • '}yK rl ,.��y� ij` .� �,�#�v g Y '' %' 7'�`k ' '�' ' y �j�ya ,�qq{2' �•, j}�� V'` �"T � ��• v. � ,1; '{ i%• � 'A: 17L •TL.:'. t t .i �" .�. t �} ��`� �s,S" Iat SR, 61A III • M ffin R AF V. -4f �MN" example much wre comparable to ge7sa Chica, There the Comm': ruied buffers Of 100 feet 'from the we .land,, with an additional 50 foot structural setback above and beyond that. 7n any event, the minimal Uuffer Proposed in the HCP 15 inconsistent with any Of the Commission's decisions. Pf'ovision of-an adequate buffer is all the more Important when considering that the c&Vr=ize at 915 acres of wetland Is only slightly more than the absolute mInfoum 923.5 acres that -V'*Ould conceivubly be found approvable at gol The Wpartment Of Fish and Game made this condition explicit in sa %.'hlca*its wwrandum , agreeing to the 915-figure. 'It Specified that it Was critical that the Wetlands restored be ".top quality, to Justify the compromise. A dasign i1hfch forces wildlife to flee fMN the Ige to the deeper race,Sses of the watland clearly fails to meet the Criterion of top quality". It In fact means that the functional watland'is actually much less than 915 acres. This situation is ado even &ore seriou; by the selection, In of the configuration which entails a lengthy edge with the wetland. While such .* design VAY be more ec'onomfcally attractive to a developers the wetland should not bf- diminished to accomplish it. for thife reasons, the Conaisslon finds that the wetlands and environmentally sensitive habitat area P011cles Of the MCP raise substantial issue with the Coastal Act. "ean ratrance The HCP Proposes policies U guide the selecti6n 'of 'an Min entrance from amo..n the MPY potential ' entratice, designs., It'dfscusse' s thaegen�ra�S POS 9b4t' ackn60edges thit :the. "Cp policies , tlessbased On recognition that the intrancIS PrVposad.in the LUP is the Host likely to be Utilized". In addition, policy . 17(a) provides that *the entrance shall be I navigable% This policy Precludes� onsideraWn Of a non-naVfgable 'entrance which may be shown to be the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative"when,the, full consequences of 4, navigable entrance are, revealed. The findings f& denial of the,Bolsa Chica LUP describe why Recreation the Premature ccomitment tu a navigable entrance is Inconsistent joith s Marine Environment,, Diking, Dred9ft.9 and Filling and other policies of the Coastal Act. Those findings are fully Incorporated here by reference; and are the basis for the CoMfsslon finding substantial issue with the HCP Ocean Entrance policies. 11 f Arl'-.1 1� ?ym A-A ri�gg'�Ivjj, WT I UL O ?W N ll Mfl" u.y Ml l a I gj N ni 1A jt LU :44 1A. LL r2 -K. 141 ' '���� f t:t�I'Y�,<t L,� �.a• ,� fR �F , ,���`"Yt�'k,�, .,,,,�,,;�,•, 3 �t i a • ,� ,ij$,{� `�'�`$�.. �4 '�`"�'� , � {,�-, i � df,3#' '�`ght . �t , IKE • Inz Mffll !,�,'Pg 4 �pg rq,}M, f f 3 vt jrzt "U. 2 • REQUES f FOR CITY COUNCIL. ACTIO Data Spi2tember, C submitw to: Honorable Mayor and city CouncAl submuted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrat r PrWred by: James W. Palin, Director, Development vices Subjwt: TRANSFER OF GRANT FUNDS FOR WHITE HOLE A IUG Consistent with Council Poll.-Y? QQ Yes Nevi Policy or Exception Statement o?Issuo,Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF' ISSUE: The City originally applied in October 1.084 for a grant augmentation of #5,66B for Phase IV fundn to complete post-certification work on the LocAl Coastal Plan,, and Phase III funds to complete a plan for the white hole areas. The Coastal Commission approved a grant auamentation of $10,944 for Phase Ill work on the white hole areas. The. grant period is extended until December 31 , 1985. RECOMMENDATION: Appr'ove' the approp I riation of $10,,944 from the unappropriated general fund',bal'ance and place it in Account No. 897 for Phase ill of development of a coastal plan for the white hole areas and adopt the attached resolution. ANALYSXS.* Staff will be working with the Coastal ronservAncy to develop a coastal plan for the white hole areas that meets with the approval of the Department of Fish and Game and the California Coastal Commission. The . grant augmentation will be used to fund a coastal planner to work with the various agencies and landowners and to develop a coastal plan for adoption by the City and certification by the Coastal Commission. The grant period liao.been" extended until December 31, 1985. A fiscal impact report is attached for, the original amount requested of $15,668. Since the approved amount is less, a new report is not needed. FUNDING SOURCE: California Coastal Commission P104M • RK3� h � •�lr•� f��t tt l���� 6' � � h�� 3,�}��t��® {�C +�� }q{ >.T��® `l. ��}5�y I��� y K''�_t•C��v„yy`,+ ���. �,�5 1�``'.�t � Uy��1[4�v`�� �K�`."^,fit �,�•�kt•1.k'Y t�"• * � ,cl?� tt�:;��iti'�` + ��, �� �+��,�hF2� Y�'. "t�f -' .{�y.�.. r � .+�{r� +� .� ,. � ;k� h� }.'Swf,:iJ•� S � t` �� �S ?w).7Y,t,``�t S�a }4;�fxt"K->,�r"'� �4'�$.f; �,.��4.�'., 2.1}pA1 " IT'n �i �,tS�)fid' �{i�• ��N�� tJ+ �. �� ((! t vq� '}.'4 @ 1 (� :,�F't r{'t7 f+ Ia�•w,� .I�4•. 7,;: t+te+-� !; i.qf,}1) rjt#� J �•(, Y 'ti.r ') 3. �;, � � .^� .�i•} �'. } ',1 ?�"1 4 %.kf5. ;t 4}�• �It .�� S � ��'. � �.-:"::i- t ,r i�i'•'1 ( )Yt+�. .. �+'S ..i4}r 1 F RL. } 5 7F ..7J Y ,j �.; '�."� ,( t, S�` : i J tt.� , � �r'��S• �y 4 �,y. �i tj d L • �ty.�`�?i � '� ��. ,�J} 'F ^I��- 1 �� Y ��� �•A� f �.� i.o•f , �F'�e.'y, .` �I .�1 ^P�,'j+ 1 # S",¢ `^1 � '�. �^Y �•.��' '1 1�t��r• t t'�r.t:i ,Jj �',� ��J,,'�j�� .�,.��� ,i t;. ''F . ,�.t� . �., rY s*�f !Y �, ri•ty ; �, � i, .� f ' ��M' � �'�:.I .��' � + '+� j\• .i ' .'t �Tr ,� �{k.��� .1)' SSt#. �' ,•J�tt. •,�, w.FSS�'.•.?.`,.,,.. � �t.��#4 Y�A. ��`�^�,¢ ..c�1 , ��.�° �` �'iy;it�., tyt �(`' ��i A �;�.� Jj� t t e�p�,•�.,�i4 ��. ?/,a1 !€t=�, l■( '� !i 1 Ytt 1f,� �t+'jd..:�.tJ{, ��rl t 1�,�()1,1i. '�'i{ 1.,) v'{.' `'}�1,',.'4��� ;1�� f"�. '� �,♦�{S1, .'{ E { .IL �f S r.!•f�± 11�1 t1 ����i•• Yi'k5�yii� RYa i!{ 4r i "'t,1{.1t^Lt 1 � a'�,' ('� %% •�. + Afi' J''F` � � 1�''1��'i �;t, 1. � f �.. 777F r" t� 1 {S7• t i. 1[! [,YYY Y i i[ �{1�a .y�'�� J. t� ..+ �i �i:,S, - ` r I l •+:• i „, x, , r, . . 'jt ,i, dt `�; {' �'t ,! `'1 '4t' 'Y `4 kh +^ i 3tt, k ^�' ,. '� � ¢t. •���f, � ' YI t , >t�, 4 �r+�•� }Yp ti"tl'. t lh �sy y� f:}�• � �t1fa t at` l' l T . ��b �Y .) ..�1 �' �t � i }S �Ii `+�'�{�'• �-}" Y�,4�, tits ..Y,•' i k�t'r. zt q . •r „ �` 7'�".�f ,� '1i b Y� ,t^ •'IA, �-� n 0 ALTERNATIVE ACTTOU: Do not approve a resolution to appr.opriate '$10,944 from the general fund to complete Phase In work on the white hole areas. The City would then absorb the cost or rely on the possibility of SH90 funding for reimbursement. ATTACHMENTS: � 1. Resolution 2. Fisca2 Impact Report JWP:LC:kla • I I II I f I RCA - 9/3/85 •-2-• (3118d) 1 h r �4��t'� � !a '�# 1*`•`��{��' j��j 1' ` L � ,��' �C,. Y r''`.4tt"..� !- ,a,} '�,�7 t.� �� ^'� t�,��.Q. .+ t a �,i ` +t,,y�� 1�,.,t sk S AR ���i � t•, �!f i r ��;r:EN . ., , t•. r"7 ,� i� ,. .,IrR� •� -Zl' rt�� '�i\..,•1�;� r�i *' � yS "��. '�, ��• '� ,•+J` •4 �/, F�� •Y .�.' i \�'' �Il.�•`� j ,r� �'�l �.r �} s ; .t 5,. ct, r � + ,� � 1L �.. j ��o.. 4+,1.2" `.1 Y d•. {'.,_ � � �.�, !. � ,.�. t 1 1��•t ;A.��' Y- 4, 1� . � Y.� .� . �L... � ,.;� t .7 •�t y �i1��(..r' ;, . Ley},� �[� , � �t ; '�y � 1� 1 "°�' !•: :' .d ,�' ( � , � ,. ,r �, .,,r'�i.,t.! r•A 7,..S .! '"�'x ;�'t i n n .,t.. .;.� ; •1 r rt�r ' ,�.4 �} ��. ��ggjtr{�t'#:S�'' �i ,���# 5"� �,�1�# li. � #�1�;t1•. + a ?1. t��,Y.` +•r,,{�_s �•}��.�`li��,�} �',���� j, ti,, j�ip jJ= ttX`.T"� �;� fSyyl .+,rf�!74� 'kit ti `"'r1�. d"1� �;��., 1:'!y .� }} .t 7 . � S� �y�t 4 � #r 5 >. v�, k � ,�"! `����' �x� �i ` �t ,S'�,�.f�1' fYF. R' },. '�•; `� •l�r:a Lr� ,7�' ��:':,���t�s;eft 4•<'�..�� �+`i;" -''it��'. ��t• `( � r)� {,�, "{;;?;:f•'a�ft'��� '����' �'�� ��c`' s, ,� ���jti,?'.A���i"•"�i ;' 1.���;: t� ��,�' �s; ,till , v . h 3 '�� s :.. �. a ,s •.;�E t � t ,�, t.. � ,.��..� . .t�.. •.�.` .". r' ,, t s" 1 ,[ tk 1 + CITV OF HUNTINGTOp4 BEACH a INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION To CH it , W. THOMPSON From ROBERT J. F Z Cblef: i;' �.'. , • City Istrator ' AdministratIve�'S'erviees Subject REQUg2)T FOR CITY FUNDING Date OCT013ER 11, 1984 TO ACCOMMODATE EXTENSION OF LCP<;RANT PHASE IV PIS 085-'14 - As required under the authority of Resolution 4832, a Fiscal Impact Statement has been prepared and submitted relative to the City's applicatiol to the Cal'4rnia Coastal Commission for•supplementai funding to allow for the satisfactory completion of,the sundry outstanding tasics attendant to the permit process and the Local Coastal Plan.' . The requested grant funds total $15,668. The only Immediate. fiscal impact of this transaction will -be to limit the City's earning capability during the Interim - prior to reimbursement ot these funds Yrom the aforementioned source.- . ROBERT J. FRANZ, Chief / Administrative Services Dcpartmef� RJF:sicd j 1 ; TP 0800s t F• S{ r � � , '� � }•'��'�� y •; { '�f :li�,'^v ,^ ��' A �'�. !l':�.�ir r�4�#� '� . j;C� �F y'� } � _�i�t p a�' .f� � ��+-� � ti �y� �� ���� 1 � '•. 'A's�< �rt� t� �i�.��, _tt}��, �++ �(f1� ,'}wti �yl.k��� �'a.{}' ��. ��p t�k�;t�� �pt,Ry :�'��'+'` � �`� °�� r�i � r � is ,� t�f.jt q.vA�s r �Ys7'•'yy t S J,L,' r� � •• � 7+ 1{ �' Lt s yfly r� a� T�� .�� 1. t F b / 'r'`• s � �•MC v klrl f r:! L �)�, :1 � ,( r .t� �i ;�• Sr! t,r i 1, t•. i a ;.. If l/ k y .r �S¢;,� �'.F4' •?�""! i�' y�l ,':fit;`� k'' �('J � ��,, !� #�",`,•+� �;h!� ','�'y�31� ,�''E' _� �J �� � 1 {j+VA�'`� '#t��}iff 7,��, b~•r a =+��4cT` 5� 'z S }' "<,"y' ��,1t, ,rdr", .,4��..�,`��i. � _�•� <� �'i��.. f1P A}, . , ,,��+ +, 'T+t'�, �- ��4a 5_:t�lf .�. t �A p ° �' `P 9 s{' � f �l, } �� 1' k�,� 1 � t�Z ���?SS rlY {jk ��'Lj�. f y .4• lF3` y"t'f �4 't •'3, ,t ti. � ! Ya>y'$ }}��:�3'�'r'"i�,�'l �,,��• #;?�� ;.�^''#c*�j�y�3K,';�17'4 'j �.� � �'S�"�+���' �y�{�� ;"��Y''� ?`�°� . �`STi�.'"tji` ��{�,�X �c�,ri'�ir f ���r{'�! . �A j�-�ti Al; t.Y 4 aj ,�tY'.s�ys.Y¢j1���r 149;T'1� i f k"'"•ti�•�+I�/I y;,,;SyT, `i ..ti?,� '!}t�,tYi +'Tp� ,' iwt�'t' ,�k� a.',t .;�f •'6 1 y= il;r t,FnAy}.1 K.I4, .t�{�?y t13'' t ), J �•'�w,1,r�4���r,je�i7� /M X� � Sy�, ` .• Y.��j' •t.. i tl/l , is `�i a''� �y� , _YL ,L�r�.4. i� }. FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT 1. Budget Status: The protect was not included in the current budget because the funds wtr_ ^niy made available to us this month. 2. Total Costs: A. Direct: crone B. Indirect: 1) Cash flow- The funds must be appropriated from the general fund and will be reimbursed by the California Coastal Commission after they are expended. 2 Maintenance- Hone 33 Overhead- Will be absorbed as part of the Department's regular operating budget. 4) Grant requirements- Normal accounting and reporting procedures will be utilized. No matching funds are required. 3. Funding Source: . A. General Fund Unappropriated fund balance--S1S;•FF8 B. Revenue Source--California Coastal Catmission Grant C. Aiternative Funding Source—Department Budget 4. History Funding from this source has been used for work on the Loral Coastal I Program since 1977. There have been- four separate coastal grants, plus augmentations. This is the normal funding source fu:• this type of work. . I ! � � ��• i Ri '\ � �� 'T J� .Le.•�""G' t Y �� �T' i i � �i{yp�i• g!Pct +7n,•1 �y'i .V aYlv� �Y,Y� 1 '•��,r••f. �� + t � ,, x�a i '7ia�" I a '.�, . •i � I� � �' � �,�s r � ��' �E�' ,�• +t r `i.� y`f y �f Y � •��t; ,rt�,� �'�� t r 1: ,,,{ , � a, �.+�-4�+"x r :�x`!� x '�' �y-.. � � ►•� ��',�5 �+, r .K �~ �'y�,,� � 'i {r `{ �� '� i c t� ' i�`�1 �� ''i',�a�1 '�- ��1 �' '�i ,`q��,�.,_��s� !� »= �� ���'� { � � >L Mom' y�" Z1�y, .!:(�, +�ttl tl' ,:aL i St' t�� �'x{' I� k Y. i1��4S..�tht'y�1 .Y•�:� �e, ��r tC S,+it�il rr W':l �i� �• ..r�,�jY�4 I�y,, '��:y� k+f�..{t� ��• 12��f� � t{} r c' t Y ' •1 ..�k� (�, 1 ttcC � �'i i � I)/ �. ♦ ,} R .�7`y� at �,� � l��l F 'r[ � ,� 7l l �i.N� 1.� f l f�• � ,,..11:t v � J t{ �: �ri' �`.. : 1 f� �': .{!' , + ��' 4� ,� ,\' !�i'. .t`••' � �. •�f�liY L� * �' � � �• �','`� �'�}�t� Yn. � i�J�� �, f, Pr�Xpq,4 y. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH , _ ICY Ftn 6ovr G-•�.R.....�7 . P.O.V0X 190 eALIFORNIA 92648 D;PARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BlAr- iYG DIVISION 1714)536r241 PLANNING oj:J [ON 1714)536-6271 ' ` July 1 , 1985.' Director a U.S. Depart,"ent of the Interior National Park Seivice - 498 E P.O. Box 37227 Wachington, • D.C. 20013-7127 Subject: Eomments on Proposed Additions to Coastal. Barrier it0sources system Dear Sir: The City of Huntington Beach is deeply concerned abrut the proposed � addition of two areas that lie within the City and its sphere of influence to the coastal Barrier Resources tyste w. Those area are Y.A. Cade CA••47 Bolsa Chica and CA-48 Huntington Beach. Both of the proposz'd additions include portions of a State beach recreation area and Pacific Coast Highway - an important coastal transportation link , CA-48 Huntington Beach also appears to include parts of two severely undersized flood conLrel systems which are planned to undergo extenEive upgrading in the future to protect -vr . lives and property within Orange County. The City Council of Huntington Beach agrees with -the goals of the Coastal Barrier P.esources Act, but feels that the inclusion of these particul::r arias would preclude plans,by County, State and• Federal agencies to improve circulation and flood control facilities which are vital to ,this region. ' Pacific Coast highway through Huntington. Beach is schF'duled for widening in ,1.986. This highway provides access to nine miles of public beach -and is preceuUy functioning far above Capacity. The highway is .one . of the most dangerous stretches in the :Mate. The planned improvements are designed to increase safety, improve ac%:ess and expand cYrculaticn within this heavily traveled urbir, corridor . Cancellation.-.'of- the pacific Coast Freeway has placed a heavy traffic burden on Piie:ific Coast Highway as a connecting link- between Long Beach/Los Aq geles and the burgeoning coast of Orange County. Loss of federal funding would doom the highway widening project. r r s •S. r 1 r Coastal Baxplers Study Group U.S. Department of the Interior Page Two I The drainage•.basin of the Santa Ana River, including parts of Orange, San.-Bernardisio and Riverside Counties, is currently rated as one of the ,•gzaatest flood hazards in the United States. The Corps of Engineer's is proposing a long term major flood control-.project for the Santa Ana River to a! 'eviate the extensive .flood eisk. This project is almost completely dependent upon federal funding. , In addition, -the flood control channel system which. provides an ocean outlet for a large area of Orange County's storm wa;:er drainege runs through the same area, ibis system is the object of a t major improvement program by the County. Without federal funds it will probably be impossible to undertake the program. The City Cottncil 's concerns with inclusion of these areas• in the Coastal Barr:�er Resource System center on the health -and safety impacts t:hat.':this inclusion would have on our, commugity. We feel !� these impacts would be disastrous for the City as well 3$ the region. At the same time, the City Council has embarked on a program to-provide protection to the City 's wetland resources which are within •the proposed inclusion areas. Under the' City 's and the County's Local Coastal Programs, these wetlands will he protected and restored. Based on the above considerations, I would respecttully request, on behalf of the City Council and the city of Huntington Beach, that the Department of the Interior delete the Bolsa Chica and Huntington ! Beach areafi from their recommendation to Congress for additions to the Coastal Barrier Resources System. Thank you for your consideration. Y r • Very truly yours, Ruth Bailey .' .. j Mavor I City of Huntington Beach ' RB:JAF:kla (2795d) I A j I State of California THE RESOURCES AGENCY OF ,CALIFORNIA 9W ';rt •?ss : • State Coastal Conservancy if 1leMorand,u0 July31, 1985 TO: City of:hntington Beach W1M �A' � .. FROM: Reed 11olderman, lfendy Eliot, b Ruth Galanter RE: Huntfngtbr'i. Beach Wetlands Progress Report ;'• r ••,During the last six months the Conservancy has contacted or met with each. of the property owners in .t.he white hole area in an effort to preserve the wetlands. while providing compensation to public and private landowcerr. We are ` now on the verge• of reathfng an agreement w.th most of the affected property owners on the teems of compensation. We hope the following progress.r�port will give you as much. encou►;agement as it has given us and will lead to .th�`adoptian ; of a certifiable-land Use plan for this area. s The report presept�:•;.background discussion and a summary of our. progress with each: of the propFrt_lEs from south to north. We have also taken the liberty of making scrap reco&nnndations at the conclusion of this report for the City to consider. .1. Caltrans' 17 Acres Background , Caltrans is planning on:widening Pacific Coast Highway this year and must mitigate the impacts of:.this project before construction begins. The draft ' environmental impact statement for the widening project will be in circuiatfon by August 1, and will list three different mitigation measures. Restoration of .8 acres within the 17 acres is included. in this list. Current Status We believe that Caltrans, will dedicate the entire 17 acres to the Conservancy as mitigation for.its widening project if the City, in conjunction with other : public agencies and individuals, brings pressure on Caltrans to make this dedication. Therefore, we'arp recommending that the City wri,te_.a_.letterito Caltrans, durfiig'the•ci'rc`ulation rf_•the DEIS, requesting thy.► dedicationof the '17-'acres-to"tfie_Conservancy as mitigation for_tho widening of PCII. __.._ •.. -- --_ .. . We have also been•nteeting;;with Caltrans District staff concerning the••terms of a future dedication and enhancement of the 17 acres. As a result of these meetings, Conservancy, staff has provided Caltrans with a draft ffemoranidurr of Understanding forjlhe; enhancement of the 17 acres. Under this agreement Caltrans will dLdd• the 17 acres to the Conservancy and the Conservancy 'till 4 �"�^•• it:tx^w. w.....• -...._._....._....-..-...........-............... ... ... ..3. .,..-.'.+.:..-... ... _.., ..-:tiNN. .r.::. .r..�........+,...vy.s...r r.,..^.:v..a...r• .... f directed Caltrans 'Lo sell their property to Mills if Mills could obta-in the ,'!!l necessary approvals to:develop this property. Caltrans also agreed to sell the property to Mills at -$�5,000 an acre in a subsequent agreement. Mills has not bsen.abld to secura*the approvals to develop the Calt�:.ikr , • property, and f property has been in escrow since 1977. Caltrans they will continue t'h• renew :Mills' option as long as the Company continues to make progress at obtaining ,the approvals and zoning changes. Moreover, the 'inverse suit against Cajtrans 'cannot be heard until Caltrans rescinds Mills option to E their property..- Mills also has:iawjuit' against the Coastal Coimnission challenging .thpir 4 authority and mandate :to designate wetlands. This case is pending and the courts have ruled that this case must precede the inverse action. Current Status We have talked to Mr. Robert London More over the telephone. tie is v ry • interested in acquiring the Caltrans property and especially the PCH-1rontage ; for develop.ment.;:We have also talked to Caltrans about selling the W,frontage, . which is the only developable parcel at the northern end of the project area. Caltrans;.{,k:44 reeable tn a sale, if Mills drops its lawsuits against the state and•dedic#e$, its wetlands to the Conservancy. The 'cost of the PCH frontage would be negotiated between Caltrans and Mills, but it would be substa, tially below fair market value. • Caltrans is also intere�ted 'in selling their we to the Conservancy, at a wetland value established through a General Services appraisal, and working . .directly tiith fhe Conservancy if our current proposal is rejected by Mills. 'In addition to working:with Caltrans on selling the frontage, tie have been preparing development plans for the PCII frontage. Our preliminary economic, i market, and site design analyses show that a 180 room luxury hotel can be sited I on the property and that this enterprise will be very profitable. The Coastal Commission has seen,our• plans and they have given us conceptual approv4l of the hotel and wetland buffers. h. Recommendations for.City Consideration „,M• o Write a 'letter to`Caltrans requesting that they dedicate their 17' acres south of 6rookhu'rst as a condition to widening Pacific Coast Highway. ,.,,. o Designate land uses=in the white hole area. 't 4 w . • ca • , r • Conservancy the first chance to acquire this property if the option .is not i renewed. ! 3. Orange County;:Flood Tontrol District ; Background The Flood Control District owns and operates the Talbert Channel and approximately 4 .,acres adjoining th:s seaward side of the channel at Magnolia. PresOrttly, the District is preparing a Final Eprvironmental�* impact A Report for the;videning •of the channel and will need to mitigate the impacts of this project. ' !. : furrent Status The Conservancy has rr,at.with the Orange County Flood Control District staff ; about their widening project and we have prepared•a draft'llenarandum of Understanding. -The ,memgrandum states that the Conservancy will provi& the mitigation for• 'the District's project on the Caltrans 17 acres and :th-i2Y •will be billed' for the cost. 4. Southeen Calffor`nia Edison Background • SCE.owns an electrical generating plant in the middle of the project area and:' approximately 27 acres of degraded wetlands to the south. SCE has no plans to develop the wetland's at this time, but they.want to retain it for future energy . 'development. ,. Current Status i The Conservancy sent a: letter to SCE praposing that we lease and enhance their wetlands. No decision has been made on our request. We have also offered to"work with SCE, the City, and the Coastal Commission to .find an acceptable land use designation or agreement for the future use of their property. S. Mills Land and Water Company's Properties and Caltrans' 25 Acres Background . Caltrans condemned appr4ximately'25 acres from Mills in 1965 for a freeway which was never constructed. Mills subsequently sued Caltrans for inverse ,condemnation in-1076, and this suit is still pending. In ,1978, Dennis Mangers introduced a bill in the State Legislature, which was signed by the GoYerhor, that sought to resolve the inverse action. The bill :: 3 u�: enhance the 17 4cres and bill Caltrans for their specific mitigation. , requirement (as :determined by regulatory and resource agencies). . `• 2. Piccirelli •P►.operties and Caltrans' 21 Acres . •:sue, x--•--•-- .�.; • Background r r• Daisy Thrope Piccirp111'•Gwns approximately 47 acres within the project area and has also sold U - options an her property: 1) to 4lilliam t`u'rtis for all the mineral rights beneath her properti+,•'Caltrans' 21 acres, and the uBdeVeloped property owned by SCE. We do not know the exact, :; terms'of Mr. Cur,iW option, other than that he has permission. frozi `., 14s. Piccirelli to use a 1 acre drilling site at the northeast corner of her property and access to the site via the Talbert Channel. 2) to Bitter Slater Lake,.Company (AKA McKenna, Corner, and Cuneo) for surface rights on the Picurellf and Caltrans properties. This option runs for'• 2,0 years if renewed yearly, on Fia)-ch 12. The annual renewal fee is $50,000. In addition to stilling -two-options, Ms. Piccire1li;'has• acquired an option pn the Cal trans` projler v north 'of Brookhui-ie z&-al r"esul t 'of an out'of�Lourt' settlement. This�optYon •runs for a years, if renewed every September 30, and is assignable to Bitter Hater. The cost of renewal is S1,000 per year. Current Status ' We have, met with a Bitter Water representative and they hope to build .�. -Ionli,- along the Talbert Channel from Magnolia to Brookhurst. We Yn d'itated that this witl be difficult because local, state, and federal pb'i'icies preclude development on wetlands. However, we did agre.e to 'get a reaction to the Bitter .Wa.er proposal from all the involved parties. Since this meeting,:.we have discussed Bitter Water's proposal with the Coastal ' Commission. The Comr'issfon said they •ho►ild not approve the Bitter Water- .development, or any�:development, that is inconsistent with section 30233.' of the Coastal Act, and that They would help defend against' an inverse condemnation action if 'he City desiggates the Piccirelli properties as wetlands. ' Ye have also met with the Commission about Mr. Curtis' proposal to drill for ' oil. The Commission•said energy development is consistent with section 30233 of the Coastal Act, if-there is no feasible less damaging alternative and mi t,i gati on, i s provi ded."IMr. Curti s may have di f f i cul ty showi ng there i s no feasible less damaging A).ternative, but if fie does, he still must. mitigate the impacts of dri Ili ng. in a salt marsh. Given that Mr. Curtis only has an option for a 1 acre drilling site, he may also have trouble mitigating on-site., Finally, we have ls9 talked to Caltrans about their property, 'which *is presently optione,d.0 Piccirelli and Bitter Water. Caltrans agreed to give the •r • x �2lsw.. .. .-...r � ....»v.r r...•.—.. .....�•t, :5,:. .. .. ... ...•.•.St:...a..•.....i:. .:l..i,...i..... .A. .+..,w. •:i'.:w r .w. ..:i:...rrrn w.rw�r .... C ' ■ y i PHOTOGRAPHIC i BEST REPRODUCTION POSSIBLE, DUE TO ; i , AGE AND CONDITION OF ORIGINAL r DOCLTW-,NTS oll op 00 �•t g. W:r. t ti - r. -r :I: .v��...i1e1k:'��.@y7.i:y�l�x�v''r,tC•u.,��! s:x..-lth'i•'. :et.� ='���+$t 'i(:i. r 1 r� ' r�rxa.a�... �........y,��}�.:.. if^.. � y •n• �1..rt`.'»..1.' ♦l'��t..p-,..+».-, «, .,.r•.a ra+�-x......-..•�. -..�. ... ..... ••+1....r.., � ` ..'x- '1 .. � ., r.. .4� (; 'tag .......w?�� �1� ".�.r..,` it 'Iy x...+. .F..c.•. 1 .. EXHIBIT 1 . . LECEND • ..c •.a•wf�t• .�' .. d. ,�,•� ♦\ 7 .tst :rangy 1T0.65.aGcesl . . lttis Wr. a vaL 'E.bb • • .� •'• pcvtcac 19.26 reii" aereai• ,s,•:. r,.h r•. . . - � .. � .. •�.• •• ..r � '` ... 5 Sn. Caii=- t3:es►s..t1�.48 aecas) .. -. . bcanoc County FLe*� COntrnt-Dtatrlct ? r 'ya ;;1 .. `�.•,-\ •'�. 4 G Thorpe I46.9i 1C'tRlt t{.19 aCcea! li' 1 COaaCA t''�ORQ BCt{Rtt1 - .. goo, Ji OPP �� �• i/'. r cer• CF•R i — -*�� ray �'RsnZ •...� LF-R t•ue.trr •tac,. Pratt �� N..t bunae's+• x.n• t-rt ••wl • �� \�� CF-R CF-R CF-R • � :�,• .. _ fit - •-. REP OWnership Patterns IOU ILI } "7 ''•�� r1 t) 11 a) O to t ► 1 9: O tl .� 1 ' 1•,I ,� t' in O v rd r. Qt 41 p y * V t 1 .t• �; •1 .t• a) U t: C. :'•q It tr, tp 41 •.t � of i= 41 1: 11) . t tlt is r. M Ll 1~ w :t a1 .r• C .r. in fd 41 N U rn 41 •►1 t)a ;? 0 C O • TT� ty t V I t n: i,, t) r:»1 al..1 tl . 33 at de r Iq c tt r L'-4 oil •.i t `�'•, �i �! t 1 N i' t' U 41 w a .d •;'�'• • t ; tl 9:t t , 1 ! r1 to t:-elm O C. 11 rJ at it O54 1• O IA a :.•ttt A U•►t sy .1 41 tl fs Zt r: trii•.-t Qy A", , a+ :, to rt', •t1 r. ttl.t• trs O �U q1 n .t v Nit aid ,{: . ��" •,1 S 1 •r 1 . 0 t: 11 tit ':1 rtf.1 {� t 1t y] +U • •1_I rt; 1) ()•.i�1 + V. 1.t• ;y G►•.t ;� H C �•+'tf e9 . Cl al :k tt is t1 a1 QS O .� y d r j r3 .-I t: "1 .r• n ►t U ,i D 4+ r3 It •r-+� �t t• i" !� ;>e ••1 ••!� •.1 to i t•.t O ri tt 1 t 1 :t: V. rJ O to tJ1 1 Ij • U r7 +a b 1., . At '[1 0 2t •:t � rh y ,!1 II al 1) tot U U [) �j 11 I11 Q) ;� •.1 nt Qr U QI 0) 1) [), 61 N -• 4, ttj ;t 1 i •.1 ;J-•t v t:ii Qt a W U tl, In t• CIA :`. ,g U••1 it •h Q q `� �• t• t(I UI +I 1 tr: O r t,1 o t: O 9 t1)M na• C U, r')-4 9: a () t1 t 41 t3t 14 t.1 •-4 r" Q1 U U "" .n U .4..4 ns u U Q) +C to; u C"4 `. •'t rn n It C 11 1" r. to to rd I: V 'I t :•,: fl1 U to M •.1•.t R� •;C V ►4 of 1) to 0 r1 Q '•t 41 r3 .t: MITI :t M • 1 •-1 U �} IV It S.. i� J .t:•.I r9 1~ •n .r' to M tJ •1 -4 44 oil 4t 11 O .t• Al 11 N 0It .1 L't ,t• �t Q • :• ••1 th I V r. V co O 41 -A a+ C 0) t1 0 414 r:•.I In ;t r: O 4) Rt b U C to LI f, M :i• I a1 on••I .•1 U 0 U '.V O at ^I it O 0)•11 t: cj t: m tt NtS 0 111 It rd + CO. r: .0 • I M W Imo' V M a• .-4 N'd EU is�li�j m 4� :16M ;;•.1 [' '[J t'J t', 1.11:J: n1••1 M to t1I *+ t M t 4 rr•t1 a q 1 It •[3 1n•1 t1.IA td •1 so it 0t1 � � '{1 11, 111 di () Ut t. 7r. rl P ♦ • • 11 41 to I+ u 't1 _"••4 4) r: y :1.•1 :3 (11 1)-H Ej to It i :7 tIl b • In '!t I! U In e3 p to '..t: 0 to to t t7 :_> ;3 U 'tt .[' O r+ •t rJ Ilt t: tS1 .[] rt O i1 .t:is 'U tl 11, to R1 1j • • t t t) C ti 1 t tT) O Qi 'In r: tU U Ip •+� t: �u 1 It �O • QI V) :I It Cl''t1 M 43 � to M 41 to y t: r'J [ fu } 6 t1 r•-, • ,t lI to ,;1 111 V. St tU it a) to't1 rK p In.•t .t .1 U a1 I'd oilrj ..t to rt •+�� a) �/ u ra.r: r. !Ito ..tr• .Q. 1 • + to s, Qt t rat y M. d• Is O w 1v : •t t� R+ 1tl � i, M••t 0 eM ••1 111 M 43 1► tt 1t i) to tJ.t: T on•U w V) F, O M x tl ;I ;� •r1 �' 't• 71 r3 :+ •L1 R1'tJ 41 In q :, •►�'11 ► 1 :•I Pt to•►t M i1r t: to y _1 t1 r 1 :s. t]t n rt 1: Rt r:••t .r• d• t. O a! U to•r•I irf In t) m r+r I: so :•, rt It rt: to a-t elf r: at ;1 t: r• t3t 1 It 4 C CAS y v' •►t (I IV •►t »1 --It 1 . 1 •11 i1 I: ut ►1 [: tD ft 14 U 41 4) t)t•.1 r: ;) to.p th t: I'll I* •11 41 r3 1: 1' :1 111 :.J 44 e•l •. 11) rl r1 :1 f a N U ,t: t: tt Va t11 •[? M :`. t.1 M t: 11 It U tU [: tt• 0 00 C at f-t .0 aI (It tla -4 4-1 41 .4.. • U to. it r: r•1..1 'q t) :.t U •U M O U••1 7 ••1 r9 O.V: 11 .a•, b :`4••1 () $I rJ rl+ ••1 in r: 1111 C•1•.t O tt t~ 4.1 1 173 r!•a} 46 ,4 et rrl r-1 .� 41 r 1 t• t r .t: q, fA ;t rt In J'. At ••t 0 t1 Q .91 11 -4 a1 01 41 to •r•S tj•.1 •U AD a to N O 4J tJ` .-1 Ijr 11 1, 'r t1 t► V U 0 •94 M••1 t) t) U •Ct la•I C it ty,t If, 2? r: - t: t1) a1-4 r @ I Rl r: 111 I+1 •.1 r11 n .t: at•01 roe M to 01-1 t± 0) D f9 O RI M O r. b 0 t1 3 Qj n.t »1 1 f ti N M Va I 9I U a).13 ••1 .1 tel •: tt'U ••4 r., -ur7 t) (a O V in r4 m n) :e ed � ftt 1 r: r'. 1 r r at r•1 let to t' .t: tit III •t: rl C .4••1 In t: ttt t1 't1 U. ,I: r: Ali . 44 I, fit . 1 �+ t: 1t• I •.t IQ U U U•►I ••I tir et-el If t1 14 FI 'I 'e. rt U � � O ' i t 1it 0 �� t 1 -.4 1: to t 1 ;;•.t r: t 1 r'J • :� � Ad Id t!. ILA � 9: M+ I t •1 t)+ U Ll :1 ID 41 13 •94 10 O M. IN . e0 0 I O..t M RI 11 7 t n 0 uI n4 •1 •1 V tt :a :J :t t: 1: 1+•1'1 t•S •-t•tn 41 GI r: :`. e1 M r: • N •rl if I►: 1A /I t r'1 r 1 tit e� t2 U .-I W CT •M 0 t3 a) : ••i ri '.t t1 It r. •`.,(� :: .-1 C tT 11 ' 1t () t; 1: S. at •tt [1 t: In U M a S• U In »i r:•.t 4) A Q N U � at ff Id to rt1 ••.{ tZ I I tJ ••t •' R ai-4 11 ;tt V J tT.1• U U ►1 43 W 0 01•.I tAv I .`s 't1•� U.tj :,It_? IT 1+ tr ..t � r3 ,I :•t :1 :�. .t: 'CI +; q1 :. C»t 1) :+,t.,t e3 D r1 ss � 4 :••� t l Lt r: rS t) >♦tt f+J [: l t It C)•O j) 41 .1 I h r11 ft t Qt '�]r r t t :+ rJ :` :• C3 ::1 ti in s M 1i,.t t► . •1 Is It t1 4t.t' •1•.I U to 't _t tJ -4 [) 11+64v1 t) a: 9 M IG O •+ M M c) O ',.1 rr ti1 1'1 t t 17 11 ll 114 t) Q to b.Q rt.^ V t1 Ili 0 IT% as c+ tj It, M to fit t: j rd *4 In rn i Mayor Ruth Bal- and Members of t,Ije City Council page Two ;p f t` We strop.Iy urge you eke a=-:---m tive t ,,.- e ha • 'CoastaL Barrier Sttld_r ^ Dear meZ� C� 3= both Anaheim Bav and Be_3a Chica Sholl" he exc?•-ded =4= "e _ . act sZ::ce the__ =.:c_usit�n will 2d-,rer3,ajL zc'^z; 7z ciunrinq oa Beach. _ ?-aside •Mu 1 sC i .i a+-w^�cL?...... _ --.+..T?ac�a.r.•«.. .r�ti- t:t.G. ;«'f.'::.L 11 i.......a't:i.:., '.�:., .il.n....�-.:\''::J�•.....':lei.'ti.:s::r.•.Y.:..:r�'�,.,:t::�;�.4;Xo.ter..-:z:iA:naw+.r.,..+..+ 1'.� r t. ,.t'4 CITY OF H6, NITI � INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATI CK D APR 18 11987 ` O CITY OF. HUNTINGION BEACH To Charles W. Thompson oi►v Jamep ftNlgpI%, O�gLector City Administrator p Deve optnen Sery ces Subject BOLSA CHICA Date April 17, 1985 'an April 16 the Orange . County Planning Commission opened the public hearing on the Bolsa Chica Land Use Plan. No action was taken and this item wasp continued until April 30. Listed below are the scheduled meeting dates for the Land Use Plan. April 25 Advisory Committee. Fleeting ; April 30 County Planning Commission Public Hearing Nay -15 County Board of Supervisors Public Hearing Resubmittal of the ,LUP. to the Coastal, Commission must ta.fte place by May 29 in order to comply with the 6 month time constraint for complying with the modifications. Alone with the .Lana Use Plan,.:EMA staff has 'also submitted the Rolla j.. ' thica Linear Regional Park Boundary Study to the Commission for action. �-EMA staff has requested comments from the City on this document. ` have astudy'- sessionn the Sol s r comme' d t at the Cit Council h o x e n h Y __.. -0.. .. 4h c a Lan Jie"--Pan and"IEhe 1G-1near ParF.�Boun—dCar Stud on Ma 6 This, , Y Y Y would enable. the City to fo�~rm e si poaiti�;on on`�o`thi iteins iri. time for. ths May 15 Board of Supervisors hearing. JWP:FTJ:kla ". 1 22846) luntingfon vy sE�s�di' Bleach �Cc�nn an /3o�sa �ti�� P 1► 2110 Main Street,Huntington Beach,Caiifornla 92848-2499 (714)960-4:51 "t R. J. Work - Vice Prea,'Jattt •Garmai Vartage* May 1, 1935 ; - - r t J Mayor Ruth Sailev � and Members of the City Council r City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main 5treet Huntington Beach, CA 92643 Dear Mayor Bailey and Council Members: We were recently asked by the Orange County Environmental Management Agency and Harbors, Beaches and Parks Commission to review and respond to their Bolsa Chica Linear Regional Park Boundary Study. We responded in writing and also attended the 4124/35 Commission meeting to express our views (see attached letter). As stated in our letter we generally support the objective of the study. However, since the eastern boundary of the proposed park Is on Huntington Beach Company land and we are the only property ; owner you will be dealing with, we prefer to discuss the precise boundary of the park along with other related land use issues for this area. We will be present at the May 6, 1985 study session and will be prepared to discuss our position in more detail at that time. Very tr v Is, , I 1tJWje Attachment ,�1�' _.• _......•.,...... .n. .r..t• ., 't r...... ........Sl. ii.0 a,.. ...3.r.a tr.e.i-.F:. ..Kt:......« .,.a:a: ...• :7+3,tt..\s<L..+l.•ys-sM.......,.---- - '-•-..,. s j April 74, 1933 r Orange County Harbor, Beaches and Psrks Commission J. Environmental Management Agency 400 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, CA Re: Bolsa Chica Linear Regional Park 8oundsry Studv Dear Commissioners: We were recently givers a copy of the newest, version of the Bolsa Chica Linear Regional Park Boundary Study and asked to present our views to the Commission for consideration. Since this report was mailed to us on April 19, 1935, we have not had an opportunity to completely evaluate t1:e impact the, study will have on our property. However, It is clear that the cooperation of the Huntington Beach Company is essential for the park plan to move forward in an expeditious manner. Although there are several points in the s':udv that may need further discussion, we are generally In support of the overall objective. One of our major concerns Is that this study has been going on since 1977 and there are still a number of Issues which need to be resolved. Rather than have this report forwarded to the Board of SuperviRc:s for adoption as a park boundary study we recommend that we negotiate the precise boundary of the park and related issues with the City and County and consummate these negotiations as soon as possible. i Thank you for your Cooperation in this matter. J -. l Very truly yours, RJW/e ortginc� Strrrd `r R. J. �ti'C'4K t is '` :ilrz .w--- .... ,. arr,'..r'.u..•.rwe-e_ . r' - 4 fy':,�� o .•i .... �3. ._ x: ,., .. .. ..rt3. 7 r: r it Y - • i pate A2ri1 26,1985 Submitted to: Honorab Oxon 2-= Submittodby: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrat 4 prepared by: James W. Palin, Director, Development Servicesbe(fdt& Subject: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF TOE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION FOR THE CITY'S CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ConsisWnt with Council Policy? Oyes j Mew Policy or Excaption )?-cav Statement of Issue,Recommendation,AMly34, Funding Source,Alrarmative Actions,Attachment: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: On March 1, 1985, the California Coastal Commission adopted a categorical exclusion for certain types of developments within the City's coastal zone. Before the categorical exclusion can become effective, the City Council ,must act to acknowledge receipt of the resolution of approval, including any conditions, and accept and agree to the terms and conditions. The attached resolution takes this action. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached resolution acknowledging receipt of the Coastal Commission's resolution of approval and accepting and agreeing to the terms and conditions. ANAI•YSIS: t' The City's Local Coastal Permit was certified in geographic part on March 13, 1985, and the Planning Division of Development Services has begun issuing coastal development permits. At present, all development within the City's coastal zone which is not exempt under the Coastal Act requires a coastal development permit. The City applied for, and on March 1, 1985, the Coastal Commission approved, a categorical exclusion. The categorical exclusion would relieve certain types of development within the coastal zone from the coastal development permit requirements. The categorical exclusion appruved by the coastal Commission imposed certain conditions limiting the types and location of development to be excluded. The City has already adopted ordinances incorporating these conditions into Division 9. The categorical exclusion will, therefore, become effective as soon as the necessary resolution is adopted by the Council and determined in writing to be legally adequate by the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission. P10 4131 d M���.�.R.. .. . _,...�.....�....r.F.r n.^w.Yw+.sv...r..w..r .,. 1..l-.. s,. `I_.:n.wlra r .. •.,,•. r r .!A.r......w• ..:"a. ..a n...r.;'6".r.+ .w.., tl ruYw.Y..t 1:rM co..s... w.+Y.r..w.w..�.. -... -•�� 1 +' Until. the categorical _xclusion becomes effective, Lhe City must process coastal development permits for all non-exempt development. 'y This causes a hardship to developers by delaying projects that otherwise could proceed through the approval .process without a coastal development permit. Prompt implementation of the categorical exclusion will save staff time and developer time. PUNDrNG soURcb: Bone needed, . It ALTERIIATIVE ACTroNs: Do not adept the attached resolution. xi this case, the categorical exclusion will not become effective. ATTACUMENT: Resolution JWP:JAP:kla 1 :. I 1 , I 1' RCA 4 .26-85 -2- (2338d) .t.�:i*J,:nZj''v.... .-.......wruw• ..__ ,w. ,.�.w.r..r.wa..r.• '•.rr«..r..w..n1f A..%YIr..r..r.,.......w...........-............__._-....�....r ... • u..i.r rerlw..w ....... f E UEE...' FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION jr Date March 20, 198f, & 'c oil Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Couticil �! Submitted by: Charles W a Thompson, City Aaministra _ . VAL James W. Palin, Director , Developmen �€ i'�I� Prepared by: G OBJECTIVES FOR THE WHITE HO '"'""'"""`"` \ 'Subject: PLANNING RK Consistent with Council Policy? 1 Yes Nn': Pniicy or Exception CITY �>- Attachments: Statement of Issue,Htx:ommerdation,AnJlysis, Funding Source, Actions, STATEMENT OF ISSUE: sessi on March l8, 1 qs5 the City Council held a joint stuay Beach on with the Planning Commission on the white eA opartrol' theeft wstaff Boulevard and the Santa Ana River. a the draft preseatat ion a set of draft objectives was pt•oprsrefinr the draft consideration. Council directed staff to further obiec fives and bring tihem to the next Council meeting for further action. RECOMMEN A % Approve the pro as planningnaNOXkingewithrtheepropertY white o owners le aand quidelines for staff to use i affected public agencies to achieve an acceptable elan for the area. Y Rt;ALY Sx S ' e joint study session on March 18, 1985, staff proposed nine At th The Council discuses pl,anninq objectives for the white hole ificarea. these ano made some suggestions for r malists of ng n plannianAl objectives. Staff hi.a revised t proposed e list The list now reads: objectives toinclUae fife Council's suggestions. mpt to consolidate developable areas into nodes. 1. Atte 2, Include interest points and observation trails in the wetland restoration plan. 3. Analyze areas for the h possible riority coastalodependent Oi ouseQiyen that energY is a niq p to 4. Explore a transfer of developrtnand�ghts wetlandogram restoration. facilitate nodes of developme 5. Explore trade-offs of restoration of the evfearformalut restorable areas for development, shorttransfer of development rights program. No 4134 WIN 1, f• rryp�� 1 'r ,� ti,' -'•1° i� r ��" Sr P'Ark S "� yl x�'➢� �•j+�..�+ 11y� f '�i7.� 3 r *,� "�. .� S ���r�i r� �{ �.1 °' t r""".•..Y XiL K\ ° i ,1� '? !d'v {r 4t l (r' , * r�. r s+ y p ti r a.' tt. ��� t' e !, .\� 1 i > a -F uY E;tt .� ! i ;t K M F 1i. S r 1 \.t��! •,Y• �`! y+��* 1` trM�.r� �;�''tt ; ttitil;�1,�`":t� :t � �l�t.t `� ��+,4 °,l>•l: f .i'at�, `�1�,tt k :Y� �� 1( �;�r i. , rx .�:±. � � ,1i.sr � � .t t + r. i ,,. Ss;.} �••�. p•'c�. 1 tt. •�,s 1 t, 'CS y ..t tt'•1.t4-�':. Y•1 s' ,rt u! .. A'� �.F,�:�'s'. 't 4 f Oy�<� " +.} *�•t.y, sts f L ..ht .� G t �'+_! .. ;y ,fit,�.. .4..w t � i, ,.°i e • •{Z.a, .�,•.°`.:(x 4 � y',il *"fte"i'"'t.�t � a,«tr, ,�,.i�.+±)-!i t .4t a '�\, 4't,,•.. �r'"+i . 2il t}y .�r�t.t del f�' �j.,a�t+tl ,fr i' t! .'t .�fr �,7 S ,7,t i y } '4 r y.. 3 °"i ,'! :K}et='•(t .� r y, 1 r.',.tr- +��1q �.,i.} 'i �h.t, t4� t:)=ii1p1 y,{F 4'Y ;rl`rF�F r.` ',t t . .+ ••�„ �.5,\ ;a41i/� .,!•i„ .� 'Fr 1.s�,i,1s�''1�t 'i," °ir9 t 7'�t 'i±' d' `.4 E• +" .``bk.. j�, t. •t, 21�f ...�•-4 '1. "'t. y t .fi t t ',.7 fr ,i r 1 6.; ,�. �:a�9 '1F�1,+ s ' ti:�s:i� 4. r tL�i' .s. ! t.._).- •! is"',,� '1. l� "'l1�'i':i� t e«,,,,y+n a;t k 46 i yy tv :�i`� \ t C � ;l'�. Til' {{ �t3, �;st'° �' ,�l�} �",,.+!! ! 4 '1 +; i # '�a.\ .t� X':1.. \ a•;,f2ri.<<" r.,t.- �i S ) t•. .t-r i , l)� '�.I � .:t t i�„_ t.t+ � �� ; •Z,t i. t _ :,Y. r i�t { '�•.,t` ' ,a',•l•� ) �`�) �.L•}t,:.A .,'q 4z1��,�T .'!{S`}+.I>s� , ,.�-. `a.`\ ;i��41?F�i t^.lta4i.;�Y��;i'�`•re'„; �t�5. � y��� �*,��iC",�Ry�:_ I( � t t `S � i.i,-�\ 1{.5„ S r3.�t. � .{A6'S�'!'�\c+ t.1. t"'." i.t��� t� '�yt i�t.r� t�rb�' � t�t t.. . .i t ,i•... -i'\fit k,1'�` e�i":��',•".�`,: 4lG�r��}r s .�tt�;.)'�.. t R,t.Al n S�ti., in` in � ls�., �t t.� a ?ryETj,' ♦cI .<„ + / y.� �{i �}.;°1 a F- } J ! ;i I k tr _ , U, t. .� „ - 1 �•1r. .il.A 4}�. f .i,'L,��1V..°H7}iL Y:.',tl. 6i`.S� A"r. }1i 3 . x",.,�Z i R �.�r -f .1�f �i11+ .f. i 6. Explore the feasibility of supporting the Coastal Conservancy's acquisition of Cal Trans property for use in a transfer of development rights program and as a mitigation area. 7. Explore linking Hamilton Avenue to Beach Boulevard through the area, including appropriate mitigation measures. 8. Plan Eor the retention of the bicycle trail along the levee of the Santa Ana River. 9. Review ana analyze the 1983 Department of Fish and Game wetlands designation, together with all pertinent studies relating to the area. 10. Analyze public interests and private ownerships relating to , the area. .' ' 11. Analyze the Pacific Coast Highway widening. Will Pacific Coast Highway expand into the wetlands or on the beach .. side? Includ3 bridge in analysis. i' r 12. investigate funding for restoration ar.d enhancement and maintenance of the area, including who will pay and how payment is assigned. I 13. Work with property owners, homeowners and public int:rest groups from the beginning of the project. 14. Include in analysis the area's relationship with any proposed flood control project. If -the City. Council approves of these objectives, staff will use them as guidelines in working with the property owners and affected agencies to develop a workable plan for, the area. From time to time, as staff reports back to the Council on the progress of the planning effort, the Council may wish to further modify or add to the objectives. FUNDING SOURCE: None needed. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Do not approve planning objectives for the White Hole Area. JWP:JAF:kla (2067d) Zi ir' + I ' ' - t . ,F 1 �!i J R'{t. ,S'�Y � d � � �..i� t��. � � '7. 'vF, ��.,•� 5 � �( ,t S y�y.; *i 't+ ;, ��?,.F. �• •',1 ,tJ� � � f r r r, r i � l llt 1 r*rA"..i C .t."s..r� rr,tnxtt�lr )TI•s^}m, �>�•w'.'.,.4r''`�S't t�• t 2,��•f +r Y•+ rY A t y t '!"tf.s..•ti,A i«•*�',�L i`+.,..ti 1�R.,t` `,f4':#!yl3 ' �} t;r�..,t, tt .? "", '•'("}3, t-Sie:".A f'Al:i ,T4t : 1 ' T7!(C`. '}.•'T ` t i t ,. 1.: :}• 1. .t }r,;: S 3 y `.,F^3.ti ,t 8 4. "i '.4 .5 5�. ,•y 4T �'r,..4L•`•t b" ist:,•:1 y,x,,{ .i.t.l l \ r'�4i ! � � ,� ° I;• J I'�, r,,�, +l #fit. ?, •fir ,i _yi )�� t't•'� �1Lg't!,tt �t 'R1�+A'f,,t ,t..,rt.f j'.l� '1 � ��{ •,ttE+ t.. ...rr r 3, .,�.�� 11. '��ib- •I�. I°�4e 1Y' 1 � }} iK .3, t 4� t y �t.;,,f r ,ta:; M�}. r � ,y +,,t., „t,'.A k..L. a,#�.J� ,3+,,.•.}'},� f � y ,.��c -:ll�r �,�..yi 'n, 'e.•�.��'l�t Trt„i'�� !�t•{t�N��ti q�trYi'i;�Y rfi S:,t}Y:xx��4'x r� .l st�l.s' t � 1 1•��:,, -�L.^��"�, • `�it �,};-(t .y.- .,y`,-;�' 9- •:�.. 7'' :�a f �y �'`etl.y�� ,'S�,.,} r.:t: c��..t I:i t.,.4, t,� l.Y,:t,i+c.:.�h��j1�ti�','+'r 'S"li ,.5.. S� �it�"�'�.�y�� l''i�:7.`'�!.�: �."r y"'�t�• j i.t yy,ft ! t [,t t4 4 t 4 t' d a�'! 1+ if<i 2• t F y;!'i are!_:1., •��,i tt t( i 1,( ,xx i '. k tr :, .? f !'�=T,�}:'.t: Y4� ,�:,'.�':,+�.}`t �. ,;„kt�r�'4�ti:=' '1..'t, r1� .,i..•rY .,s?��y�,q. �r •'rA. .�,' i w t+ti :� tt. •e tir.?. Pt�r",ya �y;t ,ro..�b'i�t•�l`yCrdati3l tT� }:r,'f .tti.� `,:,,t•.,' � a,tti. !�i ,�i ia..;..:5 ,� _i".. \k';i�`i •si'+.S 1f,,, �� �: r � .�}�._f q't,. :�4..l.wr ��y e L tr }�,. � tl•.:�e t'i,[ lYt:�L�' }�t�, �� �..,,:.4�s�- ..�,yi � r• v�'1,y rt,h e � #•yA���#+1:'p s,�j ui�T,.}..R-G�t,-4�+,F � { 1.}�.1,t 6 s`,�I'a3"1 yt` .r: t v-�,-.� \•..Y '.'�°�,�t •.�t a\S� t'? � t ! C c�:;a 1i,,.i " iµ" y �'S N. �4 r`'1 �C li t may,M•Yi t' t `,t-,o�y-r 4 !t� ,� is •!� tr�. 1...,i.. • 3 � r-t".� �, :..�t :1 , �t � -t:�.• � . :�1, e., t � 1:'t 'I'T k.r .�• it � :,R �, i�.,8e� �. 1 `ti .y s t � I �• if 'si� stl�,i�. � 1ti�,4 'st{ t � �+ �i z. � S +at ���s'r.,� fix � � T�4,L �' j, ^� t s i, s?' ,t� ,� fit.,' _ ,'�•r,. i '�N t .s. !�. �..t "1 '� .1" tk"`t',[ :, � i� �ts71 t 'hL C 1,'.l, y {'yi # �•, .L "7,� L..+ ,4U < 1:i',t�1r'�jt.. f, i� - "�.1;i�i .i4� F n, '�/�. 7•� k. ; - ` °` 411 l " Y ref 1 a. l?l` r}, .�•I .-w.. �< .:. 't.:1. �+ ,._ `Cf.1�x.-.s. .t. F,.+Yl�� w_ r r .,. a, r . REQUE�.' FOR CITY COUNCM�AC: ION vED Y � Date February AR5 0a1 e Submitted to: honorable Mayor and City Council fir ' Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administra ®r - Prepared by: James W. Malin, Director, Development Services ., Subject. Authorization to Seek coastal Conservancy Gran Consistent with Council Policy? Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachment,: STATEME14T OF ISSUE: He`wC ty s Local Coastal Ulan was approved by the California Coasts Commission in geographic part, leaving two so-called "white holes" where Presumed wetlands exist. Until the white hole areas are certified, the permit authority for them remains with the Commission. In February or March, the Coastal Commission may approve additional grant money to fund a portion of the work to develop appropriate land uses for the white hole areas. Staff believes that the Coastal Conservancy would also offer to grant the City funds for developing restoration plans, the hiring of a consultant to assist the City in developing land uses and a development plan acceptable to all patties, including the Coastal Commission and the California Department of Fish and Game. RECOMMENDATION: Direct. staff to submit the attached grant proposal to the Caautal Conservancy. i ANALYSIS: When the Coastal Land Use plan was certifis�o by the Coastal Commission on April 12, 1982, certain areas, alleged to be wetlands, were not includes in the certification. These areas, known as white holes, remain subject to the permit authority of the Coastal Commission. in light of recent Coastal Commission actions on Dole& Chica and other wetland areas, staff believes that the time is ripe to reach an agreement on land uses for the white hole areas. Staff will neea to hold discussions with the affected property owners and public agencies in order to do this. The Coastal Commission staff have recommetisded approval of additional funding to do this planning work in part. Staff believes th&t Coastal Conservancy ;funding would also be available to fund such a program. The planning program would take one year, for which we would request approximately $75,000. The City's contribution would be in staff C7 P10 4/84 .�4��. _ S:F•.+.—.. .................»... ...�.............«. ....... ......._.. .. .. ...... ..r. . �..... . -i.....mow .. .....,. ••.... ... _... . a t. ..':<1.A:1 :'A.4.,i.. '.L.w-rnW+W...4P: 1 r ' 1 ,���r�•`' �� a�, `� � ' '� S� •, „ a ' q �vX. Alt � � ; ° '� ,r .k � ^Ntlt y�4•.", ° ,ls�� i iy,�C r 3ti F r+r 7Lti A time, clerical, graphics, and support personnel. Some of this In-kind cost could be supported by the coastal grant; the remainder would be part of the department's regular budget. The Conservancy grant would pay for consultant assistance and any outside hard dollar costs. The Coastal Conservancy would like some assurance that the City will be able to exert adequate control over the land in question. This could be done by means of a specific plan for the area, which would precisely locate restoration and development sites, and provide for a transfer of development rights schedule to fairly apportion developable acreage among the property owners. City Council 's direction to apply for a conservancy grant, would indicate their willingness to establish some method of controlling development there, either through a specific plan or other techniques to be developed during the study period. other City departments would not be .involved in the grant application process, but would probably be involved in the project itself, at least insofar as providing input and comments on any proposals. Theae departments would include Public Works, Community Services, and Administration. Attached is a copy of the grant proposal, aetailing tasks and costs. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Do not direct staff to apply for a Coastal Conservancy planning ` grant. . In this case, the staff will use available City staff and staff funded from the Coastal Commission grant to develop a Land Use Plan for the, white hole areas. No funds for outside consultants ! would be available. ATTACHMENTS: ' 1. Grant application . 2. Fiscal Impact Report I r JWP:JAF:jaf (1629d) + i I S y' t ''��� _>,�•'b� f � ! .:'fir ti ` t'' ��� ; + ► q1 1! '•r 1 `��Z1�,��1�,� Alt � + �'' i''' ��(��`,,a+� a '�" ' t',S, C �; .�l"'��,�\ \� f •�.;k.. ',�� �� ��� a4.� .'C�`}� !,.. 'tt�jY' ! �,=4 �k'C ' ���•..�r •1 +. 1���.r' `'�'t;'�l�Y'� +�1'a,' y? �.,t� L+ ��� �.. L?:4�!;q A'•� �.���� ti ����.' 1, 'i��'��iti� ��t� ���.t t��� .,1n. ,� ��•d n{Yr+"� ( r.l: r:���" ��' �'1+ ¢,f{p• i� +� � ��'r"` �} �it�r�•.�� � ;`�� t'`' ��t ��� 1 � �'�`+�'t,i°!t "�' � ��7 ,�.��+, .+�s .�}r} (�4r {/, 0 ��; '+x� � �' �'�� . '4�tt- _� ,;'�,`'��;'� '���,� ► t ���� ,� ;�' 'fir ��:',' �Y��Y\ \. ��44'{ � } �v 1y'�,v .7` � >,��kjl�/'�`[q }{' t' [et \,'�;�;A• � ,l�•a i CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GRANT APPLICATION TO STATE COASTAL. CUhSERVANCY FOR DEVELUkhENT AND RFST'ORATION OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH WATERFRONT The City of Huntington Beach is a charter city of 178,000 population located in coastal Orange County between the cities of Seal Beach, to the north, and Newport. Heach, to the south (Figure 1) . About five square Liles of the City, or 17 percent of. its total area, are within the coastal zone (Figure 2) and are regulated by the provisions of the 1976 Coastal Act and the City's Local Coastal Program (LCP; included here as Attachment A) . This includes nine miles of public beaches which attract over eight million people per year, the largest visitor-serving facility in the State. .However, a portion of the City's LCP was not adopted by the Coastal Commission and remains today a "white hole" in the City's LCP, That area, shown in Figure 3, lies between Beach Boulevard, the Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), the Santa Ana River mouth and the Orange County Flood control channel. This area in prime ocean or waterfront land and represents, to many people, the gateway to the City. . Current uses include a mobile home park, and the Southern California Edison plant. The City's 1980 proposed.,plan for this area . included a combination of general and victor-serving commercial* medium density residential, and industrial energy production designations. The Coastal Commission did not approve the City'a proposal because the Department of Finh and Game indicated that much of the area contains degraded wetlands (see Figure 4) . City action to resolve this impasse is complicated by the site's multiple ownership (see Figure 5) and the lack of effective models of resolution for this type of planning conflict. The multiple ownership concern still exists, but the Conservancy, through its wetland projects at Los Cerritos and Bolsa Mica and its lot consolidation project in Big Sur, has provided potential methods for developing an equitable solution to this problem, The City has three goals in this area: (1) Complete the LCP and develop an attractive, viable waterfront, (2) Restore the wetlands to the extent feasible. (3) Provide for equitable development for the landowners. I •' '� r ty � �+�i �� '4.. �' � e+: .'�R, %� ty} z''�a b'1�j'y. � .y1 y� ;� `"'y}.�1�g�y�•�� 'Ll•• `'fir y� 1' r � }r rxi " ,�t!' �,""t'4F •�' a"4'k4°r1� S � '9C,uf *�k •.iLY �'�� '�-t?:. '.V�• 1,yv �� ```��yy r , •.a� }�� }�` • ;74k. r.'�' �,' � �.��21 '� i� 1 (,1, rs'M +�, "r•;x 66a'?'.. rT1F t+a �yk.\�•'^a ",cs... ,a 3,�yr 'r''Kvt� ` ``• �s5j)t� Vr i pSq y a h }�.. :3.r{h 1t! .•'��j��. r � } <. .W :AM `� $'.) s't�'�Gtr���. , g'i rfZtJSt 4'�r�'r�� t V•E'} } r 7'4• t t• *�f11` ', ?Lt r I. S¢ 40 1 ••ram y' • I•I._!.• Rw.(.,• -Y� w' '�" »/ t •. t-s r•rwa r pw+i�• �, -.ter. �a •�~I. tAr l'+y •r.� a' .LaIg1 r.•.w1t , 1.•, ■,••-.•!■•I , ,tNwr i • � t * •'T' I Mll/111 � r 17 �r • acr •rlern.■/ .!i, KA•1 �� 1 YII � ,YMI,•f� • �� .ram • � . ����� r•It.••" ► .u,1 ,•� �T�'Y, ' ~r urMr wa[eN` -"S ` Ntt. t /y US • !M� i ol of coo sm • f_L 1/ •1. HUNt{NGrON BEACH C4LFORNIA Vicinft7 MaP PLANNING DIVISON Figure i I e • y S {�. , {t ,� 1 .� r � t - �k'I �`� t r }�t` .k 1 1 � _�' •}�i. K�+� �. ; i •.i�,?� �\ k_� .# ttq�. �1 11��, �i•� G �!.iq` r �`!•d _ �� "�'�]x'y `�•'�t.� v Itt� •:t^� :� & i�v z� 4; 1 4 u Ylk �` � .�•. t `,I,f,�.� r t�`h tt �' . (,� 1,;( YI+ { - � Fia �, �. w.ki "�'k pk #1�..{ y 'li t� � :I ('.Ai��.,• �h�. a' ,11�� y �i� �+��`.,e �.7p •i�� .� .S�i�ti a 4` �t�;�,33•� ��.. k k ht 4�, ��.�t�t / f,; y�����'{ 1l ;1.'� +.'�q1 ��' .,�+.M� ``[ r• �4,'��'��.s �4•� 4� I A'` r"i` !1 y tilt,• `°t �'1 � t T ' ,Yj'yt t {;;fi h �� '�, t �e„t1 �, �i. >w. ,iL' �4 �, ,i5. 4 �. �'�i� '}��)� ��':'��t Y`,1}"}'�(y ;'4 ,tp3 t1+, •'a; +�'� {}:`it=� 4'�t ".7 �� .s. •��}71 i r` , t ,: (sY�s�'9t.'; Y jS }„t MMM7"` j 1 l.` .Il )tl l ,` 4 aky '� .� .• 1'.l,d V tl \ p ,�H♦1 �. t fi',t C,1.{,. •�� i ( gk ry1+�, �YFil ,� il"},I 1.'�9 1 R { A' +, t . 4 t. 1 rtj t thi1 �`" �. �'�'rYr}.� ��'�'�k,tilt�11,���Ss: .� � 4r1 �ti 'f"�`•"+}p, „4 6i, �f 1�tj, �'i•���'1+jr�t` �y;1F �lyr,� :�,�{w��" �3L x�a: ,x� t F 7. Nk, i, • t � i ,}( I Y� �v 1; � R 1 � ( F� ,�" k 'y +t,}'l�1 '��•s��,r":1��.. k3,t ,• �`. ..� �5`) �1[7�,,pp� n"i+*,�r11� .I��R, .Tt �, .� ,i�. et : ;R �•�: iN• �;�t .� '! + , XF'�s�, �+- ti I��W.Ik'trR{1�.?�,� y'• i t1 1 74 � Fy}}r• Eta r''M rt r. ,,,r:�4 , t. � } y�•.� P\?�A ° R ai Y ,.y'�•` t�Akki?��;:�4;!�� +.���1„�,���� �1�• syS�+,�� '��}� ��5 �1 ,.���t` t'�;t � F�� �{g`��.t�'•.�-1k11�r��`�+ �"4�`,;�2tA t .. ...f�{'' t=3,1.' 'a[r7. yd �•.i.• 3`i .{ `4A .L, a a".n,ttt3�iY' tF� !• t� ',[} jb ¢ L777777x"". CCCCCCffff4 l Ez•�< .t. �' < / '� L x L I •. ,e.. +,. NO , l*3 • a + ai �.t�4�3.�5� � { �+���'d ^,t�#�'F�:�� �: ��"t���("�,<_,�. � ��R,°�}'?i: ������i`v2```Y � ���5? . L `` ,yra, Y + yS r��1 .�4' {t'� ?'`:µt klx M �yllll�.., �. 777�..x4••• e.::1k11•r.�?�.�34 :�w." :�1:Y yi.,'! 11�.Yi � �• , tw t 1 � , L 7 i SEAL ± MACH ff r HUNTINGTON BEACH r NEWPORT BEACtI ARL PLANNING N NING DIVISION INGTON ON �uFc�RNIA Coas l Zone Bo d L[f� a'1iy•. f , Figure 2 r ` A� +t t}� Y +t J + E At 1+r { ;it. ,Mt', 1• { t ? S +13P M1j t�r �+i 3lm� ld'!, z i. i 4 Vq '1 .�t5 ,•� + t \ � '. `' `t 1 t' ! r t viy 1 Ail �1 J �`? !`�� "�, `1'�':r� „t/ 1 1S� �7"f,t tG+ �y�r •�' �\e' ���`'�� '�/!1,� 14�f�f ;t �L. .d. � :��� 'es C`tr_•' ti ' f. �1; �1 'iv�r.. � �!. '+ i1 � �1.;+f�Ai f• 1 p � .�J� +'I+��Si �I�tj� '� ��y++ l�jj : ¢t�,t, `�+{���� +t�l i R �s� )t±�}• '�`�+.� ,,. .�;�,j°Y ��t,ti �t�` y.,t 1.� :•� ,i c,S �tr• � 7-'� �t �r '{;�4. ��,{�. t$� � .� ? ! � i` �fit. 4f+k'�ti}�1.� ;+1�'{�11i �� '1+�\7�'A�l�ri�l.li�t1 � ,4{t,��q"�r{s+{1,,���•�ig�S!t'1'4�L + � XsOt rmic V,10M.f' 'M OF 111 11T) t , �51 Ubp -YWA; A tT { �. rw �} .',<r'( � 5 r�,1`4,•• � 7i ¢ 3 ) R�a�7`'�5. .(! t�t �,f. f'( Y� .,,L '} i�y 1 �b5. AAR I'yIre-- oll (D 16 1A Oelt o ilx 16—o x cr, t — a V 5'!1 S*k-��\ '.b,S,��i�i�.��'(�•� (+�'�y'`� $ �{�r�1 Ax a� , �y"•k ,'% �. F. t{ .r. \rl , •``3`�ti q�7p-��Y,"r't� �( s •�M i itr { � i� {+i "�„R�• �}�� 7hi1 l'.1t7�1t5 �� �O.r� °{SM�i'',+< .�71,•v + {T`'.+ •k, }•t r:l.•. rtf` 4t ,F� "+, ' ryr•ri "'!1 �� h i� t JJIr�• «r� a� t 1:.•. RatL rw ,�. a A�•u�•�j•,�t�°`�R,,,rF l�>7f,f_�':rRm �(]��F, +,'�;�,� � a�`"'.lti�)�w�S�4Y� �,�d`+1• �• ( +��"i''y�,}y,, {����+{ +� ` :CD,a}��� t a � ` { Y 9• "aF' h i.�,, �J. ��(Yy: E y �44.1i.'76�,.^rv".! 9 •b•� {]}fy" yi�•Yrr 1�,' w �� 1 q+1 L13 +� , s (4 r t 3 � ,,�• � !� r. {M.'f'"�Si� t.t .x`�)1'<f '����`"!`'r -?Ll�t� *•' ,r�i 4w.x���1 ���, 1l+��+1)t?•vn f ?f�• �,I�'k�'+��1jt �{.}4�te rt�$�{rt'[�^r�'! E !yFjjail.l �' MMr..1 rr, t• �.b;j ,. fdN� {';t 3.. ;FIN '«t Sr ,��; A• 6+4 ;}�r.;'i •r} j' r, N11,- "' r 1� a t}"pi' �iy,,�f+� �j, ' +r ;L! '�ti ��y{, •r �S,•� `+5� �`�' �. } ( lr, T" r s'e';fr 1' ` ; �W y+ � r•7:" y,'� �1 r r� Stb;,, �j�r rr d { t,".fr{t k tp �t.�, u. r ��(. `` •�; Ar7"4, t` t t't *"'r ,s y A� �' t��"'°A� ,"r'•'�k ,,�a'�, �a(`����.+ 1� t•,,.��y1. '•°,. � !�,r .'"�" '.• .��h7 �� +�'t +� 'tr' ,�t{�y'i,'tF''S,tr'{rt?It�, `1%.i'.t�1�'tt��;S�I:Y,. "�'�°1RRi"t�a�,?*ti�t �� t�f! �?�r '�. r i .1�� 4r r�+;;,� !�Y A �j 1 � ,i¢ �'t t�Y�..�- 1 ,L �i�Si',y � •; ,r;i�4 t14 j�; t,� 1,} u{�,i'�4 As � i� `` .�'�'���' ',," ;� "}F E� •;�.'��.�"},+�t'+6:� ys�'j '��.r � .at.. -'t �,: �i,�'t� '�'1i 'a�'' �� •"11't�,�"'�.^!t .t y p. �}'}� ' � iK�'"( ' 7 i ka �•] _}!: ;Ft ,�"l; 1 f' .�. {,"��. t Yztl �.,r f'%: y��, "f }• !rt �1;� iy ,r � i.i wil' 'fit tiff `�i"At��`', :'�< �•; ,. i ,� a� ti y'� �� t :�.,,. .�t.0�" ♦ 1 '"A'�.,: t '` .l '{:�s,"�•t+`�y $ '� �,�?1ST 1;;� " '+ l ,',$��,7 •�7��•?+' ��, � .x• � �" •�Ar� ' � �t� '.X�t '� i;t �► ?'� •� .! �f� �, ��� �,T �w��4, �"���. � ,�`� , � i} !`e. (��� r'�S.�i ti 'r�. �,� �; �,• F� � �' `?i , '} '1 •-�•+�„ i'•;1 �,.. �§, �., � �'• '� `�k� �� t;l {:+� � �'k "y � ''t. S �ifi , 'SM. 7 + '�j,(•'1; 1 4S-,� N t. �f`r� v r 1� �, t d'� �� 1 �� t � !�� .'� �3 .�� .�a .t+ ,t �� '.� i ,,j r @<"� 1 f, ;� k" {�r( t,.,} • i y 4t ,�, t s..� �;�y y iy�'� tt``}��}7}}Y.".'�Ax . �. � �' r :l.� y; ,4 ' S•, c'� t }i j y� � �� •+ 4' �y, rillr Li � �' ii3rii•r �"�•;•� .v. t f•. 4+ R +�. � .r tit `! !4 "�, �k .VI �,so� R r , 4 �vv aI • . •.r 9 �r • , v{,�p, r 41 do I.••L A r • ' r tt J mpl 9-. ;fit!' xf� aelot ; � r rr •� . . , . �_"�'" , 'y yr' to '� •••� .tI•,.i / l .yr) '1 ID Ku (D A pig so • •' .1 " y Of It CL OV SA CL ' r• -(�� .• . f ty, i,y�� •r� � R w O'' j , � .1.. ei it t'tUtStitlttil tt.,, •- 1 , CL mom ""i �' L _ � "" �j..jet"'�► LL 0. ')` .err � f ♦' � ,;s• ;y ♦ Ll- u u a a u •r 1 ti• 'i O M V"—'goo, U • •N NyhM.q O •00 111 F'• w.A•I // �1 ' r,q ..r)-- w7 + f•NutrbR M le •N ,� W .••+. C ►r A 10 u ro tf k' l CjY «-Cr/eyV'w1.O e • � � i P,y p J •0 •. i tkA cor 40 Ov- �/_. . . ram• l�l� ♦� / 1, O ki Aj 04 AM If -6- t •7/•77 ! `" �i�'� t Lr�� � �•`�1�y3:�,4}`�2i1��• '` �� y .1 � � ; ` � I,► �` 7 t•r` ��f�i�4•i}:' � �5 wr, �,r�•F,. �M y# � P ?f``�7���t• � '� J •��� � t :- .i F`�t� r'' •� �' x�1 � ` ('�+. �x"��'i���,,+�ll.r�t'i'�4i'`iiy1�'� �'�• �'h �'' .fl�.� ,�i� y/. �1�'. ; '� V � r �r� +i i � 'i) �t ! �.Cj iX• r� � 1 � •t.SL7 7F ��I 1 1 A11� � � r 1 r1 i� iY43 s�i7'.:.t°, °`" rt� � �� +•* 1•%1 r t,J{r11'lC•" �'ir.._�i '� '..++,,� ,#�' 4. y *4�-''���: '��t��t� �'rh•.'� �-'{t1`'�`;�N�y t:i � �'47��ri: � 1 1'�� i �i �.� �, `�r?�{�,dxf{\•%�,"�P. 11'S� '� �"t. s�+�).�C s ii��''t: ,�e�4C. ,,� 41,�C'�� `�ii; •+ � �r� � �C } sr �" ?: �*•i�3�51`�;�y��{yt�'��� rk�'�'t .yx��; .5� �,1`��*�k`,1'd f�r+'�;�'.�:}it4, y,'r�+�KY;��. 4�` �� ,"�•`�� �� � .5 �, •�S t } ' rc�X�q�,S',S�+�r F { - G�r'",`Ii, {y��r:••1�l�.y�'i�.r t�'�. r�� �" i S�j� ` � t�k�i ,.h ���j :t!' 'ft'c+'tt,' ?Cr '". -t w`T I I'"� ;t' ;rt ,"'t ��; ; �sky ��1;` 1" 'i t r `�` { (�•t� ' 4 C' ,� ���, ` `w' i C�3�'� ��� �:Yt�. �r 1.4��4��� � ,J�yrl��.� , �(. .5 i•s.�1?�'.�?, ti t'�y.,�`'�� t i l�i •C.+9� w.yy 1� �s ,��•� .A�al aSt i�1t,' 't`�4Jli, ; •x' `r ' ��i � 4��, � , �`.�.0�,.?�l.z.. �3o t;C"x, '�i c n�''�• !! ``�;� ��C �:f� �.�.: ," �-A� t ,a, Y1 {�,� � �� �� :�� "�•'�" }fir ` ct � ' � .:Tip! r ��f �'� t }�,`��S'Ci�� � "► Y`j• o � �.; :1 Y`�' Sgi.l:}�i 1�� SY\fi i.V` l t �. 7�e4?�_ �i: Yth 1 i1 �Y.,"rj a:'+z !•tfE Tl F �� 1.1�{Pal LYt: i • . i The City would like to involve the Conservancy for a number of reasons, including: grant funding for waterfront and wetland enbancement plans, development and restoration; potential California Urban Waterfronts Area Financing Authority (CUNARF'A) financing for visitor-serving development; and contlict resolution with the DPG, Coastal Commission, ian6owners, and other involved t parties. 2,0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING I The project area includes 200 acres situated between Beach Boulevara and the Santa Ana River, inland of Pacific Coast highway. Historically, much of the project area, as well as the entire City, was wetland, which was drained and filled over the years for farming, and later, for the development of housing and attendant commercial uses. The project area itself is surrounded by development, intersected by roads, and contains pockets of intensive industrial, commercial ana residential uses. 2.1 Site Description The project site is bordered on the south by Pacific Coast Highway, which is presently a four lane State Highway. The California Department of Transportation will be widening the highway to six lanes by 1986. Across the highway is HuntingtAn State Beach which extends the full length of the project site. The State beach is undergoing a facelift. The parking lot has recently been expanded to accommodate additional cars, and extensive new landscaping has been installed. Construction of modern concession stands and restroom facilities is also taking place. On the west of the project site is Reach Boulevard, a six lane major arterial within the City. A City owned parcel across Beach Boulevard- is being used in part tor temporary beach parking. The remainder of the City parcel is covered with natural vegetation and contains a small wetlana which is part of the project area. Directly adjacent is a 350 space mobile home park, The eastern boundary of the project area is delineated by the Santa Ana River, which is separated from the project site by a well--used bicycle trail. The riverbed itself is a concrete lined channel forming the boundary between the City and Newport Beach, the neighboring municipality. The project site encompasses several uses. At the southwest site corner Action Boat Brokers stores and sells boats. Along the west side of Newland Street south of the flaoci control channel are the following: a 32 acre mobilehome park containing 306 mobile homes ; a 5 acre mobilehome park containing 45 mobile homes; a travel trailer park with 141 spaces; and a 3 acre parcel fronting on Newland whic is being developed as a privately operatea temporary beach parking 1, (1729d) -7- , f sywz 1 �' � � � �i5a �q �+ r. � �7 °; k `� 'i. � t�� �'��1 �,5�.• � '� .Jgi �t.,�y• `�'tt+� r� �. ,;"•..t��'.� 4 r � �` >1.1t ''� 2' .r t � } � 't �It �t'�(� h ,��'`y4� `�1�`��� �•. .+ ��l ��� _+�.{.�, r L. A e ` t;. t d • .T 1 i .i- #. tJS,f��, L. , F `� s Vic„ ' t�'. '� �.'� � #•'y} �' t $.� '.�� � lent � t `i� _� ?.4 t Y i•� dy. �4'Y:+"Y y1 •\� `;.�4 "iY 1� fit. �,t.. \f � +: �1 rt}" tf �� �,1 �. .� �:' `S{�f'•r�r 1� 1y�4';+4, � � ��q� �•+"' �,['^'Q/].�y 1�{ -Y�' Y,J` yyy �i ,1{ 1..tt �t'.1.1 [ �,' � ` � ��•,(' �ai�., l �, f� •� A 1� ,t R.�.i ,l btl �tG*Xi� F. 'f'+'f 'l�itl'CS��€�l1 �!��!tiCl .f'ilr't'xi $.`� !� f 1l r, t ` � {+ .>t, ( ` } .tL �.J'.�t+1 l f.. � 1 ( ;It: 1- dll #S' ,�4' ,+ t .T"`f"'•• ti ({,, S aC .1Y , C�r<' + `,' )r '. •'<..lrr,+E'� • y")C•, } i. , ;ir���il��lA (Ri wrt>.4 '•q�)`� °iJ, t , '' ' �' � {i�ffLL \i.,'1, 'S. vt.it�.L`.rilY ,t, 4 S 't. ,ttf °i�'' +`Z, } r�r/'' t.`'h t.i.'+;. f.l �( ({ �5-, l�Yi,� r !• , V .Y?.! ll ,`Js 1 F L I,Y 7 "1,\ � .. - 1� s ,t ♦1 P .t •'l(lei •:t � � r L � y„ b '1 It A '4 � t Y Y 3 +t .,,�.. 5 ` -t ..'S:, i.�! �+ .� . '�SI' 4' *J-� i + s''(. �1• Yr�� t ,r it a+l:"� �. 1 r'1 tr� ,Y 4 r'� ''1 .,'•�'• '� 'C�T lrrrl e ,; -i,4k 'r � w� ,e1 `'i ;l 4!'�t.�• t��.r '.�r r, �:+t.t 1. I,t i , L*. i.l+' .4' i L;i "�,i,,, t`':{"t i�i;. .�� .�� , a i• r \;,r.., a .,.;'1 `€ } �.tt �"�'f• i, r ;',1C ti,., t Fr.a,�. ��?, , : �.. i '}. Ss r f� r .i r.4 ��«..Y th r' .1 r, .• , w,. 'C)" e ; 413 ,..i', t � f H.",- x t 1. ',t "X ) �•e �� ` Ji,� '{i;lt =i� .l` \ 1 rtti�"i 1:0 "1<ti t tM" ,,A 1l t;fti..€,, .�•, -=r1 P42.r".3fi-'a ti''v�. � !( �4 , ..''[ { r {, .a lt�r. `sty,.l,t. r. ..t•�. ,f! -.\, .Y .i.r r..�it.�s . tl, i �L7 •t ,.at'. : ,• t'.>11"Xut6 r' ,"C .� ���j. ,,).,(l1't. :Cuss L 1.-�;.vl{i 1' .pe '`—;!`, S t ti+. itt 'fir. irx. L..t +s7ti'p: q��'. `+ � a ,r 4i�� }i ,:�.tt iYi^ fF+�(t, { 401 _k ;ISi yL, •+.1�;''S�t_ t 1 t 4 t; r. ti�r' � r. �,�,` ��t ,� , ,r x ,( 9, -x `+`:•� 4 T +{ t .,i, \,, 1 �t ry.^; �t1,� ^ t i�:.{ r .�r�� 1 (�` ;}R, t 2 � � +�s'� .,,: 'L - +• .ti,��'i �\ + -�` 1 r �. 1�,;..•:.i r ..-.t 't.�,llt..ti,Ttii��, .I:.t1 tE\•.tlt ty,.i1tY ' 3,t..ti `} 't i...r•fit.. w ~)1' ! L+a.!^';,x:�;'r.11�,�`;� r:n'' r } .Sari "' °�,,.1. '` ''+�++..+cl+J`'�'�� 3r�j"`'+�Ib+ +'}�t�� ` r #i«,g�i, , + t ,+5; rt��`i`+k f•,•'�i�r, s ��;, t' 11 East of Newland Street is the Southern California Edison Company's Huntington Beach generating facility. Along the Pacific Coast Highway frontage of the Edison site a seasonal beach parking lot is operated by a concessionaire. At the Santa Ana River end of the project area is a large billboard. 2.2 Surrounding Uses_ On the north from Beach Boulevard to Newland Street the project site is bordered by a high density apartment development, a medium-high ` density concyominium development, and an oil tank farm. Between Newland Street and Magnolia Street, uses to the north of the project area include a flood control channel, adjacent industrial uses, and the Ascon Landfill. The landfill has been used in past years as a disposal site for oilfield drilling muds anr� other industrial wastes, and more recently was a Class III (inert materials) landfill. The present owners are investigating the. contents of the landfill to determine if• hazardous materials are contained there and in what quantity. Some producing oil wells are also located in this area. Between Magnolia and brookhurst Streets the project area is separated from single family residences to the north by the orange County Flood Control Channel. A 1.6 acre parcel of vacant City ownea land north of the flood control channel and west of the single-family homes is hart of the project site. This 'parcel is zoneo (d-ROS to preserve it as natural open space. Between Brookhurst Street and the Santa Ana River, the project area is bordered by the flood control channel to the north and, beyond that, the Orange County Sanitation Treatment Plant. zoning districts for the area surrounding the project site correspond to the above described land uses and are shown in Figure 2. 2.3 Ownership Six property owners control the land within the project area. They are Hills Land and Water Company, the California Department of Transportation, Daisy lhorpe Picarrilli, Southern California Edison Company, the Orange County Flood Control District, and the City of Huntington Beach. The extent of each owner's holdings is depicted in Figure 5. 2.4 planning history During the 1960's the California Department of Transportation (Cal Trans) acquired property adjacent to the north side of Pacific Coast Highway for the route of the planned Pacific Coast freeway. The proposed freeway was later deleted from the state's freeway program i (1729d) --b- r * J' }I Y��E• y s l ill�' ����r= �,' � � ` f>, °= t •�+ ��"� ,� a � t " �� r•r rT `i yy�, ae '� `r3�`, `tl,�, i ty ,�jt"'� Y1ti1'{ Y. �, " + ,`.��• ,� �, a i�' ! ,�4 ti ' i Yy i,�f hY� t ,d! ,j�;•�, � �1`.+�i ', .5,ji� �` it?�+r� 'f,'�c��.ctfty�,�a 'ti1�,,{k1 �� � , `( �w'�.�t �•�' , r�. �>'��„ ff r�rt,;�,�.l7•�� 1 �.`t �j� 'a st\13 t�,ti � �,1, `.1 '�,C,,•.�' �'�{� it T.#{ ty�• 4...ti�C a `fy�''»�r'��:. dt�f+ %��.,� '� 1 i 4 1� 7j M2 �' i ' '"t # V } �4 * };! ; 4""+. ' 'r+ " '•�ri �F 'r'j� +Y; x qig 4 A` : 5� i �Lih Y ` � is r a C � ae a+ # .'1L i 1 Y P.`'Fi�• a "j,"Y�p. ` bl t � r t S Ye7 •�� fir i F�+ • � �+ r�� �y"t'i_s+. ,s.. '�'y ` t 7 1��t ],1, �: ,J , � �.t',�. 1� .,ir�i �{��i 1 ��t][ 1Y�tc . "a N S h �.� `�•y !i j ,� lJ� �1, o t` y, r � "Y'�i ��,41"_�{� V tit{yy{yy f." ° i�{tt•tt S�t 7 It�% .t, ,--ill, 1Yu , �l .l�..f ` leaving Cal Trans the major property owner in the area. Deletion of i the planned freeway opened the way for a suit by Mills Land and wa:.er i Company to regain the property which had been conderrined by Cal Trans i for freeway right-of-way. At this time it is not known whether Mills . � or Cal Trans will ultintately own the property. The City of Huntington Beach began planning for this area along with the other Coastal areas of th•i City in 1977. Upon request, the Department of Fish and Game provided the City with technical information on the habitat values within thy: study area. As part of this planning process, Mills Land and Water Company, a major property owner, also providea the city with a technical report commissioned by them. The City of huntington Beach adopted land use categories tar the project area as part of its Coastal Land Use Plan in 1960 (see ► Figure 6) . Upon submission of the Land Use Elan to the Coastal Commission, however, the project area was denied certification in geographic part, and thus became a "white hole" : an uncertified area within a certified Land Une Plan. The City continued with its coastal planning program, adopting zoning ordinances and implementing measures .for ,the Land Use Plan. The implementation package was denied with suggested modifications by the Coastal Commission, and, following adoption of final modifications by the City, should be certified administratively within the next month. The City will then be ready to begin a renewed effort to develop a plan for the project area which meets the needs of all affected parties. 2.5 Geology,✓ sjoils, and flooding Hazards In 1979 the Daon Development Corporation submitteO to the City an environmental impact report on a requested general plan amendment for a project on Mills' and Cal Trans' property, between Beach Boulevara. and Newland Street which is a part of the project area. The LIR included a. preliminary soils. and geologic investigation by. Irvine soils Engineering Company. The following. information is based upon the soils report for this project, upon 'the supplemental geotechnical Investigation for the Huntington. Breakers apartment project 3ust north of the si4e, conductea by highlanu Geotechnical Consultants,- Inc. in 19b3, and upon information contained in the Geotechnical Inputs report of the City of Huntington Heach Planning Department produced in conjun, t-ion with Leighton-Yen and Associates in 1974. Displacement. The active south branch of the Newport Inglewood',t,.. It passes through the study area in at least two locations. L, `ace rupture has not occurred on any of the active faults within t,. City of Huntington Beach within the past 9,000 years. This presut ,n tact, plus the absence of ground rupture with a 6.3 Richter scale mi. etude earthquake in 1933 (which caused a probable 30 kilometer of subsurface rupture extending entirely beneath the City) make robability for surface rupture within the next 100 years relatively even though one or more moderate-sized earthquakes may occur. i t ' i (1729d) -y- j , t i C g.m t V OWN- tt,,�� �. +S :i • y�t. � 4# i �+' �i �;�jt. ,''r8:,��,i'' •;� 4���.� �� i "l � i t. Lrrlj UM Czwjcdar. Rf.WEMV 1 ( E"o -:21rvow JMMW.6 i%4t: lbOC C]LowDU*aY [AMvdk$n"m -"'tv 10 High Density C fa.iMCtAl. Mrene(d �{tirititcx-Sarvir� jU otro o Rder4l2nd MIXED USES cMm4 edDovek9m0nt I 9waC y *;)pori Recreation wcwstRIAL W Rtrxxtrce Pcot�Clkx► �31Inc�..sfrS�En¢r�y Pta�txl+on OPEN SPACE aJ1 Water rC,3Consvrvat1on oy"M USES �! ��jtl�Qt�i»p�.1�'Nutidxsi ( pt xvwtd ComnwrffY (�l*a�Resow: .....romfol Zone oaxxwy "•,; ti Wove HLINY{'VC'fC3N BEACH C41T RNIN General Flan Dessig .1flons � PIANMNO DIVISION r Figure u -10- i -,-gar.:, ...- , .._...._.. .._._...,.,�..,...... ..._......,. ._.. .. . , ,. ..,- . . . •. ... ._ . .. .._ ... .. .,.+:. ...., .,..._..._... . --- .J • 4 i ,'ii^�;�, r •{ 1+, ;,}. � +�``� ,�.1, � �9 �3;1�'` `��f{{{,,, � �i' r .Y 1p : � + .1`' {�, •. y!,�yy + •�.��,1i,� �� ., '� ,111 } � �}1 '�t� ' � ( � � �t{'z1 � AI�` �rt •' `. A���"�l'�- v,r yr r '�'i M ��y,ll��'•'t•Y�i• • !i �� j� •�t k +a � ��{ r� ���R�'1r,� t' 'i r. r� . f t„ i '�, IN Sim � � Li'f� �+r� 4� ��}•��,�,�•�iq 1a� ��'' '.`���[�'•'yQS�� i } �5 � !�,� � t '� •, n �,�''+�I ,�'JC ��M�•� � " Q ���" ; i\ �'i� �i::*L''} ti �' �� 2.5.2. Earth uake Shaking. Grouna staking accounts for the majority of dantagP in any Bart yua a event. The maximum probable earthquake for a given fault can be estimated based on available geologic data, and this can be interpolated to project the maximum estimated ground motion for a given site. Structures can then be engineered to withstand these forces. Based on. available data, a maximum probable earthquake having a kichter magnitude of 6.6 could occur on the South Branch fault, and a Modified Mercalli Intensity of IX with a probable duration of 19 seconds is likely. 2.5. 3. Liquifaction, The soils underlying at least the westerly portion of the project area are fine grained saturated wands, moderately densely to densely packed. The potential for liquifaction of these sands is moderate, but can be minimizeu by certain Boll preparation and construction techniques. 2.5.4. Grouin•d Lurching. Grouna lurching is the deformation of the ground surtace due to loss of. strength of the underlying soils . . Because of the moderate potential. for liquifaction,. there exists a corresponding potential for ground lurching. Factors minimizing the potential for ground lurching include the blanketing effect of the clay layer which overlays the, sands and the, additional confinement of the sands due to probable placement of a layer of compacted till. Therefore, the potential for ground lurching is probably low. In addition, special construction techniques designed to protect against iinstable soils will also reduce the possibility of structural aamage from ground lurching. f. 2.5.5. L'xpaniive �Soils. The dense sandy layers occurring in the I project area are overlaid with a layer of soft, compressible, silty " slay soil of variable' thickness. - In areas that will support structures this laver must 'be well compacted and allowed a surcharging (waiting), petiod of six 'months, ana buildings must be supported on post-tensioned slabs. Alternatively, the upper clay layer could be removed and replaced with compacted kill. In this case, normal foundations can be used. The latter technique is recommended if* heavier structures are considered. 2.5.6. peat Deposits. The Leighton-Yen study indicates two areas of peat deposits 1 1 to 5 feet thick within the study arear as well as the probability of additional occurrences of eat. In areas where P h e development is to occur, site specific soil studies will be needed to pinpoint any deposits. Peat'deposits would need to be completely excavated prior to any construction. 2.507. High Groundwater Table. The entire project area is subject to a high groundwater able. Dewatering will be necessary for all excavations which extend beneath the groundwater. level. Groundwater is saline; therefore, all underground conduits must be designed to Withstand galvanic corrosion. The high groundwater table will be of great benefit in designing marsh restoration measures. (1729d) --11- 2.5,b. Plooa,.Hazard. The project area is located Mithin the flood plain of t e Santa Ana River. In the event of a 100 year storm, flood water would cover the site to a depth of eleven feet above sea level. Any structures for human habitation must be constructed above the level of the s;tandara flood. Commercial structures may be raised or fl.00dprooied. 2.5 Wetlands This area is a part of the once extensive estuaries which were relatively common along the: L,os3 Anyeles--Orange County, coasts prior to the twentieth century. Since that time, it has been estimated that up to 90 percent of the coastal wetlands in this region' have been lost .(State Coastal Conservancy, 19b2) and up to 75 percent of tale remainder severely degraded (California Coastal Commission, 1975) . The history of the huntington beach wetlands closely reflects these ,statistics. According to the DPG (1983) , .this area is all 'that remains of 2,OU0 acres; of historic wetlands once founa..upcoast,,of the Santa ulna River mouth. Presently, the site contains, about 150 acres of Historic wetlands, of which 35 acres no longer function as wetland.; ,. The, remaining wetlands3a a 'classified. as degraded-but 'Viably functioning and inc1dae salt marsh, salt flat, and fresh/brackish marsh .habi'tats (Figure 4) . These habitats are intermixed among several basins create6 by the existing road network and other developments and receive no water except whatever rainfall falls into each basin. The ecology of these types ot, wetlands is:not well knotin'but has been most Atudied at a nearby location, the Bolsa. Chica wetland&z ' 'As the Dellingham reports (1978) , indicate, the . 'life''fof these nontiaal wetlands is highly seasonal. Winter rains Inundate the low-lying basiino,and saturate ttie eggs of several invertebrate species which over-summer in the soil . These hatch and become food for waterfowl and shorebirds which migrate through this area in the winter. Due to the low circulation rates within the basins, algal blooms follow soon after the first rains and produce their own population of invertebrates-' although some birds will feed directly on the algae. E' Dr. ,Joy zedler of San Diego State University has found that, for southern California wetlands,, algae primary production can be ulnost as great as that for salt marshes and, therefore, they have .one of the highest known primary production rates of any vegetation type. . The decay of this vegetation through detritivore action creates a nutrient and invertebrate-rich broth which attracts a number of different bird species. Most commonly found are species such as the black-necked stilt and the American avocet, but over 53 species of wetland-associated birds have been seen in the area (DPG, 1983) . , In Southern California evaporation exceeds precipitation, and once the winter rains are gone the basins at Huntington Beach begin to dry up, Coincident with this shrinking, the bird species are generally beginning to migrate north to their summer breeding habitats, By late April the basins are usually completely dry and wildlife use, except i (1729d) _12_ for upland mammal species, is nonexistent. 2'he eggs' at several invertebrate species can safely remain in a dormant state until the next rains, when the cycle begins again. In' fts-'determination (appended here as Attachment B) . the DFG. found that these wetlands were degraded but, fo. the most'`part,_ viably functioning." Othei parties, however, see the area differently. Neighboring residents have complained about mosquitoes and odor:. The i mosquito larvae result from the lack of fish and from poor circulation in the wetlana. The algae aecay which produces so. much food for the birds also produces offensive odors. Off-road vehicle owners regard the area as a prime racetrack during the dry season. The property owners see the lava. are an investruent,. f roin which they expect some return in the form of cevelopment. Lnvironmentalists, are roncerneo about preserving the wildlife habitat. The proposed planning process will be the vehicle for resolving these conflicts. t 3.0 IMPLEMENTING T1lE PRUJEGII' 3. 1 introduction Through "th;is grant,'appl;ication, th,e City.-is .requesting the tonservancy,.p partnership in resolving 'sensitive and long--standing planning: .issues, Although a primary Tssue to be addresseo.,in, developing .,a plan for the area is wetlands restoiation,.,this situation differs,,significantly trom such previous wetland projects as Balsa Chica;"a'nd' Los Cerritos, No aevelupment proposal exists to serve as a foundation for wetland planning. The. various owners-have. son.etimes conflicting agendas. , The City, and,: presumably', the Coastal Commission', are inclined towards. the='devejopment-' of iisiEor-serving commerci.al;:usei in _accordance with ,the ,priorities set,forth." in the . Coastal .Act. Accoidirigly,, this proposal W being submitted to the Conservancy as a .waterfront restoration project "instead of an Enhancement, project, as the wain focus of the .ef fort is the creation and implementation of a suitable development plan for this important part of• the City's waterfront. The development of this plan-.will require a long-term effort similar to that involved at Balsa Chica or at Big Sur. The lack of specific data about the area will also lengthen the time involved.. ; Consequently, the Ciity is requesting funding from the Conservancy for: soils analyals, to determine the location of local faults and Teat deposit,; bioligical assistance to resolve the wetlands : fssue; .a j traffic study to ensure coastal access is promoted by the pro3ect; . legal assisLanee to develop a .TDR program-' 'and a marketing study to determine pLtsntial uses and the viability of the project for CUWARFA financing. Each of these components is discussed in more detail beloy. 3.2 Implemerrcation Studies 3.2.1 Soils Ana1`sis. previous analyses completea''by the City and � private developers indicate the possibility of. peat deposits and local branches of regional faults on the site. Proposed tasks in this section include: (1) review of previous literature; (2) surface geologic reconnaissance to determine field conditions which might (1729d) �+•+r�M. ..._ . .. ... ..___... .. _.... ....�............ wnna ..�.�. . .. ... . r.........�.r•.1..3t...LL',jw�lw A'lL.�i:;...y�.�.....r 1 1 r i r r"1 constrain development activities; (5) subsurtace analysis, including F 11 to 14 soil borings by a certifieu engineering geologist (sites to he determined baseu gun potential development envelopes, and, for 3 holes, wetlana placement) ; and, (4 ) evaluation and laboratory testing of soils. Completion of the tasks outlined in this section will " result in a written report on the geologic hazards of the area suitable for use in development planning and in the hazards section of the LCP. 3.2.2 Wetland�.Re`sto'ration Plan initially, the, City will work with an outside consultant to-3aev Tp an Understanding "of the -DFG determination for the site. Subseguently, the City and its consultant will meet with the DFG to d6Lermine how their findings .can be most equitably applied to huntington beach. Given the length of time this task took for the Bolsa Chica and Loss Cerritos wetlands, it is imperative that work on the wetland issue begin immediately. After: an •agreement, has been reached .with the DFG .on the acreage^ "of wetlands! to he restored, . the City will hire a competent ecological consultant " to develop .a wetiland res;toration. plan.;,.:'Shia task, will require:,; (1). creating a citizens ;advisor►, task force to;.develop piroper, irestorationzgoals (2) cootdination with the`"'soils;analysis'"to determine if any, ;soil conditions 'will limit' -the',type 'or amount,,of' , habitat- ,,to be created; (3) a de'ta`ledrrhydrologi'c analysis„to evaluate flood.,and- storm "hei'ghts and determine' appropriate circulation patterns and "hydrologic regimes; (4) engineering the grading "and other earthwork requirements; (5) designing buffers for the proposed wetland areas consistent with DFG and: Cotwiszion standards;" (b) developing an operation's and management program; and, (7). recommending an appropriate managemant entity.- , c •. 3#2.3 Tra tic Sngineer'ing.- .:7he pcoposec(project area, 1`, 'aseiIae` the .intersection of Beach Boulevard and Mhi perhaps" the:most itniaortant coastal accessss� point ir, the City. The'=City has its awn traftic model.. At a minimum, the" project will require, a detailed traffic ;" analysis; .to ensure development, of this area does not:'create significant traffic impacts an beach use. Accordingly, ,the City proposes .to=contract with-a traffic engineering firm'to ens;u`re, development occurs in a logical, well-conceived manner -irrespective of existing property lines. This; will require: (1) traffic'. counta and an in-field survey of existing conditions; (2) the. analysais of existing governmental concerns on circulation;. (3) analysis of traffic model scenarios to allow various circulation alternatives• to ,. be displayed and- exnmincd; and, ( 4) recommending specific design parac;eters and concepts incorporating City, State and Federal concerns.The study will draw on work by Cal 4rans. 3.2.4 Market Study, The City has designated part of -the site -for visitor-serving commercial and Fart for industrial energy production. The Coastal Act would consider visitor-serving uses a high priority. The site is presently a mix of different uses including several, such as the Southern California Edison I SCE) plant and the ,flood control channel, which will pose serious constraints on this type of development. (1729.1) --14- 4 f { The City proposes to. complete a marketing study for the area which will identify appropriate uses and, in order to apply fur CUWARFA { financingl. what uses; will provide a reasonable return. This study } will include: (1) identificationof appropriate uses and use intensity alternatives; (2) 6emand analyses which incorporate demand Profiles, an identification of potential markets, growth projections, and a measure of the market demand; (:�) analysis of cam;:arable proIncts to determine supply parameters, including Analysis of Downtown and site interactions; and (4) a market conclusion demonstrating the future demand and supply potentials. 3.3 implementation with Conservancy assistance,, the City. proposes to develop and implement a new plan for this area which can be incorporated:into the LCP and .approved by, the Coastal Commission.. One of . the 6_,Iost.�difticult aspects of, this",project will be to ensure..equitable development rights for""the pr60erLy, owners.. Tale ,most. t.easible means of doing this is•, through.a.._transfer. of ;development rights (TDR)., program• such as the. Conservancy has ueveloped at Big bur., The City. is wi'lling.,to attempt such a prograni. despite the diversity of interests represented at' the site.,.,but. will tequire..legal assistance from an attorney. knowledgeable in' the TDR prccess... This part of the project is likely to be -the roost difficult. and time consuming. A;s4a"it of the development. of ' the plan, the City::wzll.,also convene an advisory tank force, made ups of .thy. landowners, appropriate public regencies, and repres`.entaiiv.es of loaal eitizen: graups, This task force will work directly: with Cfty staff to provide input on all major decision: areas. Subsequent to City; approval .,ofa plan for= the a''rea, the CLLy ,wiil, develop a zu'ning:. mechaniam, to ensure that all plan agreements are enforced. . The-plan ano this zoning ordinance will then become the` City!s submittal to the Coastal Commission in fulfillment , of the LCP rEquirements. 3.3.1 Costs. The 'Cfty is requesting a grant of $75,000 from the Conservancy to assist in the completion of the following tasks. ;Task Coat 1. Soils Analysis r : A. literature review and-surface reconnaissance $1500 B. subsur!ace analysis and lab tests $6000• C. evaluati on .and report t1000 Subtotal 5UD 20 Wetland Restoration Plan . A. resolve DFG determination �3UUU B. restoration goals $3000 ; C. hydrologic analysis $12000 D. engineering .. $16060 E. buffers and operation $350U ;;ubtotal07001) (1729d) -15- .� ti4wk+rrw.,.r... ... .. .� ........-..-�.r.wr..�............•.—. ... .. - ...r..rr+.n../.i..-aara.w.w..w�s........�. .. •.....err.w...A-'.' . R .. . ../. / r:iVlww•'�' 3, Traffic Engineering A. surveys $2000 B. model runs and analyses $6000 C. evaluation and recommusidation $4GG0 `4 Subtotal $Tr2 11 4. Ma:ket Study A. demand analyses $3Ut)U H. comparable projects $2000 C. market conclusion .0000 SLbLotal $6000 5, Legal Assistance for TIT grogram A. developing lanuuwner agreement E.(►�U B. drafting zoning mechanism b:35�J0 Subtotal 'STGt TOTAL GRANT REQUEST $75000 The City will a1Bo contribute an amount estimated at $75,000 to ' $65;000 In the form of staff time and overhead to complete this project. 3' 3,2 Timetable, The completion of an'agreement implementing the City'a g nswih take at least one. year from -start of grant to adoption of the .zoning mechanism. 11-he tollowi-ng tasks and time requirements are estim,sted; although these projects often take longer than the orig'inal estf:hates, • Task Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 b 9 10 11 -12 t. 1. DPG 'agreement ******** 2. Soils, Traffic *********• }Y. 3. Wetland Plan '4. Marlirst Study- . *****t**,►**c* 5. Landowner Negotiations **********+u****************** s 6. LCP preparation anu submittal ***************************�****#+►�* (1729d) _16_ r � ��.,,,.,�... .............+-.—..www...ww .�n..»..xwv i^+...w...�........�......,...:r«:r..,... .n ..: ..`. .]..:7.:.a .........••..-.......',*./•:r4..K��{'a.s.L ti•YJ��.�i,,f..r.�'Ri: r CITY GW HUNTINGTON .BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION • +rnrrr,croti a�a+ • To CHARLES W. THOMPSON From DAN T. VILLELLA . City Administrator Acting Chief of Adm. Svcs. Subject.. ,APPROPRIATION FOR PROPOSAL Date FEBRUARY 79`1985 : ►COASTAL CONSERVATION GRANT F.I.S. 085-21 Aa,mquired:under.the authority, of. Resolution 4832, a Fiscal Impact`&tiitement hss'been prepard and•aubi6itted relative to"'the`City's-proposed•application, to the St ik Coastal, .. ' Conservancy foc.'piupvses of addressing issues associated with the reaching of an agreement - �,dn lemi uses for the wetland areas,•otherwise known as white holes. •. They regueated'grant funda�will'total'#7So000., The only�immediate fiscal impact of this tratsaaetianw`witl be: to Limit the :City'a darning capability 'during-'the tnteeim:''prior`to reimtiticitenierit;.of thiiw%funds•front. the.aforementioned `source; -jhe• City mill'iaso;:tie re4dred.to provide dn•in4dW match of approximately,$75,000 -$85;000i to be abeorbed'by the Developsrenfl3ervicesoperatingbudgets over the next sixteen months. DAN T. V . LA Acting Chief of Administrative Servicas, - - 1�71j - • `. FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT 1. Budget Status: The project was not included in the current budget because the possibility of obtaining grant funds was not known until last month. 2. Total Casts: A. Direct: None B. Indirect: 1) Cash flow- The funds must be appropriated from the general fund and will be reimburM by the Coastal Conservancy after they are expended. 2) Maintenance- None 3) Overhead-.Will be absorbed as part of the Department's regular operating budget. 4) Grant requirements- Normal accounting and reporting 4 procedures will be utilized. r 3. Funding Source: ,., A. General Fund Unappropriated fund balance---$75,000 B. Revenue Source---Coastal Conservancy. Grant r C. Alternative Funding Source---Uepartment Budget 4. History'. �The. grant, , if funded, Hould provide money for studies which are needed .to.. do planning for feasible restoration and development within the areaof. the City's Land Use Plan denied certification by the . a Californ1la 'Coastal Commission in November of 1982. !Without this grant, 'the City would have . to attempt to resolve the issues with only available staff and expertise. A 4 _Lw rytt's+ .w..,ie.:.sVM1f.'w'ew/wvY�M•w�•^"�—••+�•++r.rw.w�.wwe`tY.1+Y ` . f ,x AGENDA ROUTING$LIF , r 'INITIATING DEPARTMENT t . AGENDA DEADLINE�DATE �' � } To r MEETING DATE -LEt3A4 DEPARTMENT W XHIBITS�� ��� i' � ,1' ''• eS t Y f' +r7 INITIATING DEPARTMENT--�RgVIEW/APPROVAL�By: .,. + f �� ,fir ••ft ,� + ,;'. .. ; _ .5 ,17• J1 + ;...k) .i.}r •l 1 + ' r i• }• •` f Or�inano� ' '�t ExblbO ` t >''� ( rr• -'4�'4'1 j t r �" tY !", [ ' t� � Mlf/N.'fMt 'y y ,` � El1111b1$ = S1' I> V `rS J r�y•trj•��� �.c� � �; t ; .f +- .�. .(; ''C;/►I,� .,.+ iY. '•z r.—`,.,;,,4}i' i 5 T , +. •t'.�,;ij.�.?.} lS.1 t t u>,�, S f 4 ,'} >f-j.•`,�, :C�U •i�r •i. r, �!' ;.I„' ', �z!f ' .a `, y y r >1• f '. t ^ _A � fS +St t,S � �y' � � Wit'• .f_ (( { �'r������,t t•?�laf.,:�.�� i(i �f },,��.,��•,.;j.,•f_. 7� - + �r'�?4'+..��lrrt {:r. r1 t j ty '�f. ,i,.�,.� 1�1• r i I ��I�1A��A II`i rt•iNNtgNis.i�•`�I^.."A1 +t1wtN OrK 1 t 1 •J f } fir'. A LLt { C'�F •t .t4 I :-v i�. -�: )' Y .> ,�. •'t' > r.1; t r tJ's ..,..a. ''C.+t 7..(•,�}+. jIFI3URANCE REGU1RED r 77YY ice' • v } it %�'t xr -'"' t ^��'..c' t � ` i t�11 ±`nON0iRE0UiRgU� - � � .�•�.t •fi , i� y ,,f ' t >4 5« itif (F� :�.4. « „ i r ., •' •rY .{ "� �t,t LS• it1 t 1 yS�:St) Z. ., n ] .`•�J;' .r,c t y•"t 'JV, t 7)a.it; .i',S t '.�t)�''� F� 1.•, �.r. '� RYA y s "�• r� r �+ +� '' t ly � ��t J t t _ !t,y.;"-y: `•'.� ?p t t iti+++ •yrr ti "� ,�. � 'r 2�•t�`�,:" ? +} (' t}�. y + ��'t,J•r Hti., t ) r i ,J rr�.Ail��'it R1't�1Vt�,m �y' 4i� •- f. i T: .j Y ✓. t, `.•a• +. > +, yt r r •t t t- .itr ,f? �:L•l' 't J �; < r;•.,:�' ,.,;`• ''�i+l:'�CiYY CI.i�AKT1�QF1 AOIrNDA �,�,' � � it ' .1,• r�, • l ,, wt t tl).y t �y�r, '1'•' y .,-11: J t }/�,.J ;t�f{y'^a"�! y - !ti rr � - 1 r� t4. � � 'AArY.' '�. ��-sC 41V�1in■a , ?/.. ti. +:. YfjC'. � t "'1 - 4 ''i -. f y �+ t fijy 1 I}•a ) +. f+t•t_ L-i C. ,r , +._ I c , t• .tl�,,,ryr t + i..:. {111�1111�1� ���ICI YI��I „• t r '/ I t �laj t r. t� +• )i z�'+ ` I! '}. � ?�{> r i r ) ,t�t t t .y' 3 � •`,;,�,•�, '��,' SS , x+�'�"w.�= t4 j..1.7 t y 't. ., _r lt_ . 1 .*4 "Jt 1. �L•;. t :1�iw f' 2j + ;s +.,• _,.'1•'.,. ,i' _ S •1,j• ,4yi4 �.�t;;'ir' !i^`s� ��•yr 'sjw�wnw.•!w�..+w r a.r - -^.q••; =? '.� -- •:. 1� *'"ins , ,. Flo 12M,: INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNI ION Jr1�i ` CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH JT� �xrtwctu++�ucti� r, • To Charles V. Thompson t4 James W. Palin, Dire cter City Administrator Development Services Attention: Jeri Chenelle Subject WHITE HOLE AREAS FROM Date January 28, 1985 '- BEACH BOULEVARD TO TbE SANTA ANA RIVER ithen. the Coastal Land Use Plan was certified by the Coastal Commission on April l2, 1982, certain areas, alleged to be wetlands, were not included in the certification. these areas, known as white holes, remain subject to the permit authority of the Coastal Commission. Moat of the white hole areas are botween beach Blvd. and the Sattta Ana !fiver. 111" light of� recent: Coastal Commission actions on Aolsa .Chica and other wetlands staff believes that the time is, rime to .reach an agreement with .the-Coastal Commission on land ur;es .for the white holed: areas. Staff will need to hold.discussions with the affected property owners X• and public agencies in order` to do this. The Coastal commission rtaff have recommended approval of some additional .'tfunding for this wort.. ' Stsff has also had discussio s •with Jelin %comer, formerly of the Coastal Conservancy' staff, about hou best to accomplish the task of obtaining certification for the white holes. ,Mr., Zentner advises that Coastal Conservancy funding would be. ;available for such a program, and has offered to assist the City in preparing a grant application, including drafting 'tbe proposal, ,and acting as a liason with Conservancy staff. Mr. Zentner, ,who is-now employed by Larry Seeman and Associates, has agreed to charge the City no more than1,000 for his assistance. It is possible that this could be paid from the Coastal Commission grant funds. Tlie. planning program would take one year, .for which we would request approximately $65,060. The City's contribution would be `zn staff time, clerical, graphics, and support personnel. bome of this in-kind ,cost could be supported by the coastal grant; the remainder would be part. of the department's regular buC-get. I-lie conservancy grant would pay for consultant assistance and any outside hard dollar costs. Prior to approving the grant, Mr. Joseph Petrillo of the Coastal z Conservancy would like some assurance that the City would be able to -` exert adequate control over the land in question. This could be ,lone by means of a specific plan fo•: the area, which would precisely locate restoration and development sites, and provide for a. transfer of development rights schedule to fairly apportion developable acreage among the property owners. It is likely that Mr. Petrillo will visit the City before recommending approval of a grant, in order to gain personal assurances from the flayor asid City Administrator that the � City is eager to resolve the wetlands dilemma and that the policy makers believe that Coastal Conservancy assistance is the best method r of accomplishing the task. .i.S,j�i1.�•i`y M-ten:t..i«�� cr�' .vl.if+�_.w w+�,..�_��... 7 ' Preparation of the grant application will be done by Development Services, other City departments would riot be -involved in the grant application process, but would probably, be involved in the project itself, at least insofar as. providing input and comments on any proFosais, These departments would include Public Works, Community Services, and Administration. t+o formal discussions have been held with t;iese departments to date. y Thfa infci mation-.is intended to keep you and the Council members � abreast.of developments in the white hole area. You may wan. to poll the. Council to determine if they support the idea of seeking Coastal _ Conservancy funding for a planning program in the area. When the grant application is prepared it will code before the Council for approval prior to being submitted. JWP:JFs jr 4. r (1717d� ++ ,,,,,.«.,,,...��___ ..+n..+,........r.,.r+.t.i...�.rr-rc}r'ti...s..•.w�•.0 ac*2:xc�sr.�zes:.r w'u4G,»r.+YK 'riw,..�i r • REQi.JE k" Do G1 ACTION t: e 1�.1.19-s �. to December 5 1984 C. Su hmittad to: Honorab a irl Y Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administx o001 ' . Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director, Development Services Subject: CLEAN-UP RESOLUTION FOR LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION Consistent with Council Policy? (�Q Yes j j New Policy or Exception Statament of Issue, Recommendation,Analysts, Fanding Source,Alternative,Actions,Attachmenn: Also see 2,c f+-g-- "^3 STATEMENT OF ISSUE: - i�rr.4.t1.� 4j..'� •t. Ate , 7.S"Ei-- a 7 On Apri1. 12 ; 1984 the; Cal'ifornia Coastal Commission, acted to certify the .Ci.W s .Coastal implementation -package with suggested r modifications. The City took actions to -adopt these, m0difications. Coastal sta£f:`have reviewed the adopted 'u,.,difications a»d indicated a few areas: requiring further clar1fication before administrative approval can be ;given. The attached resolutions contain the necessary clarifications. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached resolutions Which contain ondifications and clarifications to the LCP implementation. ANALYSIS: The, California Coastal Commission's certification,with. suggge:sted nodifi'cations; adopted on April 12, 1984,. indicates that if.Jhe City adopts the suggested modifications as proposed; the LCP would be certified . Through• the procedure. of an administrative approval , the Coastal Commission staff reviews the City's modifications for conformance with the suggested modifications adopted by the Commission.... oma issian. If ,the are the some a �a ae staff h e � the im leaien ation t certified and will report it as such at the next meeting of the Coastal Commission. The. City :of Huntington Beach adopted a'. number of.- ordinances and resolutions to accomplish the modifications suggested by the Coastal ' Commission.. In preparing the many .changes, a few words or phrases were misplaced. In order to qualify for an administrative approval, the mod:fi.cations must. be virtually identical to the suggested . modifications adopted ay the Coastal Commission. The changes and clarifications detailed in the attached resolution will bring the modifications in line with what the Commission staff requires for certification. Stuff will be preparing ordinances as necessary to clean up the language in Division 9. ` �r • :' J PIo 4/" . . '/?.t'�r.^,'::�-+:�a"Aw.,�.--....---•-...............r...w-..wro............+.......-.....��..�...,-.-. .�...n r e..i. ;..« i+':.a.�.;.z:::.X.!T.:..+,v.:uw ..-...�...,.a.....yew,rar.wt;rsau.rarrs�...-.r..r . Zoning for one parcel will have to *+e recertified by the Coastal. Commission. This is the- general commercial parcel at the northwest corner of Warner and Pacific Coast Highway. On the maps which were certified by the Commission, the, parcel wrs erroneously lebeleeL . .. visitor serving commercial , but the Land Use Plan shows it remaining general commercial. The Commission will act to certify the correct zoning at the same hearing at which the staff. reports the final certification of the remaind.►r of the implementation. The resolution adopting. the necessary changes also contains a clause which will allow the certification to become effective as soon as it is approved by the Commission. I ' FUNDING SOURCE: None needed ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Do 'not: adopt the attached resolutions. In this case, a ne`w hearing on . the entire Huntington Peach LCP implementation will Le held before the Coastal Commission. s ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Resolutions CWT:JWP:JF:jT (1489d) i rl�i�Y+•'j� �' w.arw.PMatii.•'ub'l..,wMwNWw. ...-,•......•.'...�.«.+++nww:Y YS.r•l1.'Ii4'1w!4a1 t'rur.r�a..w+-....rw.�.w...4awrLM w.VWrwkwM�+Fr++•++•• A•�' , _ - J� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 85-23 ' COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION To Honorable Mayor and City Council From Charles W. Tho so City Administrator Su*cc STUDY SESSION ON WHITE HOLE AREA Date Marc' !a, :g85 5 >3a6ttground When the Huntington Beach Coastal Land Use Flan was certified by the California Coastal Commission on, April 12, 19F2, two .areas were. denied certification. These areas, known as white hales, remain subject to the permit authority of the Coastal Commission. -y The larger of these white hole areas extende .f rom Beach Boulevard,'.to the Santr,� Atita River, and'. from Pacific Coast Highway generally inland to the .flood c:onLr'of channel,, with ,thb exception of the mohil'e home park At Newland and. Pac;.fic .,Coast H19bIway. Much.of the laf,d within the white hole area. has been determined by the Califairni= Department of 'Fish and Game to: be wetland or degraded. wetland. Under the I Coastil,Act, the Department of Fish and Game is authorized' to make wetland determinations. Wetlands so determined must be provided maximum protection in a Local Coastal Plan. At;,the' tme of the City's adoption of its ocal .'Cozstai Plan, the white..hole"areas::were:given Tana use desi.gnat'ions 'of 'Visitor III Serving Commercial" and 'Industrial Energy Production". ... Special Policies were included in the'..rLand t*se Plan i.o bro'tect the wetland values ;found there. The Coastal Commission found that these { designations did' not afford adequate protection under the Coastal Act, and denied certification for the area. i The purposes of this Study session are: 1) to .review for the. i participants the existing information regarding the white hole area, 2)., to discuss the .City'b .Nroposed grant,application to the Coastal conservancy requesting funding and assistance for planning in the white hole area, and 3 ) discuss the Cii:y.'s objectives and policies with respect to the area in order to begin to develop a course of action. Environmental Values � The white hole area has been observed and reported upon in environmental documents for many years. City staff have compiled an annotated bibliography of a number of these, which is attacked for your information. i These documents generally address only the portion of the white hole i area which was within the project under examination at the time of i the report. Two document:, however, encompass the entire white hole area -- these are the two Department of Fish and Game Determinations, r MJ�'-.-�S r.:;L. r+«n7"" .....r.�r..«-w.ti...• w-+r.5.+ ........ r.. _ . � ......w. .. .... Tom_._-..._.. •--,.+a..........^+mow r.:3 5.a F.:..:.!' . r.. ..... .•�..Y� �:'S!. it l r .I • Ili I I � c the first one from 1979, and the final one from 1983. The Fish and Game reports also map the area, specifically locating areas of salt marsh, degraded areas, uplands and other natural features. Staff has reviewed almost all of the documents, and the others are fFr less specific in. nature, consisting Plants and animals identified within te primarily f inventories of particuarareaaf interest. There is general agreement among the sources cited that wetland related species of plants and animals are found throughout the area, and that, therefore, some wetland values do exist. There remains, however, a question of precisely in which locations the wetlands are viably: enough to preserve or restore, and in which locations the wetlands are so badly degraded as to be unrestorab At present, only the Fish and game report addresses this le. Some evidence has been submitted which questions the validity`ofnthe Fist: and Game determination. Staff believes that a more thorough Investigation of this question is needed in order to properly plan for the white hole area. Coastal Conservancy Grant Pro asal A, number of projects have recently been proposed which impinge o and affect the white hole area. The City of Huntington Beach would like to widen Brookhurst Street from the tlood control channel to Pacific Coast Highway, ould City staff are presently Preparing an Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment for this project. Orange County is circulating an EIR on a to enlarge the capacity of the Talbert Valley flood contralcehannels. This project will have a considerable impact on the white hole area. It is also a vital . � Huntington Beach residentsprasewellaastforhother Orangeealth and nty citizens.. safety of many { The California Department of Transportation is working on an environmental document for the of Highway from the Santa Ana River torBeachuBoulevard.. dir�ectlic Coast adjacent to the white hole area. Y .Taken togetaer, the above In resolving the long standingewetland#questions wcate a new ithgreoardnt the area. If) light of recent Coastal Commission actions on regard atChice i and other wetlands, staff believes that the time is ripe to begin a discussions among the affected parties, and try to reach 170me g agreement. The City now has a certified Local Coastal would like to obtain certification for the remaining two geographic and f areaswnich have been white holed. The Coastal Conservancy is inter. program to produce developine,It and�xastorationtilhnahe City with a be available through a Conservancyp Funding would which would be needed. Conservancy grant for any special studies expertise in restoration Matters adsexper.ienc�taff also hinenegotiatingle settlements of similar issues in other parts of California. } f i 1y93d -Z_ White Hole Area 3 l � r i City staff have prepared a grant proposal. to submit to the Coastal Conservancy to obtain funds for this program. On February 16, 1985; City Council approved submitting the grant request . City staff met with Conservancy staff on February 28, 1965 to discuss some of the grant issues. At that meeting, this study session was proposed. objectives The, first two objectives of the study session, to review existing. information about the white holy,. area and to review . the Conservancy Grant, proposal will be accomplished through the staff presentation end discussion by the City Council and Planning Commission. The last objective, to discuso what the City wants to, have happen in tho white hole area and to develop a course of action will take some time to accomplish. The desires of the Council me l members ay to what they eventually would like to see happen in the,•area would be an excellent . point of departure, 'and staff hopes these desires will .become evident through the study session discussion. Establishment of some general guidelines or policies to direct our efforts towards desired objectives would be the principal purpose of ' such study session. CWT:JWP:JAF:jr . I 1993d White Hole Area `Cl;•}')}�•::r .,... ,..,.•...... ...-.�....r.a....-J"..a....�,...,...c....rn.r,.:.s.var•y x.a..wcatai.t✓.......r........�...�r,..,........,.... • .x 7 HUNTINGTGN BEACH WETLANDS ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY I. Department of Fish and Game, 3.963. `ietlands Determination . A. Location , Area known as Huntington Beach Wetlands. See map. B. Ownership Caltrans,. Rills Lana and Water, So. Calif. Edison, Orange County Flood Control District, Daisy Thorpe J and the City of Huntington Beach. See Exhibit B. C. Classification - See Exhibit C ti 1. Historic Wetlands Non-degraded -. 0 Degraded; Viable 114.7 Not Viable 35.2 Restorable 21.9 Not Restorable 13.3 Subtotal 4 .9 2. Historic Uplands 12.9 Grand Total 162.6 `r 7i C t 5, 7 y (2018d) ..l- • `1�.1�§�:�'An��+'>,.•'"`••.,.`"`" ..�............r•.u%r ::sS.w;.::r:.. ..1�. r�i;+.�+. .....:i.L:....:tzr.:..r•av:+v:: .:S.u..:.«.w«,...........e......a ew. �r .\:. ME ti TI. Massey Barbara, 1978. Pro owed Miti ation for Lo's's,"of a ornia Least Tern Feedin2liabitat During- Construction 01 Flood Control Im2rovements on the-Santa ina 'River. A. Location Santa Ana River improvements frGM Garfield Avenue to the ocean, INntington Beach Wetlands. B. Gwnership orange County Flood Contrayl District, Caltrans, Mills Land and Water, Daisy Thorpe, So. Calif. Edison, and City of Huntington Beach. C. Description I. Three parcels of restorable saltmarsh along the coast highway between the ricer and the Southern Calif. Ed'_son Plant. a. lat. Choice between Brookhurst and Magnolia - more natural state, least effort and cost to restores good high marsh vegetation - multiple ownership problem; lease was not feasible b. 2nd. Choice - 37 acres between Brookhurst and the river greater expense to restore; ground is higher and is used for a dump site - better than lat. choice for Least Turn feeding ground - 75% is restorable - entirely owned by Caltrans r (2018d) -2- ;5�..��•r':�Y+iM r+i...w+..�v.+.r........+w..y.:.ti,: ...ea......_ .. • « ..a ......_..., .. .. ._ ,.c. ... .. .... f ' III. Soule,, Scott and ,Associates, and. Richard J. Vogl, 1980. An Ecolo ical Stud 'of Certain Pro erties Owned by Mills ana and Water ComEany ana the State of calitornia in=e 'City OE Huntingt5n Beach.. California. A. Location huntington Beach Wetlands B. Ownership The property owned by Mills Land and Water, Caltrans f and the City of Huntington Beach. C. Description (Vogl) 1. Mills Land and Water a. Parcel 1 historic marsh - early-stage playa formation =T - loafing and nesting aroa for shorebirJs and gulls with tidal flushing, a viable aa]k marsh would eventually re-establish itself b. parcel 2 historic marsh . unauthorizPz dumping ground 25% playa-like flat, pickleweed 60-65% salt flat strip, I" no plant life 5-10% 2. Caltrans - middle and upper littoral zone salt marsh 1 -- upper littoral zone highly disturbed by dredging, dirt, rubble, trash, sump hole 3. City of Huntington Beach ! - raded portions filled and • for 1 7 parking lot wall-developed freshwater marsh flanked by wet salt marsh areas (2018d) -3- nj•r,,,,.,e..,,.�.�Cf•,,.,�,,....,..........�.••.••.-....«r.,,,,ua.:,•xY..LCnr.;.fi..1t:R-•..::.aw.nw•.:•::;.l�r"«.L':.2.%it L i •}ril.M� '� •• .n424K.ir�.::J -41{./a.Mi 7L'.Y.:`.l::µYtti..:rf.vAta.lt:.::'iti:L J�.1«.ai� w•ssi.a.:7G Iv. Vogle, Richard J. 1982. Letter to the California Coastal Commission (Exhibit E) . A. Location Undeveloped lands located east of Beach .Boulevard and inland of Pacific Coast Highway in Huntington Beach S. Ownership Parcels owned by Mills Land and Water and Caltrans. C. Des ri tion 1. Historically tidal marshland 2. Ceased to function, began to take on upland characteristics A. encroachment of man-made development b. elimination of natural ocean outlet in 1940's c. channelization of Santa Ana River d. construction of flood control channel e. no tidal flushing . 3. Advanced, maybe final stages of degradation as soils are dead, many soils buried and depressed by fill b. vegetation in transition from lowland to . � disturbed upland i s, fishes and aquatic organisms are gone �I d. wetland bird utilization is declining, no food for Belding Savanna Sparrow, clapper I Rail or Least Tern 4. Restoration can proparly be achieved only by providing a 'direct opening to the sea. (2018d) -4- ,y��a.:"n:.4aG�sw<,...r.... ...wa-,•.:..aL...«r.......i•.,.�a .a v............ ,...1".... ... . ;1 .....,.,:•:w., .ew•'+.t:.a.. ..••....... ... ..,+4, ..a'•«.Y=a i;}: n F.r;';...y~•,,• } ,r. Ali 1�• 1 V. Hunt, Harold, J )84. Biological Report for the Orange Widening Pro ect, NOT OFFICIALLY RELEASED BY CALTMS. A. Location 1. Areas aajacent to Pacific Coast highway between Goldenwest Street and Newport Boulevard. - all land between Talbert and Huntington Beach flood control channels and Route 1 (PCH) - all portions of coastal marsh north to the southerly boundary of the Huntington Channel Extension Wetlana Restoration Site - all wetland north of the Huntington Beach channel and west of Newland Street - wetland areas east of the Santa Ana River H. ownership Caltrans, Mills, City of huntington Beach, Thorpe, So. Calif. -Edison, Orange County Flood Control District (See Exhibit B) C. Dtscriptio_n and Classsification 1. Upland Habitat - greatly modified by human activity - none of the usual vegetation t e 5 YCN names ! . 2. Coastal Dune and Coastal Marsh Habitat_ - 114.7 act A 'es locat .a west of Santa Ana River -- 2.9 acres historically coastal marsh, now contains upland vegetation, located at Route l and Brookhurst Street s. (2018d) _y_ i t VT, Westec services, Inc, 1975, Final EIR 77-9�ra1 Plan Amendment 78-1. A. Location Approximately 107 acres ac3acent to the Huntington Beach State Park and bounded by Pacific Coant Highway, Beach Boulevara and Newland Street H. Owner I. Caltrans, Mills Land and Water, orange County Flood Control District C. Description/classification 1 I. Saltwater marsh sub3ect to tidal pressure which causes a "flushing" action as groundwater levels fluctuate, a, nearly ha,nogeneous growth of pickleweed b. northwestern portion has blackish water (urban runoff) 2. Salicobnia vegetation provides breeding ground for Be o ng Savannah Sparrow (endangered species). a. Reduction of breeding ground is main impact. 3. Nothing was said about general wetlands restoration. 4. Questions whether area is a wetland since it is not covered with water. '(2018d) -6- <'� tt1+l� M --.-....,.......,.,rwen..ase..�....+n MY»74%�.«:�s.v••. .aa.....e •.:'i1;L.l... ..�'rrr.S,..v..++-....:«a•w,t.::..i.i... ... +. ._x.a::..L'u.:.«sue., . • fl it j VII. Zedler, Joy B. , Biology Department, San Diego State University, 1982. The Ecology of Southern California Coastal Salt Marshes: Community Profile. " A. Location Southern California coastal salt marshes. B. Ownership N/A C. Description 1. Soil salinity may be most important variable which influences marsh vegetation. 2. Corograss necessary to Clapper Rail and is usually absent in wetlands closed to tidal flushing. 3. Monotype stanas of pickleweed are found in marshes of reduced .tiaai circulation. I f f , ;I i I f (2018d) -7— S!1!M"I T" �,rf:�MP."Mw....�...++-....w Wi`.a M. ..::i.1.iL«i • t... r ....:.n,..1.r...»J.. , .. �� �., . , ,I ..1... ws`Itv...w e4i\. w'Y! .,. a ....^..r ��t�V.i1••.7• r .• Vill. Marsh, Gordon A. .and Abbott, Kenneth D. , 1972. Plants and Animals of the Santa Ana River in Orange County, pg.12-1. . A. vocation Santa Ana River from Pacific Coast Highway to Adams Avenue B. Ownership Army Corp of Engineers C. Description Modified coastal marsh vegetation ,t I k{. • L� •1 , i. 1, i .. t y .l (2018d) t.i'i�•u"'�.�..'.."" lX4'sw-'+•- .-. .. vta�wticw.waa+....-r.a...+.....��..._•.. ...«..a. .wM1tst+,c:t i.+.•n+-.....�...._.. �...........v....•..+Y,o ', • H`�1;tl:R"yka*d .. _ _ iC:i.r;" aaxi,'aV':.`d' :.4sJC'R:raaVKJ:Y•1R7:..�YT s ` r t IX. Garner, Ron; Wang, Robert; and Kern, John. harine animals of the Santa Ana River and Adjacent channels,, (p.'I'j`: A. Location The mouth of the Santa Ana River, including the adjacent flood control channels. B. ownership_ Army Corp of Engineers, Orangz County Flood Control it District. C. Description I Marine animals founa in the channels were described in detail. I No mention was mace of marshland I i r (2618d) h t!,j�'�iMyliN CJn177 4 .. ..a.,... ...i.,t�:1+:rr.. ,.44:,... -+1:; ✓...'J a;t:.t.:.:�.it�t'...a^.:.::1�1 ... +•r+-....F,.,. X. Highland Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. 1983. Su2p emental Geotechnical Investigation. A. Location Approximately 6.4 acres located on the east side of Beach Boulevard and approximately 11000 feet south of Atlantic Avenue. B. ownership Huntington Breakers, Ltd. C. nescri�tion/Classification Soils Analysis i I (2018a) .-10- �r.:�.y 4"ri.?.:.:•:st.»x++ .,.....,.. .......a.. •'t r.jt':«.',rLv:P•+✓... _ ,. »_.-w:,.'r,^W:.. '.t�jj;..^.rW'a...r...........�.. ....:.........�-...�..—..w..r.w.•a.e-�..a...w.+,la� —:..., Office of the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, 1977. Review' Rs ort on the Santa Ana River `Main Stem -- including Santiago creex ano Oak M-eetra n. A. Location orange, Riverside ana San Bernardino Counties B. ownership. Army Corp of Engineers C. Description r - Mars% and uplands - Widening of river at mouth. would destroy 8. of. 100 acres of salt marsh and upland which is a remnant of the river's once extensive tidal system I'. f r t t i e' ,I I (2018d) -11- 'j:t�'.i•:i-n'T'Ys.:a.rr+r.,.�...--�,. .. ....i.-v.;..; ..st'..a-t:+: _..,'...t:.lr...r,........ ...v,.. .n') ,..i:' ...1...r.....i..�.-.........0.. ...,. .-�..r.,...n,---•-'�'.+.-.---.�..-..•....--..�. I r t II .r . DEFINITIONS Brackish marsh: marsh area receiving an influx of both salt and j mesh water. Cordgrass: marsh vegetation necessary for clapper rail (an endangered species) survival. Degraded wetland: resultingaltered reducedsnvigor andacts associated man, productivity of the marsh-wetland system. Dunes: sand formations located in the uplands. Environmentally Section 30107.5 of the California Coastal Act, senO.tive area: ". . .any area in which plant or animal life or their habitat are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an. ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and development. ` Feasible: Section 30108 of the California coastal Act. '. . .capable of being accomplished in a ' successful manner, within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological. factors. * Littoral zope: area between the lowest tide water mark and the highest tide water mark. Mud flat: muddy or sandy coastal strip usually submerged at high tide. ` t Pickleweed; primary salt marsh vegetation that. provides a feeding ground for the -California Leant Terno Has the broadest of ,�tribution of any :salt marsh plant. Playa: flat area. Salicornia: virginica bigelovii - pickleweed subterminalis - related to pickleweed. 5 Salt flat: Ealt pan, shallow bare spot with bnd drainage, Writer evaporated leaving sal% behind. Salt marsh: a marsh in which the water is salty or brackish. cf.:.taining salt tolerant vegetation. Uplands: area above and adjacent to the level of the highest tide. Includes the dunes. (2018d) -12- qY ) I •''R t h FY +71" >{ Prr . +�• Y .fS t Sl Lrtt 1 # l-. ', tt ','t ;t.) ,' er: Ii' t ' +• tr �(�•, + r� �i. `'7��`4�` ' lit° ! 'i . V:4 ::� k,it •11►` ij :lkp'� " `'}4i' � S'J i{''><l, , ,l' >wj1;P� t 4i 7 3: �} •!4l I IN , t1r � ! , t .; .#...•p vl', {t '�r�`( { ,)r. t 1 .4 t, s ?} �• itl�1Ft: t .Y 't l';!�' It'", 4 ;ti ^ tt3 j `S�' i i .,► ,4�1, .t ? i�rt �;..t}r•'l �':4 v%,} rs, L I��.F t�t' r r ��y}�.r��. V (y . t!5 � ,{ .;x�{I�i `(�+ft"!, ��.ti4a)•��ty� �i�1) Jt1'! . �r7 c..',�'rA 4rl� J k.Iy�r'f ;1' �+}k,IC'. + � ��f�ig 1 �� �i.�} f� (ifi; y, ':l` Olt fil l' a K1. I (.. � . 44 ,� . T 4! N Y ;xt tf • S h.. 't/ s S Lf j �;!.4 t y 1 1r �. ,� ',u'ti r". h �)r'�r Y.'t �y.yi 'ly��' r{�,1 r� 1•,�t jj N 1 t t >'tl�j "ti�'' + �i14 .1�.,a`�� I\f/t�, , '�j�` r3 � �) .d ¢'' }y 3h,, 1 3'" .yt�7.1 .��7G•."�F4 �ii���jV ;'tty l .�t (3 1 Tf� tyt�7}+ .r+k '�'1i,�3 '�t�7,ti,�i �:}4t.:(xi�} i F�l �� idnr^f}1%, S.jl�•�,.��i,+ ��5• .t.'T�•( ��•��1y ..fdx a.{17t )��1�1••i��:`.; a,Y1,'11.i St i'tP' 4 )�x/.l �++'t" �" � �''; 1 tik`t6.-�l' u +,�•(CS It�F� :! �'?�?.Cjt' r57+i 4ti�r.��}♦t 3 i, tkF r'�vr,� _�ly ��i :Tk rF. 1''� �, . {}•',i• }. ° 7Cr y�3,t� y,x3t ��••Ir fiit, •),r.tY 1P z a�?F►{t �i' �1. �r1 'yl of �. t ti� ; tii �7�`r��,�, y,af3 .�j� 1 M{ . ,{'f, � ft• y ti� k� •a t � t{" t o ( �}, t:.f •� 7 E 1)iti,3 i i t iti r? xt 1 3 7 1 41 ;�:• 1 t (r �7. )• {Cl ij yy. Z3�r�Ir'-Y� :1 { t! t, al "y ti��.,a). I�;(4j c1 �tr 11j S .t t FI. tt� t•r:.P, r3>+k k.• SI' t r" �FFt� vS "t: .,i5 , .:�;f :.�'4 'k t't ,7 {r ,.,>, �r r F•i Sr,.yT.f -:i.• k $ .Rl{ i t•.. t.'t.� •'J.. ��.4�, ,+ � . '1';•' � ii �' 7 r .T£ .-u(}< +,� ` •. 7 � i +•,�{ § •.� r 1 s. h. t,. it..t• ti 1 r'�'.,-f e•rrrf•�."r •:'f�i:1+,t' 'i.,i't.�t�•",rt`.���sr (.•Y;,:S,.1 i' '+;•�.:'� I�,UeI� �1.:"rSt:r, �! �'�,13 Y• ,}.r,i, •;I'A�{r>ti•'; ..• 1-�?�i;€} 1 .).Y 'i i. k? i.,P.Ji ,�', 1..,�.`, t• yr.. >•. "I�' " 9, vt�7K 'l J. y�.�•�,�s,.^ } ."., r1.,.rr;'p r�•{•.1}:fit I 4.;t� � :�t�4 �' GIF,.•r:.1s� ;l.rf.+:i+S�;;•� ""•>F x .;5}f " ,[15t} �^ r•�..f 4�`:1'tii r•� j•p{ t x # i ! rEr i ;1C s 4 ?iti �. l , .. �•. x E (c )k, .�Sr (f�' �l +r -1,� '�+ r'�., r��.'' d•�t"�: �(>'" 7't •""" e'r 4� P. I � 7' ��t� i. r S �tt.'/' i,`• '�s i y r.� � y�•r Fr��tr ( � S"'>,�.,4 =�h��:l�'�1 k t.r ����j xr i ' 't 1�'" �! kr,.�j. a ��! r SS -'i4-; # { /� < ! f fi '�'t /< r,+ 51. .• t" ��y��� :rl' '� .It + .P t 3 �i 1. ,'4{ r, r� ljjl, e P.A1 ,S[j,rl �� i"Y:•.L:1.�,.,':1L.7.5.k.L.t.,..:):.:+�.i►.'s�• Nati,•ii�:l.�...;ir..s".o.i.;"::�a..l,. F=-:t_. �'';.Ix.,�1`'P.•e 7.".44,�.� v)"t Wetland: Section 30121 of the California coastal Act. " '. . .lands within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or permanently With shallow water and includes saltwater marshes, fresh-water marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mudflats and fens. • Wetland Section 30233 of the California Coastal Act. development: ". . .the diking, filling or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries and lakes shall be permitte n accordance with other applicable previsions of this division, where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative ana where feasible mitigation :measures have been provided to minimize adverse effects, (2018d) E .I r (2018d) -13_ • �14Wf"Vrr. w.t,,r-..4bna..r.,�..�...•w.�,....».y..r..y er .ytr.� rt , { i •J•{"�`�` 'tY¢'� '�� �t;����i `��� .1`��•'i'� r �,'�'',t�4''�y' r '1 P��tt ,� D. , �'!� !� t"4�t1., �•1�{''f �`f�,'����"���'`• j������tS`L�'� �1 �!!.�'�•k', �' �♦�,�{4,�t'144i,�{1f��� jS�g v ,+�� ���jx��`'".8� 77 1,� ^�sti��.���1�Nt�?°5��� .�����'fi"� l'�r�� � ���I��.�.;� ,,•�t��=�' �, �f ��iw + �,,b�!? t ' �j�1�• �'�'S� i� �'«` t y1;5�'kl C� j�' �j�p lea ,14'ti F;,i + 'i�,�,.ff.��i�/t'} �. �, 1��t•�3� a t� .{f�.��,���Q�•, .�e.y � ty; �( jt. ,���•. i.�'�,i(•:l.:k�'r� � '.�•k {�{}��C .( r,� .� }t�l 1 �i`i� �� i •�.!!. �. { �s�'� S`y��'� +. � �� }t a.q��7+"L'�1�1 �t��f�',� •r��}''``SY,"��-�''�j`'�, � L 1� S q e (i "t`,L•'. •� . 3 .yj ,.1 � ' 1 ��,,t, �c,y ��� f( � �'r)j�t �r. { � � i f sn. ': 'r ��.n<�,<. e�'.�'��>. `.� s4.a'� rE+..T a r'�7�, .Y��,r• c ?5 � i`` '4t�':ti•4,;�'� .•tF�t1 � �. V t.�, a '�{• � � J� �v''a'��i. �. '��'`rY,,,1�t a'i(�;�43t a4:�.``�t�1�''„�+�t.�{;�,•�?(ri.�..�,�itiar:a,�+t;lt,',.*„�tai��.,r}�rir �,':,•f'I���et1l,7�tr±�y t;�#�`n;1,f,�n;,y.4,&y�, 1� :�•it<`y�^4�7��r 1«i�;{!k7'�i l«,)`X�y 1 r)��iK'Y�t1`,s.{t�{���vv`�-';F�'¢�?tk"n4�i�'��)+;�,;}r�'S t�ai.,�i�'a?C.'s'r�Y p+n%:�y}titiiii,��.,,.ty�«:ti hAI�r;,.�{�{{'+-1y•t I{t.f���S^'•(t�irt•Y;�.•t�„`ji',;'M+��S�`y���'r'S:PF,t�2�i,r�fi�Y,�t•1.��'�a}.�.i�rfy1�'.�t�`.�a'tl�f'��S•,'Y�r"`�5�dy;'r.,1'<1'•':��i•ti.z,.1.4��F",4`� `1h� �00•:(()1 ,My 1.:F 7 /mil � 1 r �f t� Cl Jc CDC co CO gay �,''�- ,�•.,� L / c� a) C13 _ • "tip:•=„�•�.�'�' •;"�. ��:�•• ''`' • • _. tll � C K� - mow' : :•i• ,.: G 4-. Q CL co 000 / �. '; ",r,.. �r,y-'I�;••�;.:�. � .� woo 10 Ir / ` LM im .f• •'. rf• wY r• b. (n 04 ti i •.. •� i. . r .� • '" it• .� ,�/' 16. fit• l� )�' (� J ��yzr � • '.i• 't / _^ `• _1 \ham •S,�• r r ♦ • y• .� ..••` • .It t ���.+..«r!•^.r••fti%Ti' _•.w••...�..-_........__........a•ra■.d,r....,.. .4i". ,e::.. ,:p.:.:'i• ,. .,,.._. ..'.ir:�.�� ..:k1..,. .. ..,..... ... , ..i i.,1. .,�� .4,�•, !'r ,r�•'�,ia1',�}$.•T� y { I t! 4 ,Y t . e Nr,Y Y 'S.+ Y4 `,•t S • x Q '. �. .� NU ) ? ;'} 'c•}4��5• •�' 45 !y1 '`yj� x5 ` {` �..• ��}}• `� j ,t "�l�'r6''', t ;i,1 ''��kt! a�;tit .fr ,S•. ' * S+ •p� �f}:. ('�.. '�"•� .z tl�b }4 ,�, pq ty..i .q�lyS'x,�' 'l;ivat'� `�{�l'.I y S� .+ ; t i 't�'�� � }Qc v�S'it, S'F •` d/tg5,'#r,i Ll '14'� •.l.�' (ti'� 1 ��r.' Tr,1 .;i'P:.({ Stiy.+rS'j? �' !y¢�; 'j�� • t;"4 '{?, 1 ` } \j�.,C ?• M'�.� '}' 7 r t� / 0 Y`5 ..'��` Yi w r. ({, i� :k 4 :{T•S' q� at , S+ p �! � I j} • '�1 it ^• ��.° F j� 1 •"r 1 �:, l:J a !1 !y 4p4 r1�r n' iV�.� t1., r,q .l•C `}Y�_ x^ {t.,i{�}f.arf. {' ° S �' ....; .Jt �S•?���JYL=SS UF� , i��t!a' 7 ?'�k4� 1SJi�, ,�`hkL ' r '+..�+�} /1•1�i� 4i td1 �.t{ r , { .��1. p 1 ,e `y f �4�v.� � t �.S•� t�'' y(zi','(,��:r "(� 'W''S, � � r �a, ..S ,1�'M.l��tiC��LiC:3di� CL t .li�+�, { 4.3 t<.C;i�! .�t,�h ,•d 'fir 7 r,�7S"'' .� t yr Y�i i1 a .� L.�•:lam � ,.� '• r C 'r- � i • v _ tr. • \ � 1�♦ .q•�t i,y•_�`{yam �<1• � 1 .71 os _ q y s ! r +y n40lw cl CL •.� �•�., r r *to � tl r VUJ& WkwY 14111-111 141121411f, x go �}�;� St F'I xj--'j� 'A V' , Jr :��•,• C a ai.'�`T ,i :'fill �1'e .�,. ,�f,�. . ,y .,r y � ! Vsa �'t:,;�;C�st Mr!' ��y� �? � �v ,If The City Woula like to involve the Conservancy for a numbey at reasons, including: grant funding ter waterfrotit-and-Wet- 4n enhancement plans, development and restoratio-r—i;- potentia California e ld�wia,-,/n Urb 3 Waterfronts a t erfronts Area FinAncing Authority (CUWARFA) Li ancing for visi r-serving development; ana conflict resolution ti witNI h ke DFGI Coastal Commission, landowners, and otf involved parties 2.0 EhVi%rN'MENTAL SL'TTING The pr03ect aC a incluacs 176 acres situated etween beach Luulevara and the Santa A a River , inland of Pacitic oast. highway. J historically, muc of the pr03ect area,, well as the entire City, was wetlandl , which was drained and fill over the years t%:-r farming, and later, tar the evelopment of housing and attendant commercial uses. The project a a itself is sur ounded by . developrient,, intersected by roads, nu contains ckets of intensive inaustrial, commercial ana resident al uses. 2.1 Site Description The project site is bordered a the south by Pacitic -Coast highway, which is presently. a four la State Highway. The California Departmentot Transport! tio -.j I be wicening the highway to six lanes by .1986. Across the' hilhw is untington State beach which extends the. Lull length at the j?r JecL a The State beach is unaercjoing a facelift. The parking 1 t h6s re c tlY been expanded to accommodate adaitional cars, and ex ensive, new I dscaping has been installen. Construction of modern concession stan s and restroom facilities is also taking place. On the I we at of the ro)ect bite..'is heach ulevaru, a six. 1 lane ma3or arterial within t City. A City-owned, pa cel across Beach Boul-,�vard is being used 'in art foi: temporary beach pa ing. The remainaer- u., the City parcel 6 covered with vegetation an contains a small wetland which 4 part of the pro3ect area. D r ctly ao3acent is a 35b space mobile me park. The eastern oundary of the project area is delinea ea by the santa Ana River, hic h is separated from the project site a well-uses bicycle t r il. i Ihe riverbed itself is a concrete line channel forming t elbounaary between the City and Newport Beach,, the neighborii municipality. The project site encompasses several uses. At the southwes site corner tion Boat brokers stores ana' sells boats. Along th west sine q ewlana Street sGuth at the tl000 control channel are the folio fdllo 6110 1 a 3k acre mobilehome park containing 306 mobile ho es a dl'5 ace mobilehopie park containing 45 wobile homes; a travel trailer par with 141 ,,spaces; and a 3 acre parcel fro'nting on Newland which is being aevelopea as a privately operatea temporary beach parking lot. (1729d) �• .�;��� �� �+ �� S ;,j .} ��'3 �� c�l` t �}� � �i!'�, t.! �T ''`1 ��"' 1 1 .�t• •F35te �'. � ,'�'�$�51�Y, i.r`��� ; �}Yi +fit„f��X� y �if •.;1 •f�t (t j r `� . •, 1 g' l�'� � t r.'y 5 � �� '�, 1`�`t. p i � '6 � �L�y�Y 1�� 1 i�. • s �• i � y(�+�• l.�„ ta; -�,` t.t a � y� " i�t1 + n 1 ,� �t �,'. s�r � �tk a � '�, �41 sty �.� � r .a •3! ;=4�1� ��`y'� �'� R •�'. � �` � ;�,.t� L.'r Y,�� '�'"����} ���'�tt i'� '�`►+ •1 '.5�5� 3' �1.• �,rti1 t . C yrti'hr`� . ���..�y r•i�' h+, }k `i •"lG't �. •sti t'+ ��r�V.f �0.,. „k � = s1�� y� f x�: �i'(s.{. �+ a+�t'i '�'��. i'Yt.1.tt��> +! ,.�y ttI 7 �i t'+i s; ,� :� 7zz': ; '�. `*i �. �'+ �.{,.t+� .,E� t� �'(, ;L'tiY ��' •-1�`,'a•;1 t.�+)' tr p t�.�.�1, i`' 7,'�j� n?�y�� :� y �!S y k, t '('i": k,,•,�c��;�� �� .S. ' �s Y�y i,��,�� '1+. y �.�3,.t c �a:t��;k �-i,t *T 4 \,r f(��1 5��:'��"1,7,".•- '�l tj 7f'. �d;«.=t �� 1{� d .1r ''.5s� � ��j.�•� f+� 41,1 �t •c,+ 1} 'l � yn t� �;� .! { °f• �� .1� r�1}� .i �:. Y �,ti,,�' � �Y�` 'i� '� �li �,4s1 � •��j �''S. f (� � t '�. tit t ?��+; r9���' j f } $. �(r�!1� q�•�`+fir�� ��i���S � .� .��"'x�:. i !�1y .1 IL"��,,� Y � .,.Y .r, .�<4+.�t��1r'; i�+. �. {!t {c �1.7s.{�1� Q� '+4� � }{'{.� 1;��^� 't�..."�. •+�,C .s Lt,;s{y:' ,11"'.J .y�'i,� 1 � at++{ �t �s.S �•t��4,'��i ��t, ,{ ( ,�1.�jS;•� ,r�f L]�.i f}�t�•"4 1 il' !£ ' ' ? 1, .i {75 i�• �+P��. ,�• `< �.r �� 'r!�'�*S � �. 4Cc g �, i � � l.',� 1 •�. a.TS'3{ ,r�y'i+Fs .5 !�.�: ,� t �`�...�a �i. �.1�5 'TS ��,{�F 3 .� i•1�E.,�Jr �L�{131,, n !'�:c? .k '�`r2 �"��1..gi�';f�S���,1 t1i .��3�t*'t�, K1°�4�.. �t �{w k fr; t, ,+,f' dd„••�� �i .{.1 �. {*z, �' �1 5 ;,•'t �Flr'Y.� ;T � ".,k. Il}• F:+ �. ♦ ;t W�5 r �E:K. y � R :� :�ttill �; Y` 'i'•�ta�t '•\V .� "� '1 S c y ` i't •!, �" 7 i �.f•'tt' '.. i ;1,.. 4y., n• 'th, It In t � .i'y �^+. '\+ .y •'" `..rf+�S!\ 3�ty(r:,�;��1.1, 1 r S�r�4Rli �aii�T\1'iiii7�3����1� ���i �, �' a �. ; ��. ` •¢ �7.�� r+}:.b�44� •'!� • •1!'40 �. . � � � � � '�} � `.J1� it ;�;• ,+, F v Q IAO ♦lt\v ` `• R F � � t�� �, +`(`fit • t9��/�\? f � � r\ 10 It • ma • 1 •✓ '�j�, W7 RI'm lt� • ,� ,` ! i m� � ��i .►t '� L'j�a j. 1�1 •T° C a' �y,� �y1� � fA—J S ,,' st1� ;llfi! ., tyom+� � ♦ ,L., ��.,, t +, a,' � a. 'y .� ,� � �¢ Ij •�° x,..`�r ; .� � k r j�4tYrlt3,�.4l,�y f: {+1;�y� � J�('`X11� '� j ..� tr r+•a-y"'J't .•lx �y+ 4.3', `j x.S F i • „p{} Ly� f� "� t•. ,j1 \ � f� /TS, �9YL�''�' J. 1+ � IRA ' "`��t'»i # . i .< I` r 4. `'Fyk t t �, • �. J' �•�9 a y ?•S� {i�,� Mra,/1try .: 1tl y t �{.i: tS:Y`�" :r ���, yili .i yrtifit. �) �#„j^t �� y',� •iJ�J '.�t .tiS. ,_�'A,•f.�! *a � U .. �+3 { � 3�. 1 y, t�,%t• j�• �' ', c.5'�,}�i� ��, }r�'� .1;' •r ')'i7. t �µ, �(. ,'1i'� �•• JA� � :� y Y�"i�'.t (� p F •��t �., J= {' .ZA ,fr � 1' � � .•� �*'tr c A.j.�r 7� el �:�'! lR� L y.��,tgTJ y.!• •I� . �7,t t t;�,t�! .� V� - k...3 {})t ! ,!y(,"; ..,!h. ;� �►�s'�;�x},t� �41��777 '{4 e"y,;•�R41�, � �C. .,.7h�t Vil• 1 'f jy try �\Z li-yl�',Y '�+ � � ��j�,rA:. }�`P;e�} 94• '" �RI � I. Y4'�y�J,�jt ��j, '��+i �.; 1.. �. �� i l �� �` �7y��.?,:)�} '�J�• � J; �„�n?'S,•.t:{�:�`!'"•,j >r t>,x � �:�y1.�1�.:�,a., "� 1!Y 'rtif ''c.`5' a i i Lly SO p. 004, 1 • � i Rom• i � , \\ 1 ,, ' �J } 4-0 �.. . , • CO�' i �'.I ��f` .A r .•r' J• V t � �`���k.•'.fA ; �;~ is .��• / N j' tom` . t• r ©. 46 Ud • t J ' ` •V r ' �1A ��' •i � `�... Chi ; dJ t . r •�� . p ` Gy f i i• �� �' Cl.'� If t 9 v, t ••�� ", a � ���,, ��,•� �!t. wit t• •.��j •f . . r.. ^••••••••4• .. ,r.,,,,,,.,..._... _..__ �.........._.�......... ,__.._. .-.........,....,......r.•r_. ...-�...,.,•.av;.no.a. n? we:'•7�:.+., ..i.>;ai,, c,,f,l:.:•JrL.+""....+_.... �'' r (i `F. � ; � 1 r�,�'� ;�i' � ',�. �,� ' '1 ,i�� •t ,�C"! '4r #''y •F '{�,�{a/� 'i < � x� r�! � � t F}. ��� l i � '�� �� ��'� � "1.�!'�'t �,r e �}; f,��� r } i�''f,��, �'' ��.�4 ,` �'i'�`�k��•,� y�ya, � •� r.tV'-• ,}j� '�X Y�;�� ��1 ����, '.'� �y� � �y�:t!!�.If"' ti .4 }L 1 ti k aix,ly •;.,iic -. �f r�� r y ;y�r tk�, ��6[♦' s11 !. ,y •s,,c�1+�y ( SF f� Y( Y + :l,l .a5 �'ti (•v fit.,Y*. v s"';, !� .'• f S•. �, } � ,1 r r q� k.` i '+j �.( .h� i o- f ��j �I fi:� q�na"'�� �� �i } r.�F,r' i�.'�j.t'+�"�i�.rt :�" •yS•,�1+,}` �{}i�`�ii=y,��Ti 'S�;n. ,�"r:'t, ��` '(1 '�'•�S" �ii'�Fs�,,llxsr �,i'y 't�.. ;�1. �y{ . �5'�%� i � ��• l�i�t,�'i1r. y T;�t�.i �, � :i� P• rT�, ��, +{:r j y a, ;`' !?�,�"�,9`P�, ��., (5i "3 + 1 ,�'�+{�� '`�jr (''?,{`k i "� t�; ! . 'L7� � ',`��4`� ':�;'�1� ,� �`�.SY' Sr�r'i':.. �� � i�,}f'�,�.`J� �•1-�;;ri �;,�� `�';+�4 �j(r:"5,�, ' ��*�tf rw., ��ti t C .� � ,r REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date October 4, 1964 Submitud to: Honorable Mayor and City Council I} Submitted by. Charles W. Thomason, City Administrator Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director, Development Services I' KCtL Subject: GRANT AUGMENTATION REQUEST FOR LOCAL COAST . cpU 0y C a Statement of Issue, Reeommendmion,analysis, Funding Source,4 ernatrve Actions,A L STATEMIMT OF ISSUE: When the City originally applied for its Phase IV grant to develop coastal permitting procedures the California Coastal Commission reduced the amount of money we were given, as they were experiencing a shortage of funda at that time. More honey became available and the, City received an augmentation to con:'Inue work. We have now completed the work and expect our certification in November as planned. Hower)r, work is required to expedite the permit process and to resolve two minor jurisdictional issues with the California Coastal Commisri.dn, Since additional money ins now available, staf! recommends tbat the City request another grant augmentation. RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to request an additional grant augmentation for Phi :e IV Coastal Permit Procedures, post-certification work to the Local Coastal Plan, and amendment to the Coastal Element to establish land uses and zoning for the white hole areas . ANALYS rS t The city.'s original grant request for Phase IV was 11120000, which was reduced by the California Coastal Commission to 49,900. The augmentation totalled d6,596. . All of the funds have been spent to date. The staff has essentially completed wr.rk on developing the permit process, and necessary forma. Additional work will be needed to resolve jurisdictional issues in the Iluntington Harbour area and on white hole: areas where the City will need to work with the Coastal Ccmmisnion's staff to establish land uses and zoning designations. Staff has determined that the following tasks should be accr nplished for the permit process and final work on the Local Coastal Plan. Due to time constraints, the proposed work program and grant augmentation will follow at a later date. The additional tasks area i t1230d3 r FIO 4181 F'y.._:i+Y`r"'.. - ...........:r.... ... ....... .. .. ..r'.......f if•.lo, a . . .. ..a.-.. '.t�r..: ... ..a.. ..�.~. ..:+:lei T,� •5T i 1. Y)- At T. 1�N1 N U NY IT ed I g,p R -------- too) 1. Flapping permit categories on zoning maps; 2. Continue to process a request to change the Huntington Harbour from original permit jurisdiction to the appealable category; 3. Modifications to zoning designations, it required by Coastal Commission; 4, An amendment to the Coastal Element to establish land cases for existinq white hole areas and zoning of the white hole areas. FUNDIUG SOURCE: California Coastal commission Phase IV Grant. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: 1. Do not request grant augmentation funds. in this case, the additional work which must be done will be absolved by the Department budget. ATTACHMENTS The. proposed work program and grant augmentation will follow at a later date. JWPS FAX a jh (1230d) -2- RCA A1 KV)45 N" X 1,,t,; y �Y;���{'r "/ �'i �� rSrt, rt � t+c� t�t4/��',„�."� �l`� i' •�� ��;•t �j t,. ���/� 4a� 7. .i�.il.,.yl�f4�y�'�,�>'�S J,�� •�i. .��. `1Y Nr � '��jt g y, P T.3\�j� ' • R KEW REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Dato -LU Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Coancil Charles W, Thompuony City Administra SubmituO by: Prepared by: James w. Palinr DirectOr Of Development Services THE COASTAL Cot4MISSON TO URN Subject: RESOLUTION REQUESTING SUBJEC pEntilT AtITIJORITY TO THE CITY FOR LMIDS . Sol L pepAIT JURISDICTION CAS Ees 01 ORIGINAL tons nts. Statement of ISSUO,Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source STATEMENT OF ISSUE: ctr' lalid within the coastal zone that is subject turisdictionof the public trust will O Under the Coastal A remain within the original per jssion even after certification of a- Local the California Coastal Commission experienced Portions of Huntington Harbor which once Program. blic trust. The exact area Coastal P9 to the pu tidal .action may, be subject not known; however, the Coastal trust is public the City encompassed by the on its post-certification Maps for Commission has indicated remain in' oriainal rmit pe • that much of Huntington Harbor will r jurisdiction. 613 of the Coastal Act allows thinommission to designate upon Section 30 permit jurisdict which are filled# request areas of original per area that is �ommitted to urban uses. develoPedy and located within an ar ea can be returned to the loCdl t authority for ,such an ar Plan. Permits The permi on of its Local Coastal certification Sion. jurisdi.:ation upon certi aldble to the Commis , iiisued in the area would be appe Coastal Commission to make a' Section The attached resolution requests the C Huntington Harbour that are in ignation for the land areas of Hun 30613 des original Permit jurisdiction. . W.OMMENDATION: the California Coastal Adopt the attached resolution requesting Commission to make a Section 30613 designation for portions of the City subject to original peLmit jurisdiction. AN ALY S I_S sh and as such hat is now Huntington Harbour was once a mar Much of W Land which was .Once tidal or submerged land experienced tidal influence. The exact extent of t he public the public trust. State Lands Commission ubjecd to remains 9 mapped; however# the ty that', the trust it% the area is not T possibili a public trust eaFement wherever there is a and specific presumes subject to the public trust. A detailed survey land may be der to divest a PrOPerty -Of boundary determination must be done in of Flo 4101 n'V..J-I* V1 -1,- )M'i rk RAN ? k' l gg tp, k a ), WIF� B . IYz' (' + + a . lj r {jf�T t1A j �� ' -1tj �iw! 40 Wot k - lR WN 'A. �}�r�l � 7�� .�S��` •''�!. .,"r`{Y�;;,11; tj'��,� '.�U,i. C:;� tyi`a t {�V "t3..{+ ,� t ,�. F M RIM XONN 1 A I i&' TR RCA Coastal Permit August 9, 1984 Page 2 original permit jurisdiction. Staff has been informed by the Coastal Commisson staff that a boundary determination siould only be done at the specific request of a property owner and at their expense. If a property remains subject to original permit jurisdiction, any development on that property would require a coastal development permit issued directly by the Coastal commission. Even after the City regains its coastal permitting authority, these areas require that the applicant go to the Caostal Commission rather than the City for a permit. Staff believes that this would be a great inconvenience for Huntington Harbor property owners who may want to make additions or perform minor alterations to their dwellings. Section 30613 of the Coastal Act allows the Coastal Commissions upon ? request by the local jurisdiction,, to delegate the permit authority for certain portions of an original jurisdiction area to the local government when the local jurisdiction has a certified Local Coastal Plan and the areas in question meet the criteria outlined in Section 30613. The criteria in Section 30613 specify that the land so designated is filled, developed, and in an area committed to urban uses. Staff believes that the land portions of Huntington Harbour as shown on the maps in Exhibit A meet these criteriae Staff recommends that the City Councils, by, resolution, request. the Coastal Commission to make a Section 30613 designation and,delegate the permit authority to the City for these areas. After delegation of the permit authority, property owners would apply to the City fora coastal development permit. Permits issued by the CIty could ultimately be appealed to the Coastal Commission, This would greatly simplify and expedite the permit process for property owners., t. FUNDIUG SOURCE: None needed. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Do not adopt the resolution requesting a Section 30613 designation. In this case, all coastal development permit autnority for the area would remain with the Coastal Commission. ATTKHMMS: 1. Resolution 2. Exhibit A maps CWT:JV7P:JAr- :df 1031d R s^�3�+� t .1 rri.1•EC`R� ! � 1"�7, i3•� � ,��'t!V' �����°'+fi '."''t°�� � � , � � fi ,t '�,• 31 y' �` r.'�7,4 �� 7 ���'� t� �� �� �g t� �` .y'�' -y�,�It ���X`,}F +C+' ,. � �f+yy( �r 'a�''�.+.. � �,�, ����.'�¢�s} � � i• � �'��^"1,y ; �'����t<;{''�����t�,<: .� ' 1��� `r {J"' �` {� C-� �1 t T. �` � ;/ >r y 4:1'`!'a f �' ifS�} ti:,al.J ja�� t r► 3 ..� d�. tEy �tiY�Y .�+`.$,t y •y?�1.1..1'a L 71Y { tr !*,I°'a r'�5�� i� 1}['� 'ti, ' ��•���t� �� ti + ��� ,'� �1r �/rt�w++ut ir''S t b. � '�y""' "\`! '4+'..� •.�t r Tt ,•1 t C. 1f+�y fi .��'t,fa� :�' 1 i� 1tFµ,'��, Y .r�'• � 44 �'�'�{�� t �'k ��r;,� .�` $� 0.� t ,r��1 ��:,tr('e,r ;y'�.,;�"t��".�,�� � `F. *t� ��. '�' � �':,j�'` 4��ti" •�`�t t� � 4��ft t� ��,�yt 1�r; . �� � ��; �, t,�",y�1��}:{�by('.�` j � '��',r .J)'t`•'•�tty;}\'�:.? t l�?�•+,'�i:���'j; }4., a ;i �'.��` ( � �x� '� �'ti.iC�� � '�`�1�: 'f ti(yr(� •: T Y li '�f 7') ' 4�.'�.('.!i y 4 �j t5 N..�`74 �,� •7' `(' , Y�r..I {; A Y' "4 .�f , fiti 4''f � ^�' ,�r�.:I,t ,� � '�•' `�' J ( � �3 ;,,?; +v{ ;e,�` � .((IIII}� , .��` . ��?;�i+ +srV ,x. �?� �,,JG, 4't�t•,5 "��' r ��� �#' F• "a�`t 1:� J� E'+Y1 "r�` "! .+,F',t jf'?1�2`i ]�1 . ���+�� '� �. •�l!�t.fr • 7�' Slr�, �d ti4t'V •� thA '��?BSI�`,tV r�(, �y �r} •.�;<;•�F F :� i S1 � >� � Fit .1: { ��pt�,"t. r f� � t• �{ t`f�p� q�' 7 J.:ii 1 �� 1� � �' � ','��. /.i1 •`Zl-1.. rig 7},l4 A�y�� 1{�,, ,raj ! ;} • .flpw REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date August 6, 1984 Submitted to: fldn=able Mayor and City Coancil Albmitted by: Charles W. The C �►sont, City I�niruo;:�ator � App$0vE Prepared by- Paul E. Cook, Director of Public Works � � �ITy'c�UNq� �ubjec:. ffmxF.-iat ion of Funds for California Energy Ca misaian Grano}. l 5tatarnrrtt of issue,RErommerrdatiOn.Analysis, Funding Source,Altemative Actions,Attachments: k y 5taterent of Issue: The an CitYcation COunc tlo as Californialyapproved the D�'t meat of Public [forks submitting �y Ca mission for possible finding to imple- m2nt measures which will help reduce fuel csanLSWIPtion ttu xugh modificat:inns to signal tinning systems. Fte�tion; Approve the approc ciation of $28,600 frcm the un pprapriated genera, find baLuxu. Anal sis: The State of CaUforr J1 a is maki W av,-Alabl.e $500,000 for grants and technical MPPOxt• to local. 90vem=t:s too rye fuel csatLsmption to the t mbV of traffic signal systems within their through modifications FLIel Efficient Traffic Signal. Mruiag�mt 7ttrisdnlster This e California I�rbmnt of Ttmwortatior�and the Ca]lfernia sterol by the �► Carroni.ssian, VuDugh the Fuel Efficient Traffic Signal Management: Program, local yavernments are assisted in ftpxa,�,g traffic signal system 2 P and other =nput er models. taming P thrctgh use of It: is estimated that fuU, statex r& impXe- mentatfma of this sig►sa], tin9 Program could ,rve 150 MlUinn gallons of fuel and reduce vehicle operating costs. 7bta1 savings frcm the program umld be aPMPriately $550 million annually. ,='31 govemnerlt agencies awarded a grant are attend specialized te2nie� required t� have project! staff of grant recipients within the statew�,il,]. detemdm The n and loocati distrJJmthe tra� wrorkshops. Vm training is designed to erJ,-Vxe the sXcialized skills Of 1=1 traffic engineering personnel and traffic consultants who serve local get agonies. Pt 1ding for travel and housing has bin ir:cluded in the grant requested. i The Project will cover 24 iCltenSeCticeis on Edinger Avenue and on Brookhtlrrst Street. i Cooperative effort with the City of Fountain Valley will assure improvanmt over the entd�e th of the B.rOditrst project nr�w' bang cxi pleted. RTga California EnergY Ccimuission - Total 100% contribution. r E M 0 4/31 j ;r,'.';' - ,. .: .-ter._.,.--...._ _..,,.,»,..a._.�, ,..>..-.... .n. K.. .... ....... �p•q 3• ', i2 ��'? YV 1� !A �''w mot is 7� , "'t Y,S � kit} *t� ��ii�.�F; � �S. '1'r�,� `'�, t.r �yr •,�,f ��k�jj� �.J� �..>i'�a 4�`� /�`s� �w�'y�T�s d .ar r�.,y�'l``� ,r '�Y������.�4�'�•S..S' � `•�r{�ki.; ;.r l Ic )} y h a '�� l (!.? y ` �'�S r 'jt�€ r+t i t ' i• � ,r,+ ..� +y j 'rjl=41 r'N +}� t}t 4r r j r ;$'"i. �a kS�;�rh r, �4 , y(��t' •��is� �M •s. i � t.k. �;� a`�. T(( t � li+�r!�'�� . .ifp;. '� �",•r'�7t }, .'F�' :s4i>� ���� � k }A,��.`J!•�' Y ] Y 41 U) l' �'.i^ ,. +,. t'd ,� . f�r 1 y)'i T{5' t'1 .�, �. r •� 1 ,�t 5 tS tt.[51 '; .�7F2 ,'1�(�y ' ryY ylt .T. :,5� .r' f.��;.�n. 1 , , 6 'Y t �F N ^)•. 1 !.�• � '' ls �, k 7 V. ': '' r j+ c�' r _�� •.. y: 3 �; : .nx ��'x �t 1'i r r� } t ra';''I• �i 1, •t' • �! i r, t•' a. r: � l >< r t}S�^A � t r r t� t to• Sf ` ��, r?., t ���'{S �k�y� r t C ++ :. .r4 S?tt' FF' d � •�S} �i?'� �{G Y .,� �r i�. t ''�,. �: s<J ��Y i!t. r,Rj t ,tbtSpt4�tr' qSf x;!`? a=. .; ��-•t�t [+y),,iA������ S' �� e�iT �r�� 3 l �C��'. �'�Wtii�G�R 4,� �,�y[b�j�l�''�'`,(Mr��� '.':•;k#��{;j; t��e�ttiJ>'p•, 4��, M �i � 'yt'��•� ��j'�,���. "•1rt;��,�"� , � �`�S<} ��: . ,�. e,T.•S C ,t!«;1,r!jy��1 •'1't:t. ) '' S.`r• r. ,�}{i#J;l' tin.�t'1}.�, Ai '�4r» tr., �+ t �, {�,.s �'�yr. . t' `� � ,� � -{r T '•} ^F!. �C �r''1 !; �'t f� �r"�,•f a`�,i t �1 1 ! '"!Y Xk ,599�~l .4 5 'tip�:h��,t��� r't, ;,sL, �S}t�,r�; (�t i��k�1 '`Sr`,r}}tj�t, '��:7. '�•i�+'y { l�yi�'�df"f. :�};�' `J;�+.�`.��;'�C• ! S�j�y, � �}� rr�.,'�... �) r �y(n� .iT.+l�� tti h 1t{ 7, SV��+% � (7 y �1 {� (�-�,'��re�" �Itt t ` gl�^`:4,.. , ' k�:.k $'• ��`,1�¢ �, 'ir. �1�.ta�•;�.'J, � s' 4 �!�•]�• .T/� ! e1 .r, at s t.t.ri,S�CSiYa�.� .f�'�'�it-•�R•l• i�f,�S7.i,}''[. .��+ d • � 1 Request for City CCA=U Action ► p rrupriation of Funds for California E'hergy ccuuj- lion Grant: August 6, 1984 Page 2 AJ termt:ive Action: Deny the reca mnended action and return the wfarded grant to the California Ley Commission. Attachwnts: 1. City C.ounci-I raved RCA for submittal of application. 2. Approved resolution, 3. Fiscal Irpact Report. Pt�G:HIi:1wt • i i j I i tr.rnfj,,! .�a2v �"Li a.a.:.. . ...,...+,......Ls':f,'. :.a.... ,.,.._- .. ......... _c�1-. _.... .. ......._ .. •e...a... ..a i'......,:.r...n s.i:..... .a-c '.:::.. .•r"}ra:;7.'.L:.:::Lr'.:w..�'Ft":,.w�craC{'� . i t' r, �ryt�� i r$n�+f�s♦t:4 +' �„i W1,�;�C..r'iSy1�R�Stir�LlM�t- ' �� f��' r Fj,., b °r ptS'il 'Y � I. } r '�Y [+ fir' �� "f��i�Y���� , �yyJt���i�-'�^"T �� `��y, V! :� it�",i, �y` �'i(• iyi.;���'.�r'`��!�.f`� ' �+�+;; ; �.(i('�,.,y ��} ,,C •���! � 2`t �+ r+yi, �11i'�1Y `� }.,.,��, �} t ( .a`'�,i '�if�• i4yti ,it �l�,eb �,y. � .��` I�� ��j3 � '� ....i� � r t� ,+f`: '1 l+ � t�,f t� � . '�"�'" F- ,�:� ��� 1y1:`' t! }'� � �!r` .h j '� y y.€. . .y�b�} T� T'1y n1•f�`�:•��j"t,� •y�it tl=l."!7•!:� 1 x��l .3�t �Xt,� ��µ� f t. , � � i5�•'� �t ��^��,. � �� � � �. � �r a�,z t�K °l �. S ,� tt.., .1 t.l ,� ; �� Atli ML {� '�' {1 c � 1....t L:�y; ..,t, � � .��`dr"• " d.l FORCITY COUNCIL- �.��'ION REO Date aiAv 29. 19�a ftmsi ta: honor&-tile Mayor and City Council ,GpVclu ti Subr,gtird bi: Charles Thopnshn, City Administrato Paul E. Cook, Director of Public NO s " Subject; California Energy Com-nission Grant f r Trat Coordination r ltt t of emcee,FtQoammaradation,Analysis, Funding Source,Altcmativa Artkitts,Attac►'hs'a U4. Statement of lssue: tWM on major strIts are ignal Fug for Providing � tha ba to the traffics Ca2.� ErrsY hu sn. available to the City thxu p �t3onz ZdVt M0olut.iaa No.� auth�� submittal of an application and 1°n of the Mcmeary & T by 'be city AftWXtrataar- Analfas 2W States of o li.fotnia isL��uk sx3��`a�v��a�i�]mailable wMR*im th500,,000 for e iratIOns to lOt:"�• � WY.thin their Efficient fic Siqua "WWJWMt P=gr= is jointly a&dmiEtexed ' California tr of TrvjWortation and the Califs EneTV COMidssicn- the Fuel Efficient Traffic Signal. Management Pik` , Iocal �Yt$ �asai stK,,d in impiwirV traffic Signal system timin th g plafu rough YT and other a It is estimated that full, statewide iMlee- Of mer tation of this sign timing P� could a se L5Q tnilli�x► � fuel And s.�edtnce vehicle operxtdrw costs. Total sar.4ms frog t pnog� wmdd i be apprqpriately $550 sni.].]. w anmally- a grant ttr11l be xxrnired to have proJact staff attendtechnical t~s� w�- Tire gecgraF� distribution of grant its wi thin the atate traWng will de-signed � to ws1ethe r and location th, sue';,�_i�.vd of the skills tr inia b��'i P traffic consultants who s=ve 1 --al �t �r„ies- R din3 far tMel. anr3 housixx� gill be irn:]axi�d in the 1 grant reqwsted- gucatign still, cover 24 intersecticns on Edinger :�Onue and cn Bxnokh rst Street eligible talcs this dam- rlo Vmative effort over ll � Fountain roll Valley� gi asa .�e u ia�t the entire length oompleted- Ftrnding' Soui:c�z BL ted pmoonnei tune will be used to provide omtribution reTmted of City as a ptcinant In the prDgrm- M0OlinArANM ;:z roc ' .i: 't�.,,•`-: ... ,.., r ,... :.cr:.. ..-.. ...... .... ...... ..... ..... 4 . r A ' .! (' r��'•� ��� :r� ,'r7�,. }��;x }{f�� . �11 � 'y 4• f��,ul�'� � ,! �t` }:Y�r i�t� ,C s 5is t,f 1� { �(51 �f�,��Y:{�� 4 �,A �!. • y���S"; .t y' '0.�� S t� � •t,''`t� 'K't�S t!` S. e y��' �5• 1.5 ���4 �t + ``h��'.'{it � �j` '� -�" �¢� M. w �!�' l .d .;5t'� tx �.1� '_.� +�`�.��" �t• b'�:�t' 'P ;y ;�`A�' s y 3.i:�, r�r;�,';; �4y� 'j f ��r .r, ��ti �1� ,h�'E�,4r 'r,. �i°;'�s` :.+ �.`� G�' ��t.y � `G .;�� �• � ,J � +y a rz,�{ ; 4 `f'�; *rE� �+ � �� ��' '�' r ,�i �� �1f £ ��P{);{ '4: �•,S�k 1;{ 3{(((�r,'t S �tl1.i i�;k`yP.�#�J!.1 1,����f 1.'J�t•1c i.t c�y,)�''i',.3v,'�"�1' �'i�;�1�-�1-,1':'I•:y•: >/ir�i Z1,��Sxr7 Cp�:jT f1�'ir,.�'_�.r!�ft�,1r}t��rSY^fill •.'.tt�x?�,.�5.��r 4.s,{,£'rs'�',�!""t�`,I,�� tjy��y�.yv,'•ti�y�r,'��.'5{�..�'.�j'.v�'��� jZ55 �F � 1�� ! a ,�.W �'`d'�}''. ,�jl� !�'►�u^.t.v';"�S�,��!T'![1{lt{��d;�t,�i r1'1�l"}�r, tiR�•,.y�i�.•,+i�5(�r tA^-{i�x'�qJ.�•i`�i��i`!l1l:tlf�1�..b�Pti,`T t.�,��.,}hSSS1�]ts:jfyt{.{s•r`;4r[•{fib it �. 3;wlil �ftr t S5 f {+� ! f Fquest far City cx =u J%-tia» cw d Fri ji vix=Y lw trarxt for �c signal comxUmt j on i Xay 29, 19M Page Z Aillli va s'9ctjms. 1. Do rat approm the rewltit3on. 2. Fe&m the socpe of the application and u3pt the rewluticn. Att dmmta: ,J �lut�cn �o. 1 PEC:t�:�w r' i 3 : I I S j i'I t I .r REQUEST I1 p ACTION t . 19�� July 26, 1984 r7 e - Submitted to: Honorah l Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator � I Prepared by; James W. Palin, Director of Development Services Subject: APP FLOP RIATI ON OF FUNDS FOR COA MALE C014IMI S SIOF; GRANT V*• Statcm-ant of Issue, Recomm&-idation,Anatyfis, Frhding.Source,Alternative Actions,Att-a-c-h—m-u�n-t-s::�- r GrATEMNT OF ISSUE: The Citr Council by minute action on July 2, 1984 requested a grant. augmentation of $9,991 from the California Coastal Commission to complete the coastal permitting procedures. The Coastal Commission approved an augmentation of $6,596 for this purpose. The period of the grant will be exterked through September 31, 1934. RECOMM IDATION: Approve the attached resolution appropriating $6,596 from the unappropriated general fund balance and place it in Account No. 897 for Phase Iv of coastal permitting. ANALYSIS: Staff has been developing farms and procedures to implement the coastal development permit process after certification. The Coastal Commisson has made available 06,536 in additional, funds to complete this work. The grant augmentation will be used tv process a categorical exclusion requests develop a staffs ::;anual, and prepare new district zoning maps for the coastal zone. The grant period has been extended ;through September 30, 1984. A fiscal impact: report on the recommended action io attached. FUNDI2JG 50URCE: California Coastal Commission. Ito abet ...1<... .4. . .. .. ... ... .. .. .. . ',l.. .. , _.. y ....{{wax. Coastal Grant July 26, 1984 Page 2 . ALTERNATIVE ACT ION: Do not approve a resolution to appropriate $6,596 from the general fund to complete Phase IV of coastal permitting. The city would then absorb the cast or rely on the possibility of obtaining SD 90 funding for reimbursement. ATTACHWNTS: 1. Resolution 2, Fiscal Impact Report CWT:J►dPsJAF:df. O993d ii •�'� tie.• .w. ,t• .jt.•.;...+, . . .. I�." • J646 { '� ` O INTER-Dr OARTMENT COMMUNICATION �aarr�rcra+w.x» . To CHARLES W.THOMPSON From ROBERT J. FRANZ, Chict s' City Administrator Administrative Services Subject APPROPRIATION FOR SUPPLEMENTAL Date JULY 30, 1984 CITY FUNDING TO ACCOMMODATE COMPLETION OF LC? PHASE ll. GRANT F.I.S. 85-4 As requirsd under the autnority of Resolution 4832, a Fiscal Impact Statement has been proposed and sjbmitted relative to the City's sucezesful application to the Coastal Commission for supplemental funding pertinent to the completion of the LCP Phase IV Grant. ` The additional.requested funds total $6;896. The immcdlnte impact of this proposition will be to Ihnit the City's earning capablHty-during the interim prior to reimbursement oi'fhese funs'from the aforementionrA source. The CIt will not be required to funds In this instance. y q provide matching 4R1-J.,WAffZ,, Chief Administr Live Services De ' part RJFrAR:slcd 059Tf/Pg. 1 - .. I FISCAL IMPACT STATEMEta i 1. Budget Status: I The project was not included -in the current budget because the funds were only made available to us this month. 2. sotal Costs: A. Direct: None B. Indirect: 1) Cash flow- The funds must be appropriated from the general fund and will be reimtursed by the California Coastal Commission after they are expended. 2 1 Maintenance- done 3 Overhead- Will be absorbed as part of the Department's regular operating budget. 4) Grant requirements- Normal accounting and reporting procedures will be utilized. No matching funds are required. 3. 'rending Source: A. Ceaerai Fund Unappropriated fund balance--$6,596 D. Revenue Source--California Coastal Commission Grant C. Altarnative Funding Source--Department Budget 4. History: Funding from this source has been used for work on the Local Coastal i Program since 1977. There have been four separate coastal grants, plus augmentations. This is the normal funding scurce for this type of work. } t i 1 i i { A'!✓+Ti.'r'.'X':a'N+.`4��+w^..,..4�r., •..i..a1...vlS.i t+ .. .. .. • . •... .. . .. .... ._ .. 4... . r ...•.i t _.. a• « .r .....• .. it .. •ut'4n.`+•r,V......++ • l i _ r REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION ,3l� Date "alb 1Affle Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council a�� Submitted by: Ci,arles W. Thompson, City AdministtAtor Prepared by: dames W. Palin, Director of Develop. nt Se c Subject: GRANT AUGMENTATION FOR PHASE IV COGS L RMIT PROCEDURES Statamrnt of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE; When the City originally applied for its Phase IV grant to develop coastal permitting procedures the Coastal Commission reduced the amount of money we were given, as they were experiencing a shortage of funds at that time. It: now appears that additional money would be available. Staff recommends that the City request a grant augmentation. RECOMMENDATION; I Direct staff to request a grant augmentation for the Phase IV ! Coastal permit procedures, ANALYSIS: The City's original grant request for Phase IV was $12,000, which was reduced by the Coastal Commission to $9,900. Staff has been � working on developing the permit process and necessary forms, and , has npent about $8,000 of these funds to date. The Coastal !'ommis- s:on staff has notified us that additional money is now available {. for Phase IV grants, and that such a request, if tinder, $20,000, can be approved at the staff level. Our staff has determined that several additional tasks should be accomplished for the permit process, and has developed the attached proposed work program and grant augmentation request. The additional tasks proposed are: 1. Develop a staff manual for the Coastal permitting process. 2. Changes to the zoning maps for the Coastal zoning. 3. Process a categorical exclusion; request so that projects which are not discretionary will not require a Coastal development permit. These additional tasks will make the Coastal 4 permitting process run . much more smoothly. The augmentation request will be for just under $10,000. PIO 4/81 5 4.7 f i.,�+ ... - : { 't •:i' ..L:....... ...,.t. ...+ ...•L,17\�.i„....r.✓M::i,irv....f•; re.t,. V t • i f ' , GRANT AUGMEN.1ATION FOr PHASE IV COASTAL PERMIT PROCEDURES Page 2 FUNDING SOURCE.- California Coastal Commission Phase IV grant. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Do not request grant augmentation funds. In this case, the additional work which must be bane to set up the permit system will be absorbed by the Department budget. ATTACHMENT: 1, Proposed work program and grant augmentation. } �WP:•JAF;s r 1 t . t J ' P PROPOSED WORK PROGRAM AND BUDGET.' AUGMENTATION LCP GRANT ,NO. 5-434--163 1.0 . Staff Permit Manual Discussion: The regulations governing development in the coastal zone are complicated and substantially different from the existing city wide procedures. Consequently, it is necessary to prepare an Informational manual. for the current planning staff. A complete step by step guideline that explains the various perm_` t jurisdictions, permit type determinations, and appeal procedures would aid in staff training and compliance with coastal . procedures. Objectives: -- Ensure that coastal permit processing implemented in strict • compliance with Phase III. Provide an easy to use reference for current planners. Tas%s: (a) Compile all coastal application and notice forms and develop a brief explanation as to use for each one, (b) Develop a narrative and irtap. explaining permit categories, appeal - procedures, permit noticing requirements, required findings and condition, LUP policy conformanec and final action procedures. (c) Meet with coastal current planners for explanation and training of coastal procedures. Products: - Staff coastal permit processing manual. - Working map for staff and public showing zones and. permit , jurisdiction. COST: STAFF RATE TIME TOTAL LCP Planner $668/wk . 6 wks. $4 ,008.00 Planner. Drafting 450/wk . I wk. 450.00 Planning Intern 200/wk. 9 wk,s. 832.00 Total Staff $5 ,290.00 Printing and Binding 600.00 Total $5,890.00 ; I i �,.,`.....-•S::.Stlm•+..-�.-...,...._....r--_.......-•.,ni...t{••�• .,y..a b+r L:..,.r..:...a....w ........«.�-«....,..._. ,. •... ...-...........+.....................,..mow +- . Rage 2 'Y 2.0 Mapping Zone Changes Discussion: The City had made several changes in zoning within the coastal zone in order to bring the zoning into conformance with the Land Use Plan. The Final stape of implementing these changes involves amending the City's official sectional district maps. The -amended maps, reflecting the adopted Coastal Zone Suffix and other zone changes will become a part of the City's ordinance code. Objective: Amend official district maps to reflect Phase III zone changes. Tasks; (a) Revise sectional district maps in accordance with zone Change No, 84-7. i . (b) Submit for reduction and publication, COST: STAFF RATE TIME TOTAL , •z Planner Drafting $450/wk. 6 wks. $2,700 -00 Planning Intern 200/wk, 1 wk. 208.00 Total Staff $2,908.00 Services Reduction and printing of 7 district maps at $20 each, $ 140.00 Total 3,048.00 3.0 Categorical Exclusion Order Discussion; As a part of developing a categorical exclusion request, the California Cua•stal Commission requires that the City. prepare a map precisely reflecting exclusion boundaries and non-excludable areas. The •projects proposed for exclusion, along with the map, will be the subject of local public hearings before the Planning i Commission and City council. Upon approval at the City level, the completed categorical exclusion request will be submitted to the Coastal Commission for final approval. Objectives: ' - Develop the necessary graphic portions of the categorical exclusion request. ' Ensure adequate public review of the categorical exclusion request by means of the public hearing process. • ' �^+y' � il.q[.+•••«r.w.�.. .. j i1 y,y�J�' ��h y... . ••a .u. ♦ i'r i+niMgR ,:'.'. ..s ♦�1:'�°�"'::'i�i•r-Jii+:.1«'.Wnm:a.[�7 . '6•yrj2n�... JY .r....... :llM. :+'.':l:LC:.X' e:.::,. •.i.. •'•r Page 3 Tasks: (a) Prepare categorical exclusion map in accordance with Coastal Commission's mapping requirements. (b) Provide notice of the public hearings on the categorical exclusion by placing legal advertisements in angeneral news- paper of wide circulation. (c) Obtain publics input on the categorical exclusion request through public hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council. ,l COST: ZTAFF RATE TIMB TOTAL LCP Planner $668/wk. h tik. $334.00 Planner Drafting $450/wk. ; wk. $115.00 Planning Intern $208/wk. h wk. $104.00 Total Staff . 553.04 • Services 2 legal advertisements @ $250. each $500. 00 'rot:al $1053. 0000 TOTAL PROGRAM COST $9,991.00 ` i i I i+�'�:YSi^+1L\i�`l-lwrM•....+....,... r ..w� ...`-r�w+Y>•..f(.r�RJ.NT..atR'(rw.Yi l.tYy>.. . ..+.✓ F.w•.•vr.u._,r....�._......-...�.-.._......w...v.r�.r r..-.ter«.o-.rw.•r irwrrrw+.•• ..... . r Kf'YJM••1 1• it . .' slate of Califamia T`I RESOURCES AGENCY W CAUrORMlA 7� , IIII �y r �y }� state coastal Conservancy 1"A; `.ter J 1 o / -L-i !/ d U m 4 A pate June 14, 1984 To interested Parties Telephone: (415)464•1015 ATSs 561•1015 Fmrn : Joseph E. Petrillo r Executive Officer Subjed: Attached Bolsa Chica Habitat Conservation Plan The enclosed draft Habitat Conservation Plan has been• developed by the Conservancy-staff•pursuant to SB 429 in consultation with ,the various parties.involved as a focus for resolving the longstanding.controversy regarding a Local .Coastal Program for Bolsa ,Chica.. This draft HCP should be viewed as a discussiolt. document which' could be Csed to eve o . a ronsensus ,plan;.-R is not letlant to pdrtray a particular .final plan b.!t must be viewed as a flexible document. In developing this draft plan, the Conservancy was responsible, for the "development of alternative land. use plans". This HCP reflects the "wetland determinations" completed by the Department of Fish and Game, the Conservancy's partner in this effort. The SB 429 parties (Conservancy, Fish and Game, Orange County, and Signal Landmark) are continuing to discuss the plan and possible alternatives. the Conservancy staff is hopeful that these parties will be able to agree on a set of consensus goals, remaining open issues and possible solutions to these issues for presentation at or before the Conservancy Board meeting on June 21. This "consensus ! document" would then be used to develop a final plan for submission to the Board at the July 19 meeting. I ) .s 1 ter, •a:�oi.:a:1 n } r r f } STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY i STAFC PRESENTATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING . . JtlHE 21, 198A , BO SA CHICA HABITAT CONSERVATION PLA4 THE CALIFORNIA STATE COASTAL. N S E RVA cy SrA'M0?CA=W -RMtMWAGM" r �► STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY STAFF PRESENTATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING JUNE 21, 1984 BOLSA CHICA HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN STAFF SUMWY l Coastal Commission certification of the Land Use Plan (LUP) for the eolsa Chica area in Orange County has been delayed for several years by controversy over a number of concerns, most notably the difference between the wetland acreage proposed for restoration in the LUP (500+ acres, including boating channels) and the acreage requiring restoration as determined by the Depart- ment of Fish and Game (DFG) -- 1018 acres. SB 429, enacted in September, 1983, provides that the County of Orange, or any landowner, may petition the DEG to prepare a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for Balsa Chica with the express purpose of resolving conflicts between the conservation of fish and wildlife resources and other public/private development. The legislation further specifies that the HCP itself shall be prepared jointly by DFG and the Conservancy, "in cooperation with the County and landowner", with all costs to be paid for by the petitioner. On October 1, 1984, Orange County forwarded a request for the preparation of an HCP- to DFG. . Since that time, the Conservancy and DFG staffs have been working very closely with the County, Signal Landmark (the major landowner), the Coastal Commission staff and the Amigos de Balsa Chica. (the environmental and community group coalition in opposition to the County LUP and which pres- ently is involved in litigation against the State on Holsz) to develop an HCP which is based on the goals of the County LUP but with the following other major goals in mind: (1) meet Coastal Act policies concerning wetlands, ac- cess, etc; and (2) be finanicall.e, feasible, i.e., does not place undue burdens on the private development or other financing sources. At a public workshop on April 19, 1984, Conservancy staff presented several alternative HCP plans to the Board for review and comment only. Based j on this testimony, the Board comments and many further discussions with the .� various parties, Conservancy staff are here presenting to the Board a pre- ferred HCP. The HCP is similar to the County LUP except that the HCP contains less .acreage for the public marina, marina commercial .and residential and more acreage for wetlands. The HCP also contains a rerouting of Pacific Coast .� Highway (PCH) around the study area to eliminate the need for a costly bridge over the ocean entrance and to free up more land for wetlands and recreational i benefits. • { z Finally, the results of the financial analysis contained in this report indicate the HCP offers the developer a return comparable to the LUP. This is accomplished by two mans: . first, by a reduction of 50% or more in the public costsi that must by supporte3'-5y the residential development; and second, by design :,feaL•ures that allow an increase of over 350 acres of wetla�Cn s"`while reducing residential development by about 100 acres. Table 1 summarizes the major differences between the two plans. This HCP is still under review by the various parties involved at Bolsa. It is possible that staff wiil. recomnend changes to this plan prior to the anticipated Board vote at the July 19 meeting. However, staff feel that, at this time, this plan meets the above planning goals for Bolsa and is the pre- ferred choice among the number of alternatives reviewed. This staff presentation is divided into three remaining sections: the HCP Plan; the staff report describing the site, its history, and the HCP process; and HCP Contingency Plans. J 1 i t i E ti 1 I t f 1. ' f 3 TABLE 1 LUP AND HCA COWARISON CWponent LUP NO Wetlands 600 acres 951 acres Environmentally Sensitive Habitat 0 88 acres Residential Total 502 acres 396 acres waterfront-Residential 141 acres 144 acres Marina 1800 slips 1000 slips ' Marina Cummercial 38 acres 25 acres Linear Park 89 acres 78 acres Special Facility Costs S163-194 million $56-82 million Not Revenue after Development Costs* $201-225 million $210-234 million Margin as % of Revenue 21-24% 27-31% i i *Total revenues less special public facility costs and unit development costs �. (assumed to be 65%) i I . f� i 1 i 4 r f `r 4 f DRAFT MABITAt• CONSERVATION FLAN F r t v F If M1 f 7 ! 4 '� •t 4` i _.�f rr"y41�Ft j .t{' t�4� a F`'+, �. d •t��1(_xt. 33"52 .� �^'S ry �� ,,A !� ,.t! .r ^, 1 �,� r � S � „�� .,r � '• ��.�.1,\ � ,�'�`�}d' ,�'� w�' ����"' ��+ ��1 '�s tF to �� �-6 Y � ��� � � i�*+�i� lA ��• ";`� f} 114 { 1{���,{dt,�XF�S��t�R�t..k�5,i. y.� 1 /��5 '��,s•; �,�; f , }� ���;y��t �,. t 4 ylij�' �5 A y�.,�E j � r �} +� }�}b:, , 1" 05--t 5,. t.'S:. \a " ," l� j!'ti R 5 ... .tr.,t'%^•_'.,.t`.} .T •r .P�T,q �r'^""!`?: 'e"^ r'}�t"?� w;N'? ,X }'*:"RT... •' � SF't,.•'^•':r"r, 3 2.t, ^.w a.ry,k*-x"r,�3' ig`' t'.f {, ' .. f �.•dCw: ,il-S, :�.. t, ��} �.:i j, •11,.. 11. <'6.5. �,'i�, I r_-'..a�.dlS-k.,,� ^rSe„ -�a: ;5,.��'•a �1.1 t i� 'rxkt f. 7t1'.J. .i,* .1#'Ytf.� 7., YSq x}i �'tiR., •� r FI .t L Ss,,,,., at„+. K ,:•f }i 'f� E. `-�.` ,i t:? {,. y "•S'r• ,sr T1. F =; .t t• i 1 �1',i P,,t.. "\.•{.y,,•^i�••^ ra:::..'c ;�, ,y ^ ..'i.il kt , AS. lt,e f .� {. #•/V�tt. � F } t, it•t;' ,.t t. '1' q- w.� kt F'. F �,� i ,, }t ty�• � Yr t tt ,� 4�}ir r�•. `f,*•'4` �:f �.: t f .��i•• :j.t. 3. � w{ :SI/5 1 yy }`j. •j ,r'i:,t � `}: `l4 ��t`<Jr''�r f,i� .,F tr � "t'y ..Y �. tt V'S t;'t,l ti`,}i rl: ;;..( ;tX;r 'a� 't•' { •.�: ,^a•�:x;r+. tr ;,t1 t'�jY ,; a ;tf' .,.F r:�.1dr#+, T(.".t. 1 ttif,1`tt.`c•..5:` ! •i. .,fit ,t+vt"},.... t�. !4S1.':�f1f) .a, ,��4v ti�;F :�ti1 S'•jer; .'f 41 4,+;t�.,t<. . �1^• <�' .y aSSlrat,.i' 4ky +*� 8. 1'+'t+t,�.f'l}•�tr.,�.. y aa �• 1 'Fb �'S!} S, .:s r'f:7i � , 1• ti '(.t ( •{1 i 51� -'ie t, v(, y �, + t-3: i!�t.•3 tr},1 'e tyy,7, t -y !j' a •�,F•d➢"'�j}t df .'1;t.�t,�,�i �i` r. ,r.:4 rt,,'t Syt ` ,( +��;.� ', � fi�as:�fr i�`*.i� y w�a t _rt ! � ;(•. � .Il 5 j ^}� ,r.t-�i f.t > Y_ 'i.�;1��d t{v f•�fCl.tryi�ta '�' t.rF-;t,j'��5�",gi '17:1�i� 1���. 1.{�.� �i5 71�' +rvi. ',i .t }`»ta} 7 1�;'1�1)) x`yt�`' ri t5k + 1� i;i � {t �1t^. ♦ y t• 1" {� tilt r�7 wii tX�aty�tR + o •rl, ly �r :i ) y•.s f {t t F+ SS G a4 i +1! ? }i f ` RY . � � �� •J.'� ."t �•*t j{ tf w, s.l +.L is �4i X : t' € � f t. .yt. r ► 5 DRAFT Hf1BITAT CONSERVATION PLAN II INTRO ON This plan has been prepared by the State Coastal Conservancy pursuant to its authority under Senate Bill 429. Under this Act, the Conservancy. is responsible for the °development of alternative land use plans" for the Bolsa Chica study. area. The Department of Fish and Game, the Conservancy's partner in the HCP process, is responsible for "wetland determinations" which have been transmitted separately. The intent of.SB 429 was to enable the Conservancy, Fish and Game, Orange County and Signal Landmark, Inc. to work together on a plan that could meet most if not ail of the various planning goals developed by various parties for this site. The remainder of this document discusses these goals and the Conservancy's effort to utilize them. HC_P SOAL5 In the first months of work- on the HCP, the Conservancy staff identified the following general goals as of primary importance: (1) The State. Coastal Act goals, which nall . for the protection and, where feasible$ restoration of wetlands, the provision of access to the shareline, etc. (2) The. County goals as expressed in the LUP, which include the need for public boating and marina-associated public recreational uses, the preservation of local community character, the resolution of present traffic problems, etc. i (3) The creation of a plan that would not put an undue burden on private development but that would generate enough revenue to, in the County's words, "pay, its cwn way" while still providing an adequate return to the landowners. THE HCP Figure 1 shows the HCP recommended by Conservancy staff at this -:ime. This plan was developed after numerous discussions with the various parties and includes: (1) Almost 400 acres of private residential development including 141 acres of land available for waterfront housing with private boat slips (see Table 2 for an acreage breakdown). Figure 1 shows this Ak , i N 1 �.«.. --r m r.re, V 77 t`t?t�: -^-,t1,�"'.' ,.s�x#ttritS•�.f°1:..t�!!l�`�. ' 4i1`t+tr . .�"q„; r'�"�r': '` .�; 7 "C`M'9.,� SrnL .;"S r � y+�' •y,� t ""�,..R'"4;..i.. (`.!>.l,:r�,z,`tr, :'t`. x �. '. :t_ ,�F }-� {4y,a,irr l�� �e....RtZ�;.l yF._ x � ^.t;r. .4..l+titt ; �. „gt�,`az 3,- 1r 144Y:4YA.+ `��y. ,r• 4rti;. `&� t1:L�Cy1 yyi, t t 7 y trl+,tJ; ;, �',�! ci.s:2.i1.}'.fi,{.r A+, Fri:'i, �I d + # q fj'; tiC r�K yti r t•�'p. �;'s. Y•;� .1.1r.. 1 -k i.. e' - * itt.. ,,.. •ti R ,,�,r9 }!Y4 ? 4' 'R.ySr.l # � x. E. �`;tfi..t� r {. } 1 ♦ll,T,7F �• ,y S e ti T t q n 1 �_ `•�r 4. + -5rr`1t.fL.1:\i Xi i :�1 -1 t.ti,:i .. ri 't+. 'Ys s}. 4•'A 1 rA �' 't 'r.y ! 1,1.4 i . ,a�, �:'��ff l iiiiii ,t ��� 1, r :�r ate 1 SiF ', � .}r}. �e q•-.�* }r k r• .rt a.`.s �' ;i:1`'-i�� .k/t.b.q y?" ti,v' °1£.i, 1 •r?, y 'rl.�.l•"cM;•,l,yr�' itt.;ti i?' �>er4�rir',.5.' 8. ,Y ::txk.r;�.,,� 4;'�!}°t'':(qt ,,!s� P ;�t`41•ir;`a'; T•�t�{',�,.a<rs� f.1 !T�. t• Y.,{,ai ttii cj`Y: kyg,R� .{F, s4/,ifi{.'4 t `ry1, '• fe. i\- ll,fd, .t Y;:.1k ,iy �li�`,'!i+"1� y-kiti �f { r� a r S � 4t �kS,t•,t ,i 14, ,5.,; ii{{. 11C � s :1., } .�,:�'1. •� 1 ��; tr, la ,a1 l;t tl i � +r;,,, � z�z S •� ,..t, r }' 'ro (. � r .! �;�` � a' ,�i�`"•;i;j,:f`-- .Y:, .�����1` s t'k'�f .i��'�xt zA�. ;Y.a� •f �r1 �.k�,r )) "r��++�, F r;,� � 's' �;h'';�.`jj;Yt�.'•M:,*`;+A,yt*, � ,Y.s �+� 4c.1•t4t2zlrlw'`sii{� � 1� } 1p ( S:4. �� /:A� 4 Y ,�r ,y }•5,� $ L[`�ti � ,x y +�,:� p i �., ;1:".•rr„'r � a> eS p ;?. f+ c Lff.�...li��a' tl , i� , r4 77 .t.i'�St. L y^r 1 xF4 .,-'r r .L' '. 7is, C3' ,-}} ,ems {" 5 �'A. f"4 i�?'' .�4` t -".`' 1tx ? t Y..Itr � S 'i.+ Si •S:t t4 �r4 � '�'{ :.� fi`f at� {t` � � o. 4:Je 1••,1 r',� li , c s t. fy +• x ., .; )^iKY .:Uj 1� i. rr� i ! ''!J' �, c F {*p'w•i}'�� -.�,{h�•! �,"fit, �. L ,� �y .�'.�'�i wtlf, i-Ys/Y'�, i!�"1 ,,, i �,.�';` TK Z "�'.T'^3Y,"r�i.it;'S 1{t�i�i1 ' ,31 �t�t..{z�l{t•:�7-xj-?,L"j a, r',;.{� ,rx•`��):�:.t.L,� t rs r;.5tr .�`tr, r�� i�'t'� e��r�ti�..; ?�"� Fr r�,��t�y,t�Y'��t� E�r�•��� �tr«? .�raj,- f. �;t}Yr a `s � p ;r �r ,.t; Yf.+, ,:Y7�r� k; y ti1a. ,1�.�C �t,kt•,,Y,st_ �,�✓' �i r(,}}�z ` �i,, ,'� t � 1 1, � �. �{� f. „ :,,:.1.i.r{..r-4.,.-,b_�.�t,..�At t.�i�� � ��_kll{��f i � R� '.( -.a •� i::4s. t`` '3.H�F'yltr�td't.'.7.'ti�irit:��'.s,�i4j`�t{,.{�.�'71�'t�ta.��'._:_�r:1 i dS�t�Y•i.fi�i"!:/3.'f1�+f Y�t��.. 1� i't. e% tt•i. i i .l.2�!t of a Yix.'e,IR.. ;�.."d.r_"•11'�Y `t'idt.,di+i �. �+' 4 l JR i4 t'V P I �:M YYi f2 0t V zA I4 14, it, &A PRL ALAW 1,mo, Mq� if Ah .IN S.Qb 1k 49 49d) 6 lowland development as concentrated near the marina. In actuality, the development could contain a more undulating shoreline to maxi- mize views. The specific design of this land use is flexible as far as the Conservancy is concerned and should be planned according to landowner and local government criteria. (2) The HCP also includes: 951 acres of restored wetlands made up of outer Balsa Bay; a riparian wetland corridor on Balsa Mesa; the expanded flood channel rand sediment basin; an intertidal delta adja- cent- to Huntington Mesa; a "muted" tidal wetland made up of a diverse array of salt ponds, shallow water ponds and freshwater marsh;:'. and about 461 acres of intertidal wetland dotted with islands. This wetland creates a tre-nendous diversity of different habitats .designed to . meet several specific goals: ... high habitat diversity,. low capital and, operation cost, high aesthetic value, high predictability of success and compatibility with both public and private development nearby. (3) Finally, the plan also includes a great number. of other public bene- fits including: A new navigable .ecean entrance, a 1000-slip public marina, 25 acres of marina commercial, a natural. "linear park" along Huntington Mesa to accommodate both inland-coastal pedestrian/eques- trian access and non-wetland environmentally sensitive habitat (ESN), and the rerouting of the Pacific Coast Highway around the perimeter of the project site to increase access to the marina and to free up coastal land for recreational and wetland use. The HCP, as discussed, above, was designed to meet specific goals, A major .goal,. obviously, concerns- the; number of acres of, wetlands to he restored. The Conservancy ,used as its"planning goals ;the;figure of 951 acres, based on the DFG determination. To make such a large.dedication of lands pos- sible for the landowner,, Conservancy is also proposing plan components that reduce. development costs . (compared to the County LUP). These are discussed more fully in the following section. HCP COMPONENTS i Wetlands f, Presently, the Balsa Chica area is made up of a mosaic of periodically inundated ponds and a muted tidal habitat created by Fish and Game at the Eco- logical Reserve. } As noted above and shown in Figure 2 and Table 2, the Conservancy is pro- posing the restoration and creation of 951 acres of wetlands on this site. i These wetlands will be made up of: ` (1) 60 acres of intertidal habitat with cordgrass at outer Balsa Bay (this habitat already exists and will be preserved in place); t t t i k t { ✓ • Y�f b l �a ''l • :4`�L�j� � , t { i�n • ` A r , ?7 R� ,�� �+ +k •ti {r r�"�t�1t/yy�7�� y� • lt��t� '�l' �'�/ a•iy� ' ��r � 1cti � '!�.�� .K+• A. „!^��r � y .,a�1'�>•�'�' 1� ;��At}•,�V' ( ti��+�'��� i t. 1�'��� !'y 1� th 4' + � ,,t��1"'. � ��':} ` � .�' •i,,F,}� � •;:� •��1fA ,� r,�t � i+. •yi' ,•t � ',�,�s j' ` ., `��, �;t{;E, �'`t,�i, r•az ;:i �,�t3 )A x'q + kTA1'. ��1�'�rlt. � �+�''�'th. t,"tri ;� .� '► � ,'� (, 4"� ,�{'j'tt'���. {��� i�ti.ty '';#;f+:t ;�:(`i� 't�',r+�L„'�{ �r t M1 y w.l'��,�• t � '' i ,y + �' �' �� �� !}}r�r 6 qy, C {T i��°` �` �y `ty r. .t P• •� �.'"!,q + ,9 4'yi`{ '� �S �+, -F� ,I •}� t ![�t� � •tk9 4 � � �! t t , a '�'q •�- �,�'Ri i .MI ','� '13,+ 1�.' tt-.i,'3�ftsTspr -a7"; 5"t:EL"t 1�1r,t,'G.}..,e.�rV:t :a.x:+!�,vi}F i�+"rfir.tr:+, Y~S>(a yt+t 8Si�-.�,,.�,i.T.il.f,yyt{13".;.��b•,�,i�.54'l:'t:{S�:++r tl' ',t1��1 ,41;;`�!ki�,'Vt�;t>{x.•ttyr Ac,Xc,,, vT:t+.' y$n!!;,y!:1'"s4.,�f ft t.Tw,':;t "—`^§tl1 t1.t/'_'.Zo�i�l�•:"vi� [,I:i t..;:;¢��:t:;•,�t1�:� lr n y� Yj Y 51 Mn 7 ' �1 T �i,7T. �;- � ry 3T r;Ztl {xib,��•'t+}`RId.t` s , t`. ta. ,•, it p;t;, �� ,, �'p 1� +r +�`;. ,^a��t '7��z�;� �rr `!�•n,l, t .tr, > �.ti•`�1 e'� ',"��h ' ,y tit��'�a{;V;r'��t::'� it r.t"•..`" !'� t�� �} �••':� �, > .,1`t; e'1.'l. -�!r'�lr ,�•.(! hk r, �y��V.,��,� ,r`y#• �2r e 1�Y .-}.�• b•f�:i' ^,'t, Z tti �`t y`.�aj't ,�'1<� {'lt.� ., `'=ttr 1�,t�T ;t�:4.', �" '.F� �c+,+� ,j ti �'. ,,t� -1 , a e l't;s .f L" .,�,��< �{ �5� i 33 t t 3� G .� .,� .�� :•{��.t lt� �:e.:1. '� l, Ei� v t:� 1,'.;•9^t ,y .t;,i �, '�.. .i. .: ..1•. 1 f,' 6 "�t �5. :l,tl�i�' '.% rii:.•,•'' ,,.fkre4,lCwtr�., .t�%i�. -i � ,F♦ �My^�. r �.".. .,r4,��i.,;;�,' y« '1•* ,,: ,yy+,.t;^^��� "'.l���.•�.,3,•.#1 7� .le�1'rrt��4kq, re ¢f r t c I.Yq t'i q :'l 'Y :+.,^ `7j; ,t i• t 11, U, dF�; tj } t,.� t..,F �(F 4 1 c�; tq ,5. }�.� try, �•.�' - �` r ng,St,n; ti +d•� �� �} '�, ��«yy y.!{(3:iC^� ��,,tyytt;} {i, i�t�.i"},`l•t ,:x�' .YYY}+' "� �'�' •y�: i,���i^y''y'f}'R' ii,��i( .t4 �, EF� ^t, l° t,'�3` }� i l"?.t Iz •-•�'. Y i !F 4 ;r`._ V,* 's'i! Wit'' .�.r f.4t� a� i `{ t+ a ""i �i ^F •s :i tll.., .t; :; .'y Y ,i.ta,i i�..a«.l i°E ! �i.t :l `" {1 T f {,ty R •...,�le�ti• t t li.,- =J. :y t a , y`, t• t A" t �r �X + ,~£ tt;.'.it � < � p•, ,:W i 4°�,,t�,X'.,�,ti s�,t?«, ,,•/F ,�"y/a',�t;.�a `�. .0 c F� "., t• '(,w'��1 � , � .r:`f .. � ,t i;tE � r, �t'*/� , x.. /r°'"'Y� 5i�/ t ,'�1„ i^ 1`t { i'1 s ,' ,,i�ti�T ? 1 a, ,,,( i {::7^� �' : t, t ,.r �,.f�� �ti� ++!'� rj ~,k 7, 1•��F '',�' {'2 ,�^ ;�11t �•�r'',k•C �"l"ti� �,h;l�!.�l• ;7'�lt.,�Tl� ,��i�^ �.1e.f��fJ�,dF ff ;�iti 9{�.a'��,'w f",1• � 1):�=�'l �1 «,t. -� ���' ZA�Ji',•'1G- i �F+: ;,`• yFi s, s .7°t7�„^ ,, �'S- �...., .1�y� a � ^,, ,(,'i{;{,"';l. . tk.r a ;' st: �,:•iy.,t� er +�i �,,: e�r.6'v):`..i����rv.y`i t ��'^�1,,+...• "� t �. ��C,,�,, +'.51,��'�-;y �`t �tt.a.x--..:;•f.lk�vrt�;t,ti�•�e�:a(ntS � 1?"'�"�'•�,i� 1il`*l� e`�`•rrti ! ,{ + l tl iki•«,�,;i ,�i�� i� .;c 4y �tl� ��, " �'dt.;.�,""' ..,,"y�a"�{-, �.! i��t,1�1,4.i�°z..�c�} a � �^ .L,'�i, P ,S`i .Mtlt 1' ,^'!it f.�.".a 1��2��1'•��ii �L,,. .-� '-+;.;.`f.[.�`..fi- -� ��'- ti`.. ft,..+AT•...1,_�,1�.♦ -.5..•...r`r�T a .�tv l.•-:�"[v'r, a r f� • .•. •:•.•.•.• �II,{b�l' + � �� 11il����"1 ,ICI r �' .• . � uI t ��� � ,I II r,) t� I � I ��y . . . . .•. . I�I�� �r +s 01A 'i +Ili ., .•. . . . • •. It��r�1tr►t� I �����I��I i ,I i� i�,. ;, Il 0 RI, 'Rol tI .• dt l I,�, � r r;l l l�, iLi��,at r� • j ,�+�I 1�Il�ir' � 1 'l�l��t •••. I III �i tr� � 11�1 I,�I �� x t Lt • • • 1. r•'r 1•I !� oco •� J F a ` 1 a -N� w a C-r- Lm i z li t;r i Y i;S�y�� l� ��� � F. `"n' '��i{��3•�. ��k .�,yF•. •�;�%} *, � t �},(. t i'i ,;� l�; r +'}' `� r'ta� t '1y•! �1d •" �'.i�1,•� ,���'"�• <¢t 1 r 9y tip +w+;i � ,.��r.� 1 l ( �} ,y. k�'� •� •F� �. •� `i' ,d.•t.�'rlty �,�,�;�?�, 'ir+�'t��� ��:'. 4t �• •'' .tli�:y a 'et•:' �. , �1 r 'Y tt�• �3 1 ` SIF.� f �"'Iti },��`��`� ;i�111 �;� �. Si�#�� j7 � t. , i-'i• s� �14t� ,' 1; �?. +�l :�}{�''��.•�;. �� � `t�b�`�1M t ,�.��� r���.�•j1N��17�7f1 i{�y � � �"Y�►+'1�f'�94�r�'2�'�, 11 s�}j >�}S„ ''�# �"�tY .�yF r �`�rk}y,�.� t 1 •y, ',? i 3� ?,. '4, r "x"1t, 3 t•i 11 kt,..'2r sr r ,� �wt :t, T�': / °/' a fir: }p� +>: � n ;,. ..�t yy yy :�f f, ', �. � �i.��• a }�i)xj��„�jt. �ieel!rty � ',:�� � i>'�.++e�4�.��4�t ,� a �, 'Jr{�r,����� l �.r�. .i:r�l.�c 1�i 1.1 ',s�,+� #!•. �Yt�� � � �i` "` •�: !y':jL'�; 1 ::�.,�r'. i !d''.1��. �f� �;,��i�t Ylj 't�a'�'v q�.�7t � �t� 7�r�>.}��1 "�xttidr� � �� I y yY�#�}{.�r �.RJ}!t� y � ,��ft Y.yF�cS �St.�' '�� ��,�.f�i�- � ..j+;;y �1 ��t t ;F�•�` { '��y�. .".{.r,"�, "s tr w M ?/..� } .7 i�"r it.�•:�3�r�/ `` � '��, '�.K� ;(Y r�i"SM xt},t» ";% y '151.}1 '.� �{(�`7�,'}� �►►IV-1 l .t`51s; {sy tityk• } ".y�1J }tf t�«1' tya£J, 4:1 } Z, �1 ; (Q<i�f, 1q�'.yt rf d':°3�QdS7.3 iri.�'lrtt �'T"r' •1•, '�'7 •n'wZ`'r y.s `.r.,t A F ,:'�rra ryG' ,.,: 't xA#'T„ ;X "•1ttTn rc4=;1P?. .!t,•Z j,. '_"�.•. ,t.� y� t +r ,,.4 Y.x,. 1 is it ,'1 4.,�:Y +" ..�'� L1 '.S 1'", a'.�.!,� !?-Y; v!t i„ ,Y •3 1. t ! F i`� ./'•''.a !".i#r .{t,r '� {+wj, tt,{' f .s, ;' }'t .•t,t• ;Si It 4" ".t •S.?Y' j! �:~ w:1 a a' .l6 �, ,'?".,�':. •,r L t ' -'Y It t 1 N` .+ ,,� '"' ` •3 "�(1 , :x..it`.. ". !'"1 ..t}r 3 Y },�:y•,��-t +';�1'ff ,(}`� ?tRr.�i,: ��,�'r?�� t� 4 tt#t.�• '� �` $���;: ,�. .} �>r� z':�'ry�f ?3r•..a . .,, ttty1 t• };5 t g?,5 ,y. s 1,., If t A,. ➢ /,#',. 1,. # ' 1y k i i'.1 F, ! ?I. t:�i(.1 z, •{• '4 . r 'l! ..�„ 'L .s ..,. {, ,•, tt'.t i. ;j�' •Ir''u *. ��r:�,�;i: .;,y�4kt1•,f� x{v;., t lr:ti.a' .'.•''ydd `�.}!;��.. e."} {�' '� ,• � i. ;3. •cnra?1°y`: �t+�L �.4'4/^J.�e'"�'�it�, ;atff,;..:'`. l ;�� �{j� i�r i- .{4. Y f:v' f. f t * , _y. `i•,.�,. .({�;° : �:t. S',s.�t al% ,r,�t •.v,:� {{ �,it r..�•t Ytr,•),.lt: =.t,`{ { i)',fSr'i:Y""{..¢44.a i,• jkj.i•�1.i,thAi�i !.'i tk.• t"tt°jd tit l� ' t ' 'r t3 'F •�• '1 [ f '•i.: '# +'(.i( `/ .,�.�'•�'S�1.t L r.�. : t'@:..,ri ��l .� 1! C<+v+;.1.,;],, # Y�1lx .F 'S,sr t'' 4 r .@A.'"�• 1 t: }: 'i '� 1 ; • �,.� a `� +1 t 1 � Yo�.�� ��L{•r c {r.t4:r, '{ �.2� t i a. x �,i { 1��} •x �}t 1 ,::y'•. �,�. .r .t r rl 4 tr t .,�.�t r`1 .�.. :7,, �;6..t;.j. ...x,1.Y'a:Tt..y'� { .i:; •a, .�. 1�,`-" ''k.�., t{},%°' ,.�8 }yet !;'1"?�,'"ii�;'�- rf t' "•� 'r:t-;i.•,i;�,{�r t" ��t�� t!Z*y��.�,�zr..,} .rr ., ..S'� }•,} � .f,•:-.+:,. �t,.,{a��....,,1 .r. �,.,:�„'.�;�ty ,( i.�.-xr"e1H *• ti ,;., 11- .� t t .A fI �� tr'1. ,• � i y a.t� k.,�t":� Y a t, ;, �,t'�' r: �'� `�1 `�la t<,,wtts' ,�^�•,ax�i'r�•1� t # v ,},k 5� "t 'k ���� t;rfil ? y� �+�;'i� �•z� "�'t.�'4�'1'� /� �� ,*t����r� �r ,,�r, a ';� �11� i,rt+_:,,��,�tk�.'i�,.� i•,,. �; ,l•;j �,;,t�a �,� /,•. �r���3 � ; �.�; ., yt d: y�yr;,� � •,{,� . (,, i x.4• ..� ? ••a.x'k., Pr" .`� �.�•l+�f:.' ,�f.<' Sa g.., �. .� �� !�: ��,�,{r#Yy �; 5. ?.�. 1::; �`f r � {. rGs �� i•2: , " -.t>:ht ,a 1_ e ttx '�. ;;51,1�i?r.`�#`k.t`t.#mr. ,F, t��F';;;:i f��pp4 4�;.-.+'a �� '.t�� 4 � :,a?�:�: �3X. ,�u''*+,Y�• ,ct �}" r�.�r .i •cF *: ;�•tui, T Rr. '+^�t`Z;�,. _ •:.i.: _;•r.t:ffrt�te: i"n�i�.t_� y U, },•.4' "`y ; '��'rMh��. a ,{� ,z t-�•A 1. �::,.'tF }, t ,Xf, rA`!, tl �t r':lr• Xt..:�' 4» td fibS .n : YgyP+S.'" i 5 r F 1 {t yl .t� y t ba y�i'( {yf tt !r � . - Lt4�e�S'w'.°Y�i l��:��r t+i.'�''kr•-.�',�•.`r.'.34..Syr."i�!"1'..'•,��a:32'�r,...t �.�i NAG',a#�z.,e�:$&•'.1{.`•� :'f s:� '.�i�i:'f"a:F���S�: t t . PLAN H-ANTAT CGt,SrRv�`t1c4 P w STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY (1JNE 7 , I3P4) BOLSA CHICA HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN ACREAGE BY LAND USE ACREAGES_ Total Bolsa Lowland Seaward Hunt. Subtotal • LAND USE DESIGNATION Area Mesa Inland Total Beach Wetlands Mesa [;S�ubtotal (3.5-6.5 DX-/AC) "(6.5-18 D.U./AC)0 B-28 D.U./AC) tal Rasldential ,7G IG9 51 B2,9bI�t4,aERCIAL 2.0 N. muriit• Commercial na Commercial 2SjOo 25;00 Ca�nmerrlal 25,G�p SPACE 5.0 Main Boat Channel 27, 46 27,46 Minor Boat Channel W,n$ ij y•pE Sed. Basin and F.C. Channel 13,78 7,7 (0 . 00 13,7E f : bolsa`Mesa fob XSfMCF- 15,43 gXB .3 ,63 I�t43 06te'r!Bolsa'13 59.a ,69•�G 59 ,8G Central Wetland P9,93 egg. 9.B , 939,�9 Subtotal 0 en Space °►7S S4 062 0.09 RECREATION 5.1 Linear Park 77, BO 177,00 5.00 Marina 47,oo 7, 74• Warner Garfield'Coll. Subtotal Recreation 124•@� NATURAL RESOURCES 5.2 Consol. Form 19,Od 1y,cp (9.G0 Subtotal Natural Resources ROADS 6o,20 me , 5 37, 90 2190 TOTALS IG0416 'z3c,2S 01, 14 80t30 _qS1.00 rU I I •. �,'ic�w.7i 3 `i t7t4 !' ��r,a. •`a,:. �� R ,'',i � . ! '' + ,r � � X�. '' �ti t}k , � t � , f t ' r � + ! �V,X}��' tli !�� 1! ,`'.!� � ia�, � �+1 '� •'� .+'t �s l:•����wjrtt 4 i�li +� .i�''�t,i�tp�,��ty�?:.} �.. '�:�+^ , ti'!':�•'''�y qd>> yyr �� :!'JI�t'11� ,n`'� it".����•{ ��r '4:,:�`� �9�_ '+ {9.fjr l.t t'�'C� tt rn`'�• T'• h� �� ti{,r} 1' p}tr �;;ty .'k �� A�c�`�1'+�. t �} ,1t fr"at�r���t} y,,��•,�� ! � ;�' �f .*:?�l'b''��t �9;} .l r,.t. �' �; :�t �"•''ri ti !� f,x�f,:•,4't +�t'�'`�=1k� t X�4� 'rr•��, �" �t}A` ��1 a'�.t,atr' { �,V�.ti � � �: ..�'� �; ��:''i, '�� .��� is f'it� "�f1741�1 �'�+f'S � 5.��.'1J1;�ik•Y'7 �.r54i � �°I� '� •.s.X! ', 1}���'•4� k�• !F � {1 �r .� ��4�i�y t �:'} I•�,f� ��t� ��#�� � y �^!� ;a.1 !yya-t��L �4t3� j1 •(•�.r VC' •i 1', �y,'�i�+ `�'ar` ( 'i�Xa}•'I{• . . 111'fff�. It � . t �r} �`,X` h��}��{[`�:{}!t. �.1 t■�ui �i•.. S�k� •'Ij��n�t� h, y x.�ly �,'y„Y.l���! t'�F 'i•..f;� t ,� ! 1�\ !.><., ' ' •; ,•) }` •it ��y k' "r+:T!S. a � ,.y i'�i�'>i'i; i. Y'X •r �V �17. ; `�A t� t.�y .t'1 %' # '. t l { tf. �yiryt,, .t #t '�.T:1`${1t:�•.. ! p .w7 {! ]3j 0. t,• �t i y{` `�4 :,,�' y� Q 1 ` "{' Lt• .?#rk L' 4fi+'94 + �" �„'4i�; ry� �y: �+T4 t,~t"f. •Tyi - t , 3'€ t}{Y.Vj •,"k(r!}�=1 S! .e�,,, 1, ;' �1 � !� �r� i"i�y 1 _1�i.: fy► :���; .C�C � 0I •as':.i��. '�� .� Y�.�` ai .�:+t �y t' �.�.� �,�;� x �'r ,4,a� y�{j,k.4'k t• !X +"a•� hi'�i. i� � S. h� ,ti�i �i"f•., °��f� �y1 e"�.... �, # •. t! !, s. ']y; 't 1 zy roc tw,y,f {(�(' i "t �3 f. rs, ��`.N 1 ;`ti�, '1. ���Y. ',�,' T.�' rat�. ,#1 t, ?"; .v,',.. � f� p, '[ •j�; ! ��•' ''y,) q afto � • ;fir �.'.M'+iv,��r"C Mi�hCli'i.'WL' ,vSti. • ,G:�' ; , IJt TiI4�'i �v�*: :Z'�'t . — ,.+•r rs x, ��}xrr' 'fit,i4s!1'+ t' " ",�'!'r,"'"S' �. 71'�z T(`�?;` 4 ti Tt>' �� 1 i'i.iy: r�4��•,,cz '� n �! t -x.., 1�t �;,� y:t}r, it, �..,�,'..�, s' 4' }, i,i�)}'�?;YS,T \�) a•,,.'1 tOFP .iy ii N It t..i�tt..'{F.i`ti� ,� L 1,t. °T ``r`�. '.��'� e,y �..'!Y Y•(i .+S y i„X, t. ��4 • r. r`i. ; !,i'4,- �.d!'Sr ,_ ,�, •j !,X, �.a,4:� , R }{r t ! ',t4 _ 5 .,,:71r{�'.k"4��.� Y +s•;,AM,F`, ,!ait } '•'s. tvy' fit"{' y� tr 'tX •,.;. <}tht�',�; !,7 '� f si;�, :k '(. {.l ii li.' ,i+,� ,a ;�' ,4 ' •�' .Ety"' t �.} Xi •,! �; �r. x; ! tF i 'r' .16 :1...; r �• .,t;f�•k4'u i ` }.;t:, •;�: '�.!>'J} d"'+S � t(. }y� 'r,,.� �'' l�•'a i ,3V1I� ! '�•".Y � + #,. f�'t �t 4 , �r',;1 Fi !r .l. '?. +fi}��f.,fe R Y4< �� �1},' i1: �'!;!:.'t.. -f t„i•3y,. .y Y)�•1 !. �• 'j '..' {„ 5tft•:ty�,J( •w+_, sir try�,Y, fit! .S�'.i .. ,1..h +[M Rii+''Y,..n�, #�:!;+ e„:I;'�r! iX {�,.{ s !SA# x .lf � t�.}s ° fS/;" ++.i .•t:j. '�m � t%a,, 'a X i iF:)t� }3iS'.i••t���::.!i.` Yh��y1l. -•9s. t. �� tr, j• • �4 Y 1. '"' :� •+., s'a ` -'�� i. S , ''Y ,.r 'r s'of t`s lr�e`•.f\e 'l:..k1e�,R� atift:t�?F!�...r.z ::� �n11ti:'r:l,�Lra.l.-r'l�'w•-+:�k�,�� ,...,.�,," ;, :�i't� ]jt r" ,ct`Y X uti t>�., ti�� �; �'Ud4�;'. �,_ �b .. .. .�. ." _. $ 1 1{,•.:':�Y �.,, �S.J..tv.rtf.'.1 Y,.!.. :1 t' ix�.�f lyid ."f" .1J • 7 wetland corridor on Bolsa dM shrubs and acres Of 10 including lwater (2) a riparian southern California riparian trees 9 a 3-acre intertidal channel • marsh in a low Swale, extending link to the Central wetland--total area of 13 acres;flood and sediment (3) a 14 acre intertidal cthennorthern and a corner lof the so hsite; control functions, in . (4) a 5-acre brackish :pater marsh created on an alluvial delta in the Linear park; (5) a central wetland of 840 acres divided between:wet . 400 acres in a) a Minuted tidal". (reduced s, al Which also contains 50.80 aocfre salt the area- of oil .. operations, shallow, brackish water ponds and a variable acreage combina- ponds (circulation in this area will be provided by tion of tide gates and pumps); and containing a large number b) about 458 acres of law intertidal e, a subtidal channel to .pro- of islands reaching above high tide, vide drainage and several subtidal ponds to provide fish refugia. f wetland Environmentall Sensitive Habitrts ESH tie_..n.-..- of coastal - G idEntified about 88 acres of ESH ataBolondChandacoastal scrub/shrub• DF artificial vernal p dunes, a eucalyptus grove, al dunes in place (in. the- present Eco10- t coastal scrub/shrub to he c vin 1� r a The HCp proposes prese g the, eucalyptus grove. and coastal gical .Reserve), transferring the Linear Park from. their loratians on, respected withilYi n the lres residential area bit Island. The 2-acre pond :rill be established setbacks as a part of the development's open space require- with appropriate ment. ocean Entrance Marina and Boat Channels trance with a cut through the State The HCP ,shows a navigable Aroaectnsite* The entrance conists of two Beach about midway through the p feet at jetties extendi1310 t o -12 mllw which provide channel depths tranceois2designed mean low water a tad to b t all he at an aHCPapart•ies}which Qare: . to meet criteria agree y (1) 8 feet deep at mean The entrance shall be navigable, i,e.; at le between 400 and 600 low water, with the width dependent on boat use feet at surface); (2) The entran ce shall protect and maintain existing beaches and net increase down br upcoast erosion; 1 i 1 1 i 5 i 3 �C i ,�?. j lt�� �� .4 L�� 5 `•t�� .�.. It, '^ V.X . �Ri nt J� }l t 'y y1 1•� ��� t w 1!t{��t`��� 1 sic"t� �l� `l t (fit{ t.� •,F�y"y 5 " s� e t •e � A 1 '�. •l rt 4 T 1 �t I Y � �i ��!ttr;•, l jCf r{t , ys ' ! ( �^• ',;��t �' rs�+`.` , .� �:,�, �,��:i. �t. A���`�,� 't�•1�,t j k".i{" >'� r �.. T�� L�r,��, r 1',�"�V �fl �• A•� �..•'r r �. t�(y,t ai� L � .� 'ri (.. . �.'."q>. � #t�• ,tf � c1.,�' > •�( •};t S ti �� � i •,1 S. � I 44 •� �\ t � 5 ..s p � 1 � y�j 4 s �.. 4 r r {{ r�,.� / ! '�� �'•� ,�I$�w'�� f � !�`y °`' 1�{y'v"} �, 1tt sy �";st• '�,t. t f'�' Yy�{j�t M*a �'t M (i�it�. "C \1 r, t'•� t '•i ti"V ,�'� '� ^�'��,(i i:{+` �. ,�rtyyy)C�.. '.�, Y.•: .y���v.r.�•.�,. ` �RR}�A'� .1r �L���}J. •a4� �.,��� �t � e. Y� }. � Y �. �r •; �i .1+� 1.y�� �� .'�; �•,itkty Y r •t?.�1t�.• �'S.•t ,.yt+��t �`� r• .,��J/�'t.tl� ( t d: {ie� �' �� .{� :r�+, ��r ^�L��: •s��-,`�"� � . ,�S�{,4 4.t�x�'.�i��� �{,}4.` �3•pi . i�t '�Y �`��t�...t _ Il.{ .:L � •'.t� 1 sls j+�.a i� a.: '� t ,ctiS'e3 y `• �{� � � tZ?'� �•`�'�t�, ` ��1��t?',l��'+�� `�if�F�t.�(ylt ti:}i��� ��t, ,,t.;��� t �+,' t r��(r'�, �>•' -1 ;,��t.. ;,, a"+ � ,,st .,... �•'S�} • +F's'p;�.r.,a t� 5yt! • ' '"t 1.'}r' {s. 1;r�,.: Z < +' , " .� r t ftldry''�'i,� �` $ y 'a�.'t a� �t �� '�.y>•ENS,s '1`'�'1r � „��;��1, •rt�?.'< � ,� � �'t1Y�"�4id M VMS .�c,r�yam,�f{t �y7•y1A �+I� f�11 1� ,i.l �1�'��F nW �•..i Yj ",ram x'-�4 wyr15 1,'l 7• 1.`y'3ilii•Wr li l't�if`�Y'SI�S.Y�I� •c T•"s�.7"4 '7' e. •..t1�"� }t,� ti , s 3, ��t� iP t a + .ef '1((y*?tp r 5$�•�w,.iwAt t{�(j(({rf{�,t t s s� � 1•:"i\ t�.}j.... , �t ,3``+, J 14• '' t'Rt �;C ti"3 r f1 Si'' tter•},�1 l`�'d1R(�} `�-�J�t i 1� 4 ..at #i1Vf^ I it`t« �.�� ./ ! i,,(tt�jl' tl _�it 1 � 1�'I' �5 i� i # r\• •1�,-St ,l'�y' 't• ��'h V!�2�.+�"`1�#.� �.F,S��1iit. r•t'ia�y��.,tq � -fc 1.,�. �' �� l;�i�. t�' s`.t,.tc� ..5��.� �.3 �..1 tjt �k ,l;.;P ,]} t, .C"'#rtR �..• .��'` _ ." "A}..•",�t •�r:r) �:•;,1 -��;�., •{ •` 17Ja i..'S,}.+.r..�#t+,�i -�tl ft�t t sv��..'t1. ( "1. ,'4'' ,t.s. sr.•.`�5 .rir ��Yt r"'t�7,� �.i]l' i1•ci'( t li •"(h/1.� .R,, rP::t.11ti.l •�{,lt t�(► 1.,}• }�t s l r�r. .11 k .;Z''b[,\t,�•�Na�.Y.-r.I`a..•; ,i� {r.y.C.yly u .�i '�,•;.t• '`t { �tr::V ��1����`, /fvi tf S; �, .3.. �•l .tt.ti.,�x �f r .i1 , ,Yq{ l..l', ,�1s4 .1,t.\�r�(if•?i:J:'' �s.3."Itl t..i^`` �• «^a: •. �((� ..{r� yx.t ] t.a A'•`t .e. r'�� tt y'� x'ry'��•�, Q 2 ,1.} S. �z 1 •y )J �]tl .t.Y'/ `t Y •i. ,�,..a, 3'...• 1. c. +� 1"-� r.1�{'fitt �Y's :h'4.- `• 1.:.�. "y. ' •t. tk.. ,a.'j" i77 A:r'; •s � ''s• i+i j_" tf:X(!1t,'� •t �.r t,{'�S,+., ,1., .a. tiltk ,�I,l t::1 .5't.tr; t'i' �rL 3 j kf.*t;'! te., 41t'+ tj,6 C .t.t.{ es• ;uil �. . -2 , '., -sTt. ��4'7,.' ;i � ;�it:�,•.k�,:. `t{.9.t� °,. �'�..s5i,4 t ., E �i•;_`'�t.4�'�:c� ,t 'y .t t t i, �`;+1 � .t fin. ,� �+ j, X:,1 . ..1, 1, � !,1 .�L rt Gc �t ,) N y1 �'•, .�.5.:'11� ( . t, 51 a. r vj(-.a.."�tR •},J;;, ! K;��•�'• � n °' S � 't.''.;L`,�.tt ,?. .'�,• rd,"i 1` IS> �/i c' •a / ,.. .�M 7 '4, {L ,.�1 `7 f. � •wit"•i:o.P t: lr j '�," -< 1r tr3�'4 i`i"} u � t �. ! '� o'' `f ,. •,� �° �`'S 1L r•�, � 's' s �;, t h. 1l`.1 . ti" 4 rr f ;i/}�'y' 1�R r-- ) ',o'tr.'!� •t /77�' '! 't n' ff l� „(.# { a '3• t s 1 �'^ t.. ;. l' t- .r j},'. i .r„•��'j r..( (,. t h�1�{t.: �, 7/�4" •`�.r,R'•." li�i�lr rti• 't•y� � 'e;'�Y•� �'.'R;\ � •�' :,ip."• .t,.;.�}y+' •Y;.��tl,.f, a � .�. :,1; .1�•.+t�}` .•;�t.f Ra;j.�.. �,i l7G�G, .t 3#.. t�7• ��t,t.. .��'.:t1 i,"ta.:a 31:}i.' .. "-•,.# +p T,.�. 9j'.t �..�tX, .�"" �F } + - t S' •� \ii:. , „r.' '�Y3 .x 5t :A.' ',�r st,.Si 4,t jS Cil�. ..k+1s At ,� H; r- (r� •}x r� h �t'� �1� 1�,i1�j4#t3$!`�1� }'1s;� ,t}t?„r�-',i i�1` •.}� �'�t' �5.''i.��.. x�`lti} rr4•`i:.�(y,:� ;k`.11�1.�1;'r.`.�` l,t9l.►,.s{,. .t ! <4..ttlLA_—Y i k..G"Fti!i,H•'�P^-'}s.in:;slt_},t..I�: (:+ %rfi°} t'+ !'#3}+•.1S,.S k' ; 4 ..?T1ti}"�3::1•::41},}f;+ .s�is� l,t r}t,f..4 �1�: X. .Y, 8 (3) The entrance shall be, designed so as to allow an operator to accept responsibility within accepted liabilty parameters; (4) The entrance shall minimize operation and maintenance costs and max- imize capital cost-effectiveness; and (5) The entrance shall have no adverse effects an the wetlands. This entrance is preferred by Conservancy staff over other entrances due to its low cost and beach protection capacity. However, the specific design of the ocean entrance will be a part of the Corps of Engineers planning study which shall also use the above-mentioned criteria to determine the most feasible entrance. This entrance is linked by a 7-acre turning basin and 400«foot-wide boat- ing channel to a 1000-slip public marina. The marina also contains various landslide improvements (parking, restrooms, landscaping, Harbor Master's office). Adjacent to the marino is a 25-acre marina commercial area which can accommodate one 150-room motel, four free-standing restaurants, 10D,000 Square feet of retail uses anti 7 acres for a potential 400-roam hotel. The amount of marina commercial space is designed to provide revenues adequate to help support the operation of the public marina. The size of the marina is, in turn, keyed to the cnst of the ocean entrance. Roads and Bridges The HCP contains a rerouting of Pacific Coast Highway around the peri- meter of the project. This includes a culvert bridge with tide gates over Outer Bolsa Bay and at-grade culvert bridges over the Bolsa Mesa riparian cor- ridor and the flood channel. Arterial connections are made with Warner Avenue, Bolsa Chica Avenue, Springdale Street and Garfield Avenue. The reroute avoids the necessity for an expensive bridge over the ocear+ entrance, frees up 20 acres of land at the beach, and relieves traffic conges- tion at the beach. In addition, the reroute creates the potential for a large amount of waterfront homer with private slips and serves to create a focus for the entire region, rather than another strip developff ent. The HCP contains, as a contingency plan, provision for no reroute of PCH (Figure 3). In this care, cross-Gap traffic would be handled throl►gh a Warner-Garfield connector, and there would be a 25-foot high bridge at the ocean entrance similar to the bridges at Anaheim and Upper Newport Bay and a culvert, at grade bridge over outer Bolsa Bay. Oar Public-Facilities_ The HCP contains a 77-acre linear park connecting central Huntington Beach parks and the beach. The park contains pedestrian and equestrian trails { and about 20 acres of eucalyptus droves. These groves art! part of the nonwet- i } F } .. �;` 1 ! !� t Yxk �y a r' t' (a �t `' 11► t , � •}istey�' r } � pF ,{ rt p\{Jy} :,.j.�1•, a tty1,�'y�i � �', � "'•' ' '3 �:,•. r R I .4 T) Vill ��''{7r . Y .,Alit •t. 4J R fi l:?!{�. +;.1,tf�it y�,,, �4. # 'Y� t.` 'y, M`� t 7l;t,t, ,��xl Tr,"�',1 � ;,�R , 1�;:a'+° � �`�'{-;"���"'�� c",'��� tt��{"�� i. } �'�;�r` i #�'•ilin`;'�'1 ,1;' ,•#)�'�(fa •����' k�' �f^�nr��t 7 p y��� gyp 'S r 1 .�Y, t•t.f K 4 1 t :r', i �\ L, t,' i t�Ir � p y�}�' y� a •� ��' ' �d'.�: a1•GJ1'1` r9ti' t'`� �t �.y y}'• rIM ���,,4`+T r w4a�1 ���.��' '' ,�^ffi���t�� �'I��A��t�l+ F' }�,� •t#�"�}.�f�. p k F� �z S 4e i � }' N a iY• ., �y i�� 3 t � (; t, t ! � �`�1'•,�. ,p�,,{{ ty r;.,%\J, }iir •�,;;;+ ;, t'� )4� } i. ���r +� i y�. S'•'�{t`y i' ti�i �'F 4 '1 fi �i Y/ .t�'(�1'�•�If ttv.' 3'�.CT` � Y '',�ft`�. 9 � ,�# h2.. 8�„fi.}�i'y�Y4 f '�i. ',�t,. .�"` ,, J il. � ,f 1 n }i. }� tti , r, , \.J� ;� .M; '><x :f 'L` , "33r! �• .l - t 7'�f���" (. rr t .,c��, 't �t '�, '� �`• �� �t' ���t,�c'�i�� � ! .�;.���" 'M�k"'�� ���t't:!y ' �j'�} b,��F �'�"} %"�,4.{Yr � Y`➢S.Y .'""'x �1rdSi '�' •� ![ `a �� f�', t' !f"�'�f{ ,1'ti 'h } .�, -y1 +.I 6 t���h '` �r �` � .k� ,t} �{ �• 1:; '�; �. 'a1 �`+:is�s ,5 1'S' tti' .Y�'. ri�4�. a , �:� ,. `{ �t� r� ti� :�' ��' �'"�T��� J t�A'I '. � '.,t .• 'AC�k }, r �'�' r*;j� 1 ;� JD�. V � : Irit�:r� „����4 ��``�, ,sC I�q� }{�q ti iTtla L ti� '` r �`.y .�•j �1 �`' r. .•ti '1� ' '� ,r' .{ Y� r?,:,� ,ill"' „ '� ..�' `� °�'+ ��ri�� ti1.�1.� '��`'i ',r•�:. . 1k�. , '�Cl�l�'`�3�1�:1�•�tt�i'�f�Sl�'L:«r'�I�'E�,' ct�&"�tcl�.�l �t",r�"t �'4' '� ��iP, t�c�.�` 1 �F f.w.. r s,7, r t'�"i" �f�� } .,t x 't i j si �'x4,J� 13 r a �,.* ei rr 1r y ,; Jy S t yt i I s } :E. �C'.,d i. y � r 1: .1lt .§ ��1 ,n•- a nt1'.-;1 n F , t.t.5t .. 1 <. ,{k4 a.t 9�r •.� ,. -r L , }i _ (} ` ,1• tyyy ,�11 , i.� t � �j tt�' •�`� Y. � )} ;. 1 t`t ,{�tks� �,� `s L t., �a Sl:.r i , S l E .'it .Y' t �} S:1# 1 t , � 1.}} ..- ,c'� Y'J�,.til�St�nrf ``�'•'� r�` :4 It , 1 a t d S, t� �: } t i ry t, tl '4 .�. +A" �f, t " ��:A' �� +1t �t.t..r• � ,� t��r .:1��`.�r L..��.'s "�.Yt t „t { '' S, f - .0 r t t,' �. - .. t y 1 tt' t �S't �Y :.Yt �, rC'rt -r {. 4 4-; ( j.}. tlf tr,.;.15 , .1' } •:\a �•,•S ,1 -! :"it l '.a x,t t M..,t1. lol .r }cr. Itc y+`'.z k:w iN" 1,�i4,}§-��,S�rR. 7atf�S4+tS' Y#{"�+ltY-��a ''�.r77 yy s�t gtY(f".� •itt al. 1 ,�}va t��:. �� 4r��'?;tw t.@ ����.it.u � .�ts?�ti 111.�• ��. w��z f,.Td' Jts } .:it r .t 1 ,}S 1 .y. ,� i�•1'i} -.f c:• �� tt. } �.r, 0..' .t d, J .t ,Js .x tK�i . }> )�„.#.�• c t.,.��yii..�:r� jt�} �a 1sl 1�,� ��� S } '� li :1 { t � ' '; .a. tt Lit;} z f r;} ;' }�i � yy l -zJ}y; 41..'.h ._ iA.1.�1�rv1.� .il. .t \; `R.r• �`-F- Ftow �� � .4.��~�•rt�y1w �C.. •fg+a��.,�";...•� ✓`""�'����ya,°ti7� MT • c6qm -/ ��y�� � ��,;� •t-i � 8 SLORRiLHi RASW CzW l 'i1 ""r -r` -:'' �:j ""'`z`��"s��-s,+�"...'•:•���'�-�t���a�i�,���..s�+.`+�' �.� IE!!7� CS� VEtIIJf x {iL1 .t- > �•10�- df y�'. .s�� %�,•- ,r T lliSlDillTLlt �i•'f^ SMA CW9A Mm" _ .� ��ram,,.•%✓� �`. ��" ��,.. ".�'= y J� f , sNICK)"PARK �sa� k>rr �;,�".'F'^�-'`�� .ram• ' �.r� �.� .-;: - CENTRAL WETLAND �` ems.• u�'`� %-v S'�' •��' 1 ►AAWWC3MMLlcw AREA s,. -'.i ,� �>e�... �!��'',�;::�,..c•� �.� ry- � - � RLStgLttEtAL '� e.. IAA DOA amm ! PACNIC COAST NOWAY MA71iAt N RC5013[QS i,:: r + � i{ y'"..,"'` ':'•. �'`' ,�"r'� �^ Ptlt r CtflC COAST KM AY !t- �yy A'fE IEAQI� IOISA LFiICA S7Ah f1 '�}.�.. �Nx;y�Y.rRf�� yyyyyyyy� � �,:.� `y� t-• •''.�� �Li��.IDU�. • • • " flo" NAVTCA�E '4 tM-Pi � � •• -�= . ALTERNATIVE 1 A oam MITAT CON SER - STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY .� ^ PREPARED M S Np tkFCs. NQR711 ::. .� .•- �, A,t3TINA $THOMPSQ ire,. "-_,.'�•'" '3-.�..� �,r�" � r� t s 9 land environmentally sensitive habitats identified by Fish and Game. Pre- sently, they are found on the opposite Bolsa Mesa bluffs, but they will be transplanted across the Gap to this Linear Park location. The HCP also contains provisions for flood and sediment control in a channel and basin arrangement near the northern corner of the site. These components are relatively shallow, mostly intertidal, and are designed to both function as wetland and accept flood flows to the site. Residential Development The HCP provides for about 400 acres of residential development as depicted in Figure 1. Table 2 indicates 'how this acreage is allocated .among subareas of Bolsa Chica--the mesa,,, the inland portion of the gap, and seaward ' of the PCH reroute where it can most readily be developed for waterfront .hous- ing. The configuration of residential acreage around the central wetland is illustrative only; the precise residential perimeter is left' to local determi- nations as is tie specific mix of housing types and allowable density ranges. f S~Y The Conservancy staff is especially concerned that this plan. work, i.e., ; that the components are not only cost-effective but that .they inte act; posi- J tively. Accordingly, this plan is designed to promote a sense of. focus' in the ` region. . The Pacific Coast Highway reroute channels traffic around both the marsh and the marina, providing spacious views and relieving congestion at the i beach. The marina is almost adjacent to the ocean entrance, creating the possibility of a world-class harbor with no. . impediments to ' saiIing-vessel size. The marina commercial looks over the marina, maximizing amenity and revenue-producing views. ` The developable areas and the marsh are.. clearly separated in order to minimize intrusion, but the wetland is also designed to provide an appealing landscape for both public and private development. On a regional scale, this development could provide a center. for 'much south coast land use. To a large extent, present coastal .lands are closed off from public access due to the prevalence of strip development. The HCP plan promotes a single development center, focused on the marina, marina commercial and beach. The access network promotes movement to this center but not through it, creating the ability to move freely throughout the area by car, boat or other means. The combination of all these components together works i to create one space with many uses. UV mi t • i I 1 1 f 4 1 ♦. 't j t•+! i�(Jrj3�7� h:q. q Y hi 4� �, z I , 4 1'RZ �. 'r''rr� b t�k� fi� .4t•��,�5� I''4}TT}` •?�" i ''ft �ti.y ° ± ,t y'�i � i `fiti..i(t�t' rt 1lF�i' �+y } 7 "•fit. Y.,,�.`.�1H� ''� 1• ,. ;!� � `h s,:� t . s;8`�Ht ���tr`e ��'1 { � �i � � .Yr'� '��'�F�`'� ��� ��,11'R' lt� �L kd •�Y 42 WW VF ��C�fie. ���� `+y���`{ t•.f¢ ���`. I�r " i t'�t .�k ti 1 t�+"} 14 `+�'t� '.L��Yi• � � �,...�•'......_�et'{i"'Tt.1...'t^� 77,( ,S } :t I C"�""'�` .r--�i'7'r°"' t ,;'.�'ic'r'f ,� :�z` tt`,i i { T��it't 1tti�'b .`',� Ir t+ t ;tt •+�+; �`i� •—'<'--'r�'^ :t `i r �j� � +4��Y t �Y3�t t 11 r " Y 5 ,. .t Al i +.+{it ktA �t t ',�t�'t t. `^,! .I ty Y� I =Y1,,}���+ . a , ..,t ! r�+.,'lM •+ t ! � 1 �r? ' ��, '�i ,t. t t t {,✓ ; L � 7 ,` 3.A 'S t l. F 'Yt. Y ...ti, ' ,L.• , - i t.e y ! Y1 7 �•, 'tt t + Y. .� I.r '- �`` .t: t ' )�•� y} -t ! ,kYtjt 1��' ��'• � E•�} tir�`�' Ytt: Y= { tt E-�� Y + r:t! '{ - !• ` + i �= f ,x ;9 Tr +( l ..1 � `l.'° Y t � Il.. aY .'. \ 5 t' � l i -i'' ,t { tL� s j, Y• ,'.Y Et a r�LRI,_•'�*;#' 4R , i' :+,.E'v ' 44• EiFf f'., ct.� "� , x�,t �_Lj..: t,` f.Y t •s� I ',s ° . r r 10 HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN STAFF REPORT . i UNA ' 1 i r i ..SY :3 ; F+rSM'"t°• •ti � �' G , .. 30.,j7i��`t� i s� t, a .,;��� � 4 t ; � .�•„t �;1 is +�� s. '��� x.�tt�,u. ,� k ��� A' k y }ti. ` � T1ti� •, � �' �'(�,�. ��';��� i r� i��it')' 4 '1��.,. ,� j y � Rt �,,N ,.� .!a �'�j� ;4' '1` �;; •4'F�11," � �, �P .t r" , r ��- {' { �'r �� �yx�! :t w+��� ` ��� �; '@,h . 4� ' . 1 �,x: tr f. i,12 '4 1 .(t '�(•. �( 3 ct+,i.ti ` )Y i (: � i f 4 �� 1T t .lr�.••, .`':,� ,�i l /,1 �1„ �' � '���1,.tar4`�;..+9-, .`r..,;' �'t`t , y��) t ,;,^. ,, j 4=•t j ;A:t',r„4 `s .s; ,, ' `t t4 tl��:`ti,.r '':ilr '+ '; � s i.,�.'i!' �. ri } .i i• ( � F Y ts,,' t�•t� .5���".-i`7 I � �f_�� •', r='�,,i� .i-,. ;�b$. p �it°.k° � �."{{ I` �Y ),°'�'} I ',.. � i'��;�"t� 4r,-a.°��s r'�I'ii� t '�'�Y- '? `i.'. ,1 1f�, •4. f. ° ..t,_ {t ry tttt -. :tit vi�.. '.r,5 tii:t ' '4� li it�zr{ t i+�.F , - 'R t'lt ,.,. ,, {._z\ '�1,,'ysr�r..,f t3'�try �;;�{�yy.`i�;��.{, -i3 1 i {�'�.,<,t, .�1 ,,. •I,{`•.� Ott,/ .{y �{, .5. j/t ,((:ti ta,. :.4 b.1pi�f'`A�t{t � r�}k!I�it�X.. t} -l1�:�, tYs'�),: tit t�,.-.r..�., i\ �T./' ��1!�``,��`�' lttt, {�t°'.�tit.\y �.:; -x f'4 _,•,;,•. ,;> °�'a;��.. ft'C�t�:r. •� � ,'�1 S,F 43� .:k �f �f ''.: s?�.� �', ` �A � , , �. .;: .s�° 4.t�X,7 it 7•: tr � }V a�l,f � ,ti ti Arl �'.}�:� 4,# t ;t e, s:� �1 Rt .41• t }:.t.111 `��._ t, ), i�y,�t'��,,: .tar��,t', , r�,`�,. 5,:�:,.�.,t i ) ,,44'I1�{'M,�.tt,' t, � , , Sif' ,1! i�,i, i , .h.C}•iti t{� t � !•� r,'»�! +,� 3 "1 � i Ltd '! 'ji 37',�'�j i{{1°°ry{�.t'j.f}lpt,, i r '3 \tit=Y"• �,.-, �'� !tt ,t ik slilT�r�. ,�lti }•,��. 4 'It'Ct�r.Y°�l:r�i.�`t-�4 t.t�y"r t�4 s���t�y )t�r�'{ 7..,t. ''.t ia` .� =fi+qt Ily1y7? '?�J_s'1�`' �1'ra�4",�°: ri5 .i :1 a ��: t .�1 j7�Y, t- t' �.tt+��t �c t t �{,t�",rf�°l r'7• {! ;f: 2ti 7' F� � 't yy ..L.)r.1 �'��,�i. „ ', i'•at;5^i�, , rt f f 11 HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN STAFF REPORT SITE DESCRIPTION The Bolsa Chica study area i located in northeastern Orange County and occupies about 1600 acres of unincorporated land surrounded by developed portions of the City of Huntington Beach and the Bolsa Chica State Beach. (Exhibits 1 and 2). The study area consists of..two, mesas totaling about 300 acres, ; W"the northeast" and southeast bnrders'(respectively SolsZ Chica and Huntington Beach mesas) and a 1300-acre lowland in the center, often: referred to' as the Solsa Chica Gap. The mesas and attendant bluffs, are' essentiflly undeveloped while the lowland is the site of an '.active oil .field operbted under long-term leases by Aminoii and Chevron (Exhibit 3). Landownership is split among five different entities, with the largest amount of land owned by Signal Landmark Inc. (Exhibit 4). The acreage of wetlands ,and other environmentally sensitive habitats 'in the study area varies depending on the source used. The State Department of Fish and Game, -in their June 1981 report, "The Environmentally Sensitive Habi- tats of Bolsa Chica" identified the following habitats: (1) Wetlands nondegraded 166 acres degraded. but viably functioning 666 acres historic and no longer functioning but feasibly restorable . 440 acres Total 1292 acres . (2) Non wetland enviro' nmentallZ sensitive habitat (ESN) uca yp us grove (raptor habitat) acres Coastal dunes 14 acres Rabbit Island (Coastal shrubs) 51. acres Vernal ponds 2 acres Total 99 acres These habitats are scattered throughout the site, although concentrated in the lowlands. In addition, the endangered Belding's savannah sparrow and the light-footed clapper rail nest on the site and the enCangered least tern feeds in the study area waters. !� SITE HISTORY i Prior to the 18701s, the Bolsa Chica Gap was a large coastal e3tuary, ene of a chain of such wetlands in Los Angeles and Orange Counties (Exhibit 5).' t 1 .. ..._... 1 _.... ..i-+J.., w._ .. i ...... .. .. .. .. .. ..1.....•.-....L.j'ia.1.5.'I.b•,o+r••...�.�- _.� ' S 1 '���t7 ? j.�1t�ha. (,�*� t3xt �,�.R{� x 1•i- �� ''� �a� +N .1�41{•;� b "`���ik�q�i+� M. 1 � 1V1111i y �ijL,u`�Y14L.L�'}�Ei. � �E {,,� -�.T�i� a,. `,•�vtLT7 � t\Stllt' �� � L y ! � .4} "y 1,016 _4*+j' fl }L� ;14 ! � tilt �� �,i,. • � � E ��, , 7•�7t•."tx' •,� , H ,ki ..'� ,7;�� it .�; �•� +1,.4, � 7. �L �.• �� , ', t� i��;j.L y�r t '• �. i� !jy�rj ��'i :� ��f.`f Il " ''" ��, �: r�ik:C.S►a iz'Rc�`. ''z`'' + . td9' fiMFM &'.cl' '' WIN !i, ` ,:' `et' 4, �1r���_"� .� ir. + 4 s , t 1 ad Y^r'�+��'eN�. ��:1 x"�t +i•,t?1 y.t i. a.l .:y t- , 1 l', - i' 1 ( (- � t 1 ", : 1 t .:`i j •1f1 + b t { ' 1 j 1 ti 1 , .1 ;K 11 : \ >l' .i 1 i•.L'�i tl. Y ti t. 1. t 1.11 1+} 4 't Y { t�,- aY # s�.�ti, t, � t{., �.�t.f 1 '1t 1,'.{ Lv. Y } } ti. � : 1? �i c 6. .; 1 + 1 a r. F , r I.L11 i ,.. + } '' �(1 ti•. ; } ,. 5 ti 1 (r7, ,i- .,} . -.'�tl tt.t tSs 1. 7 L,i• .�y t. ! z- y, `II `i \.r _ ; , {. X �•.:. ��ll P.i,tt/.w�>'p1 7 y,(, f +t' t . ,.,:..- i t•• L t , '°� .. 1{, . � y .1 - a �, t i \ -� , ` I E�. ..YI ':>wt 1' - 1 'J .� i'F - f f: !mn t '•�9 t ' �ttt i + O.- \ 1 ;•y - t_i t Yr � 1 } °.` tt 4t<�It-. 1.,f r+,i "�1 d I.! . t. r't tt . 1 e t r t t..• tl 3 + ,4 A Z } ��e 4 i} � h 1 ac ,yt`t`r :`sty .�i��t { .).t+t .f+�'f�� Nl,. 11 ,} � .,t. .i tYfi Ict�? f: ;.�,ti �,ti�.if h21- �, ;iCti'SI��+Y.,}: .i t.1 �, t;�i. -7�L�1.S:y.vj�t►'Lt;�,#.1•l:+Yl ,t lil 7 .L TT:�,tir , i}I-t.(:j [ / ') ��' t74t�, Y�,;, r r -S{3�'1�,,,;J'�•it %�i)k�.t 1 1't� t' 11'�' tiE 1.; (� 1t1 "�` 1Rt , S li�ik5 •+ a4�` �'A ,a-� 17:�'.• ./t�'(��. l:?"its- �fi '.t':.1lf�t ,�,_ T yt`. e� '� .e .'�*E7� ...�Ra�..1r�A. +.�.:i'�.Z.. .1+' .,;3. .a. , .� .f..),�.... •�t'-i ., ,.{.+.d . T. .•. ,. • 12 It is likely that the wetland was a diverse array/ of habitats including fresh, brackish and saltwater, wetlands. The total area affected by daily tides (called the tidal prism) was large enough to keep ' permanently open a large outlet to the ocean. The adjacent Anaheim Bay wetlands, which were slightly smaller, had a similar outlet through which ocean going vessels passed. By 1921, the Bolsa rvtlet had closed off, due to the construction of tide ' gates near the outlet and the creation of a connection to Anaheim Bay. These ! modifications created large areas of managed, brackis.� water ponds in the Gap i which benefitted duckhunting but which greatly reduced the area of tidal (marine) habitat. By 1950, much .of the .study area had been criss-crossed by oi1 . roads and dotted with oil pads and other energy facilities. These develop;nents created a mosaic of ponds .with saline bottoms, cut off for the most part from tidal flows but containing enough water during winter for large numbers of shore- birds and other water-associated birds. PLANHING HISTORY In 1973, a'Settlement Agreement was reached between the State and Signal (which had purchased its holdings in 1970) as to the extent of State-owned lands relative to public trust claims at Bolsa Chica. Among other things, the Agreement resulted in: 1. The State receiving fee title to 327.5 acres along the Pacific Coast Highway; 2. The right of the State to lease 230 acres adjacent to the Reserve for la years (until 1987) for a nominal fee. These 230 acres would become State fee lands if an ocean entrance system were constructed within the 14 year lease period; and 3. Signal, was confirmed in: fee ownership of their remaining acreage at Bolsa Chica and any public trust easements for this area terminated. Exhibit 6 contains a more comolete description of the Settlement Agreement. In .1978, Orange County formed the Bolsa Chica Study Group to. facilitate the development of a' local coastal plan for the area. 39 planning alternatives !ere submitted by this group to the County; nine of these were selected for ,ideration by the County planning Commission and Board of Supervisors dur- ir►y 11+blic hearings between 1980 and 1982, with a final plan approved by the Count, for submission to the Coastal Commission in early 1982. This plan . (Figure '` calls for, among other things: (1) the restoration/protection of about 600+- trres of wetlands (including boating channels); (2) the creation of an 1800-slip , 11lic marina in the lowlands and 75-acre linear park along the Huntington Bea. Mesas, (3) 500 acres of residential development, of which about 141 acres ►. he waterfront residential with private slips; and (4) a "Marina del Rey s , �ean entrance. , t s t ,(i i{ 1j r• ;�y.1.►: 1 ..,C6` {�. •1. �. �� ..,i�;r P{��j r t ��� � ti} t_.�' �t• � �, +��`� .�1�tp� ,�� � �+ r ,. } ` w. �i w Nil '�� } '�..' �t'11 ,� 4M�ti A+P��• ��a f x� �' M1 �� 4Y.• r � , +t r � �,On'I ARV' ¢¢ .� �1�''� (F. F�I a 1• 4 � is . I 7t � 5+ �WW"UM= .�.r."'�. ,j S""P► S7"l""•?t"'•,R"•'a r .ta. •.a. .r.�'"rV.^'T,;v,�. ;,'1, �f . �.r �.\�"1Y7 � \ e`n :1 1 +rY}�• •t,. L•,} i {• r r; t, r4.i� j.t t y•, t•,'r±� �{�x`� :F t'.,,5, t._,.;(`t t�. �'`,''7 .� �r 't r,.�• � 4 ,:. t Y .� ' � r.,rlli r �G1 ? xr .4., itl .4� � ,'15 i. }1�i. ',t' , '1. 2.*:1,1 y{{t•.\ 1•� YP• !. �?Sr: 1l ,� }►'•'Ir. S, i, t t1 t_fi1U x (' t \�4lgl. ti` , # :5 •, ;� ' �{ ,4L h1:, i a 4 );', ti 7 i. y� w. t i a �1 r :, �'. t'i. ,.:�}� S�..d.` {A .•:�". x ,, '--r� ''4R? i �"1 #:-1 '�•,:,>, ! : t t. k i f l , -t +.� 1 f.� ! � ': ,- i .�.•4Tr1 'F 1e.: t .,ta r to c t,�•��; t. , :! .tl 1! i,� {. I.i.:y�1 1. , t�`i+y1 "f . N' i'a. L 1� : S •,. .tiy��...:�1 r +t••�. r }L+r •J. V�i!l'' ,. ,,fi' ,i ..r t l i,7 1,-j ,�t� ii, .f- �\ s.. y� i=' 1 1;���1:�.� , t t; , 4.,r'• 1 tt,�. �, r .,r ;ty .� .i`r t} ,�;`t,` ' `r4a• fIrF14: � +,.s'�,, t f�Y'. `{h,. .�.i �• ,�yr ,'`�"„t R.,S!'�'.t,'{. �,11>�;1� f:•:ri {r �1 ,. ,P":1,t.y.kl .t.,F S i�rtt R" .1 � 1• i�t1w 't 1'1. `_Y.`i��t�.it,V� `^tt```(rt' !,, �,, /t :.' �."�•w, 7. ?.,�",+r t:t�'. f i v ';/fir pt�( , t ' A.r a .'�*�oh'.:.1,'t E t �{A• `"��� ��' ,� i}`:;?r t '�:J[;r .1. ""`ii'�� �tft.;r��, �.y� y..,;tlil,:;s7#��:.� �,, �.�L.,i1 R`,ii ,•,� 1i i�kF .;';r,t'�I�t�rl�r� y��;T1.,'; irie. l},�•S t\x.�:k�i,} t �� 3,J`. ►Yr4.''i�ir,•���i,/{,�Yt, 4 ,e i ,1 i_P l�} .t t',^ �fx,;E•i`mr J,� ;t�•... �X.il1.�`2 it s tfV ^st/�r� 't .wf;u. � 4 : •tt' "xt�;::'i ,,.; c' s = �� 1� ,�, � '� { •� .t r t �x T' , , �a t, ,.,,r' � t ;� �tT��, �•.,r�.+,+,s' ,fit. a :aw!'it{ <,t_t'' xa S `�, ti j, �,,';rt•�5. �,'* i,T!}F, by<i rrr.•.,�� �1 ,. P �,1.� 3:rf Y,C .�tt�,.."t.+t:/�i,F;t'ri T;�'-� •,•,: {,4+;G.:. , t r, `.y, 1 ,a. yill'.7:�Z+ .k_ r���''tF jrA*1:,1' I7't it t'��i.:r S .tt•i:r{:a 'y E.. x :�1 d"1F t,.,A 1•i r :��`i4 41.E do �, �i'.{ 7..�i} �S} q':;: S::Z. .w...]t x'1,4'h�Y 5 -:.:t•.: ,;+[.{ :,rti..:} 'F {r..'�t#� ik'?:�' :'p'.{'v. ;il.�it• .�/y„'xrta{!, ._.:�_s. . .c. .._., 1•. .Yttl. .,di�:3.,', .: 5.:...:r,C,.?Z.:r..�. 'rir..Ltl�i: •!iv•f.:.,.[5x.?.•,11.t.i.l'r.z1K 1.S.S4.�s:''E'.o.,r» ,b't--t'dv�w h•t�r•.�r-.:,tl;,...uK5.1t �1 +z. : .il• "` F 1, \ ii4'1 : T �.. . i. i .. i r t x: t j 4 • Tr •,\ Y t t .a:,'d7'+• �}.Y#.```. Yl {{` 1- 7 t •1+/ ,ry 1 , i`+` a 1'11 1 1-f 1 1\"'i�0 .T. J� t•�kj 3 it i �F tM1`r � +. � ( •� #•i'- . .� ' a ,'^ n,,.yt by 4\'ix\ tt(ll .x ,'•�#jr.�Y.. '��4�•�, tVrw4.,?`{�C{yy� r.a��fX,'r��` ,lf.#'.��� i?•ttt,i r3 `jJ .:`{�.�F s...,. .1� Z ✓,'}� ; ..r I `4. � 7!1 ,r 1t->• :'t �•�� �y+.'�"^•.t..J x'x �;. Ft. -tt.\;-aC' �:�,�,,�..i `,}}• ,'y ,al�.jt alS�R1.{.�;_ :.ei 'y- ��7,,e� �rt.t �!�;i'•.Ji�`r�\.�,t � �G',i,�(`ss}'Yt�],+rY`,.i t `ir 1i x`ti)+`tir . 'e ,J.1�•,1. i�j(k=,.�r, }. 1e i t..!a �'. -}.Tf•' f: 1 4t1;�yf',�7i t..f, 1_ .)T�i' ii`�' ,i•� "•�,+` •{,:. ,r�='Lt, � 'ita:•S� �) ,,�{?'.�`J'�}} .I,r)'l1x((1 .,,.1Ja�. .a. ' qq((�A?�. ;�i. ''1,1C. 4�.5';.if5, 'af:'� �i'�+��S�j�4��S"J4 i �,1�,��.:1t`�S' )t •ir')'T krt �`» � �"�" i "+�` ..1� E �Ali# f x.l+ i1. "�i lY4`"•'�li :+�,�•t. �`.,,"+xQ'�2i 7 �'4._�i. CAI.ZR '+ �y y` �1 +i 5.4».�'. fit. �� 1 ) f`'' it a ''.l+ .S��j� t i t: J��.•, 1 +. ./ ,d•{l".. �- i••f r # y ( , �•ti as rl i.�` tJ� i•�J.S']]�y.7 1''„�R.,a77 i.� ,lf,iv+,. �''�ktC �a:f,�i S, :�•,{.r�5 `C' ',� � !i:+1R".tit' y l'�!��7+';: � ��.. r1�r_�`6} •�.•}.�� `ler 11. tf 4,.���E ;Cr���r'.« it• `'� •5 k 1., t .. h� , s' ,7.1' i�t w l.'x�11;t t.. T t\? 1 1�3 ti .tf .Y�... , ��t 1 ;ry #• 't;1�r ti3ti tkk };1 R \ t r i•. � f i s i »w r F• �i} } ��'�j+rls. y�l/ �t t'.�}a��v a��'�{:.M1 � s�C. '• 'I�!•!`1r.i 'i'ttr• ',���1 t.l r`'.4a[�-`}'��+,. ., ��kr4i � .I.��'.AV.i. �f. y �'�T ;,SK �,.{ 4:�A�. 3. J`1�k ° .:T� :�{s S i;v.•'}xj�,�:il�di<C �,�'l�})1�,a�� ,> t ,.,/.';.� l•�ii •� "Ri� i .-Jl,,�-�•, .�• ,. �. ,, i ti/r .,i/ C'J } Y'��}r'tt PVSY Ir 'J� + }•4'1 !Yd �a-�"}��ft :''#. '�p:i�. t a{;� '/ 1�•t� i {`! .,1 ,f k.7 y:.+tj'i3.;, 'y =sli1>n.•1'•+ Vy'A ,,�jtT�4.LJi��t ;� , � , h J `1.•tja�y,.f' v �.� ��'' d�rt+l i'.• '� 'il.1h...i.L�'_ AN MIMI NONE P� L ` , 1 1 a' s 1• to a '1 1 t; �i R ! .x:'3�'•,t._ 1,'.J�+ 4. Jt i r l+St ` .f 11 j'i«w«+� +'r a( }' iR4 yissLh arcs-.• r, vMlww r•ei �t 1L :�R 1 h+ 1 �i .�S t qj7r11 1f} y'RI ,fix 'J .�� a'�'� f}�' ••�c' i� �v�� }i� ��4,��..'i `x ,y y'�M' � � 4��1, i fl�� � � fit '{�'t� �� •J gi' .{• r ii � i '. � •(� 4 1j�t�; �i� 5 ,�}, '� '1 '�' " ••`�°t'�� F ��' `r �`�.��•t�" � �,� .t, kipi �.a � ;i,�.��y�,� 1�, >, 1 ��, �'r t� 4�"�t ` ( > a } v '� j•t i.' •`J� i�•�- x�� a ', �jai"i'� m�.�t � "Ts i4{1 .t + ��,'} � Y, ra � �•r d i7+ .,��}'. �. fl K'.. +�� . ..'�r � r },C+-�f�. Of J �'} 'y�{, � 4��1�4}! � !��• •'.�:,ti' �ii a��11 il''�';; y �i� C le.} }} � ) i:' � jA�• + ,�,•�� �� '�r, ..i; � 4 �. � { �� > \l� 'f .1+JS �+ly!°� �t �j+� '�`► ;t 1 .�i r ti t ,3, a w•} � .� ;s r,l r' � ''�.1' '��t 1 i • y i �' t {a4[ 4 ,r %S 1 , 11 . %i't 83 it 04 i# p � �, •�' !�• 'fit � •�j��•• 'r R 'I•I - •`•err •• • �t� `�� � " �,... Tom'•. �b /�+/, 13 In April of 1982, the Commission essentially rejected the LUP, indicating that it was deficient in the following areas: (1) The amount of wetlands to be restored .(the Co0t:ission idantified a 1018-acre restoration requirement without boating channels). (2) The Protection of non-wetland environmentally sensitive habitat or* ESH. �the LUP includes no provisions for the R8 acres the Commission identified). (3) .Ar.cess (the LUP proposes a_ "nodal'":, system; the Commission would require continuous lateral cccess around any shorelines). (4) Land uses (the Commission indicated that less water-oriented resi- dential and more.visitor-serving uses were preferred). (5) Specificity of. the plan (the Commission felt the LUP -put off basic land use decisions that should be dealt with in the LUP). ilk;. (6) Scenic ; resources, recreation and visitor-serving ,.; facilities, hazards, public works, archaeology, and the protection of energy facilities. 7he County. subsequently withdrew the LUP, and 6e'gan;work on arsupplemental packag��'=to;'respondf{to .the`sCoastal Coymission concerns. , During this' time, there-was wtdespread ;belief�jamong a number of people�th.tt the a ssues ,raised by the:-Coastal.7Commission could;.not be resolved between-,• he Co. ission and '•the Co0ty:.and,,that, a'new approach was .needed. .; Accordingly; Senate:Bi 113 429,was A....:. passod *'41ldw'ing 'a local Aappl icant to ',request.the'Department: of,-Fish and'Game and`the Con`servancy,to attempt to resolve ;"fish`;and:.wildlife` concerns"`:as they .. relate'to"development conflicts through the development of a Habitat Conserva- tinn Plan" CP). Ucder, the t3rms of Sa 429, .the :Conservancy is responsible for developing,,"alternative.,land use plans" while'the Department as respons- ible for "wetland determinations." The cost of preparing the HCP is.'borne' by the local applicant. On October 1, 1983, �Orange County requested .the De art- ment to formally prepare an HCP for the Bolsa Chica stud; area (Exhibit 7�. ti In 'December,. 1983, the County resubmitted the •LUP to the Coastal Commis- sion. -The resubrittal does not alter, the basic features of the plan.;as orig- irially proposed, but. does include additional information and elaboration,.in respect to access, energy facilities, etc. It is hoped that sufficient agree- ment can be reached on the HCP that it could be submitted to the Coastal Com- mission in ' conjunction with hearings on the LUP (tentatively scheduled for later this summer). iiatlaund Acreages: Rashomon Revisited Before reviewing the various wetland acreage figures, it must be remembered that, like Los Cerritos, the Bolsa 'Chica wetlands are scattered throughout the 1300-acre lowland. Development in the nonwetland portions of 14 thA . lowland without fill of some wetlands would be- almost impossible. Normally, the oas al, Act does not ' al low fill of wetlands for housing or marinas. Howevor, ,Section. 30411 of the Act states that, where the Department of, Fish and Game determines that a wetland is so severely degraded that it requires mij6r restoration, 25% of the wetland can be developed as marina or bnating .facilities ;(or housing according to Coastal Commission findings) as long as the remaining 75% are restored. The Department 'aeianiiinec'kthat there were 852 acres'of presently-existing wetlands at Bolsa Chita Ybui that these acres were not'so severely degraded `as to`require.ma,�or restoration. DFG did-determine t6W.1000 acres .-of .privately owned present and:historic wetlands (the 'so=called "wetland system") at' Solsa are..severely 'degraded ,:and in need of major restoratio�a but :that .the 268 .ate-owned: w-etland system was not so 'sevetsly degraded. ' Accordingly,, -it may only',be. possiale,'to .apply Section f 30411 of ti:e Act, and the 75-25 split, to this 1000-acre wetland system. Following are tine various acreage figures used by the various parties.. Senate,:HI I 1 429; which set up the fICP process, requires DFG to "identify wetland acres" at Bolsa. Th-i Department provided the fol- `J lowing breakdown: ` 750 (75% of the 1090-acre privately-o►-ned wetland system at aolsi) 268 (100% of the 268-acre State-owned wetlands at Solsa) (2) Count 'of orange': 621 acres The' oun y . 5as stated, in disagreement with DFG, that the 852 acres of present wetlands are severely degraded and in need of restora- tion: (852,acres) x 75% s 621 acres (3) U.S. FiW:and Wildlife'..Service/A1 os 'de Solsa Chica: 1292 acres Both the USFWS an a gos nave stated tha e entire -acre "(all existing and historic wetlands) should be restored. (4) Si`nil' Landmark. Inc.: :453 acres Signal, based on am ys s by ear consultant biologists, has iden- tified only 453 acres of wetlands at Bolsa. (5) Coastal -Consertianc Staffs' 951 acres e HGP authorizing legislation, as noted above, mandates that:'the wetlands' determination by DFG be used.. Conservancy staff accept than determi nation .but disagree with- DFG's post-determination "for- ;, mula, ,which excludes State-owned wetlands from the 75% guideline. Accordingly, Conservancy staff include the entire 1268-acre wetland system in ids approach: (1268 acres) x 75% s 951 t , ' IS COlARISON OF THE HCP AMP THE LUP The major differences between the HCP as shorn in the attached document and the LUP are in: (1) The number of acres of wetlands to be restored (the HCP has 9519 the LUP 600). : (2) The rerouting of PCH around the ,project site's perimeter (the LUP maintains P%H in its present position along the bea.h)- (3) The public facility costs (the HCP will cost an estimate-d $56 to $82 million, the LUP $163 to $194 million). These are shown graphically in Table 1, with the two plans shown in Filures 1 and 40 respectively. . It--.is fepoetant ,to, note, though,. that. the *Joe issue thatihax:;held .up approval 't�f a land .use: plan far this.;area. is .tha;ac:reage of ,rretlandx: to . be restored.;:.As noted 'ear.lier, the County.LUP. proposal of '600 wetland acres his been=ionsidered deficient by the .Coastal . Commission, DFG, and US, Fish and. •Wildlife Service.-— However,. it must ,also.. be' rene, .tired that the present LUP already proposes a..very high level of .:public services to' be funded-:by the landowners.. Accordingly, if A major goal of a consensus plan is to achieve a return: to the- developer comparable to that implicit in the LUP and. &dicate more acres to wetlands, then 'this plan must also provide some relief to the 'doper from development costs. Wetland Restoration Restoration Boats �• As discussed above, the amount of wetlands to restore is an open''issues the HCP proposes 951, the LUP s o s 600, and. the Department of Fish and &anti requires 1018. The tie of wetlands to be testored has also been an issue but appears to be nearing resolution. Working with the various parties, Conser- vancy staff have developed a set of common goals to guide the wetland restora- tion: 41 h:jl! hab'itat.diversity. t2 lore capital and operation costs (3 cq,"atible with public and private development, including present and Future oil, operations, annd J4J high predictability of success.5 protection and/or restoration of endangered species habitat. 16 The'County originally proposed .in the LUP the restoration of a tidal marsh A'simi lar to' Anahcin or. Upper Newport Bay based on advice from the State Resources-Agency in 1973. .The County,then spent-.a considerable amount of time in designing such a wetland; in..Conservancy staff's opinion, one of the more advanced restoration designs completed by any local jurisdiction in the State. This type of wetland would meet most of the above goals. Howaver. since .1973 our wider�standing :of wetland resto�•atian goals in this region has'.,advanced -considerably,;''partially,.based on the Conservancy's US.Angeles-Orange County'Wet Iand Restoration study. That. study:. and recent ' DFG- analyses point out. that, in L'A, and Orange'Counties,, there is a tremen- dons' need for,the. restoration of tidal; ,muted tidal, and non-tidal .(fresh , or brackish .watPr) wetlands. A "muted":tidal wetland is an area r4here the tidal range, usually around five feet daily, is reduced considerably by tide gates or other-means. The.tidal range at the DFG Ecological Reserve at Bolsa Chica, for example, is IS inches. F{-;_ As =it happens; the restoration of a tidal/mute"'dallnon-tidy systen at Bo�sa�,Ct�ica,'is�.both"cheaper and';more -compatiale with;existing .oil operations Wan a 'solely_�tidal:system (see..below fora n�Dre detailed account of.oil oper- ation's �`and`;their, effect , on wetland 'restoration)'. -,'Given the subsidence ,that has occurred"itBolsa, restoration, of a strictly tidal system would, require , extensive I5culpiing. of:, the _lowland;: estimated to cost at ,least $25,LW per acre, and-'might endanger oil operations through. groundwater intrusion at: tree low elevation oil pads. The- HCP-proposed k,*-tlands (Figure 2) takes advantage of both subsidence and oil operations, though, by: (1) renxiving,the .presfik tide gates and :letting`naturail 'tides establish tidal.„wetlands on:;about .460 acres. is addition. to outer ,Solsa Bay. Son sculpting will. take ; place to create islands, fish refugia, chinnels. and a large:.berm to protect.existing. all facilities. (2) creating a muted tidal habitat in-:.the °cells' formed by the present oil: roads: Tidal tiater., will be.. :let in through two tide gates and more through the cells" from higher to lower ,+round. The water will then be pumped out;into the tidal wetland. The presesi:e of the cells -also-`makes it possible to: cut off all water flow in. any one cell to allow evaporation � to create a "salt pond," a habitat type requested by DFG. , The .cells also provide an opportunity to create non-tidal, brackish water wetlands with runoff from the Sea Cliff area adjacent to the Huntington Beach mesa. Oil Operations In light of world oil prices and the use of new secondary (and. possibly tertiary) -recovery ..techniques, it appears likely that oil extraction activi- ties wi'1 continue,at.,Boisa for quita- some time, At least through the life of any development'.'project. The oil. wells themselves are clustered in two sec- tions of the lowlands cormonly referred to as the North .and South Fields (see Exhibit 3). Under both the LUP and NCR, residential development would overlap with much of the North field, while the central wetland would encompass the 17 entire South•field:operation. Accordingly, them or;chal'ienga`that confronts wetland restoration at 6olsa is to find an economcaliy feasible way to allow restoration to 'proceed .in the near term -yet still avoid conflict with the existing oil . company leases. Aminoil USA representatives (thf; largest oil operator at Bolsa) agreed that the HCP 'proposed. wetiand was consistent with oil operations if the following two conditions could be met: (1) water levels in the cells are not to exceed:-,their present levels, i..e., -1.5 ft.,'wl (the•HCP proposes moving more water through these cells' to- improve circulation and retention time but does plan to keep water levels at. their present heights, optimal for many spe- cies' use); and E2) development of. a joint DFG/Aminoil management agreements possibly similar to-the present agreement between DFG, Signal and Aminoil and which would include allowances for:* (a) Per",iodic drying of.,cells to allow-oil facility maintenance (the HCP;`•assures; several;,cells,-'. will ..tie' committed-to dry salt pan habitats, Which could'be' "rotated" through the total number of cells in accord with Aminoil's maintenance schedule); and (b) the ,designation fo'r, planning purposes of the :o11` operation/ wetland area as "petroleum.reserve",.with,the'understanding that this' area will be included within the. Ecological Reserve when oil. operations cease. Amfnofl ruuld still be responsible for all cleanup of any oil- spills in the area and subject to all existing rules and regulations. MvgLng ` An 'impo`rtant.part .Of any wet land.•.restorat ion- project at Solsa Chicv fs the phasingof.`its development ..;ihhich, gin: turn.will depend:on the type of. Ocean entrance:•constructed. As d cu.. d` b6lbw, the HCP provides for a ,navigable aceait > trance, .,with a .stated-,`preference for,' a relatively low cost, -self- en maintaining one#rif it should..'prove 'to be 7.feasible. This type of,;;entrance requires . a _ large enou h , tidal prism. (atwut ;.•.:5a4 acres) . , to, power the !: Conservancy-preferred se f-maintaining ecean'..entrance. The first phase of the HCP,wetlind restoration consists of the construcffon of a berm to provide -the requisite 500 acres of full tidal wetlands, (Exhibit 8) and wl protect exist- ing oil facilities. This first phase includes portions of the present DFG Ecological Reserve but does not require consolidation of any existing nil wells. The secind phase .of the. restoration, which could occur concurrently kith the, first phase, includes the development of the mated and nontidal wetlands by the..extension. of the Phase 1 berm around the inland edge of the of T. area (shown in Exhibit 8 as the "Phase IX berm"). Later phases would then include: development of the most inland portion as either muted, tidal or nontidal wetlands; possible recreation of a muted tidal area adjacent to PCH in the present Reserve or other measures as desired by DFG. 18 SUMMARY As' noted abbe, the LUP-proposed wetlands do meet most of the agreed-upon criteria and would certainly result in highly productive wetlands. However, the wetlands envisioned in the HCP are less expensive (S5",5 mtilton iersus about $29 million) and do provide more habitat diversity. Therefore, the 11CP proposal is preferred. ARTERIAL ROADS AND FIRIDGM The second major-;difference between the HCP and the LUP is in the traffic network. However, this difference Is not irresolvable. Most parties .involved at BQisa have agreed:on certain goals.- ,,First, �'that a4jw.Ai*rovem6ts;-must„be made in regional. `and:';,local traffic-„connections. Presently; E+vlsa Chica exists as a kind.W "white,hole" 'in the iegiorial.trans- portation network., Senond,' these:parties also agree that,some "form of-"cross- �ap" connector is`necessary 0"channel .'traffic through the, lowland:".;°Finally, there., has `also been recent agreement that ;Jt would. be, useful.: to locate this cross-Gap connector., aspw1ar inland as possible to,maximize the potential - acre- age of waterfront housing with boat.. slips. , (Houses on the• Inland side of, the connector are,'assumed to have-no boating access as it would be too expensive to provide needed bridges.) An op n issue, however, is how close to existing housing this connector should be located, due tr, noise and traffic impacts. j . The Conservancy is proposing a reroute,`.of PCH to meet the above goals. Besides eliminating the need for a major bridge at the ocean entrance (costing bett.,e n $16 and $30 million), the reroute will: (1) free up almost ZO acres of lard. under the present PCH for other uses such as wetlands, beach recreation, parking or public boat launch- ing; (2) reduce conflict" between-.the wetlands and PCH due to noise, odors and other factors (PCH would be downwind with the reroute); I (3) eliminate high-speed traffic along one of the most heavily used beaches in the State; (4) create a .focus around a visitor-serving facility (the marina commer- cial area) which can be tied directly into beach and marina use, thereby developing what could become a major center for Orange County tourism; ; i (5) enhance the value of both the marina and the waterfront homes by j creating a potential "world-class" harbor with no restrictions on boat size; and (6) eliminate the need for loss of beach or wetland for the planned ,iidening of PCH in its present location. I . i 19 The PCH reroute does. have drawbacks. ;- The County cons id&ed..,such..a plan but rejected it at the time of the last gas crisis, due to inci=eased travel length (about 0.9 mile). :The reroute would`"also provide a convenient link between northwestern and, central Huntington Beach and raise the spectre of 50-601,000 cars per day on this stretch. Finally, the reroute could be perceived as a major dismeenity by adjancent neighborhoods. Parsons-Brinkerhoff,- Inca, traffic consultants to the County and ,the City of Huntington Beach .have recently analyzed the Conservancy. reroute option. Their.,. analysis (Exhibit 9) shows that the reroute 'could create the above- mentioned traffic volutes but that this and most other impacts could. be miti- gated by a minor frontage 'road. Noise impacts on adjacent homes would not be reduced by additional roadwork but would-be a matter of specific design. The desirabititly''of the .PCH reroute:and its specific alignment remains an,,..opens question among the .various parties. From the :Ccnservahi staffs perspective the.reroute's overal I ..recreational, development, and enromental bene vi fits outweigh the potential mitigaf able traffic impacts. :, However, given that the...,reroute,"might rat prove feasible, Conservancy staff proposes a contingency plan that does not involve a PCH reroute (Figure 3). Other alignMents are also possible and may be proposed by other parties, such as the City of Huntington Beach. %. OCEAN ENTRANCE The construction uP a new ocean"entrance'.-at C^lsa Choica:.iias:been one of the.more 'controversial lti"es. Early in the'HU';process, the Con'servaricy staff analyzeo,the:possibi11tj a: completing,a wetland restoration•prc3ect at;Bolsa without 'a rew ocean entrance:;,_ However, a hydrodj►wimic analysis;'co�apleted by r. 1. �1i11ia�as, a.Conservancy consultant, indicated that current speeds at Huntington Harbor.•.would be increased 3 to 4 times by the additional tidewaters moving out, through the L Harbor. As a cumber of complaints had already been registered from Harbor residents .as to present r,irrent speeds, the possibility of creating a large wetland at Bolsa without a new entrance was eliminated. Working-with Dr. williams -and .several; other consultants, including San- tin& and Thompson. (marina engineers'„ the Conservancy 'developed an ocean entrance design based on the potential power of a restored wetland at Bolsa Chica. Staff found that, if such a wetland were at least 500 acres in-.size and also had 120-150 contiguous acres of boating channels and marina basins, a permanent ocean entrance: at least 450 feet wide could be establishes! .(see Appendix s for a more detailed description). The ocean entrance would consist of two jetties to -12 msl and the dredging of a channel through the beach. The mouth Mould then be kept open by the ebbflow tides which would push lit- toral sand back out into the ocean (see Figure 5). i The 04290 interests Ithose�groups specified in SB 429 to develop the HCP) alto agreed that the actual design of the ocean entrance shall be left- to the U.S. Axgy Corps of Engineers (COE) with the understanding-that the following criteria shall be employed in the design: •r iw.+r'.►�t�r+w.c+rw...w.r.v,..- ......�._._-....•-�-_..��-..��—..,.r........ . . .......:t.. :C`..J........n...���.._..-..._-.....-�..�.a-.:' . :Jf.^-4:rr...:Crx;.:?i:'«St{r- t PUip WUUams&Associates Boy 1 r L b '�?,.r^,Kf ,'r��/..�:,���.•��`.lr`+,��`y� �� .. ;y�s�rY•:F�_ s:-.;s•:: ..... Gore +lam.+-�� i.•�'�;:.++ r� z'� d• P / lop qb r OP ov dw do, ``• Outer Pt ,'f 56 Typical barrier beach tidal inlet. I I Froze Excoffier 1977'- I t � ---.._...._._.._..__------......_,.r.._........., ........�_....:arc..:.xis.,r.�—,..—^--.�.._._._».__..._:,.:rx=.:.c�. ,...,......... 20 (1) The entrance shall be navigable, i.e.; at least 8 feet deep at mean lour water, with the width dependent on boat use (between 400 and 600 feet at surface);. 1 (2) the entrance shall protect and maintain existing beaches and not increase down or upceast erosion; (3) The entrance shall be designed so as to allow an cperator to accept responsibility within accepted liabflty parameters; (4) The'entrance shall minimize operation and maintenance costs and max- imize capital cost-effectiveness; and M The entrance shall have no adverse effects on the wetlands. ... Using all:'of 'these-criteria, the 'preferred option would probably be the routing' of Bolsa 'boat traffic.. through Huntington Harbor. A non-navigable entrance, .closed to.-boat traffic, would be constructed at So?sa to provide adequate tidal flushing of boat channels and wetlands. Staff. is riot ano rermenctin�- this entrance, however, dui to the increased boat .;traffic Efirough -Huntington Harbor, the , possible, ' though unspedifie+d, revenue losses to the public marina and private housing sales at Bolsa, and the goal, as expressed in the LUP, of providing boating access to the ocean at Balsa. Staff prefers that the W.P include a self-maintaining entrance'".with channel depths at -12.ml1w as the best entrance;to,meet the.. c:riterf a jointly agi-eed:l►pon. This entrance is not as deep as Why other entrances in southern California . (see Appendix' C for more information), but it . is relatively inexpens v,e and does protect up and down coast.beaches from erosion._ This is the Eeferred entrance, suaject to COE evaluation using the above criteria. Two other,.more. expnnsive, entrances are also possible. . The first con- sists of two jetties extending.to -18 ml lw. This entrance, proposed by,Pro- fessor Joe Johnson (see ExNfbit,10), would provide average channel depths cod- parable ;o other southern California entrances. Littoral drift mould be :. interrupted but Dr. Johnson feels it has been significantly over-estimated for this area and may not h2 a problem. The other possibility is the entrance proposed in the LUP. This entrance is similar to that proposed by Dr. Johnson but has. an added breakwater at -24 Aliw. The breakwater reduces. the possibility of storm waves entering the harbor and, as designed by Signal's engineering consultant, Jac* Nichols, also ; creates a calm eater area on the upcoast beach for dredging of sand depositf- for transferral to the downcoast beach (similar to the sand bypass system presently in use at Channel Islands Harbor). 1w......nr�w...+... - ... r .._.a.;. .:v.......:......,••[-i.,-.a.wr.-..w++...w�....r+^a..n.:. ._.«F..�: ___� .. .. .s.�_r-'.. ..r ern•.�1: 21 , All participants in the .HCP process wish to develop .a plan approvable:by the variousregulatory agencies. It will: be very difficult for any agency 'to aparove a.plan without specific. understanding of what is proposed, including the proposed financing. As +Corps funding, the normal source, is .supposedly unavailable, Conservancy Staff :is;- c,Iamending that the lower cost, self- ■mintainin3.e entrance be i&..l.ded within ,the MCP wWo the: understanding that this'.entrance is preferred"'unless Ahe Corps states that this entrance is not within the;;range" of entra,rces'* pprovable by the rDrps. If the Corps makes such .a,findi ng, the preferred entrance, whatever it is, must sA l l meet the criteria aggreed upon as discussed above. As noted above, the HO may not 'be as nav•lgable as that proposed in the LUP, but if Corps funding is trot, avail- able, it may be the most feasible `entrance due to its low cost and beach main- tenance aspect. Public Marina' snd Ba_,,,,at,iM t .most parties involled at 8olsa have agreed on. the . need. far a public marina; and;the provision of-,recreationaV!boating. in the.land use,plan. Con- ser,iancy..staff have ,also agreed ,t�ith" the Caunty:;:and 5ignat.hythata logical location forAhe marina is the lowland dreg near theiocean enfeante.y, Two open - fssues- remaining, though, are the. size .of the. Tsarina Wand the µwidths of the boating channels. Staffs have agreed that the size of the-public.narina is. a function .ofv. the benefits ne . d to"create a positive benefit/do stt _ratio far the-construction of the ocean entrance, assuming Corps,,of Englrieers grant funding is used.* .At. the same time, boating channel widths".are. agreed to be dependent on"the number of boats using them plus some unspecified incrawnt to ti create added recreational benefits (roost to tack for small sailboats). The HCA.; proposes a 1000-slip .tsarina, a .main boating channel`Jrost the marina..to the .entrance, averaging 360.feet, wide,, a .turning basin 700 feet' in I diameter at' the entraince, a minor boating,-channel 150-feet wide adjacent to the waterfront homrs, and a public boat launching ramp on the, State Beach. at the, tuming basin. The choice of 1000 slips is ,based on Conservancy staff's preliminary B/C analysis, using the Conservancy-preferred ocean : entrance& The channel widths shown are primarily for through boating rather than expanded recreational use, though a turning basin of over 8 acres is provided for strictly recreational use. The LUP contains an 1800-slip marina, similar width turning basin and main boating channel but a 300-foot-wide channel adjacent to the waterfront residences. The need for an 1800-slip marina is based on the greater cost of the LUP ocean entrance (S60.3 to $71 million) compared to the HCP and the con- . *Assuming Corps financing is available, the Corps will develop a benefit/cost (8/0. analysis of..the project. If the B/C ratio- is positive, the-project is eligible for funding. A large part of the benefits side of the ratio is the amount. of public boating proposed. Therefore, a large nurber of public slips can offset a higher cost project. l i 22 commitant need for. a positive .Corps O/C Ratio. The wider waterfront home charnel also provides some additional recreational boating opportunities for sailors not wishing to enter the ocean. Harina Cowwcial *it pariies .invalved at Bolsa have agreed that, if a''public *arina is to be'bui It - a comaaercial area zd3acent -W.k.necessary to:3 prcvide revenues for finaricing.the;tmarina upkeep.* The .Coastal Act: also mandates visitor=serving con a rcial .facilities; at the coast to accommodate. public use. As with, the pudic uuarina; � the major difference between the HCP and LUP is. the .size 'of this arei-. ' .:lhe HCP, with its,, - smaller . marina, contains somewhat less co=ercial acreage. (25 acres) than the. LUP- (38 acres). . However, the HCP acreage can. accommodate all the v,isl;tor-serving, commercial facilities found in the LUP. except for the LUP`s contingency reserve area. Conceptually, it is , probable, though, that all parties could agree that . the finaW marina comwercial acreage would be based on the amount of activity necessary to support the m►airina. ffcmMetland 64fronomtxliy Sensitive Habitat ESHJ �r.wrrw OG has identified the following ESH at Bolsa: Habitat Acreage Location uca yp us ree sa mesa an adjacent lowlands Coastal dunes 14 Ecological Reserve Coastal Shrub 51 Rabbit Island Vernal pond 2 Solsa Mesa OW has requested that these habitats be either preserved in place or restored in suitable areas on-site. The HCP proposes: 1. moving;-,the eucalyptus trees and coastal shurb to the bluff. area of the Linear Park' to,recreate 'a "coastal bluff" type of. habitat.`. This area will' be directly adjacent to the wetland, although separated by PCH. Bird movement should not be impeded. by the road but culverts will be provided to ensure adequate corridors for other wildlife �. movement between the wetland and the ESH. . t 2. . The coastal dune area will be preserved in place. *Few marinas actually pay for their full annual operation and maintenance costs. However, a marina location creates a potential for high revenue commercial activities. Morally, the leases .for these commercial sites me specify that so part of this revenue will be channeled into marina operation. 1 23 3. The vernal pone! (an artificia-i construction) will be recreated within the residential acreage wit'n suiiahie buffer. The LUP contains no provisions presently for either restoration or protection of the ESH. Flood Channel feuvements Wintersburg ,Flood.. Ccntrol :.hannel provides the primary means of .-;flood protection for Bolsa rand adjacent. areas. Extensive analysis by,the....County has shown that this channel is, undersized to protect any lowland development"at Bolsa and should be.expanded. Tit:: HCP proposes to. accomplish,this. through, an expansion of ,the channel with the addition of a. 10 to 12 acre sedimentation basin.where Wintersburg enters the study area. Based on previous Conservancy experience withtthis type hf project (Palo Alto Baylands, Carpinteria Estero), it would be possible to design the channel and basin to functson as a wetland. The LUP originally proposed; an expanded Wintersburg Channel, which would flow between'. the marina and the visitor-"rving area.. This option is apparently being rethought, h7wever, in light. of the very high cost. It seems likely, based on recent conversations, that the final LUP proposal would be much like the HCP flood -improvements. Linear Park The LUP..hash:`proposed a .linear park along the.Huntington Beach mesa and bluff: face- to' connect the State: Beach. withaa,°reginal park in the: interior. the HCP'�praposes the same. park but`.is including;,within that park most of 7 the norn imid environmentally sensitive habitat (ESH) requiririg protection, about 60 acres as discussed earlier. This is not inconsistent with the LUP since the bluff face where most of the ESH is to be created is hazardous for access. However, 'the present LUP..does not designate any lands for protection of., the ESH; the HCP proposal simply helps to resolve this issue without ,creating a loss of developable acreage. R+esidentiai'De'velo ent ` Almost any plan prepay**ed to' date by-any of the various parties shows a substantial. mount of residential development in the Bolsa area. There, Is also substantive agreement on the nature of' the development: it should provide a mix of densities; it should include ,low and moderate income housing opportunities; and, along the perimeter, it should be compatible with existing residential development. It is also recognized that existing and future •oil operations will have a major effect on the specific design and the permiters oU the housing in the lowland, The HCP and the LUP are very similar in their response to these criteria. The HCIP includes less acreage of housing overall (396 vs. 502 acres) but about E the same acreage of waterfront housing with private slips (144 in the HCP, 141 in the LUP). The WCP financial analysis used LUP densities for comparative ' 24 an the NCP itself does to specify eansities, leaving this to local jurisdictions. Both plans also show the waterfront, perimeter along the edge of the nor:h :Bolsa oil field to accommdate future oil wells and lines.; The HCP residential edge curves inland to accamiodate the needed. wet Ian.; acreage compared to 'the LUP and does not incluCe any Imusing adjacent to the linear park, but the actual perimeter is subject to further design and can be considered flexible at this time. It is likely that the actual edge would be more undulating to prov'de gracter wetland view pote► tial. FINAMCIAL ANALYSIS AND RESULTS SuwarZ Cost ,Comparison- .The LUP, ' as+ approved by the County Board of Supervisors in 'IgSI, represents a financially feasible plan in� the.-landowner's eves, and=provides the logical-benchmark for rssessing the acceptabi.lity ,of the MCP.*. The burden of proof. on the HCP process is to demonstrate how plan, with- significantly more.wetland 'acreage than the LUP,, - and ',reduction in development.r:reage, compares financially to the LUP--particularly in respect to 'its ability to support the range:of public benefits provided by the LUP. As discussed abose, the MCP hopes to accomplish this primarily through achieving major cost savings in the project's capital budget for public facilities. Since the Conservancy's Apri 1 .workshop;'?Cc��nservahcy staff and con:•ultants to Signal,.,and the 'County. have made considerable pe g ess in agreeing-'on a reasonable'set of cost estimates for comparing the LUP with the-HCP. Table 3 { gives a smary camparison of the cost estimates used in the staff's analysis. l .. However,, as unresolved cost issues still remain within each plan, the finan- cial analysis was done on the basis of two sets of .•ost estimate:, for bath the LUP and the HCP: ; 1. LUP Low Cost ;Estimate. .:. This is the cost estimate for The LUP pro- VIM y SigniPs consuli;ants. The budget includes $24.3 m;llion for a T-bridge over the ocean entrance and outer Bolsa: Bay 0 th bermes approaches up to 45 feet in height. 2. LUP High`Cost Estimate. The primary differences between-'.this esti- mate and the,=6w estimate are as follows: the substitution of an open structure for a fully bermed approach to the T-Bride (an $11 million increase), a larger allowance for wetland restoration which Conservancy staff feels is still modest if the LUP's concept of a *It is recognized by all parties that the LUP has been evolving since 1981 and will continue to undergo further refinement through the specific plan stage. In this process, certain elements (e.g. flood control) may be modified in Kays that would reduce their cost. But the presumption is that- enysuch cost savings would have the effect of making an already feasible plan even more feasible. i ' 25 TABLE 3 COST COMPARISON SPECIAL PUBLIC FACILITIiES BOLSA CHICA LISP AND HCP (In Millions of S) L IPA H_CP COST ITEM LOW Hi sh -row-, Marina :.. , , . S 344 S 34.4 $ 16.2 S 17.4 Ocean-Accessa 60.3 71.3 12.2 38.9 Huntirtigton: Harbor Conrlectb 18.1 18.2 aIY iY flood Contras 5.2 6.5 1.4 1.4 Metland•Restoration 21.7 28.5 5.b 3:0 x Linear"Park-.,;. 2#1 2.1 ' 2.1 2.1 Arterial Roads 16.0 16.0 15.6 15.6 Arterial Bridgesc 5:0 16.8 3.3 3.3 • TOTAL $162.8 $193.8 S 55..3 $ 81.7 f of I githout.Huntingf-an Harbor Connectian 144:7 175.6 66.3 81.7 MOTES: (a) The ocean" ccess figures in Table 3 include the ocean entrance itself, the PCH bridge (LUP only) turniq basin and main boating channels, and state beach improvements. The:.-Huntington ,Harbor Connection figures include,. all , the' costs ;also•- ciated 'with providing ' a boating• link betweet; :-Huntington Harbor and -an ocean entrance at Solsa,• and include (in addition to channel costs) the incremental cost for widening the ocean entrance and PCH- bricir1 to accoamadate added boat .traffic, a bridge over outer Bolsa Bay, demolli tion costs for -the existing darner Avenue Bridge,' and channel costs. (c) The, -.Arterial Bridge figures include bridges over internal traffic arteries (e.g.. over the Elrod control channel) that are unrelated to recreational . boating. The LISP . flood control *estimates include t, idge costs for ?inking the marina and visitor service commercial area over the flood control channel. i -f 26 fully tidal. wetland were to he implemented, and the inclusion of the full cost for arterial bridges (adjusted for inflation) as shown in the official Phase I Bolsa Chica Public Facilities Management and Financial Plan.* 3. HCP Lail=Cost Estimate. This estimate reflects the following major cosh savings compared' with the LUP: the reduction :in marina size, a relatively low cost ocean entrance (subject to confirmation of feasi- bility by COE), deletion of the Huntington Harbor connection to preserve the high habitat values in outer Bolsa Bay, a shorter flood control channel, a lower cost approach to wetland restoration/oil well,,.,,protection (i.e. substitution of a to xed tidal, muted and nahtidal wetland for the more costly, full tidal wetland envisaged by the LUP), and the deletion of the PCH bridge and other arterial bridges by the reroute of PCH and realinement of the cross-gap Connector. 4. fiCP High Cast .'Estimate. The figures in this column represent the costs agreed to for Me HCP by Signal consultants with the possible exception of the wetland restoration figure. The,only major change from the low HCP cost estimate is the assumption that an ocean entrance comparable to the LUP's (jetties_ to -20 MSL and a break- water) will prove essential to provide a workable ocean entrance. The lower wetland cost reflects the deletion of a Phase I berm whist, becomes unnecessary if an LUP style ocean entrance 13 constructed. In sue, it. seems evident that the HCP should reduce the project's budget for special public facilities by at least 60% in comparison to the LUP as Initially approved. ECONOMICS OF PRIVATE RESIDE(tlTIAL DEVELOPMENT Table 4 somarizes the results of the Conservancy staff's financial anal- ysis of the HCP Alternatives and the LUP, regarding the economics of residential development at Bolsa Chica. The following paragraphs describe each line of Table 4. Line 1. Total Revenues. This is the estimated gross revenues from home sales including a owance for the 25% ffordable housing requirement imposed by the LUP. The figures rt. ,ect the mix among density types assumed in the LUP, with other key assumptions (density per acre, home ,»ices, acreage netted out for boat channel) either based on the, Fiscal Impact Report or provided by Signal consultants. I 11 *Exhibit 5 of the Phase I Flan. Consultants to Signal believe that nearly 12 f million of the $16.8 arterial bridge costs reflects elements that were mistakenly included in the Phase I cost estimates. f . 27 TABLE 4 R Ml1RY RESULTS: RESIDENTIAL F NANCIAL ANALYSIS (In Millions of S) COST M14 Low High Low 1. Total Revenues $767 $767 $954 $954 LESS 2. Net Public Costs Supported 35 59 106 137 By Residential Development 3. unit Deveio r,t Costs @ 65% 498 498 620 620 f4. Margin for I. and and Profit 234 210 228 197 S. Margin as % of Revenues 31% 27% 24% 21% 5, Public Costs as % of Revenues 5% 8%. 11% 14X I I 1. • ., ,' i 2E Line 2. Net Pu—estimate lic Pacilit CCos.sts Su orted bf* Residential Develo ent.... This s i a`n ea ma a of the net funds" or special public facilities at Balsa that would have to be supported directly by the residential development--either throurjh .revenue bonds, special assessment bonds or developer .impact fees. The figures given equal the total esti- mated special public facilities costs (Table 3) less those costs that are assumed to be borne by outside sources.* Here we should note: the analysis assures, that the Huntington Harbor ' boat connection would be built �oonl +-.�+ i�ff Huntington Harbor residents assess them- selves or some outsiaFfunding source materializes; that the marina (the basins and unmediated land support area) will not be subsidized by. residential development; that the County contribution will be limited to the $1 million budgeted for."the linear park (per Orange County board of Supervi- sors Resolutlon);' and that: the State will bear the wetland costs required strictly. for oilweli protection (primarily berming around the South field) but restoration costs incurred primarily for aesthetic purposes would be born by the development. In the atr ence of any available grant funding for other costs in the foreseeable future (e.g. the ocean entrance) it is assumed that these costs will be borne by the private development. As can be,; seen in. Table 3, the estimated not public costs borne by the project under the High Cost HCP are about 40-50% those Estimated for the LUP; assuaging the low cost HCP, the costs are less than one third of the LUP estimates. Line 3. Unit- Develow• ie,it Cost. This is a. typical allowance for hove con- s ruct on costs and. routine on and off-site improvemEnts (sewer, water, local streets, etc.) . and construction financing. The 65% figure used here is for illustrative purposes and is based on examin- ing a number of other proformas for large scale development. Line 4. in for Land and-, Profit. Line 1 less; the sum of lines 2 and This is the residual at would be avilable both as' a return, to the landowner and as profit to whomever should ultimately develop the property And construct and market the housing units. Line 5. Mar in as Percent of: Revenues. Line 34 divided by Line 1. Although e dollar amours in Line may seem large, . the percentage figures In linI 5 suggest that the economic feasibility of both the HCP and the' LUP .may be marginal without the availability of some outside funding for rrrjor cost elements such as the ocean entrance and the s PCH bridge. However, the results do confirm the feasibility of the HCP elativo to the LUP. *, This assumption is based on currently available financing from government agencies and other sources. 3 ........-._. .. .. ..._�."..��....�....-... ......v..r..a Nf:.1:..• ..- ... .....- rl:.i'TF'.ar.s. s•.rn.u... 1+I•.r rj♦•V...R'Jyi�s•Ii l•�::'1.. .. ' J 7 29 Line 6. Public Costs: as Percent of Revenues. This iin. measures the special public facility cos s ine as a percent of total residential revenues. As can be seen, the cost burden for the HCP, ►,eider both the low and high cost assumptions, is less than the estimate for the LUP. I SUM: the above results suggest that a plan incorporating the basic HCP concepts could provide a 951 acre wetland and still meet the der'el- oper's basic economic requirements. ;n particular, it would do three things: (1) It would provide the developer with as economic return coWarable to what: he/she could realize under thx LUP, and perhaps even better. (2) It would "offer a more -workable relationship between costs and revenues. ' thereby increasing the feasibility of paying for, the speeiel public facilities envisaged for Solsa Chica--including both extensive., attractive wetland restoration and a major recreational boating facility, M By greatly reducing the upfront costs of development, it should reduce the developer's financial risk and exposure in carrying out the develowent. Financial Feasibilit of Marina r.�r�..��rrr ,Table 5 sumarizes the results of staff's analysis of the financial feasibility of a major,, public marina at Bolsa Chica. The financial analysis assu►ies the availability of low cost loans for marina development,which Mould be .repaid with . net income from, marina improvements. and lease-payments from visitor serving facilities. As can be seen from Table 5, the marina appears somewhat more feasible under the HCP scenario when contrasted with the LUP. Line l of Table. 5 gives the net revenues available for debt service after netting out a 10% allowance for adminstration posts. Line 2 gives- the annual payment on the mar.ina. loan. Under both,plans, net revenues are sufficient to cover loan payments with some surplus available to cover other operation and maintenance expense--about $300,000 for the LUP and $1.1 million for the HCP. This result is largely explained by the fact that HCP retains the same visitor serving uses as the LU?, but they support a smaller, and hence, less costly facility. . Here it should be noted. that., the Conservancy's financial analysis has ..7 focused primarily on the ca iitta_l� costs for public .facilities at' Bolsa: :•The Phase I Report contains a rough estimate of $1 million per year for dredging expense and, harbor patrol operations could: cost in excess of . $500,,000 annually. If annual costs of this magnitude have to be supported entirely by the marina, it is unclear whether such a facility, under either the HCP or LUP plan, could repay its capital debt without some public subsidy. '+ REportedly, a financial analysis of the Dana point marina now being. pre- pared for the Orange County Board of Supervisors will indicate that, contrary ; I i 30 TABLE 5 WIHA ECON MICS LUP HCQ 1. Total Cost $34 million S16.2 million 2. Cost per slip $19,000 $16,000 3. Net revenues available for debt service $2.9 million $2.2 million 4. Annual Marina Loan repayment $2.6 million $1.1 million S. Surplus available for other maintenance S .3 million $1.2 million and operations I —..�,,.w..ww•... ,..,._. —'-...-_"'__..�-........«.,.-•fa-.t•._L...... .._.. __... . » a'a.,..s....-.....\ r..r..ri+wqw K�S PIs:. :s•.L..Y.YlLL4'lYw:i.•.+..et.•awr •...... 31 to popular perception,, that facility does not generate surplus revenues for the. County. In fact,,.the analysis Indicates that the facility narrowly breaks � even on an operating basis, without any significant surplus for either (1) i amortization of original capital costs, or (2) payment for periodic dredging and other waterside maintenance. IN SUM: With respect- to the cash flow available. to repay a marina loan and contribute to ongoing operations, the scaled dorm marina in the HCP appears wre. feasible than the LUP. As mentioned earller, .if COE grant funding for the ocean entrance becoess a real probability, a larger . public marina my be required to obtain a favorable cost-benefit ratio froc the Corps. 1 i. 4 I. � .-.....-........,.r...-ah..:.:i.,.--...e. �... . ....;I: '../:1::'Y.�.rt:..v.a r..o.v.. .,:- ., '.,l'.•. - -' �-,,1." 2 � i EXHIBITS i �I � /{IfftA70N ARAISIM r'"_: r-udy ;• cost t kavvpo"WACM ! i y 4A4l,M1+A KACM ' j CAM JWJ4 CAp17 umo SAM CLtmtMtt [MREGO lnca7at�rat�d Unkzwporated Coastal Zoe► Soundiry Bs ,' .SA CHCA NORTH COAST PLANNW LM I _ LOCAL COASTAL RF40GRAM JJ 1 .uaon.r�r►Mcr�.w*•a..e+ can►►. o.na ., .•sii:r'�,'%r'.',"..',;y:w�=e.rtYa •a+...:n•.ac!3�':.•:..-'"+C�':J:':;�iY.3:7�4r.+'+�'� • i . "Orr Poo • r • ♦` ♦. _ •fit 1'IL L- ot say qu C% Al an -t •'� 9 nung1omn . lla Chic at• each al M .�' f,. • . se •ti •� .y, ;f \ • i ,w ' r • y�I• Newport • Beach � i BOLSA CHICA MOM '1 rP uw u• cc". pFOW" R01��■MlflflR ffffd� iRlfrhl O i'MMa - •i i�� tb.s•4lxSa.�"�� J � �j, - t l*ri1 41IN ci •� s ' 'i�3fra;s`ar ,r,`,1(t C ultf�,t+:�r•il��P`a�+y�^.1�r'+�Y �� :f'•�� '�i� . i ,t to +, •�i�a l�� •'`, t1t:.a' ?M,�a�. 1' L��`};1}'`�4'�``J� r����•���� ' •�i� e f •� . (� .. 'r_ r h�\` � �.•7.��.r�•.,=Alt i•t�` f�!.�1>.1.L1YM' `. ...C' . � - �•�\ ,:' i;:,�••t,• ` or � .rs.l.u5�' t1 •��s tt! sri %1 `99 �•�� .4• ••jY - r • J1•�•.,•, •�tl..• �'•.•', i 1.;• 1i' •� 9 .i�.Ivesz :L:, - f tit• 'Z � #• �. `'�`�•9 Ilk i � =ems:'r +• —•---•-•:--;—.—' •`► ' ••�CCaa ?. l Wry, i SMLA.Wit If Jk woo owl Apt Uwe • � .• �+�� � y�,�..'•�r�.tear•.• xa cat: . V � 1 ! WIle o c x � • 1 t t r �•h BEST PHOTOGRAPHIC Rare t REPRODUCTION POSSIBLE, DUE TO AGE AND CONDITION OF ORIGINAL 00 00 .y..•,.+.. .:r.t`:.{i.•'y:rE`:.;�"il" ..,1t°��:..:..H..%it:ti iTvM w;�:L•52::.T�:' a' .S is . 7,j',�'Tom'•` wtiq. • I r ■ y MEMETROPOLITAN4n+.w1 4a4.••1 Ira wRf••e.f4• 1 S1JAAMAR 1y ACRES 1.•I.w w. 2 Ha•laff/f•••en.wf.off kWII TON VAGH GOMPAM `• NM NRlMrir alli.'.. ! lelafl faetN.tltftl flttRf Stir fl1A/awe"llllrfww:? - k INNS"fries INi•f/tal� SIINtIfi Mtflaw..wAiRwle.. MANGE y�.�.•�. y SawalOtla•Umema INlr �.,.ANGE COUN FOOD i crow Go•4w4+1alemfeast WillCOMBOLICT• j• � 1 ttllepfltllaM feNfv Degtif Nti �.\M 4••./•.•.•f.m" Ilet . i . •• i wwalyh{l MNf furefelCltfa{r•.•alyl - '•, t { lC noolultefaeIN ii�latf low fw11•t,allslM•1"t••flf fad C� !fxsalewwtf •pt ta•ffacr :� fll.wea?f/1Mfi ii vt !IN faQOpft f „�• tOTAI,. 1.Mt1s� MAMA ; 'INOIftCC Oe�th tal�lfit 11K, , ff •• .� a \ �� �•1 •{ •' i'•\ : ''••` t •+� • i e . •' IN LI +• ♦ t'I' [ •• •• T •' L ,tom ` � ♦o ' A L •,�t�e►�w•�•'t S It _ .•us Sea fta1�1?Cgeecf1111CS ' � • ..►J••� •'•.• O .•�'� _,• • .... �• � ''R tr+cm w sett •i ,.�i� f s 001.0 ua • SINS Ross"a ffMlRfifM f a u�on 1lel�fflL1f1141!pry/Clfpef M .. f sls •III tilt•to moomwom so 4fe»f4ree•at sa - �.�w.�.•..��r•...'�•.. . . BMSA,C CA clapltt!t,af�tiafaffm" lt7►ffS{N1ufJR11Mif11Htt7elC � a � cut uuwtwenlwlr■ersfe..,w.f j U)CAL Comm PFAMAM asrrs tfa>s"low .. 4nrafraeR•�•a�rr• ..•r•.�4ana ��� f!� ti � f PEiiliP Williams&Associates r• nos r F )1)1 y.• �r .� I A• � 11 N •r+_ ��• �� ! .,,•ram•, ',• I s,�• G�„i,.,srJi BOU&S Bay in 18;3 I Y,eIflO f ,ry1, ,. y �Nj 1, . '"i ?i'Ai,R's ' �'` i ;f =+ , = 5 ; �� �1. � � � + ,�: �' ,<<� '�� � ��, �� ;�A+�a��� �z•�����•�C s�� �' ! � vY, .It�� f� y r •,:{n 1 1 �..� i A` f.7!•,l,,�jl.. k 1 � t+ y. 4�'}x � i,i' �•1 r F•.v =1 1 f �. �.,�� ,(y.',c.• �(�(�i e Ii V'n�'�� :/ r y 1 .�'( ��.�t �r�< �1.3 +1 vi, a�, d ..\ � L .Ij ��u. 5. ��� �15`l ^ �.�! •f �,<#. �ir i t� �a �.�3yr11 FS „'�,:.�� F�,' �. t51; �..)•�"_, �':5'Y e3t:s�.,.�;r• .± t �' ,:� v {' t��S �.. ,,,�. � '� 1 yt"� �{'lx r ..lS` t �•t j ' � � t ,r ! ..kr ,1 ,�1 i. � �' ,�' ,+�' Jy r '� r.+ F.�'i � �l t�s .i�t7 t��{.°'ll�'�1'�"::... `��r`1 S ^y��• v'�'•".. �. � �' ��t f;i'�( t:j! s;FYt j ii}5ti' �'•�t�+t1'�{{Yi't' ^l: 1N�t zf. } 'h1Y, .,:, 1 .�;iY.'� �y� zYyy �.rr'irrp tl,Yt �7tt" f.t lir ttjr:(pp i� r lf}.IY �t .i 't� 1t.,'f,:. Y A Y"" 'r..- =f .,r ' !S Y,a F ., ls• i< tkC.' f .r �� f. { 4' i � [' { •f lk ��1. �q ! ) 'rF? 5� +F: �•.'T'�'•a c'i'P � 1 i'�:�'� k G5 v '�• !• "� �f? lt•Y .r� ��''1% t� ��:• Z�v:titrrf! ' w{ l •F, Ltt �, x LE '� {t x�, '+ t� j 1 •y t .t i 11 rs j alr i ,tt` r ,!i' ,�1.. t }{ ,r !✓j' ti? 1 ) t� t.,,�.. z t s'�'jh/ F .�i tti, f Fri t 'i}}-at'"•� .'1� .l,'?�} '�i '� .��'�t'.} ��>;,��f �'�S'�ti1lS S1�( �. '{��J(t�.� .l:g*+,+q'c.�,•;, r. ^�'�': ''�''� •� J-•�. F •���.��^`,fi{ �f ! �R rh,4• �` iP `�d;[+(A � �,T'�«�t�"i1,-� ,+�`� �ti •;� t$k rt� ryt'« •{; ,c.< s .,,�•,: 1 •QS` �Iy }j!1=� �, A 1`����f t �,3 ,� 3 �,, �' K^,;• � � § � +:,y^ !r� ,• ! 4 a yi i yt G.lritl+:, r` �1 til 214R "x; n�'�� Y�.-�y X�i'�r �3. '�..}y�.e',�dY� t i' I ;.( �.'C �(� p•laa��•�j�•i i �• •�'� �lf�r�j}(•i55 y''� � �' t�'F�1 �,�' rj`M41�i. �"..�.Ya x x '.r t' .'j. > y •!� ,� 4��iyr� 1 i�'• �4 ti �{td�hlt�..���^.�t'ti �,, Departmont of Jtntico Mom orand urn d y� To = John Zentner Daft = March 28, lggq Coastal Conservancy fife No,: Steven H. Kaufmann Telephone: ATSS: (677) 2136 Deputy Attorney General (736) 2136 From = CVWS of tba Attemey G*noml cos AMPM Subods 197•a Settlement Agreement (Bolsa Chica) In our conversation today I indicated I would provide you with a summary background concerning the State's position on the above Settlement Agreement affecting the Bolsa Chica area, I think you will find the enclosed statement of the State Lands Commission regarding the Ageeement to be an excellent synopsis of that position from the State.'s viewpoint. The only change I would note is that the Agreement has since been amended to extend the option term. The option term was to expire in August 1983 in the event no "Appropriation" was obtained for the ocean entrance system. Now, the lease term has been extended three years to August 1990, providing an Appropriation is obtained by August 1986. I hcve enclosed two documents for our information which evidence the three•-year extension of the option term. Should have any questions regarding thFsc documents, please do not hesitate to contact me. <:4 STDVEN H. KAUFMANN Deputy Attorney General SHK:dc Br-.,IV: N. Gregory Ta for RECEIVED VAR 1984 �. ! STATE COASTAL CONSERVAtW ` OAK AND,CAI IFr r . 1 i • t`P S r d �'' t�•S �:ay r Y r p t,. Sy. rr n r{MM6} !' f + •4'ti >> yy'S S ig ,r ?�'x� ,.f � .e r}� 'M Off.� t.. '}{� {r yf"It?j•S.i,�`•{ 'i t t MA * �?1�1� T� �,'�".• IM � "i��,` " k•�1 ,� "+t, Ft �j `� +1, h,. 1r�'h (tf.x, �. 1J, �"i' yyf� ��1 a !nt� T .A •A'•�yt. �r�, Q 1�Ta+ .'; � �Y �S �,r .a 1. i � •� ? +t �� +'� �'tu 5 1{ �, �t'3 . {�� n.t ti! ���! � ��,"\�'• 1'b. ,q;{i'�?�'� �� � :� t:1�t�;1 ' 'y:,. '' �'�r.' yti �, rk'j�,!!t •�].:�',5 �� �'�r '�'Li�� 't ] ?.. r { ? i{�d^•^i "�'! �i�. tf t,.j sr r it e r{,t. 5s;: ��r.�; `r 1''.. t3'T y' .�' � '.��, { � �y It riyr� � fi.�..* �lJ� P'' + •7 4 i"�. ��` '(��,1' L ��.�'�1i{' �YfA•j �.t r {�1 1k .. ai :•3 . -gt {jyl , p fefby • t. � i., f5(.!' r. 7x(,t• k+ y19. i:f .� ra' , pp � 'S.1�. ��•' ),V.�}! �p il�1T1 ."y.G, v 6 .9• r.. y :3. IJ .7A.74 r^* .�+a •�i ^ 1.: �xi{':'Rl (f `} •y' ."� 1 >�¢,a 1,.��k +'. r 1.M ., � , II 7>• r � T 4�l^ , F►�.. I ' f.W.^�..'+1 �i t t 1 1•J Y4 'n ,r ,°r•,7 ., r4yt !, �Y! 4h t: +., + :1 �.r (' r.'y, •. ,ti' t' '� a t.. 1 g r 2 < +E { S f"�} r Y r 1, jxk r i r } ,' � 4? fT It:ry ! `�t5ta,.rt' � cy M IM b k•. � �' 'f� F �. �+ F � �• �j ,} � I �'tyr�y �.«.+ ,jS . �,• Sy, .r�, i ;i � ;; ,j r jaF14i1. f rX 1'.++tF at�} '1 ^+ .i !?t 1 .i ��trllt 4< 371{. , .� .a i�, a.i 7 �' R : • • SENATE BILL 493 STATEMEUT OF STATE LANDS C0-•MISSION REGARDING THE 1973 SETTLEMENT AGREEIJENT Introduction The 1973 Settlement Agreement resulted from several years of studies and negotiations by the State of California and Signal Properties , Inc. ("Signal") . .These activities began when Signal could not, obtain title insurance to develop their properties. Signal applied to the State to clear title to the portions of the Bolsa Chica lowlands affected by the State's claim. The State's assertions of property title and interest in the Bolsa Chica area i were: . a) r The State o►:ned approximately 63 acres of submerged ' - lands; and b) The State retained an easement for the purposes of commerce, navigation and fisheries, over approximately 460 acres of tidelands , , Negotiations between Signal and the' Sta6e, culminated in the signing of the Settlement Agreement. . ,The Agreement settled the title- questions. and included a conceptual" plan for the re- sources 'and recreational develoliment of publicly owned or leased land within the Bolsa Chica lowlands. The Settlement Agreement The Settlement Agreement was signed in January 1973. The State exchanged the areas where interest and ownership were asserted for fee ownership to both a -300 acre parcel, not; managed by the Department of Fish an& Game as the Bolsa Chica Ecologic: : Reserve, and !'27.5 acres of adjoining land underlying Pacific Coast Highway. Fee title to the remainder of the Bolsa Chica area was confirmed or conveyed to Signal and the public tru3t easement for commerce, navigation and fisheries was terminated over these lands. ' Additionally, the State received the. right to use 230 ' acres adjacent *to the aforementioned 300 acre parcel for 14 years. 'Ibis was designed to offset the effect of an ocean entrance system on the State's 300 acre parcel, as well as constituting a contri- bution for the establishment of such a system by Signal. In the event an ocean entrance, system is constructed, the State will receive fee title to the 230 acres . If an ocean entrance system is %ot estublished within the 14 year period (1987) , the lease -will terminate .end the 230 acres will revert to Signal. _ .. ... .� •,,,,...•,,..,r. ••.. .. �-.._. .......___...., ........ «.....,....e,..,...a:............ ........,.a.•....•..r. .... +,.o....:a,,c.„ane ,. ..W..na•.t..r'...;.. ;4': .. .. '.'.":tri'..•rr .. , .�•�.� +�r��' k)y41 ,� c���?a a�p•N .�"t�°} ,� � �1�i1 �'�` ��n�t}� �tS. '�;� �+� }��y�•'+_4:�, �5tl 4 � �s �'�,t•� ��S �C�s�tr �}� i'K� � r T '��. (• ` tih,y'. � 3 ' •(,{y{{l�,'Y!r•�plr, r r,� �;s:tV 'i)'1 'f'`' ��t !.f! +��Y tt�Y r� S' .r 5��r�}4 � ti 37r;�'t +y� t,t� , �t. pY f.'�� F t, r � •{� � - 'r, 7� �, .p +. ��. .'3��,�• '�t i `�� t��•'sf_�.a p�4, � �,7 1'(U• i)\.}/�'j n,), �• Y + j'� F` {i� { S}f �) ,y �f f� (�1���pM1� t ,I�Y �1{+ FFy��YY. LSpp k � `� }` ,} t.j�� 'f� 413 }�fijj�{'� ) {{�t,'t.f+.�''"�►.t�1'?"ty'��'4�� `� .J�L���� }r �tTi��3��ii� i}S� �,� 'ti�✓'��� ��ti i�,r> x �� s��.`" 1 q �•�•� � �w� �''i,}5��. �;�;.-�'� ✓d•�'7.s�' V4 ll �!; t�''r�T.3 �} `��y �t. ;;. K}6�1. };,� r. {�t. ,. .y •�,'` �►.���.S��•, ��'r= 4`t• i4.- ' 1�� ��` y,�� �,j. j►, �i; 'A l .r.�. lw '�• F !rt ;f °�� � '1y�(= ,� .�� v� ♦ }.'� 1 ,�� `��t t ��:J. .,f�'�.•,�-• '� t�,pt(( i r: .';L�:�?: (!�•;7}t•,�'f�� � �'r �• )� 4 .f��� {� r:"�.'- S .� �'41'� !� ; y� �+ �' ;`f� ` b 4.f'J Yt,I f�r �"-�f ,{ t.i al•C )• 1�, .� F. f ��,5,� '�i 7�� r Y,�. .p. 1: f�•�3�.� � r1 c�4d^. ;1 ! �. � , ,.i'*�'i j}��t���,,���� �l '��. ti ��rl' tf:(r'I '4 !t f.4;.j +{ '�.f' ,� �, 'f,•,. � .�, ,�krj<•�' ,ry..,,�- y. 1 e }t ���.E: �a�4}, T�, '�';,• •� ,.'� .p�� � � 't{'q#.�;.'+��;`.'�& '�rf 3y Y" }y� �,ti'���1+y�� a f.'�f. ���� tL,: t�1• ,i�' � r- .'}1 f5.'�x. • •. Yt l� {.�x Yj � �r�', m .� ,�} 1.��,,, t�s, >!"�ih , '���1 f }'7$. �i i�.l.i:.� ;4�� y�'' Ij!!',.,F�,,. � '� � 4� f;•p �i l�tt {/i �p''T{] ..{.t..]'��� t �f� •.4�' ! °.�.: �. (f yfr.f�� .({,tt g +�f. �•(+} .t tt,. �,. ,' � t {:F�74 k� T ( •. 1 r K51 \i}�s�+l �4 ',� :yw.•y Y ;.1'� ,r. + 1 ��� r 7' !'.f•T' Y': ,( �t p%� `t • � ,r- �. ,•,'. ,.1� � f v. .`} p+d , 1. 1'� ,r. , + Y� � r��ty i,++ �.. ,+ �x.. c` t '� t ��+r, t t t.� '^>. 'y� t A �`.y 1 • t.{ !%:;•7;, k.t�p. ..t.q,` ,• C 'yf �s't f �p' f � �• 7c t �+�,} � ��t f 2�;� ,�, 'r'.�' �r.'4 f��ir.t•, ,1��' �..;1 'si (�iey'` ,��+laa•y' i^Spf .>+t„� .� •+� a �4`* 'K'�' '��. t��� ,�¢ ;� �•R�o,s• •Ya,,�'� �� - ��.;4�'1+i1v, �'_,1 t'�'�,1��,v���,�.S"�dp,t,t 1, 0�1r f ' ,� `.�t}+i t,*,.+��.'Rf�i t,> �� ;'� ,��#• }. ,f`y.• -f f�.. Y ti'�.G.�` }t�f `' };�` i ,� t `� ''� �+�s s rr�l '''i i' t }' �� �t� r`.), ?i}31 F( 1 pp k �# �t 1 n� i',,}( '�� R` ,i5�'f +•x ;,t w k y" aT 3 t , fe ..# �tri i7y� t it ' .�+> �.� �+'� q '� �?�� \� qf��;8} }/,�• .�„y �:�� 4rA.4's �••'' !'if Y'�� '*" � � r��rs�'4.et. X-i i .y�.. s ip�p. l� ,i "�!li i��,�y y,�'n "�} ,�y #' tq��'i•S yv;l�;f�' �`tl its t r �%Wjuwi. WNW SENATE BILL 493 - Z - • l A clause pledging mutual cooperation and assistance was included in the Settlement Agreement (Exhibit A) . The clause pledgefi the signatories to mutually .cooperate and assist each other in c•• raining ". . . licenses and.-permits necessary or desirable to effect the foregoing from ;overnmental agencies including, but not limited to, the United States Army Corps of Engineers and other Federal and State agencies". The Agreenent. did not exempt Signal from applicable laws and regulations. Specifically, the Agra-a-ment did not and could not, purport to' affect the power of the people or the•Legislature to, enact regulatory laws, such as . the Coastal Act, which would apply. to activities an lands;within the Bolsa Chica. area• As the mutual cooperation and assistance clause clearly states, it was contemplated that any development plans would require permits from the applicable regulatory agencies, including those at the State Level. Conceptual Plan A conceptual elan for .the development of the public lands, only,' was :included in the Settlement Agreement, Tbe ,conceptual ! Plan specifically contemplated, as primary uses , the following: 4 f . 1) A salt marsh ecosystem over a major portion of the area; 2) Facilities for public use of the ecological area; and • 3) Minimal public marina facilities (with access to the Pacific Ocean) for berthing and launching boats. . The plan in an agreement, - ment .of' resources and recreation iniBolsanDay. The plan isvcon- ceptual in nature and merely a proposal contingent upon many factors, including the availability of public funds for the capital improvements, financing, evaluation of all alternatives and obtaining all necessary 3ove' rnwent permits. . Failure to implement the concep- tual plan will not affect the validity of the Settlement Agreement. C� cl on_ usion The 1973 Settlement Agreement was a vehicle for settling title disputes. As a result of this Agreem.unt, Signal received the benefit of clear. title to lands within tha Bolsa Chico area. K-�qf- I gk 4 15 my �2k�A�'f�i�'%'•4' ', .5".114 \ ,+ <fJ .� k ,F��y t .f {� f. :"7 .1 •.(�i{} r .? Fi•�' ,S }.� ^,,�,. 1� M �.ri� { r{ •' f ,rilkl� �� �wa � SENATE BILL 493 3 Vito Settlement Agreement. like all others negotiated by the State Lands CommLssion, could not and did not exempt Signzl or any other landowner from being subject Mall aPplicallile local, ,State and Federal laws and regulations including, but not limited to, the California Coastal Act. m "O —77777 aca m z . 2 0 0 VL d � M V is Ix lyr. ; gr7 t 1rS i' , •�ti }' t�7{�1 V ?4 j Q? IL 1 r�'�t� Y• x 1r tWtlw t I y s�iC ,.7t , $ ta " ti. 5 %;t�l.�` 7 � .•�' t t ��•�A �.�. AYO•Y � �'+'��.��'�� �y4f•r i!•\���� -�,' ' i�1�'h�� t Ir �`, C +! �i Y� •1•t•Jt� �•i)jc�d Y.¢ i. t,�$,Vrl irl d} s.�e ���t� `'tl� �`Cl � a I p•jdV,Y.,T;v �� "> ' �.. � .: tr t{� � r � .�.�i.P", y '! t��� � i, t � ! ,�' 1 yC� 1 a 1 � 1 :1•. ��_. �.'L 1. 1'y"k •� '� .11y' �h' a, 9���� yak� � � • t• IG �L� � �; l ; 1. �: Y�,�'�f}���• �{,xrTr .{ �•`,.�•� .�pi t '`` l •��.. s3� . 4, , ., � t ��, : � t ''�a � ;�{�, 1�. • � .Ott , sr . �` .fir' � V� S�}}}}1 4 {. 1r�{3. �, r . }'., t+ n`'+ �j =1•l+ era • t } .1 /d s,� I '. tt S '� a i t' �e:• 'd " f�'S�Sir �RIY; i.� ,i'4�tj�y' i �, +yi t j,'�+ 4'.t .L�.. k wig�7,t � tr +' 7' �� : fir �•y` ,.r• �'�1'l'1.,1•' ' t Y.�`. � t. 'tt` �,' � � 'Y1 � } l r�� •p' ,A/��{:�,y`�'••;'���•'� 4 f�i r ��. ,°` ,•j 1,��"�, ����<�i�., ,'�'�' ?�. ��'ff 7 i L�t ]t •t �K•,P),! Y j kr.i � r ..i\ 1'. `' { } +� ,•t :���t W, ? iT s€i i,�'4d1 �+7,� 1. '.� .�#�;7. r •3f�� 1 ���t��,� .�` b� '% S, ��t~ai`. 1 f��'r��� �A�� ,f }i 1 ,�• 't� �'« �•k, �� {s r Tkc►,.1;. j.• yy 5 � ,��. r'•�j<, ,, ��. 1• r r . : i vs ik fry rr,�Cgs '' s }r }��N f j a t }4� },.. t: 'W F �l� �i?t�.'1�� � ! �;� '+SS{" •.•��"i, k"4,� 'iP t�' 'x`��'L At � yi. _ _Y(CtSi. �5 t1FJ�` R1, i �;• /[I, "l S Rr• i'� ,! 1 r h fr r t�i��i 7 .y�(��( re.\ . i,. �;. �rl• It' Y 17 i� � ' �' �t, '� �' Y iV 7• • �Nr t �� t'''l• } 11t r( y�'�i� 7 • 'H=7 icy 1 � hx'� � { trr ,�,� �f 'l� ���WWW ' '�(� t r "tt►r k � l.- ^d y . .�' .� �t X `' T ,4i � fY 'ti � ). t;. lt: „ l� .•o.�tt"� �I 4t Y ' "` ►t#,1 ' rt`, �} .t�', r• r+X �"��Q�T O (4191 924•r127 J- W. . OHNSON CONSULTING INOIN!!N 200 LARr DRtvt DIUKLL1,CALIFORNIA 94700 RECEIVED s May 22, 1984 MAY 2 0 1984 &ANTINA&THOMPSON INC. Santina & 2hompson, Inc. 1040 oak Grove Road Co.;cord, CA 9451E Dear Pete: ATTU o Peter r. Santina, I have carefully studied the various reports, charts, maps, etc., of the Bolsa Chica project. My preliminary conclusions are that the concept plan is moving in the correct direction and should provide asell-planned and low-cost ma.'.ntenance project. I have the following suggestions for further studies which are described to firm up the final design. 1. The estimate of the possible closure of the entrance to Bolsa Chica (based on the tidal prism and minimum area of the entrance) might be improved by the additional data provided during our cont-irence on. May 22, 1984. 2. The"Ientrance jetties should be extended seaward to the eighteou*foot (tLW) contour to prcyide a deposition` area for littoral drift and extend the time before sand might enter the entrance 'channel. The stated -rate of littoral drift'of 500,000 cubic yards per year appears extramely high to me. The deposition at other entrances jetties in this area indicates a relatively low rate of drift. Sevaral range lines should be made perpendicular to the shoreline in the vicinity of the proposed inlet, rut to about the 20 ft depth below MLLW, to provide the i exact bottom topography in the area. 3. Since it will be som}_ years before appreciable development will be mada in the interior of Bolsa Chica, I would adopt a "wait-and-see" attitude as to the need for an offshore breakwater. After the jetties are cor.- structed, the nature of accretion or scour of sand at the base of the jetties and the nature of wave action within the entrance channel should dictate whether or not such an prxpensive structure is required. 4. More reliable data on the wave climate are now available than in previous ), years. The 1960 hindcast dots by the National Marine Consultants did { J not include the "Southern Swell.," but the joint study by the State and the Corps -of Engineers using wave riders should provide much better design data than before. I; Santina & Zhompson are fully qualified to conduct further studies for design purposes and complete the plans for the project. sir:ca'ely, Jid7smi on � . i r� , t If ifIF g i it j " g"" j ' " r"1 lE LIJ x6 "rW A. !,pi 71 J-W. JOHNSON Professor of Hydraulic Engineering Universx�y of California 1411GAtIsm: B.S. in Civil Engineering, 1931 H.S. in Civil UngineerIng. 1934 University of California, Berkeley 1934-35 waterways Experiment station, Corps of Fnglneers, Vicksburg, missippi 1935-42 Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. 194?.-75 Teaching, Un" ivOr.-!itY Of California: Professor of Hydraulic Engineering, 1942-1975 1975. Professor of Hydraulic Engineering, Emeritus Licensed Engineer in California Rem- b-2rship: Americ'In Society' Of Civil Engineers - ,Fello" w chl ' rpsilon (Civil Engineering honorary society) Pt Tau, Sigma (Nech4nic9l Enginegring honorary society) Sigma Xi (Research honorary society) Secretary, Ascr Coastal Engineering Rtaearch Council Intarnational Association for Hydraulic Research F-2nuu. Guggenheim Fellowship - 1955 Department of the Army "Outstanding Civilian Service Model,, 1973 Berkeley Citation. Universiiy Of California - 1975 Momber, National Academy of Engineering 1976 IF �INO".N' 11 �gp IVj yt� L N MY, gig ? t M IKW kr IK" W. Ju:wson C.;!aguitiag experience and other Proresaianal Activities: (1) Consultant to Uta'.j Power avd Light Co. , Saft lAke City', Utah, on sediment problem- s in the Beer River ticar 1,,i1an, Utah, 1?50- (2) Consultant to Waterways Experiment Stations VicxsWrg, Mississippi. Wave action problems* 1951-52. (3) Consultant to Jacksonville Districts Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida, on Wave and u1nd %idea In Lske Okeechobeep Florida, 1952-58. (4) Consultant to B. As Nouelt ragineersl Caracas, Venezuela, on sediment% tionp batch erosions and harbor development along t)ie Venezuela coast. 1"k-58- (5) upert witness in numerous court cases on sediment problems. Consultant to Santa Fe FailrrAd an sedizentation In the Rio Grande valleys, 19514-58- (7) Consultant to U.S. Navy, Zrmkwater at Subic Days ?,1.,, .1955. (8) Consultant to Dames and More* Littoral drift an Alameda rill. 1957-59- (9) Consultant to Tudor Engineering: • (a) wave action-at Puerto Mataran1j, Peru, 1958. (b) Barbor Uvelopmentp. Da fiang .1154y, S. Vietump 1962. (c) Fort facilitiess, LChSmbotet Per::, 1962. (d) Fish processing plant, Chimbotes Peru* 19630 (20) Consultant to Takota Corp., XmInsham, Alabara, proposed improved entrance to Russian River, Callf6rulas 1959. Santa Cruz Seaside Co., California, proposed sea will, 1950.- (12) Consultant to J. 3. Pomeroy & Co. (a) Shoreline processes at Tzhoe. Keyss California I 195:?,. (b) Surging at Navy Fuel Terminal,, Sm Pedro, California, 1959. (c) Part developcent, Ran-Al-Khafjig Persian Gulf, 1959. (d) Small craft harbor, Martinez, California, 1960. (e) Phillips Petroleum Plarbor, Puerto Rico, 1966. (f) Water front development at Columbia-Geneva Steel Plant, Pittsburg, California, 1960. (13) Consultant to SteretArin de Mrina, Government or Mexico, Fort dowelop- Dent at (a) Emallada, u2ja, California (b) Topolobampo, Sinaloa (c) SalIcA Cruz, TiLhuantepece 1960. (14) Consultant to Raymond Ccocrete Pile Co. Littoral drift proble© at proposed small craft harbors Santa Batbare (15) Consultant to Stevens and Thompscno Seattle, Washington, Silting problem in Green take, 1941. y , i 1 ''' ', .t '*+_ t�� j, r4"t `Y�{ �t 1' �' f, r .y',, t' '�. gl, F�' 4 'i � •,,� • "b 3 y• t f�': J(,�1 •F�. ,�.?���. 1 i �'�i �''�* �:� ,;' •' � •'�^'�'� .,.i .�:�A 1} f� �x J� �'t 11��, �i#r,�y�r1 j�nb.#. 5�, l: 5"���r., " 7j"��{'�� •i� •�' ;'�h �1 }. ef r,+`[/ ` 7 1 �*. ti j .. I♦T ,q 7 �.1, y 1� r 9 �1�'' +`}rr`�' ��' •if!1, ( � i t � iY 9 4> "4't `.;'. �j� ' .f.?+ �`+j �' + 'b ' it���,�,1-yti 1 :1 ��3 t.1:.'i ��a �i ��+ .z !?� '�F'•��� '� � `fit i'.�4t R'1..fMf+�xSS��+iri `,':T:` ,�. • J =. Yry1�1,' MAN, f• :'T .: ; t 1�:..atf• i1j�+ atr �k:'" a +�. ll�,s.,6.5i�b[ - i1�iy :i; ti �Vl. ` :.fiid. i° ..ti•d if ,« "y+i ' �7 �' .Jt. ,� r l� &. .. .�`:'.,+ f,. ' r ' i., 1: •t F9t`! Ilk 7� i �., . �.., s.�� yk }, � 'r •,t t`i • 'e, K} �1 y � '��r L ,^ � .'�� �`�`± '4- �. kt � ' •� ,+��` .� �yi ��' 'F -�{'! i(�( •!'y i pF��1t't(� S }� .��+,�' t 1�, l� �� 1it;.�^ .�' b i � � •��;�yr�' •W�n;�} ",+�:iC•`, '��jSa;Cl�;r•� } r�/. �}�. l�;,��"� ���( � ►, •�{+.},.� ri � qq\..t1`# �t: ,x (�`.4w.�((i� .tea y� C���i h� ����.�n'�' !� ���,1 '��i1�styfi.�� '� .y�{f;. t f����i, �' { t.� t{'�� �}, t.S' �. ,''�.! �` ;,. �� ;},`��� :'.t��'•:.��'"' `,�iE� 11i ��'t �����•r ��.ii�•�' ti`'-1�.:4^ }"i:,} .'"'.� 1�� 't✓'•�`i� } �it�rl� +'� •dr.i �yc 1 �r,'�I,�i „�1� �Z��ijS � ,,� s �r � 4' r` +'' ��r. �j� } �!`��� s , :i � rE,e ,•t . •�.`ti � '•t i�t�,t�j�J'iif� ��r�,r 'Gt}' � . �. � yr r. tr7,'�� � '`r �' � "+'{ .�i` �3�fat;i b. b�}'r4�x �.�f<�' � i�'�. 1' :�.r K� �r�{. •S�}1..��?�.t'S a�t ��li 1,4Ktt,��s .it;'�,� s .v rtr �'1�, t j y ♦ y y {1 +R t y yea r�1�!(�"j 1 �! 'r�{ ;S nyt �il ., �2,{s`�i➢�+:';�ts f�"�i �}'�;, zr �; f 1 � �:l�`._ ���1 '4J+✓ � F",yilj. °�'��al�{�{��1`;.�F.IiC: Yl+t` • 1 t J. Jonnson consulting Ex rience and other professional Activ:t=ss fcont. } (16) California State•Lands Como, Los Angeles, Shoreline changes in Monterey Bays 1961. (27) PacIfle Archit2cts and MgiAeeps, Okinawa (a) LST MOP reastbility report, 1361. (b) Vave action, Teagan Pler, Okinawa, 1962. (18) D,ames and Moore$ Honolulu, Beach develop gent, Korb Coast (29) Beltr Collins and Associates, $onolulu, Srali craft ?arbors, 1961. (20) Soil Coraervatioa Service, S000lulu, Sed1meat problems at stream outlets.. 1962. (22) International fteinzeering, San Francisco, Ore port at Vltorla, Brazil, 1961-63. (22) moons Xining Co., San Jua4s Peru, Wave action in San tiicholas say" , (23) Los Angeles Couasy scull Craft Harbor Dept., fey, 2962-63. , Ms::eve problems,, deal (*0 Miners 8arovars Palo Alto, Ca11f.s Port developnr�eat, SeAurs 1963. Bays Peru, (25) Vt;&U C0natruCtiOA and Mining Co.# Sae Francisco, Port developmeAti Anrttwest Australia, 1963. (26) John Blume i Associates, San Pranciaco, Saab cr+►i't harbors, 1�53.6k. (,27) Mac Silvers,; :onsulting Engineer# San Francisco, Fort development. for Kaiser A2u&Umw st Dry Htrbors Jamaica, 1964. (28) Bechtel Corporation, Satz Francisco, Taftsout� Nuclear Po Plant, ?txlia� 1963.64, (29) UY Area Anpid Trarsxt, San Francisco, High-water levels in the Bayr# 1964. (30) U.S. Kavy, C sacs 3iltiug in Power ?:oat Intake Chmanel, 1964. (31) U.S. Mtioaal Fork Service, Shoreline stability, 1965• (32) InSterAationaal Engineering, Sea Francisco, California, Shoreline atabi- 11tyr Baia ds Sepetib4e, Brasli. (33) Petr'oleos Mcxicanoa, Pori. exWsioa at Coattacoa,lcosm Fi-xiCo 1 965. (34) Hiss Silverts Consulting Engineer, Sacs Francisco, Califoruiats'flock loadlM racilitY, f. Sur, California, IWO. (35) 1 6. ttarria Co., tiw York, proposed till problezu, Lorain Harbor Obia 196c. � , `rr'.."...r....ews...,.p.......+...-.....,»_._. ..- ....._........ ..�..w a:r.rr'a s:... .i.ca.:?A J,i• .n, owl I {V,• u ' .,yrh.Ri./ �• Lj S ty ')) 75 � r t' 1'• C��j+ b1� 'l�. �."y4: ; '�•. �•��� �. � �}���?.Lk �y !`'t`�. { ,f �� ��'`1 ��'i���'�R''.y .�� ��1 ..(. 5' �1.t' .�i c.•� .Ea. � '� t. ,1. ,•���� '�R 1 � y, �•�., �y� `�+� . ,� t1,• � , 5,,�, f`�y;�� � ,��+i�� ��t �� � ,��( J ,a�y 1 ..tlt F ;�'' � �i k� �, �f' ,[r 4�' �� `� r , t .'�:.,xv r. y}..41i 1' � r' p St•.to #, t� ,Rk• . .t�" ;�i+Y' �� i ,f yA• , �, ,t.v' r{`� �•�yr � pia {� 'ts �.� ,' �, ,� { t ' • �F i� i �j>��'�i1r�t}��tJ7si.�.�%�ri r `.y at{,'{�;K� �+tY�Y�' G 'tt .. S •�, T hR yy. i6 ,? ,t er 'R+i #'fCGN '3 +ti•.tf.3' ' rrt #fir ,i, r.r�� ..�' [r,iti'i y ,{ � t �•k 4 M: � 1,,�.t; y �: JR Ea S•y, tl. ( t . ., + •.I'I i �' �+� h .c �' `3 jyt��';01 [ �r/f'i �: 1�� �� �t'r ��� ,. " '3•.}#�Y� tL}f ���:�`!�{�11:�. Gtt`1"e���•,�#��}.. • ��r ,�S�S''��•a ���'t. � y''�y�,',i"� M '�1 . Si►a�� ,�� '� � ., f}tt r��}�,` •:�t:Yj� ' �k'�•'7' �� � ' � �• �:.� �! '�:�'J` �'xi c�' W`# b � 'k °' 1t�` rjy ,r�4i ' r#, jplTr4°yeti' ,� r Mfg `�j;;.�:, f�y�t41{t �;x• � pr t !� �R,i d. � � i�'�<�r \ ryf(1.,r �Q �n, w:�r�• �,��r 4..��y:i, •�'�,l.. � �k,tl�. ' j��; �L .. �' , I' � l�.i' � yr. { T Fly r J, V. JOinsson Lonsultinj Mar iencd shod otijer Profestsional Activities (cons.) (36) Bachtel Corporation, Gaithersburg. lid. . Turkey Point AtomLe Powar Plant, Fla., 1966-67. (37) Sues Canal Authority. :;ew port development. Damietta, Egypt, 1966. (3$) U. S. Attorney, San Francisco. Limantour spit, 1965-67. (39) Crown-Zallerbach, Saattle, dash., Bzach erosion. Part Angeles, 1967. (40). Farsocw, Driackerhoff. ¢Dada. 6 Douglas, Sedimentation. Bahia IIlanca, Argentina, 1967. (41) Solinrs Harbor District, Calif., 1967-68. (six) scan-Wooster, Vancouver, Pt. Gray beach fill, 1967. (43) John Blwe L Associates, Harbor surge, San Nicholas Sally, Peru, 1967-68. (44) S. A. Reuel and .Bust Font, Caracas, Venezuela. Shoreline problems, 1965. (45) Mae Silvert; Consulting Engineer, San Francisco. Proposed port, Bozout Is., N. V. Australia, 1968. (46) Southern Cross :lines, Cape Cuv ter Port, W. Australia. 1968. (47) Calif. Dept. of Highways, Santa !Tonics Causeway, 1964-72. (48) Calif. D&pt. of Highways. Ventura Highway protection, 1969-72. (49) Utah Coustructioo Co. , Flay Point Coal Port, Australia, 1969. (50) Utah Conotructiot. Losding f$Cility, Cape Flatters, Queensland, Australia, April 1969, (51) L. Zeevaert, Mexico City. Port development. Tres Palos Lagoon, Acapuleo. May 190. 1969 (52) United Nations, New York. Frosion of Mile Delta, August (53) U. S. Attorney General, Limsntour spit. Pt. Reyes, Calif. , ttcvember 1969. (34) Soros 4 Associates. Port expansion, Tubarao. Vitoria, Srazil, 1969-70. (55) 8o11nas harbor Dist., Sediment studies, September 1969. (56) Sw.nta Fe-pameroy. Sonny :fiver Terminal, Nigerin, February 1970. t57) northern California Aggsegatea. San Francisco, Russian River mouth � study, April 1970. (58) Mac Stivert, Can Francisco, Port at :srvis Bay, N.S.W. , Australia, j April 1970. , (59) California State Office pf Attorney General. Kant Vs State, Bolinas say, 1970-72. tb0) Utah international, San Francisco, Ruper: Inlet T.silJng Disposal, 1970-71. i ilk ....... ✓•.awww.w....—.......��...r....... ., W�.a...Mn.r .+.M'.1.r,:J•: l«.... ♦:I.l. rl'....,t f.1:.n «. se ti.,a. w r+r...••vY..I+....+•.......• .v♦ a(. rI, , r'Owri� I, Il 1 �,���1t1��r���j�kq(� '"� ' .+' }'ti� '� �}'`y,I�"{R {'�+"'"��1y:�" '•�3 '���f �� �,t"• t +�t`@t r L y N% �i�1. � � .�.'+ L�+ , �°:17M� f' ���j+ y Ci+l(�rJ � +� �I'{yNl q�: � Fir r�y� �NNN}YY � t i4j'y�,1,:41Sr�tl•tti�t'}'} ?�'' • r ' ,j{` .{!yt -At.jti;} « t 4` -� f l 1r2+f� 1.1 .' ri, ,;:j ���S ��Y4 ,}ty ;:, ,( C 1,}1 .tt.{ y gal,"fk �� �• ��j�14H�, l��,YS°•,+, � `���(� �•�' "4yEi ���',tt ,!!g""A51�1113, �. S�•1y���+ x�, ,� ,' t{t !"5 •113, iYI'f�•u •t`9 � \+;Zlk• 't � � yl,� tee• �� '«`� X�r t 1 L ;i � e•�, ,t t L,' 4 • }. t i+ `}+t i� r t tSYy. r� t t• .{ tr3.� 'i . a t #;f•uyj r L�. ;15 C+ y j Y .yC ;' }`qt{ • C+� ^ . J } �M1 �Iy�'� � � �rti�a ,�t�. 5�, ^r1:h'"/�.'�• �� 1 � �' �{i} i5��xYS'' V•'itrt� 3_♦ i 1 I f` � �r�¢ 1+ ` �r tl /� t ,k� ..iY".�I 'f+�~ �;r��+fi �� � '��_ +.Pi,-;. �;«ti���4�;�}`-•��,�;.` ,�}(.��.; Gr,4. '�1`i��}, •�i�'�� t `r�.:.� -,'y�ay�� fs ,.��i1����Yr s +'�1� "!'�`J ,� �r• �t� '� ��14 rt���t ,�s,�,.� t t�. t � �S••�r t��4 �� �s •\ � �t !I. a fi; �� . � � �,},���9 ".i�.r}�ii�i1 r� ,• }.s.r � , t�t J. W. Johnson Consulting Cxpericncu and Other Professional ,1ctt :ttt: leant.) (61) Ceorge S. Nolte & .Assoc. , Ewryvillc Marino, 19700. `I (u2) Cia. Vale Uu Rio Vocu, Rio do Janeiro, if:azi 1. Uavc lopm%:nt of new wood- chip port, Espirito Santo, ::I7U. (63) International Engineering. San Francisco, 'New por: site, Pawiiic Coast of Guatemala, 1972. (u4) Federal Commission of Electricity, Flexico City, Sediaicoc problems at Laguna Verde nuclear power plant, Vorac:a:, 1972. (65) Valuec Servicos Tcchnicos, Ltd. , Rio do Janeiro, +:cu port situ, Northern Brazil, -1972. (66) Carr b Donald L Associates, Toronto, Now port -4ita, Lua . Alaska, 1972. (67) Engeo Incorp., Berkeley, Calif.. Slave action on Vation,:l L.46 Co. $ North Dike, Great Salt Lake, Utah, 1972. (06) Commonwealth Edison Co. . CMcago, I11. . Beach rrosion of :ion Atomic Power Plant, June-Septembor 1973. (60) Dsms and Moore, San Francisco, Ocean floor stauility, Atlantic Atomic ` . Power Plant, New Jersey, January 1974. 170) Des and .Moore, San Francisco, Silting in 'toss Landing harbor, California, June 1974. (71) International Engineering, San Francisco, Calif. , Steoi plant protec- tion against wave damage, Lazero Cardenws,.Mexico, .August 1974. (72) 'laM3 and Moore, San Francisco, Scour studies, San Lucia Power Plant, Florida, 1975. (73) International Engineering, San Francisco, Slave action and sedimentation, SMLARCO, Ara:i l. 1975. (74) San booster Engineering, Vancouver, Mirinc Terminal, Now Brunswick. Canada, 1975. (75) Chief of Engineers Shoreline Erosion .Advisory Panel, 1976-1981. (76) UhESCO Nils: Uver Delta Erosion Study, 19%. (71) Parsons, Brinkerhoff, et a1., San Francisco ocean uutfull, 1977. (78) City of San Francisco. Ocean beach study, 1077. (79) Cabinete do Sims, Portugal, Sand dunes, 1977. (30) Proyectos !•larinos, Mexico, Dos Lucas Harbor, 1977-;3. (31) Paradise Cove Marina, Tiburon, California. 1374. '_ ..-^'..-.-....r•+..v.r -- �--'_.__..._..........._.....-.-,.,—.....,+..........w a\C............ ....L..., .v..v....,.... v.ww....i...fa.r....wn..+u....w4'1.1,».,...'�"r}r.y.'.L�r.i.\:,t.::i..:«r+• + 'i. I` A. '4F 8 EXHIBIT 11: OTHER 11CP ALTERNATIVES REVIEWED At the request of the Conservanc y Board, this Exhibreviewing other HCP alternatives examined by staff Is attached to the staff report. The preferred HCP Was selected Primarily because to met the HCP goals With the minimamonpall theframions reviewed, It PPemisesCOUntY- However. as noted I UM drtue the LUP as approved by the n the staff report unresolved questions respect to the economic feasibiliC and beach Stions remain is navigable ocean entrance at golsahica under either the JjCp or a ful 7Y report, Impacts This Exhibit contains a brief review of two HCP altern ' r the LUP. Planning objectives set forth In the staff rep atives that meet the if an Ocean entrance is later found to be fnfortt and that might Prove workable a third alternative with no lOwland 'devel asible. For comparative Purposes concludes With a S ' OPnent, Is also Included. Tile Exhibfi economic feasibility, comparison of the three Plans In respect to their ty. -Alternative '2: Figure A depicts this alternative, and Table A provides an acreage breakdown by Major land use compon entS. Alternative 2 is basical7y the same HCP except thit recreational boat access to the ocean as the preferred Harbor. and dethelan.,'retafns a 951 acre wet7and, t ean Would be Huntfilgton potential fO;% Private waterfro he IOWland location fdr the slips. " Specific differences nt developmert with private boat rences fr&� the the HCp boat access, are tte following; aside from the changed (a) ML-avigable Ocean entOinie 1 1� I I P collst i A non-navigable ocean entrance would areas Me water rl . uld b Huntington (2) *t Irculation to the wetlands and boating o Prevent any serious increase in channel velocities . through Harbor 4S a-result of expanding the tidal airwithI6 Balsa Chica. The entrance cnannal Kul d be maintained lotained by he tidatprism from the wetlands and boat channels. Ina sense, this ocean entrance wOuld recreate the historical entrance that once existed at Balsa(b) 'Roads Met. Chica. Wdrk and grid 'Les. Ila PCH reroute, As in the anew-e1_d_c_d-nnertQ_r.,wOU7d handle cross gap traffic, but Would be Moved towards the rear Of project area to free UP more acreage for waterfront hOusfRg. The Plan contains a 25-fOot bridge over the Hunt connection channel ington Harbor entrance. (with clearance for boats comparable to bridges at Newpor.t and Anaheim Bays) and an at-grade causeway over the non-navigab7e (C) Residential ',% velo Total residential acreage is �t�here��'�dn tAe-7MOmmended P- This redu 360 acres, about 35 longer boat channel requ ction result the Balsa Chica Gap fred to prov s Primarily from and Huntington Harbo ide a navigable connection between NIT �" R. ', if i� � (;+� ��. r: 1�,'•'`.`, ,",. M j,� 4.�i, �,+; �l 9, N `�d �' '1 r•i� " k .�� K w��;l. �� �. Y�.,.�; j t� .� �' t. F?�� � ' vt4��t. t ".M1� � ��,: •��".. •4 ,K'i� f �- 't. �'� ; +, � w � Z j;" � �, t �, !� t ' ..�'C� }�'S �`' ,r h° '•� s, .+I•tT� •t ���� ,�1tT,.�i^�'t•�j/ i.Y(Tt 1 �:+��PIN Ir.Y, � � :J; 4• �.p��T� � �((l'�..;[y``�Cl'Cya"�t'�7 l![(qV� Fir�Y' '�(pr�+��,' •�;}�f'}��+'c� �� 7�j��'�' �' ♦. t� x ."�`. { y is S. •r L - Y�l Y `C, f•w 1, '/ lf1 '. 1 1 } n/t \Y•Rr. yf -6 " ``} 4 �yr,'.i�,kO..c'a1 >?` R'ie 4f. '`�� �J � `Y "/.� '.SrF..4�1;� •�Y �' ` , f{�i ��1 y`' °r t'6a s�k j FT �•4 .1 brrS�.1 (f :., � .i J. r �15 ' :� Y� fr�i• ✓�•'`i. I+ �i. +..S .� t •.i 'at( ` 1��..i.}� .'', .i�' ��y l. E+ ,S'L` i'r`.�,{ .+ � ^� `'}k�•(' �{ �' `+' � :r :fib,- '� ' I;��f� 3. S� '•Ki'.t � c "� ; �C; ���;�?fi*�, �^y����+ 3 � r I.,t 1;�3 ,� y�t�- ��i�1 .5 1 . r f Alternative 3: Figure B show this alternative and Table 8 provide; the breakdown of acreages. This option includes: (a) Kan-navigable ocean entrance. A non-navigable entrance as described above ur. er Alternative (b) Marina. A 1,000 slip marina excavated from lowlying p3rtions of Bolsa Mesa ad acent Huntington Harbor. This location becomes more logical if there is no. navigable ocean entrance constructed at Bolsa. However, unresolved issues remain regarding the workability of this location from a site planning perspective. Only about 10 acres of 60 acres of Outer Bolsa Bay habitat would be lost to boat channels. (c) Residentia'f:level o- went. About 430 acres of residential developoxnt. T-owlawdevelopment could be oriented around lagoons, on the model of Sea Gate at;Huntington Harbor, and views of the central wetland/water area. Small sailing basins (without ocean access) could be created around the residential perimeter. Road network and brid es: The same as Alternative 2 above with two exceptions: e a ignment of the cross-gap collector is entirely flexible (since, compared to the plans with private boat slips, this plan receives less economic benefit from pushing the cross-gap road towards the rear of the project area); and (2) the bridge over Outer Bolsa Bay should be at grade (no clearance for boats required). Other featurc°s (including the 951 acre*wetlarid) remain essentially the same as the preferred HCP. Alternative �4: This alternative was examined at r.!Ie request of `the Depirtment of s an me and the Amigos of Balsa Chico. it is depicted in Figure C and includes the following main features. •(a) 1300 acres of wetland in the Bolsa Caica lowland (b) about 200 ?cres of housing on Bolsa Mesa. (c) a non-navigable entrance would be included if Fish and Game chooses to significantly expand tidal habitat. R6SULTS'OF FINANCIAL ANALYSIS. Summary cost C arison Table .0 compares the extimated costs .for special public fdcilities for each of the three alternatives described above. As can be seen, the estin ..tes.range from $9.4 million for Alternative 4 to 68.7 million for Alternative 2. These figures are only a fraction of the $163 to 194 million cost estimate for the LUP and generally below the $56 to $82 million estimate for the recommednded HCP. (See Table 2 of the staff report.) Under Alternatives 2 and 3 the cost savings from the recommended HCP result primarily from the substitution of a non-navigable r,+ Ys i� r 1 C y� sµ �, , T W 1 s t {s ',R !, � (, y11 it . J 1, NA � 1 .. !..��i.� y?�. '"} f� �'. *4r " hi~�.#�•.t��i�f�4i��['�,,S��A .Y�� tj i�, �}y �` .FI!`T . J. � g.T T 3`�)�-t�.i� �" y} � f�'�.�}�{}!�!]�P' , �• � �P s. `��f*�f �)•�' �. }'/� t,t` f.(.�1, i ��(, Ss�$�Y[yjj 1'C 1y7 ���'�',y�•�[�q'�,}( )jjy�+[ �1�,f `y -,W ���IfC'. ,�+ � r�, �,p:� i �` i�' q �ia�� +! •r� 1' 6 1 !.1'i�1 a. •� t ,�� { � / ( '��+!Y�'ii, � a l,t f +r '�'R�� �} / 7... 1 �� J -!'�1 s ��tj 't .F .'� t4!a i s Y� . t ` � ` :s�t, .�.�i ii� 1 �4 ,. d1� ;7• 1, / � '�l { +7 i�j4.T• } A t ) Iffy �,.�1,, t '4 f ,Jt ASS r iY C� � U �;I •''is` •. ''t 1k '!' ! �� ;�4 'i� f�rX. i�y� Ot t4. , '' Sr IMP I}. i ocean entrance, and, under Alternative 4, from the elimination of virtually all development from the lowland area at Bolsa. The low estimate for Alternative 4 � assumes that a non-navigable ocean entrance is not constructed; the high cost includes such an entrance. Residential Economics Table p summarizes the result of the financial analysis of HCP Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 in respect to residential development at Bolsa Chica. For a general explanation of the meaning of each line item, see text accompanying Table 3 in the staff report. Th3 paragraphs below add some explanation of the specific results for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. To be conservative, the calculation of residential revenues under Alternative 2 assumes a slightly loner nzrket price for waterfront honxis when compared with the prices assumed for the LUP and preferred HCP. This allmrs for the possibility that the less convenient ocean access for private boats, under Alternative 2 may have somie negative impact on the achievable market prices for such homes. However, our research to date leaves open the question of whether the difference in ocean access really would translate into any significant: loss in residential sales revenues. Alternative 4 assumes.lower home prices on the mesa, again to be conservative. Otherwise; the underlying revenue assumptions are the same as used In analysing the LUP 'and recommended HCP. As can be seen, the bottom-line "Margin As % of Revenues" ranges from 39% for Alternative 4 to 29% for Alternative 2. The public cost burden as a percent of sales revenues ranges from It t'o 6L—, These results compare favorably with the results obtained for both the LUP and the royomnended HCP as given in Table 3 of the staff report. This is because the cait reductions under the .three alternatives reviewed here more than offsets any loss in revenues. However., it should also be remembered that this enhanced financial feasibility is achieved at the expense of a more radical departure from We LUP and some reduction in the convenience of recreational boating. Table 4 would abandon most of the nonwetland public benefits of the LUP except for the linear park. t it 1 i FLOW COMROL CHANNEL a sEMMIENT DAM • •�� � ti£$T.EN;tAL f.�"'h{�iCR��GL DOM CHICA MEAR REQIONAL T1Ei?«'�ltA 6AGIM CENTRAL WETLAND WARMICOMMERMAL AREA. ptltit 1`Ow EJ►Y RED?c 3T1AL �` •mA=BOAT CHANM i �- -�•.. CU COAST H1dNWAY AlATlJFiAL REBOl1ftC>:r� ACM COA$ t itOLBA SUCHIlk Tg iA 'OCEMi MRAME ALTER TIVI a HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN € TATE COASTAL COmSERVANCY PREPARED OY! i TAE%-_5 A STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY PLAN PAt3rrAT C00SeRY,1tMC-fJ Fl-A1 j' f'►GT ? \ BOLSA CHICA HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN ACREAGE BY LAND USE I�- 19 ff4- ACREAG S5 Total Bolsa Loveland Seaward Hunt. Subtotal LAND USE DESIGNATION Area Mesa Inland Total Beach Wetlondx Mesa 1.311 (3.5-6.5 D.U./AC) 1.4R (6.5•-18 D.U./AC) 1.5R (18--26 D.U./AC) Subtotal Residential 5-159.G7 IE8.• 82.24 109,19 COMMERCIAL 2.0 Community Commercial ' Marina Commercial ,29.00 25•C0 Subtotal Commercial �LCO OPEN SPACE S.0 Main Boat Charnel Ge.07 58,07 Mincr Boat Channel Sed. Basin and F.C. Channel 1 7.7 1-3•78 Balsa Mesa GrA Smcv i3.43- 13:43 Outer Balsa Bay AT 38.74- 35.'7�}- 3E?•7�j- Central Wetland �'EI.05 8ai .05 &61105` Subtotal 012en S ace In10.12 '3!: 6 RECREATION 5.1 Linear Park 78,26 _ 78.20 j .5.GD Marina 47,00 7.7¢ 39..2 Warner Garfield Coil. {3•,Z? 12.A-7 1 o -7g- i Subtotal Recreationrn-41 10-c-1 ta0•00 79,eZ0 NATURAL RESOURCES 5.2 Consol. Farm t9.Ob 19.06 113.60 Subtotal Natural Resources ROADS 52. 10 17.00 1,20 31.70 n,10 TOTALS 16C�-.03 230,25 �i•l�• )20z,55 e0,3d �75f.C}d k I } now comet Ci AHM i SED•i4a f WIN f' 'tf NARY RW4Lli��. 0 T ; ' t,QpRt�yt310{NnAL �jliCtIESIDiNnAI A+ 11MAICOMMaCIAL AREA J IGUA CIOCA ♦yyr • :WEAR RICKNAAt PARK CENTRAL WETLAND MAJOR BOAT C"AMM RFSIOMIAL tAE1RC COU 14 MAY NAUX ki t[SMXCU .. �. E A STATI RfA[H A51 HIG11W remR afluA SAY ouw Elrmgxx ` .A.LTEAHATiYE S HABITAT COWSEPMATION PLAN • STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY "Iriu���ntu�,fr:� .q.��a �w � �y - SAv m & !ii1/mpsof1, mc. NOR WOWS p A �, STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY t'LF,N 1 (er�nA�✓�C SOLSA CHICA HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN ACREAGE BY LAND USE 19 CREAUS Total Balsa Lowland Seaward Hunt. Subtotal LAND USE DESIGNATION Area Mesa Inland Total Beach Wetlands Mesa 1.3R 13.5-6.5 D.U./AC) 1.aR (6.5-18 D.U./AC) I.SR (18-20 O.U./AC) Subtotal Residential N32.7� /Z4 9$ S�,2! COM.MEIZCIAL 2.0 Community Commercial Marina Commercial 25.D ZS.O Subtotal Commercial 25.0 7ZD OPEN SPACE S.0 Main Boat Channel 10.03 OY Minor Boat Channel -- Sed. basin and F.C. Channel 13,7$ , 4101 Balsa Mega 11 q3 7.9 3,6 3 13.*3 Outer Solsa Say IF Wo B3 �19.83 Central Wetland fN 1i 1,` "�`f'�,'9�.6 8�l9,q6 Subtotal 012ens ace 93 ,03 9,9 77111 S RECREATION S.1 _ Linear Park 7g Z 7$Z o Marina Z17,0 L� •-:; Warner Garfield Coll. Subtotal Recreation ,t7 /o,7y NATURAL RESOURCES 5.2 Consol. Farm f ly, b iq,o Subtotal Natural Rewurces 1 y, 0 ROADS 92. 1 17.- 0 t o L 3 I ,"7 903 TOTALS l4t74,3 230 ZS` 9 1. 1 q r 2A2,5.1 go.3 4 S/ I!r i R 77 t � , 3 L^a oY I r 440qxam ' k tOiSA CipCA y tt"UGIO Al fAtK r r. RrsmIrrM r� CENTRAL WETLAND %(t t �' ! OW EX B&SA 6AV • _ f'A[iiit:COAST FttC}M►AY Alm PA4 IXAP! 4 !YO!f N/I1fIGAitE QCEAN tNTRMa . ALTERNATIVE 4 HAWAT CONSERVATION PLAN STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY r+ pr�ejai�a�trye�a /���,�y i y�a� ?` t]A L' NA f[COMP SON, li�1l� r. NORM .......�. 1 1 TABLE COST COIVARISON'SPECIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES n m ions of $ COST ITEM ALT 2 ALT 3 ALT 4 LOW HIGH Marina 16.2 18.9 - 9.5 Ocean.Access! 10.7 9..5 - 1.4 Huntington Harbor Connect 17.3 2.1 . Flood Control 1..4 1.4 1.4 1.4 Wetland Restoration 5.5 5.5 3.0 5.5 Linear Park 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1. At zrial Roads 13.4 13.4 3.9 3:9 Arterial Bridges 2.1 2.9 .2 .2 Tun 68.7 55.8 10.6 22.6 i • jl 1 { i TABLE D SUMMARY RE[IjLTS: RESIDENTIAL FINANCIAL. ANALYSIS n Rillions of Sj MEASURE ALT ALT ALT 4 Low Hi h ti 1. Total revenues 787 936 421 421 LESS 2. Net Public Costs Supported By Residential Development 49 33 4, 15 3. Unit Development Costs @ 65% 512 608 253 253 4. Margin for Land and Profit 226 295 164 153 5. Vargin as % of Revenues 29% 32% 39% 36% 6. Public Costs as % of Revenues 6% 4% 1% 4% I; • .1 1 ��YiaYn:i ci.s F»�n.+w .�... _ .__......_. .....,.nntz..a•wx>.:«..nwr.cw.nrtt..•.r.«w....�-rtc•i,^.,�;•..a�a«..rcw:...•w:. •yl4s 0.o::Y1`.:.'_.i;:.;j'•';'�11..:j. ...-,...:,.,r.-..v..t�"+it�/� A A 1 � A i c(c JVW r t ed couotul i ureao ANAVYISIS OF LAND USE ALTERNATIVES FOR THE 'WHITE HOLEqAREAS r CITY OF HUNTsNGTvN BEACH +� DEPT. OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PRELIMINARY DRAFT NON-•CERTIFIED COASTAL AREAS ANALYSIS OF LAND USE ALTERNATIVES FOR THE WHITE HOLE AREAS r3 - • I t'7 I • ,t S PRELIMINARY s)RAFT ... -�•'w^Y1i•/iiiMsw Vs..-w....wy........w r.urw - ... . t TABLE OF CONTENTS Section P`�1 INTRODUCTION 2 1.1 Area Description and )history 1.2 Ownership of Vacant Property 2 1.3 Land Use and Zoning 5 1.4 Land Use Alternatives 5 2.0 FLOOD HAZARD AND CONTROL 11 2.1 Existing Conditions 11 . 2.2 Proposed Improvements 14 2.3 Conclusion 15 �. 3.0 BIOLOGY 17 3,1 Existing Conditions 17 3.2 Restoration 23 ' Summary 26 3.3 4.0 SOILS AND GEOLOGY 27 4.1 Existing Conditions 2-1 4.2 Impacts 29 it 4.3 Conclusion 33 •J 5.0 OIL PRODUCTION 35 5.1 Existing Conditions 35 5.2 Abandonment 37 5.3 Conclusion 37 6,0 HAMILTON AVENUE EXTENSION 39 6.1 Existing Conditions 39 6.2 Project Alternatives 40 I . 6.3 Mitigation Measures 42 6.4 Cost Analysis 42 6.5 Conclusion 42 + 43 WIDENING"'N 7 0 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY iJ D N.� G 8.0 FISCAL IMPACTS 45 8 '1 Alternatives 45 ! r;� 8.2 Results of Analysis 50 8.3 Open Space Benefits 51 9.0 PUBLIC INTEREST 55 10.0 EQUITY FOR PRIVATE LANDOWNERS 59 t 10.1 Land Swaps 60 10.2 Transfer of Development Rights 60 10.3 Restoration with Development 60 10.4 Outright Purchase 61 11.0 RECOMMENDATIOti 63 APPENDIX A WHITE HOLE AREA REVENUE ANALYSIS: 67 APPENDIX B PLANTS AND ANIMALS OLD THE HUNTINGTON BEACH WETLANDS 79 APPENDIX C SUMMARY OF STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATORY INVOLVEMENT REGARDING WETLAND AREAS 85 APPENDIX D GLOSSARY i .. ' i • wr..�.... -._.._...___.....r�.+ �. 5 ,... .r. .� ... <........,..r ... t4.. ..a...11.iw.L.S-t.lw:...� .. .....�-....«atr-riti.. ...-.f..--.u'.L'.C.4'a r4:r:4nr�. +cn+. y • LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1.1 Project Area 3 n Figure 1.2 Ownership 4 Figure 1.3 Existing zoning 7 Figure 1.4 Land Use Alternative No. 1 8 Figure 1.5 Land Use Alternative No, 2 9 ' Figure 1.6 Land Use Alternative No. 3 10 � -, Figure 2.1 Flood Control Channels 13 Figure 3.1 Wetlands 21 Figure 3.2 Possible Channel Levees to be Removed 24 Pigure 4.1 Newport-Inglewood Fault South Branch 30 Figure 4.2 Peat and Organic Soils 31 .' Figure 4.3 Leighton-Yen Geotechnical study Figure 5.1 oil Operations 36 ` Figure 6.1 Hamilton Avenue Extension Alternatives 41 Figure 8.1 Fiscal Analysis of Land Use Scenarios 46 Figure 8.2 Annual Visitor Use of Coastal Estuaries and Wetlands 53 Figure 9.1 Open Space and Conservation Element 57 Figire 11.1 Staff Recommended Layd Uses 66 0 i A t 4 t 7 ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of. this report is to examine the existing conditions and future development possibilities on the properties between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River which were not certified by the California Coastal Commission on April 12, 1982 as part of the Land Use plan for Huntington Beach. %phis area between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River is referred to as a "white .hole", because it is uncertified, and, therefore, is shown on the Land Use Plan as a blank, it is the City'ss intent to adopt appropriate land uses for the white hole and complete certification of the Local Coastal Program for the entire City. This report is intended to provide technicel iiiformation to the Planning Commission and City Council which will form the basis for their adoption of land use and zoning designations in the white hole area. In compiling the information, staff has reviewed previous ! studies. of the area, consulted with local and ,state-wide specialists to obtain current expert opinions, and developed new data based on specific land use scenarios. The Coastal Conservancy provided ,a a market analysis on one hotel development and cost factors for road alignment alternatives. The report is organized around a series of issues which were developed From the planning objectives adopted by the City Council on April 1, 1985. These issues are: flood control, biology, soils and geology, oil extraction, the extension of Hamilton Avenue, Pacific Coast Highway widening, fiscal impacts, the public interest, and equity for private landowners. After examining each of the 'issues, . the report presents conclusions and recommendations. ( =' (0284D) -1- I t ' 1 1.1 Area Description and History The white hole area consists of undeveloped land on the inland side i of Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River, as depicted in Figure 1.1 (page 3) . Much of the area lies ! below sea level, and standing water may often be observed at various ' locations. The white hole area has been the subject of many studies over the years, some of which will be referred to in later sections of this report. It has been generally acknowledged that some wetland valued exist within the area. The California Coastal Act of 1976 contains policies to protect wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas (see Appendix C) . Under the Coastal Act, the California Depar:.nent of Fish and Game is charged with identifying and designating wetlands within the Coastal Zone. When the City.began its Coastal Planning efforts, it requested assistance from the Department of Fisl and Game in identifying wetlands in the Coastal zone. Biologists from the Department of Fish � 1, and Game studied the area in 1979 and presented the City with a i preliminary report early in 1980. This preliminary report was considered. by the City Council when they originally adopted land uses for the coastal zone in the Coastal Element of the Huntington Beach } General Plan on January 19, 1981. The Coastal Element designated the j area from Newland Street to Magnolia Street as Industrial/Energy production and the remainder of the white hole area, from Beach 7 Boulevard to Newland Street and from Brookburst Street to the Santa t Ana River, as Visitor-serving Commercial. . f ` f The Coastal Element was submitted to the South Coast Regional Coastal t Commission as the City's Local Coastal Land Use Plan, and was considered at a hearing in May, 1981. The Land Use Plan was. rejected by the Commission, in part because of the failure to adequately 1 protect wetlands delineated by the Department of Fish and Game in their preliminary determination. The City Council made minor changes and clarifications to the Coastal. � Element in June of 1981 and resubmitted it to the California Coastal Commiss fan, which also rejected the Land. Use Plan in September, 1981. Additional changes were made by the City Council in August, � 1982 and the Land Use Plan was certified in geographic part on . i November 17, 1982. At this time, the Commission denied certification of the geographic area from Beach Boulevard to the Santa Ana River, y creating a white hole. The Department of Fish and Game's preliminary determination was finalized in 1982, and is used as the basis for the discussion of wetland habitat in Section 3 of this report. 1.2 Ownership of Vacant Property There are five owners of vacant property within the white hole area (Figure 1.2 page 4). The largest owner of vacant property is Caltrans with a total of approximately 66 acres generally located at Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway and on either side of Brookhurst (0284D) -2- • ti i 01 � ;t'i �- � � u �;% r1 � ` �/ram •, � `..� l�,•,, ,� ',�`. � �y , 0 C.6A%ttASTUN G� �( � `�O t• i�;i %;;;:i.... Q�,��'�� J �t�tlltxitLA.T ! fir— �Q ���y• �I l FIGURE 1.1 NmCt retaeArreas .ion Certifled PROJECT AREA White Hole Areas Exc,�rded f;om knatysis Included In Analysis °i NONCERTtFiE® COASTAL AREAS M RMMrG�CM u R Gt�04?:A f ititFM a - 7 Xic jj� �O C► V ` \.• -� 1 l�lGll°iNt►tJN= Ot•i '� yy:..i.l✓". Ca •+y' �"�.�.. +�.'�-•... '-� 'u,t:,+�.... � • ..a ..s.......a.•.a...wa•..• 4Cl,Cp bf•1 �`� M �r. ta..a 1f • . • • 1 • t .ys""-fir 7�.�"r;"r °-.. .� i •- .. FIGLME I. = _ _ SO CAL EDISON WILLS LAND 8 WATER O1NNIR51.31P CALTRANS NONCI RTIFIED PICCIRELLI COASTAL ARM ,., . - KHTNGTO00 WCH C4PJNNN G DtF RSME I _ O.C.F.C.Q. M 1 Street. Daisy Thorpe Piccirelli is the second largest owner of vacant pruper. *,y with :aparoxim'ntely 45 acres to^ated on either side of Magnolia Street. Mills Land and Hater Company own approximately 19 vacant acres between Beach Boulevard and Newland Street. The Southern California Edison Company owns 14 vacant acres adjacent to the power plant and the Orange County Flood Control District owns 3 acres at Magnolia Street and "he (DO1) Channel. The City of Huntington Beach owns 1.6 acres at the northeast corner of Magnolia and the flood control channel which has been general planned for Open Space. 1.3 Land Use and Zoning The portion of the white hule area between Beach Boulevard and Newland Street. is presently zoned RA-0 (Figure 1.3 page 7) . It has had this designation since 1964, when the zoning was changed from R1. The Edison plant and tank farm are zoned :►l2�0. The vacant Edison property west of Magnolia is zoned M2-0 with a strip of RI.. These zoning designations. were placed on the Edison property in 1962 and 1967, respectively. The remainder of the white hole area was formerly designated R5 until 1977, when it was- rezoned Limited Use District (LUD) . LUD zoning is considered a temporary holding zone, to be used for areas which require further study and analysis before permanent zoning is established. ' 1.4 Land Use Alternatives In analyzing development potential for the white hole. Hrea, staff has formulated three alternatives which feature various ratios of development� to. open space conservation. For purpose, of this analysis, the Edis*on. plant and its tank farm, the industrial Wses north of the Edison plant and the 1.6 acre wedge of City property at Magnolia and the flood .control channel will not be given alternative '.� land. uses, as their character and use have already been established. Furthermore, any revenues or costs attributable t would remain the same over the three alternatives tObly hese pro ntties property which has the potential to be developed will be included in the anlysis of alternatives. Alternative One (Figure 1.4 of develo Page 8) is the least intensive in terms Pment. This alternative features approximately 124 acres of Open-Space Conservation and a small amount of Visitor Serving Commercial. Alternative Two (Figure 1.5 page 9) features 78 acres of Open Space Conservation and moderate amounts of Commercial and Medium Density Residential. Alternative Three (Figure 1. 6 page 10) is the most intensive alternative with only 27 acres of Open Space Conservation and substantial acreages of Commercial and Medium Density ,Residential. The following table identifies land use designations by acreage for each- alternative: ,-j i (0284D) -5- , i 44f. n `rd 4�?�;'��. � i:.. � •� ���!!' '.�.y!,w } � k�y} ,�, ;,�� iF 1 . r�, ,'� �' �f r �}.`� 3 �. Z}.;.. 4 S.Y Alt. 1 Alt. . 2 Alt. 3 Visitor Commercial 5 10 10 Medium Density Residential 0 38 .74 Office 0 0 13 General Commercial 0 3 5 Energy Production 17 17 17 Oil Production 1 1 1 Conservation 124 78 ' 27 147 147 ' 147 For purposes of analysis, the white hole area has been .divided into four sub-sections; A) Beach Boulevard to Newland Street; B) Newland Street to Magnolia Street; C) Magnolia Street to Braokhurst• Street; and D) Brookhurst Street to 'the Santa Aria River. The following table identifies Land. Use designations by acreage* for each subsection for each alternative: ' Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Area,_1 (Beach-Newland)- Visitor Commercial 5 10 10 Medium Density Residential 0 15 18 Office 0 0 13 ` Conservation 43 �23 7 48 ' � Y Area 2 . (Newland•Mggnolia) Commercial: 0 3 5 Energy Production = 17. 17 17 Oil Production 1' 1 1 Conservation 9 6 4 27 27 = i C '. Alt. 1 Alt. 2 'Alt. 3 Area 3 (Magnolia-Brookhurst) Medium Density Residential 0 123 56 Conservation 56' 33 0 n 1 56 -56 56 Area-4 (Brookhurst-Santa. Ana River) Conservation 16 16 16 Tonal Acreage '147 147 147 - I t * Acreage figures are net afte'r dedications for proposed rowd improvements. i (0284D) -6- 1• �t • •t III + Y + ) '��i114]:i. ' .�L') .. u. M.br �, ��i{L s• "iv�lSr {� _t- t4,� 'k f .ems � =�r�,t„ y ! `` �� � � .e t•� y„• . . kA 1fyt. - I� 9+n Q Q—RT ,W-1 0tit •� �'�"i }�• Ab t � �y� �l y ,•oGiANrTAtiOli e%. r..��..-•` ,w '�i t" fry O wl. \\Q��a _ � sttAnrcxrn,Awr _ tUD. LUD RA Q tUQ t s 3 ,, y --� _ IRA -A 4-CZ : L•- LIJD—Fri Tom. Restricted ttahufacturinq District Residential Agriculture p'Al.A•/'1.CZ Combined with Oil Production RAC 0 • +^,,�— =_ -c 1'i LJ �+fL :astal Sono Suffix _ .otatsfned with 031 Production � �*�., Z �C N - M� .A_o I�fi N"L'S t Restricted Hanu2acturinq Oiatrict ' LUD Limited Use District Cocbined with O12.Production Limited Use District �i - tUD—GP� FloodPlain 1 District MH—CZ. C�asLaltonalSuffit �► NONCE' r�p� ►yam, /� pp Recreational r• S ace District COASTAL AREAS �-SiQS Qualified Classification ��Q Industrial District IRliislGtON lL1CH G4i tl1 Ccmbi!wd with oil Production {a: .:f ram• I >..'},-•µme;. . ". ..�^:%"r_"�-`;;"• rr� �s. `'�%'.,- _ ti o� o -r. -+�.. '•• „�,i..^:..-f 4�C T1tiAticvR►uxt _^_ x:ta-,:: '�. �.^:.±�.:.�,r` •>..-- �^ l��f!+.i•�%� .a• �� .�/+ire.• /.�.. �.L1.. fJ/.�•t:.i `�•� D?'�W` _. i. -_ lam.„��� ^'-ram.,• fi�•t:�.�. �' - • �.i,�" �'! "�': ,v�r,�1�Y�. !„�'%r1��,. ..�s.��'a:;..•�rr"'�;-�'••-%%-;3�"' .•,.,^• %"�_ .'�• a 4r '.+ �r.•f•1'G'y,f ?� j�rl' ��'.. �• wr,y� ,� D'.Cyr.D- �-1 . '1 _ r=.G'�•r�t r.:n. .J?. 1 � t'`�i r' C�:.. -.I�"r N'� at.;+. »'� �' .s- - mac= .:-, l.tr.. ��y�, ;:. i��-!�'"'LY..�.�tsC•���".--i.T �,-.J:/�.�, �,� •••�.� 1;,., �r�•,,,th•?'y''!t �• '•4 � •�;.�'V��„ :vTT'^�'•TY~�'ar�'.,�� 1(t!�"�"t. � �'G!��`�''•'."�� ,:''.f �w;`j`r.'.yi`!'r f 1 ACREACE TABULATION AMA TMAL ACR£AM FIGURE 1 A s�icar Cam�arcial 5 AC. conservation 43 Visitor Comae. 5 AC. LAND USE ��G �'� 2 Oil Production 1 yIs��"COMM.� '�_e �� prod'action 1 Conrarvation 141 �i / p ALTERNATIVE #1 �,'..�.. �s.-.:;:a.`', --nrc.,•a. „r '�''�y7`:•" ConservationZE 147 AC. CONSERVATION � 3 • � WIDNC lTIR Efl Conservation 56 OIL PRODUCTION AREA � COASTAL AREAS y�•�,w: �ry•�c #'r. " ;,"• �. aZ`-nearvaiian 16 HL" IMM wTO"WCHOfOR C i `.-"t7'..ra";-i =-ti ::. �24 '+-r'• - -^ • \`� ?. �y'" t �V�tN, ,, , i t �'`�^�'.+�`�� "` ,�;.- y �=�. ! tD F"���, ~ � �• .�~ .,.;;:::t........ r,.+.' .��c�� � fir S7RH.WT ';'"` t..Cd�"- 'i..r�,?.��.r'�A .. .�. :�- • .4.Wo .s .fit^r�� lrrrc•tr'+,,�4' Sy<. �`�--., ��: i,�y�•-';fr.�r��rt''t��`,."`�"-"^'.i:�w E 1� '�+ .-�i�i',f' .. �`/',�,���i'J`"`^'R���'�yt�:yt^��;u O�'-"`�"`^-��. '+� ya �•.;= ''". +'i,�ysst�=' ;...�.- o�'� ��� f� '�"�1�,�r'�v.�"t.->:r'� ,.r '� ark ~-� e. L�' �Sr �� •.- i:� '�+l .�•• ��� �.fir• • -y f. �e•,i y.� f` ,� y-a� /i ��''`. :"'fir,• .,< <... .;'r:y.,- ,;;> ; .a, nRrA ACREAGETABULA �—. 1 TABULATION ARC . Visitor. Cc=erciai Conservation Y Re mod. Densit 10 AC ib Cp s, 1 VISITOR COMM. FIGUR General Ccas�orcial AL~AC Rr ' �.r GENERAL COMM. LAM USE i.s 5 Ind. Energy Product. 3 Visitor Coaxsere#a2 _ Oil rrcductian 17 Conera2 Coaezarcial 10 J1C. MEQ �tT' 2 Conservation I turd. Density Res. 3 DENTIgl, M` 36 _,.,�.. .,c� *s;s �,sf. ►-�' �ss .s.=, AREt► 3 E Ind. tner4Y Product, Oilreduction 27 IWJ ENERGY •. ,�.� Mod. IIon. Rca#den Conservation PRODUCT-•. .�. ' :: •� Conservation tial �� 7a OIL R �j �,�� �`�RT� � - - � ,.: 33 1 ROC3,lCTION (� COASTAL AREAS •- �n by `ems 50 AC. L ONFt��•�� �EAC1f EiftRiMiM {" '' !^,V 1i�SS' 4`s � •.�CS. xki7{' ►11?�a. .1,� #i�^ti; i•'!t5. .,a,•,�,d i+ 5:., s, ]F :biid5t�. tl� }�; t '.t•�,t ♦jA/#i !t y�15 'f 1r�.r'.6•Y i• .t t. !. a S ti y•. 'fit. }A�,MFlo + 33 ,r't ;�q d �1'.� i'�tt" .�' 1 #•,. :�t yi t y.i5. ."4 /," a.• .� 5 .rl r 1-;L:fi; + •r'tl�,�yt�.:iro rv{ ti.4 ,, >�' t 4��E.1 f v't w .;z� it i, t i.,'�IF, f3i. �1h. }. t11. :a�: ��t'Y �t ,r E:i�� t 1.�.� �•(\-.,'1.t. ze l( ;i� ,r ''�' i�i; i,,,.Y+4rtia 4+• Iitt�,,, ,°:� •� �,fy. i,�A `++ .ak � iFtFs� 5��#'4 � f [ :i' <-"/�;e X'"fY 'S q4 ;lw 4'. �� ki -r n..Si � . ''rh`.r�: "r�} .tt:.•t .�, 4a1 1:9�J }s��r1'L.i, ))f..tt t R � ,r.rr. t ��•!{ �. 5r r?'^ � {vf' t,i.� '�.�,...� Sit�.s..,f,T � i •Y:�. •x,'; iy' r r�Sti.pl.<�.,),y� ,y,13\ } � t`4. , y, ,z :� � l�•#� Y 4 5 ji` ,. 5N ..� � rM.4�.�. � ,}...1T �' '�Yrµ 4 iT �qq J;.{ k'� t r r itsf+� �s5,'S � i �a 4' .S � •k" , a,i ? �r 'Y, ! � y((z. ii 's.��, a `�: .)y • 1 4 !it t. <3 3. 5 .; a,f \} to 7 a:! S rr i`' t4. ',yJ � I': +.n`,5{"'C.. � ,. i t��.:s s.� t,:ri .?. ., :f}�i tt•(4Yi:n�^^ 'S�ff. r.b �S,R- A, t 'y � T1�^i' ti d e ,c..r7 4li'-v(. � •Xti j CL \���1 < .<,r - Y ��F � t • 1 ��{� 1,,��r�5 ,� 1. 5 .�.i�z5 i,9+�,� v`t y: �"\�,5 Flx t Y a 5 3 5 X�i' � � ,f�� �i`r � ti t`lY/�tr �'S, � i #, ',1 T���'t.: � a `t�''f51Nz t t T��z• .r.���i�.t.s--.t!-•a .:u:f3.•: ��RA���;i{ � Y-.' 3 ai ei..r 4 •:� z a,� t 5 s }„4, /} i, [i�L } � ter;.<� 1�s�+'liM3.�:JrL1.:+.-�-::�1.�,.F....:1......:.. r � �• r 5 zt. t,l r •�it`C z �-.:.•s_t.^:s:c\su.S— .:.a> a „1s?y�7��k%YF�w�'rsfl����1 ttvfilf S W7 Na l.r Ci�{'+`S {`, ,�. �, �.,, tk. �`��,Rt '•F ���`, . � Fl• �'i�?iS, `ft•, ,. `'�•,� t '+±� �1}�,�. r'�."1' _, t ri j •r '� "'t' ryr. . .� .t. 1 e.,1 �•`�,� ') �' `-` , �. •i � 7 1 4 �.� k,?S "({(}{. yi' 1 � �if '�` ."�, pt�t' �tt C Cd'' S 5• '�, �• t'f ♦ 5 5� '� � { rA'S,► �! ��,;#,{ ,�Y �� �r w�+ ri t Z �. iSE ,`i1#�ty'S;, C, a t y t,• t � '�� 4,# 1�]�, �, �. +4� � �,.'��t � a L• � ? � t ,�� tl�{ `4 ukrt;5� WIN �\ � �tRNIRNP�`�'�F`�.� •# '�•..'.; i �u�< 4� ("tfY �?44,+.�Sjl�. b ► li, tt 4 a� ^1•+{tiI�(q•((!l �ftil :a,a('5'irz r ! qqr'i.�, �'4k/se,,T�i J i{w,y�:,. ily'24j�p yy�•i` l '?y;'\ �7 �hl'4�.S k y4 y` �� ( .�'i !, i'�'.p♦♦ySLT•1�„� � �.z1f.} .fi 1 i'['lq� Y�SN�1{# �''�'yp� ) Y]�5� t�+,i��•y}t �yy�etl 1.', ,�""•,;11 i�+�. S u� 1���' r.N�)�� 5� l t�!{,' �l` z ydTllY` �. ,,}lJ��,t.71� 7�rR R�� i�y�'S�,+ »' •.�'i'E l4"r�•'�."�� "5{�Ml .fir�, 'Y ��• "t 4� ��'.' �� f� t "{�tL".� L h��� `,3= �A j�- t � ')�'f•Y'�'�.�;�.�'{,,� �� +�jn/,��•• WR r � � y �''�• ,, '�' S �.- a �, '��' ►t�, d, Ml r • 4 y y nnr+n nox� —OZ^' ry o �"' a•wpa IY �"7 • f w p A.O~ M p •'� A ~Y � inpn µef7 � d�f p P►" S �P W A►+JW .tWCDO �w Yl0►axOnC 0-0 7y v O p n r O Wr• fy P•n a a ••;�• fe O'D OA'Ae.0 pyteY �qq n 'ti • i'� p Ns n O n ►• / �� Y Y l 00 2 ? 0 0 t Pn ipAM " ol ����IC74i'C t.: . �y� 1 1V'1 ♦f'�•f. a ; ram~ W Q � � � v S i ` 1 t M 1 r 4 t i t i I r i 2,0 FLOOD HAZARD AND CONTROL 2.1 Existing Conditions 2.1.1 1.00♦-—Ye ar Flood ood rd area The white hole area lies m Corpshin shoflEngineerslfor the aFederal as identified by the U.S. Army Pas Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) • A 100-year 11oad is define River they flooding which would occur from oVerunoffflow oandhhighnta wateratables due to a series of storms, accumulated o The 100-year fl°°a Dar, Riverxwouldtoccur�.Coolled e ase which would fill Prad flow rates into the Santa would originate in Anaheim with water flowing tows rti ocean on of northern outside of the Santa Ana River channel. A large p from one Orange County would b ldQanIhaurancehRateaMapeantedrFebruary 16, to eleven feet. The p.1tA indicates 1y83, -and prepared for the City of Huntington Beach by at ion of the .� that all portions of the white hole area aThisre ndesignation projects a floodplain designated Al2. Elevation 11. flood water elevation of eleven feet eete bone aiseapproximatelyvel In the cseaof a 100-year flood. Since the grow on level or below, the Projected depth of flooding is eleven feel: or more. In February. 1983, the City of Huntington Beach was raquirl' by the Federal Emergency ManagemAgency in Shrr adopt floodplainPlaTbe regulain tions regulations for new construction -11- (0284D) , + Wk , y5 { � !.1+•. ,!��yy r1 ` i ..� � i��r �` � bt• f i � �. "� 1�♦ i��. '�a� �t• t };. tQ���'tjyy \.�t �i_ '� •�" ;..�}(. �, �,� •�. � tY,,��1�i^`'i 7;L:'�Ay' • t." i��+�r ,�� ti� f'�� 1� � -.biy 1`�i .�'v«��"\17�)� c��'�t'+'"`br{)�a�t3� "•� 1,q�! .�� ti.# . �a. �Y ,}, ,� �\ $�.' �]y{ "t,�fpp�C(�''t. �. �� �,�yit��,`�a��`� !� ���ty7�'L{. �J �y1 ��.��t���1�'��i �`+! '� '> 'F E''+. Sl g4.Y �T l �;•41, � .} 1 S, t��/ f 1,�.,A1 1 �; .�4 !/' .R{, � ,{�� 1 \i. �A 4h^� . fr "il.� �,: _., ', ''' ' � !•, f, .1Y.7.i�j it 1�'.�1p:{1,�..�. �� 1� ,'.§; '";,r j". �}�e f' J�R{�+ 1 •If ,.��' � + ,,�, � �. l to �• 1,.,��j ! .,'+:t. 1�i 1�,1�'r•' S`1 tt(};at� L'w� � ,j };,�4 `? 'n�'f .`�I. b1 ,r 'C?���� � 1i i4` t�t� Y `igyiit�'��. * � ♦� fYa� ';, •.�'j �t{. *1•"^�j.y' .Yt .•.'1'y� + � L�` }���� p/,fl��' ti ri� t �1��� .+,{ ,t, t tt� h y�, i d�'+ t 1 1 � 1 �. i, 'es�^•r'iS� �#, "�r 1�`f �' �Y .r 1 1'•'I xx+���l,.�•gy��� / 5f.1' ,��((� U�' �R ' z�3't•( ` St.�. � 3+f4t + dY 4 Z, r A.. M '� i 1 �f 1.tY � ;♦ 1 �rjk t 7l � .) � �+ 1Y'�� '`• r �' 't ;'�„ y �` ,d � 3� t,#�1�,����'�a�t '� r�� { �y� � Y� l`�n�+J�. 'd;t�p��F�Y'Is.��l"f Y3i tY sl tlav�445� +.a ��y`►� ; 1i l t� 'k ,t ��}� �' ` '�S' .�EF �W,la•, �>��,�+ / s � .!�y' °'"�i,'y�. + .� ��:r{1.'!•`�`.. .' `' l'j '1'!, `+s' � 1 "-r5`'�r raj\! t4. �.{(. !•`tF!C` �' t NA } t � i �Sr� ttit, ��` ,��q�' i '�.i'. r(�:\, � �1..i t..:4• ,�tM.. !•," a a.. n �;��`� k.'�i+ � 'piis(ti�! Aye.P ti `11Z♦ ��" `� �� .'1►ty�,{r' •'d', �' �°'+:��, � ' � . RPM +•�<t�� +,� r•�4�+7t ��` � tW�� 1 r 1�p�diS.. �' •1d►:ril� �.,„- �� t i� ��1q\r• F `.'" Ttt .v.r +,ritr b+' i• f i�l. 1 1 1 S �lil�+`w t 4t '+,°•;"�' @ ,�.. t�r�,»,a 11�t i '•StA`� � fir, bb`, '.Y ,�:5.: " li{fit\ti r — �� A t'{i7 , 1ti Eb ijir .t .�• t„�• 't.k l'�+ t 1 Iti" �t7. 'f'r 1 .1'�. y�k1.,. 1 ',1 �.s.s "• ..7 �: ., t %S� F ♦ -} :) 1,:-i f, �'!X.{ it '1 1 �� L s s, Ll•� x ♦ 7) tf �:1�`Y�,i.�`St{4�q �j,..+t`, ., '' f '.Y'+ �kS1 y ':C .t.t J+ +,'# •�'+ irit' a 1�"•L' �'1♦ "t.s: f: G�{{s ,lt. , I,:..i1 �,•rt t=f .: .� ,t, 1.'1'ar t;Rl.�' ly-♦ ,:. .>f.,rj i. .�, .t�..� rbr- �'+ ,t 4,;.+,: 1 S .d.' try, •'t`7ir. �..,hi 't�,�. t(r h!wf..tti,� f e{It ..t. -t�st.�+'ti1.+.�i1 .v�.lfr';� y. `;s�•'4�S�y� �S1�5altt.1. :�1 � �F f. ><��'+.��+1 .;,�;�i.1�.� -.,i ti••- �, a:.' ((:LL tr if 'rt t z,. -.:t*. I ItT,�'�)� �15�,�, ! t �H��•.•ijA�..' ` a �I,t � :,"' h }.�' iz.;� k�\, 1 � ; ``'� If !,� t �{ s � .,1.•e *��. 1,.a ! r_' to f}, !;t1" 1.'r, � + .�. •b �T.pi .se � f )) '+.' 1' t r'ri l t • ^� ;•7 }�+<'S t `i! " ;�ia t'' ( +• � ?I.il 4 v .�s -.'ll'1, l: v /i j$a. .` t Y i t s. a a, �f't�1.•r} 1 t't+Cty. y,..'+. }'t4 ,y.r, .�1•c.1, t `L:�1 L'♦x�tl ,� .il};i.(i�F r�i-� `1'��Et' .Li+�u`.� y�r'1 y. .} •11�,•t-.,, tR� j .sl s a '�. ,;;i-•, ` t '�'• 4♦ �, a. .al♦r'+X� /,"t, '�. 11 .',�r�r{, 1r`a ryt.lj '�' .1. .\. Szlt'•.t '4 �' 7.�,''! 'ct�.�' �.1.e\ y '1.•'.��Ystr�{.�..♦4 t�l:t.`" "Il r r".,i�. .�{ .:l;t' ..`? ��'a.i f..t44 , wr •.•7�"/�+}t,1� :1�.:/�•j Q ,. Xfi♦€���'t' -1` ?.'1�'}. �( et",�P*t,1 .4�.1 S2i..i Y�� 6.:'. `t)5... .i•�• +�.:A'' -' ��t` r�^:'v 1 r„�i�:{, .1 wY ±l ,t r+ . t n 1» ��� x t t • Lr.. }ir r(`.i.. 33 !. .j�1• x � � , � �, .Y4`�Li•.�• pitS,r t'!�t { { �1 t•. t al 'sk j..Y 1 L r l � �.r t/�b t.1♦ f. i{$ + ^t'�i11 )` ,,} * r .t k♦ ,/,,. '� rt. .[�;lj. �♦; - .IS require that residential construction be elevated, with the first habitable floor at ox above the projected flood elevation. Commercial and industrial construction must either be elevated or l-r flood-proofed to the projected flood level. Since the white hole area lies within the deepest portion of the City's floodplain, construction in that area will be .impacted to the greatest extent by the floodplain development regulations. Residential construction will need to be elevated eight to eleven feet above grade. This situation essentially dictates the use of first level parking, which in turn dictates medium density attached unit construction. The Seabridge condominium project at Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue, and the Breakers apartment project at Beach Boulevard and Atlanta Avenue, are both examples of residential construction in the floodplain which have utilized first level parking to attain adequate elevation. Since commercial and industrial construction can be floodproofed rather than elevated, there is a wider range of design options � available for this type of development in the floodplain. Floodproofing does, however, tend to limit the provision of window I� and door areas on the first level of construction. It is important to note that the Federal floodplain development regulations as adopted by the City do permit construction in the floodplain without risk of liability if the proper standards are met. Compliance with the standards, however, may not be cost-effective for smaller or less expensive projects and will, in } ' fact, increase the overall cost of any project in the floodplain. Before any project can be constructed, even in compliance with the standards, it will also be necessary to show by means of a hydrology study that the proposed project will not increase the depth of 4. flooding by more than one foot elsewhere in the floodplain. Due to the wide area covered by the floodplain, however, and the fact that 1 the white hole is located at the lowest end of the floodplain, this requirement is probably not a significant constraint. 2.1.2 Local Mood Control System The 100-year floodplain constitutes only one set of flood relatted issues in the white hole area. Another important set of issues involves the flood control channels which pass through the area (Figure 2.1 page 13) . Huntington Beach, clue to its coastal location, lies at the receiving end of much of the flood control system of northern Orange County. Specifically, the Huntington Beach Channel --. � (DO1) and Talbert Channel (D02) traverse and converge in the study area. The ocean outlet for these two channels is presently located on the west side of the Santa Ana River mouth. The flood control system in and around the study area was designed to accommodate 65 percent of a 25-year storm. This capacity was found to be inadequate during the winter storms of 1983, when the channels spilled over in several locations causing substantial flooding of homes, businesses and vacant property. The flooding was compounded by high tides which moved into the flood control channels and reduced their ability to convey water into the ocean. (0284D) -12- iy y• f. t I� r ,,�w' ', � �' � �' .1t t t 15iS,�' �:� }�j+` t �:� f��i ���laii { 4�'� i '1 � � '�Ft?•dr,`t ���,,1� 4` t�,YR �' Zj't�. ��+ ��}}• � .d' +' ;�'1r+,�' s1'kl� 'fir' ,Si�,� �`, ,Is�nk;�� ►.L �' � i ��l' �4S "�` 'Z. r t�`"<y, �4�� � +r j��'��� M,S `t�' i�� +7�i` ? M" �{+��a �1 � �2'��tky'i (� C..{ 'yw y •� 5 t 1. �"L�ll� ��f •lSA�. 1'i tip .� {� �,�� � $' j'.4i� �•t '��'f'y •` _ p Xt •yZ i, .,.l.f, �'�}� , { ,t t:� �' y, �:;.7� t iiy x{ 4 1A` ... 1�� 'A'l tly. f :Z. '' l•♦ r a�'f `�4 ' 'l+•.51 ' �'Y ;'7' ti ,. yyyy ,{: .` i ;y_=a i,Y ' •�) a � � s; y, �• i ;'y:,• t ;,��'�'"i`ri �y, t ,l+v;"#Llit. ��•.•.�• �:'•,t�'.t � ]1i�� ;�`t H ",.t f�=t'�4q'yt� i .ri tj, r���� .Sji' r.,'`� r '� 1 �i�T��l� t}i,`�'bS�� �'2.� '{�, .� �4 2 ��,t, i V� xi -e•?' 1 �'t+, 12 `�'.l.�T:�({,��;1 � �tF'e•i ���r'E r .6�A; �J�7�a� C�t'#w�.�'Y���� ��'"(`1 i� A � }� It } rh" 'H����'( il�.,i .�•�� '�r.'r 1. !�l;'��.3'S `t. 1 �7� � r�j .'+}`a?t f 1 `1,. r; �w�11 ,.k. �^Y •�l t<, 1� `b:S u f' d I t � a, �i� 4 tt .fir.i ,+� 'n�;,"aR�. �i•'v1+ ` . � •.�1t � +a: a. •']T���'�. .•:# . �. ��#' }�. '•�� ! ,.�t1 ,,��,.ti.�` T� '' '!4 �r'�+t".0 :T' s1ij�vM � ,M�yF! ;� ,\ .+"F ,,� `1 >:d� ��...�.. f+y/�J 1` ( � J y`y `y fi'r. tyyiyt •{, '� �w((r� �{ I, •�iNa {.Y Y��r'�' ,�R�+��Y:.� � �'�* �.r�' v�Sy, I�Liu . \ ..to f�� rl ':� �.;.1 �`���i'v'�����t'�+�' �'i`• ,�'� ��;`f .�1 ?rf�`i��"�;.r,' .,�'�attt,��.<1 ��{��t � , � � j�4�17 `i ` '�"��': Nf:l �F�� ;,t��t;.. �►`• ,( + +'� �•oY y'1.1'�.,t+�py�.�jr,_}a.,�. �'1�,�j� '" � ` `F \{•.}�- '��I�M �,(,��• }'' �,,,,t,�;1@ 54�, � ,'`;l�S. �•:j�t'i'i�y�(. ;�.dfj'lti .I. ,�.•.;!]'"i()Y , %{,,.�i'Il��,'f�>►lui'E =,`��. .}f t,SFJa..� t:}4.t } s� •e. •' w €:•�'" + �. ��'�� - MITIM ! , � • r�� -et7e,L s, r^^^"•,T"`T1'Z i<i1T�'R�' "�f4 at?�'q .�----•�[' j ^r.''`;T!'S' ;} i- i , R��.t'tF ' { 1 {} r j h z a. l ; {g •ix \1r 1- t t �y f -.r-^.•!ci :i\ fl ^• lc�4fi y. .,•.tqq.� � i :h``i•,r;�`�.��i' ..;�` �1;. } 't,'T .7t•1 '' iE li� { 2'S {f It -.e v ,} t1(} :.Sli : \ \ ,.ttiT h., I -= a G t,•.'` �';1T,• } 5 41.� t � t P , t .P�a- {a .r. 1 i. a `�,, f+i .t•�rl` ., S .i,� te`�^ + '} l; .•t'!, � '?i {t� i � .", � t� a ^tQ .�Y y \ " 4t „l y} r ..`iy)a i •yi .! 1 '. " � � -i ,, t ,ti •yt l� :•,, j,r• t f. ' ,, 1e a .t a ttt y 1.Aj t `�t� l i' t a'l-. t ...� t T. :` + 5 1 t} tt" \' ;, {k ) t t t11 t i'i•}1 f , .,till ttk!' r t� r t l.Yi r l a� ) j ,i,�r+t �.,4,"� crt,lf S .� ".`��,' .`1t t,+. \,.°�r$ t� t;..�.�• 'gg�""., ,t eT \Zl i ,. �,�{..1.•� �t, C s i t++. S, si,.,.�f:4 1 M4s Fl fiat X.l7i�;e+{_: \} �':3'' '. �• L"+ ll. :11.t.:. } iu t?--- ..'.let.., fi• .L� � _'t`lt.'t:i� t: _. 11!'.1`,a:� r .L. n. ��T�,� ,3(1. ,.%1,�- ;:-- -�,- T $'J"', N F-F 77777`,T� Ax, rn �k "KA, -7 maw AM v L , X, 4�'Vk I ITT 51 M i m AM A V W TIP MAI to ol 0 Cal on IWO cn i 2.2 Proposed Improvements In s:esponse to the flooding which occurred in 1983, the County of Orange, which has jurisdiction over the flood control channels, has I prepared a plan of channel system improvements intended to increase i capacity to that needed to safely convey the water from a 100-year I storm. Improvements to be made inclade retarding basin construction upstream, upgrading of pump stations, and lining and/or reshaping of flood control channels- on all reaches of the system. After n considerable debate, the County has agreed to retain the ocean outlet in its present general location. The outlet will be moved slightly to the west of the Santa Ana River mouth in order to allow upgrading of the river mouth in the future. The County has indicated that all proposed flood control. channel improvements can be made within the existing channel rights-of-way. Making those improvements, however, may. involve some destruction of wetland along the south side of .the flood control channels in the white hole area. As a result, the County has recognized the need to restore some of the wetlands as mitigation for the destruction which 1 would occur during channel construction. ! Apart. from the County.:s plans for channel improvement .and mitigation, the Coastal Conservancy has also examined opportunities for wetland acquisition and restoration. Their acquisition efforts to date have focused on .tha 17 acres of property located between Brookhurst Street # and the Santa Ana, River presently owned by Caltrans. Past actions have indicated that the. 17 acre area is easily restorable to a viable wetland if tidal flushing is reintroduced to the area. Culverts were } utilized for tidal flushing in the area for a short period of time in 1 the 1970's, and considerable recovery of the wetlands was observed. In recognition of the Coastal Conservancy's intent for acquisition r and wetlands restoration on the-17 acres, the County has recently proposed an alternative flood control channel improvement on the property ,wh.ich would achieve both ends. The County has..proposed removing the south side of" the flood control channel between Brookhurst Street and the Santa Ana .River. and constructing a perimeter berm along Brookhurst Street and -Pacific Coast Highway. A p small guide channel would be retained in the location of the present channel to convey normal rainfall and runoff. The perimeter berm would protect Pacific Coast Highway and Brookhurst f Street from flood water inundation and would likely be narrower than the existing channel levee which would be removed. Islands could be C, fashioned in the middle of the 17 acre area to provide habitat for j nesting birds. The remainder of the area would be subject to tidal flushing and would become a retention basin in times of heavy rain. The Coastal Conservancy and their hydrology consultant have tentatively endorsed this as a workable and desirable method of conveying flood waters and restoring the wetlands. since it will utilize the entire 17 acres, however, implementation Sin in this will 0 i will require acquisition of the area from Caltrans, the present f (02840) -14- ' 11" F 1 m a �•�' 1� a z� ��ti„ �} •f' (' f ,�fv+ � A }l � 1 y lM�`��`.�. t' �' + �Sl t t ,. � ;�,{;, + r. k -"i.�'fw+! � irZ,Fi 1 f ! L `•1 fr y�' �� "*�. f.'� e � 1' f' f: � �l+'�f' !,• •r , .�;n,�+� `� ^y.,�� .Af 11�r, .`�.'.f �� � ! t ( 4 :1,� k ,<t�i'•1}� r(�:'�1�' � t� � �ti' .L� � r'�, /�,+r :{ '{ h a"•. ' ' .'� 1 ;'`, tiro 't: �'� .. ,' � ��''�.�t" �. 4 F •5 x �,�{+{Ja f .,�' � 1f Y. ; qt 1 Y� 1 '+� '+. '•',N )�t�-'��� � •ti,. '4 ,.�, # P•1{q ,�V.)/I�.,. '■1 g� •t y I j��y a � t� � jlr', t"tia{�\ ,'c� y�}` •,Jfl\'.�t}�" ! j�" "�`u� c�� � �, �.�`�5 to�{ ���' � 4�� 1y •i� t�ir `y . - t�. '�'�itn;'� 4t 1 It'll' i RIiyt •Y ,r S t ,', } r � �� tt y � 1.�� .�� :+ Z ' ?y r `�rt � 1' i e�k�') s� �,�1:•`� r� �5�; pp,� h{4'xt N � Y s �' �;Lj�.3' � t' � ` ��� �'`�'�v �r a law. 11� .F t 4 .1 .4�:� '•"(1 1, ` � 1.,) ��' j yal.` , f w,(j�., ` � i ��i f i �• �° yi � �}�'`f �•+}I �t '^:. � � •�i,• { � ` it ?I�•C4.�I ,}.-?Ap i f !. t.1 �'S.'ti.� .l l:•,++��;�r r t.iYfi ;{5(_ .ti'l. f "#i!.p i,�. ii; � 't ` .sty,:. .':'.,ZFf"Trt""r^"'*'T[ ..,J,... , ''";" 1y, c(ri- "f �fx. 0•f.;�A�'lt? , � ay•'. 1t1' .t't�,fti.d M '•f6 '.7tYyry, :' , i .,: .a ;Jlift S ;f[ii.' t .w/ { 4•i-._{ {i.4. ^t, t .f,:,\' .r °i 1 r '�fi. - _I, f!! '�tl{. 1��'t ,� ..�`• 1. f. .�.. of :l�t ,•t t � r` {, x ,..�r ...i r`- t�... i�r �. �.. t �f y •`,�'i,t•�• ��y. .it t ,4; {t r jl •:f S f';"#.6�'�r'. •-{i.i��a{.'�1�• Y{"yt;'Sf t'�c 4�1 'S. Y+•a >f i , ti \. i,li :i'1� r{•fit f {..` rr'a t,t,. f .-tf y. �' �.!..�t iY:M , {4� (t': Syfki , }t si i{,:r'�.`'v l!.��, t. !,x L �t��"!f�«t'� 'c ti •4f�,i 1. !i .i,:4 t, .l ` -! •.� .( ':. :�[..�! '�,� .,� tt ,1.r1` !j��-1t 1 .{1.�1�ft�t i,+.,•., .i.i•`� t•t•1!'St:M6,1`i.l G; t X'i,'}- .ts. r,all .i... � f�i"(;',, �,,ktaFi �4 t, .•.td i. i,�"t Pi. i.•4 � ,.�14 . —f t1 jS l'�start�.��'.S,,.tsi`}..t.,SS i.A t.fii:{e",r,'t"�.l.:.•r.;,�f•,�}tiYiilif.„.+2aL1 ct:i otf+l4.F.tSx:`�C.,,Q>•t_.t:lZy5+41+:y`1jI(({{I.-t;�f Ya!r f,1,k t.r.r.tt��•�"f-d��s l4{,y ti.et.-fi[;St.t.f., f ta�,St r,ryl.,i,,...:{{;S,,i#J�j1i ';�f,rt ::��f :�ra'-,;"t;et,{c•,�14 � {t�'ryfs�.;tr;,l+;1 i•' 1T. 1Z1:1 •�kt,a!�1f.>,-t.aI�',;;•:.t.:�t.;,f?Sitt�,{...f<t+{.2�..Y}�,�t t;t l��l!*'s.ti.i.'•C,,tl il ie,a-�f,�12f�1{,•.��t���(y.#l�t "{t i r i''fk}t}t•s:,}.t.is.._`�}-i�+I ti'b�-t,,_5 f,t{J:ef7�,�!St il�'C.`S:r'y.1:�:fir,�f)t`r 1'{•�r�•� ''•,i ). f �1• t a f r�` t} '" 1 `` �vr' 1. .,�.at,,-. ,t4.,{,. , Z.4: :Y�`�tt:.: '��} }���-i'' [_ ..'. <. t t } ����` '1L�`,t f1•��75.4.}�"�},, +f,l ',J. M1}1 �f't: ... F t'., i� t .•.�:{ ' ' •... ?_ ,., .f:r•,. ..; . i s'.. � i-,1:'!t, l'1 '. a.1.t...tt r �st!t:. f. :.- r_:..t 5 •. 2.3 Conclusion All three of the land use alternatives under consideration in this analysis involve use of the 17 acre area next to the Santa Ana River for wetland restoration. Alternative One features wetlands on all portions of the white hole area except the corner of Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway. The other alternatives feature varying amounts of development on the areas west of Brookhurst Street. The types of land uses selected for these areas may impact the type of flood control channel improvements whic'. are made. The County and the Coastal Conservancy have indicated that perimeter berming .and removal of the southern channel levee (as proposed east of Brookhurst) would be feasible for other portions of the white hole area as well. Implementation of-this measure, however, would likely require acquisition of thin property as in the case of the 17 acres to the east. If residential, commercial or industrial designations were placed on portions of the properties west of .Brookhurst, then wetland restoration could be implemented through the construction of flap gates or culverts where removal of the channel levee is not feasible. Perimeter berming would still be necessary as a flood protection measure for surrounding land uses. 1. +t � I l i ro r. • t • f 7 (0284D) -15- ^J .19A '((]a �Ei��i'{``,�j+ �:i•\�"► ; {t�.r�4� �4{ `•�'t�(,� �ti: 1.�' ,.�tt+' � '�ii ti�j��.., ' '+v���'i ��Y±�lq„i_�7,1`j' 6..•/ 1 S �'Ft f• i r "•aQr��� °��h�= f "�� ,�5+��.}' .� ,t t i iG`jt� .� s.��y� b •���M1•�1 fi� � Y 1 h�• 'i .�, ����� pit' 1 t �?'�-'�y` � �`��,� i�Y. ,t M r >'� x' •���: `i! { pS n ,I 4 'k ti. 1 �+'1;"yt��• y. � C ,r,,ti�`jF+�}; 'f }:� �} ��k '�r�,�6� ' •tf�l�eS�, + • rttli`�1 '�i � t } �.1 + �l��J� �� .,�� ��}�,,,'' '! `� �4`�.� .1 ,���,' ls`{t" �5�'r•2� '• it �' ^ ;i: .��.��'di',,tt i„ � 7i'j5,�, ` � ��� '} t1y'•� �iy'�. y, ���::���'{"�' � �,'�i73„ ':tti11',`�, 1, , !�2a -Y ,1"tY7f'L4j' f �4fi ``' t • iu l F'{'y 'c� { wETj��+,..t tt 2: fir. z �J s'�:t!. �7� �'i '� t� Ai t q ' �� f"4'l,• Y tt f f'; 1J t S t ' , ;lT -1(; ,�'�•,t'M , ,.iiNv � t''' ' ro '•'S- :xi r +'` Y t ?Zf,:t, r t+ p, t3 � :, � a '' spa Y `�k , D� t. I ftfty-A 0 ' �1 ' i.1 'Iyj�t{F-`47 �,1 gq t ray� s C�� S f Apt 1;r yY`�•'..t�y�}!,�'n't; t�'Y��i +,y,, f,,+� i+�i1' •t� �ti..`� �,1;\� �. �+ 1�M�� ;�• �, r.a.^^•.r'+,n'.7.'*+`t .i t •+---t�*^w.•r�'.N+T*r+++se'* +'^.+Ti,.t., ,. y i I 3 i t k J�4-!' \� 11} l t+ Y, t � � t • J it 1• � ' � ,, �' t� Y "t1 �s{ : f/it iCCr s .ir 1 '`'s,l 1" { t' �1 �'� + r, t t.. +,.{ .! t . + t ty.�.iL t it.yt C+ ��,r, i. t �,ii. l t !`,A:t Y �. . `t.: i..t'�� �_ `S�CY - i t !\_ fie. 1.Y•kYl ' ,.t� �,• .t'3. A .R.-•� .t ( l) t 5t(�t `.{-,l `{R tt t ritrt i G - .ft{�f `., �r ,'•.lt ;1<,,. . +, x� dt a ,��t IY t,;f,")�t�,.�1�.. '��-.' l •S,i Sf. "L� Yft, /�_fi,+ 5 tt LY .f,! t f 't 'fit ..1 Clt.,.�c T�',,y�• yiY. F�.AiY +; t t rYr.q t _ -'j tt}1C .�F.f7' ' +q,,. T , t 1- +tt1+ `,t7ek`, `t +��i t-t 1 r.t'•}�,ryJ I � It t. t C SIF+ 7 { + t t..Ca7 r!Xt1 ���.I�SI .t ,},.� � MaI t - + ��,' +ts' � r titr:t \, ,'Ct� d ra` I .L@.S'J, 1.+ t t,Jt rr.}nt ''.Ye'! .. .. ` ..' _••tif! ,�._ J:l__ ..ti: , ,.�^� ...i• .tt•,+' �},.. �}i.'„_.,: t=LC! ,.,''."�t„4L„ �f�•._t�F,`Ji, [ .v�',1t .t.��`+ (A yay_._�,, 1 i 1 t r i 1 , i E # '"J 1 f ! • i. 3.0 BIOIAGY ' i - I` 3.1 Existing Conditions The "Huntington Beach wetland is a remnant of.what was once an extensive coastal marsh system along the=Southern California coastline. The coastal salt marsh is a hig • hly; 'stressed eis''vironment" for both plants and animals. Only 17. to 2l Southern CaIifoxni-a plant species-.can tolerate hypersaline conditions ard' unpredictable` periods of ,inundation and- drought. Tidal flushingr however,, ,' :g vital.to the proper functioning of the marsh. Due to low seasonal precipitation and .frequent droughts, flushing ".is especially important _in. Southexn California because it provides the major source of nutrients and soil moisture. Further, regular flushing:controls soil salinity and provides more favorable conditions for many of the plant species. Vii Huntington Beach wetland once received tieal flushing via the Gar. •Yell inlet. In approximately 1946, the slate of California DepL lent of Parks and Recreation acquired what is now .Huntington Beach . ite Park and closed the inlet extending •,througt► the beach, eliminat. T access to the sea. Subsequent improvements to Pacific d' Coast .Higl,• v, removal of the railroad line, construction of the Southern Caliornia Edison Generating Plant and construction of the Orange County i _ ")nd Control District (OCFCD) drainage channels all added to the iso.L ` nn of the area from any direct connection with surface water from ocean. `, f (0284D) - i�, M . 4, . 1 i 1 , „ to '' � • r y ,'!'� ► r l i f t Y t ti� ri � F tWVv �1 r;:�• Mks i { ` t� •t�� d�� �j�{ �1 y�,,!a�.,. �§' �•ti I y`1 �� '� '` ' �► �•#c�,,�Al'"�Lr7t �"�"'f�r"""��Ir7 ..+TP, t•° � •r� ��•,�r.�L�l'.rr,s-s •;,:' ',S1�G'{;'.3 x3l�ii�, ;�tr°' .;'t,#��'��.� .�+'['•'r7'"V ! ;t �" 1�`1' t� t 'f '; s *L =)/,r. •i j.� ft �1�#i� ti,_, -.�.�t + y�t ., � Zl�'. t '1 ,,1�-.. );�ti i�•t )1 -:ir!4" \� ^t- �1,.l�h�r�nr''1'. �ttf.�t1�1a,.i rl itr '� t1r 't�t '�tl(`f t*;•ytrti 11t�91 ' � ,(:I,ui j} ,'.fRt 4� i! a'r— .,t+�lt,{ :.k {:r 1..5t•:,}{ L� ,i•• �'`i . t 1 J t t I.. 1.'f s,It ar l ,.t. {_ •\ Y r .�1'.� \ ) I t+ #.l' r r ,if{� t t .Vi• L ;r r } r• .t, 1, r �y'�, tr4�q; �~5 �I'''� ,;.t tr { �r.^ + li ; ;•t Y ! ` , i. }I S. .V t;,'.`'� ,{CT�' ,'S}:� )� wT L IL L x f `� '�, t ` y, r{ t• t. '.t{1' :�•'," �.>r}7 C, ,.I�{� yt��..'{.{{ta{)). t .t,.t, ;,, i •:1'� ;� =+� l,�,' •fir t,.rr;if�Jt. �a.r+ �.� 1``�tl,•.t:, �ii{s•i,' .il\1• � \ i�, .I, .r�'t- { r�,w.# -¢'i 1,{*i r. - _�e•r t.. ��jj{f1 >t�i yt � +':%E•:i, � r ,}, ,��.' l��y, t;� '� .r••4 t'^ r +,,��1, t- •,j,�- x \', � F ij1 -t + e, ,i !i. .}'`�1,' t, } i,..<��3:t{>,';rt 1i��'' �'"�, f�;r+l�i/., (#. i J,, `� S it 1. f lt. •.it>,,},,.t:,jt.,j.4(\ , c c p..r.:ir't+•.f +�.+.<l.{r1, �� l ,t� �f�ix 1.��f� C :1` .Y� �-!�,. ,�� L �1.�.t .�.. "V �.!(, ..P tt� ! � •Yi, l R,. �{♦ I! f"+ f•1 4. ,t,y.��; }� is i .�� 1 t .��t�^44 i ';�.t rK1,,'�kl ytres fl.::�.{ `, g�tj.,esfk }.`• T1. �r a•,r t Y,,3 ��� J{ s}+{( i l ,�. �'{1 e.�f fe,; ��'Z i{ ,,:�!'l;�•�^r v{ r iS t ;•?• ,{'r�1f .tt t t,i} -i P11 .,.; ".t.,��" /y�..,rT.o{ J� y�,;,�. 1 :f,.rl :tt-:�^„ai•. .�,. .ai, h frti''!� lr.,t74 _�ti:�t'v,/e ,�Y� .,Y�,. �•1*y'Yii f,., 4 <f.4` —�—�' i S I 1 � �f i � If i!{I r�r t t >< `,{/ t�l t y �. f \. .rk. ! s •{ / t tr �" 1'J'�P rT S t 14 X 1. 1.:�1:...,. -t` 4 :1, , .L _ �..t��'b't.l�.`x. ,t{ .,'I.' .+,.,1..!{F { t,�: ! ;31e!.,., n/:.r .`�1�+x'U t.��f;'���.W:. � + �_ t..•r. rsa�w As a result, the area is s. 'a classified by the Department o fFish and Came primarily as a degraded /.satland. Vegetation is supported salt water intrusion nd a rough limited he soil amount ofom the ocaan and flood iresh water runoff. Many control channels and a lima plant species have become i°ityronger p ckleweedo(Salicorniay to witi:stand the broadest sal Y Virginica) is the dominant species and covers the majority of the i area. Coastal wetland vegetation amcegsPec1es habitat ardfor largerarity Of wildlife. This habitat accommodates i concentrations of birds per unit area than any other j;. osystem n ds, ducks, Uorth America. Herons, seseandtrailslcan bermenstinrsout fern California ebir ' 1 geese, coots, ga wetlands throughout the year. The Beach we aura is par �. of the Pacific flyway, a Southern California wetland provides a habitat tthe Cfor thre nia t,easat;gered Tern bird species: Belding's Savannah SparrowtYsree species ha, �:. Both been and theLight-Footed Clapper Rail. 1. All declining in number, along with the loss of wetland habit + the California Least Tern and Beldings' s Savannah srrlxros �aaeereleiail apP found ,in the Huntington Beach wetland. The in th Foat�Hunti on Beach is found in adjacent. areas but is not found in the .iest ' wetland because of the absence of cordgraszs, a species: w • h requires � . tidal flushing to survive. rr 3.1•l W etland Preservation Due' to, their„ significance as a sensitive unc] vanishing .�cosyste • and aOf s'.a haven for migratory and erdangered :girds, the presfervTnic975 Southern California wetlands has, become a high priority. - t f the.. California Coas tal Act wars passed• declaring the coastal zone a -� valuable resource. M etland areas . were identified' as sensitive ecosystemp which should be preserved and restored. 3.1:2 Department of Fish and Game Determination Pucscsant;, to Section 30411 of, the Coastal Act which gives the ` Depar6uent.•.of Fish and Game authority to designate wetlands,- the �. department studied and classified the Huntington Beach wetland. ' Wetlands are identified in Section 30121 of the Coasts]. Act as 1 follows: ' "lands within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include 0 saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or cxoned •brackish water marshes, swamps, mud flats, and fens." r The u. s. Fish and Wildlife Service definition is as follows: Qt! r 1 4 (0284D) -18 i t r • 1 t ,,*t r :;1j tf lY t+ F"•�`� ,1 k , it Yi� ,'hy .1 t{ rl''. k t ; t ..x •�tfF } 1. F�l; t: r ,{�rt,•i 1V •11 1 iyF�g��iyrdnv« ,: .,..V' ..� :S,'A .rj i. t�, S,. 'i,.j*� �" !r•f'r h �1� t ,� } � r � r� �* 1 SI .,'� ��► �, �1 .� t x�'YIh x t •1 t t ' � V7 � 4,,{ tit7'�tit��� �«� = 4 `!7 ti ir' �tt�� , i �` , + ,rr .� � I. � fir,, ..,• E x'' •t ��'.�,1 t,Rc ( ,': �tiSt.•, t?" i� �.`�.. :;ts� � t6�,' j � +�. �. 7t •r`�{yr{ � \ A �� i Y t��s ..+� � f t+X i('fy�4j.,frFt`►�".tr�t` � -tY �' 4� 't J� r' ♦ .!'pia' ' •1 } ; ! ��y-• {\� b ( i!!�1t'". r�- �La ( r •rf��r+.� t l� ALA ! � t , � � (#�.� ,�� '� •'+ 4a[�!• � Y.��t 1 � �.�• t tt'rr� �E •t2^j'M� ,`+. .s +• t •Y r' '4Y } 1 'f t'♦1(a"{ t 4 1.• r� :itj M 1t Z. r a n•s r r,r"7'.?�r'�.r;�14�� t��{S i�t r,�t �•.ii 4r'��ly rF t•,art IS.�*Z rrY(^ remit*,tF` n "i I ' , tier{ t+ y tat ifff s, t ;# tb ! (� '� t�Y r.itta.ra -rt M1,. ,� 3 ti .f hti tly !t ct'j�).., AYE � ti1 r ac *�'• �jt d.••t '�h17' '�j, y �t t TL.`��..SS 11 ttg j yP(T. t.. .`l i trio it �' .+,,,t•.^"�,C F1' a1'C1f, nt'Jt^+S. `'�t'•^` ^ 1=`_. �: f, t`13�1.! .;��i§x �f `7 \w$ t.l•�.. •,1 r F! ✓''ul+l�' ,,t' t ••�� '• ii r �•' + -"..FeF!C" 3„ h• :�.t r.t.o 1, 't �.I.' y �li r:.r n 1-3 's1. L .ler.�• jir,f r, }•t•ft"tS�'�t ..►,., ;, •" ,. t i"_,ry; r t x :';G tr Z! t } f{I .: .� 1 !• 1 t+`,S. rt' +' 1 r,. 1 ,jl �i. \r�'7,:� •���'uty 4'te� ! f`' .��� t.t '`,4•\;t + ,'+' t.ltt � d f$'�V�!',•�"r'f It"..,t'.+ 1:tit ty .�+ •�. .rr,i!'. ,.� �,�.Sgj��`�'a,i�.R��•.,t , .x f�{11k:'ty;�.rls•:�'(1,4t},t ,r,� # F.'Y`.,♦.n 1 �..q. � r•. t, :{���'' '7.i�•.i '�.:",-4}t f.ti .Z• �4`{+`tl`��.,f tl�,'..:.^y.*t�;� ;t Z� 7{;C}�} T +`��'� t+i1�"'• t. .'.{.Y lr •y �'{z 1r1:;''`4•t:j"+ ..�15�1.'l ttr i}��:�5_, Ut; (�1 {lu r ♦j�•R•,'�1 � ','a 1�1+ �r,11 !"•'•'i y�+:`.L..}} .:.r•\r+rl.,♦•,.t �. .i 1..,t}. (Lt, .4, \tl1�r�11 r ,-.�t A[ ! rl'`t i. 1 r�.,, �R• rJ"'It;.yt, �rT .t�Y .t„ .+i: tZ f !•4- tal.a i. +��� N>\. �. '.1. t 1..` 4. "� lt��`f.'. .l -,\ .{,?.� tt {•�k;,,rtt "3- •.t{•S• lt�r l'•;s, �,�• � x.• tr ^r.2 1 �1` �, t,r c.. -(\, d,�, C '� �!! 2[�t,r r•' ! ;+t, :�7 Li1:•�r1 {•�_„^ t x .!, 4` �,�. t :t" `j��i t,. •^, { �i::.r,,. .1. ''r ,! :•.Cr •tt,�y{ .':�\��S•i 4 j {'. `� :x�ti1 �+.i.w �,, {# t �'• � t1.1 r.r r tt � S d �3 1 ,`, -1:: ...iCft'r'P.. tF� t .{4 t�,� S.la 'iY�i+. i t, rr ��.t1. f ..t '� 1• �4.. .�1�! 1 f t .'1: ! P x ,t Yy et{ +,t�:+ry(i'• �t•�Y ',il a `t� .�, '',;�a{,>?,.�. ,Y.l{( ;Ff� S' �, -! ,;�i3Yr.,;a t.'1• !'{rt�.l:t"'�; i" _i. ' ;i\�rr. ((�•1, ♦. '1 <1, �1 r�;,ti'!.y r�.i`' t , rZ.?' t `S{YS- -i�'7 ,e i5 1^i.Rk' r%� ^t � 7.x'�''t� {` ft S,• )t. E t .�� G l•.S. •\tt. `•S 1 ,r,.,1} .1.i'!„{{�'T'i }\�i .�:�,, it`.+ �, 'i�.J• !c, 1. +-•7� )�' �1 r e' ly�ixi�i'. /:�� ,,tl� �'z k�`.. t��.y',� �;{ rw!•,i'� ,1�1.�h:'�'1r�M.t'•xt _'li x ,, ,.1 !��` '14,a. �t'ttf�s} .4 .l�.�"a r A .�• + ��.�•' (i+, •r,�l��C.. ,+;:4\r:l�r�,4r;'t,. ;1�.��. �r 1�sr;�;f 7f.1>.' ',�.r1, ..� ,,�>. �+4':. �i..,};L. 'trl. ,k �+C�y'i�•tj x ,�1,1 `r.�•'S Y ``�• lit .kt ,�. 1.. U.i•,�, S,at f,•, ,i i{ r••.1' S t ). frl A Ft 1t,1 4 t, d ti fr a� r i w +t ! � ` �k �Y ( ,.4 t•7'•c Ik 3' 4r •^k V. ;t., .�s�s��t�, �i�=.,'� } !'����it'}E)t...�t53:�;at?��,�{h`����4�,' �:t�a�,t+..n�;t 4` +1�E%'rli�er{S:c�':'.�5..41y}'St����.{t��,F;1r•.���,"S}p� t�f+,��t. 1r\�1't..�;i�e t . "•��'1 t 1 � "Wetlands are lands transitional between ,terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually: at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For purrposes. of this classificati6n, .wetlands.,must have one or more of thn following. three attributes: (1) at least periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes; (2) the substrate is predominantly undiained _hydric soil; (3) the substrate is nonsoil and is saturated with water,. or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each ,1 year. 14etlandss, as defisied .here Include Ihnds that are, identified under other categories . in some land use classifications. For example, wetlands and farmlands are not necessarily exclusive., - Many areas that we define 'as wetlands`are•, farmed during ary periods, but- if they are not tilled or planter]. to ' crops;, a practice that destroys the natural -.vegetation; 'they - will support, hirdrophytes. Drained, hydric soi'1's 'that are'' now. incapable of supporting hydrophytes bv6iisse of a'.change in water regime are not - considered, wetlands. by.*,:oar..definition. ,`_1rhese drained hydric i soils furnish a valuable, record of his>ts�ric wetlands, as well, as an indication of areas that may he suitable for� restoratfono The` upland limit of wetland;'is des Ignated' as (1) the boundary �'. between land' with pied ominantly,.,hydrophytic cover. and 'land witti predominantly mesophytic or' xerophytic covens (2) the M' boundary between, soil than is, predominantly., h dric and soil ihat.:iss redominantl y e p y' nonhydric;' or (3) in. the case 'of, wetlands without vegetation or soil, the botindary between land that is flooded or saturated at some„time each year.. and land than is not." (Cowardin ems. , 1979) . The Department of Fish and Game interfaced the two definitions and developed the following classifications: Coastal Salt Marsh =- A- wetland, as. previously:defined, exhibiting a water and- salinity regime which iaaintains3 vegetation 'characteristic of an estuarine system. . .For, the purposes of this.,report, the "coastal salt marsh" designation „ includes- areas wh'ich' are. at least. 30% vegetated and whey salt i marsh indicator plants predominate. ; Salt marsh indicator plant species Include picklewe'ed (Salicornia virginica and S. subterminalis) ,, alkali heath (Frankenia grandifolia) , saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) and others;. ' Coastal Salt Flat - A wetland, as,.previously dsafined; where vegetation is lacking (less than.30 coverage) :and soils are poorly developed as a result of frequent or. relatively drastic surface water fluctuation and/or high concentrations - of salts 3 .� in the water or substrate. JJ. (0284D) -19- -r • Fresh' Brackish'.Water Marsh - A wetland, as previously .defined, exhibiting a water regime which maintains. vegetdkion which is typically adapted to ' fresh or brackish triter conditions. . For the ,purposesof this report, the fresh/brackish water marsh i rat designation includes areas which are at,least 30% vegetated j and.'where fresh/brackish"viater plants predominate. Fresh/brackish W'Ztter .marsh indicator plant species include spiny rush (Juncus acutus) , sedge (Cyperus ssp.) , bulrushes (Scirpus ssp. ) , cattails (Typha ssp.) and others. Based ,on the definitions above, , the Department of Fish and-. Game found that, 'of` the. 162.' 6* ac're studied in Huntington, Beach' (Figure 3.1 page 21)'; . there a`re. 114.7�•acres oc historic degraded wetland, 35.2 acres of. £ormer: wetland which have been so severely degraded that they no longer function as wetland and 12.7 acres of -historic upland. The term "degraded wetland" is defined by Fir�h and Game as follows: "A wetland which. has been altered' man through impairment of slime physical property .anA in which the alteration has resuited in''a, reduction . of. biological, complexity 'in terms of species df versity' of, Wetland* associated species which previously existed ' in the wetland." e;1 According for Fish, and Game, the" degraded wetland determination is not mean . o _imply., that '-these. non-tidal wetlands_ do not.,provide 'sig i't ni'ficant wildlife values; n,a"r that l they. are riot highly productive.' ' In fact', pickleweed,dominated. salt marshes; are, one of trhe' mast peen Live 'natural plant communities. In addition,. the deg=aded wetlands provide significant habitat"value' to wetland associated birds. Fish' and Game determined. that 136:6 acres 'of. historic' wetland in Huntington Beach are feasibly restorable. "Feasible" is defined by Fish and Game as follows: "Capable of being'"accomplished fn a successful manner; within a reasonable period of time,; taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors". Tfiikteen- and three tenths acres of historic' wetlands 'a:.e not feasibly �a r'eatorable.-by virtue of their being adjacent to active development, the magnitude of fill disposition and/or their size and shape. These areas Are not vegetated by wetland species nor `do they provide significant value for wildlife. * The 162.6 acre area studies by Dept. of Fish and ,Game included some ' lind that- has already beep. certified by the'Coastal Commission as part of 'the City' s Local Coastal ' Program. ' The already-certified' I of' the -study area 'are not addressed in this report; therEfore acreage figures used elsewhere in this report will differ from those used by the Department of Fish and E� Game. (0284D) -20_ !� !f f. i , ram, �«51�ttti tvM•+..i •,�ittiti'in 15� � � ` tit v VA LL 1 .9 Ai V O AjV 40 en it us —21— Of' the;.12.7' acres of historic upland, 8. 7 acres adjacent to- Pacific Goast Highway and-downcoast from the .power''plant are composed of .coastal dune habitat and are environmentally sensitive pursuant to Coastal' 'Act Sections 30107:5 and 30240'. The remaining. 4 acres of r, li historlcupland located upcoast from the power plant are not., i environ►nentally sensitive nor do they operate as effective buffers to the wetland system because they exist primarily between Pacific Coast Highway and active development such as the power plant and mobile home parks. r 3.1 ,3 Soule and Associates Stody Mills Land and i4ater. Company, one of the: prop*erty:,owners in the white hole' area, hired Scott Soule and-Associates `in 19.80 to prepare -,an iride'pendent' study_ entitled "An Ecological" Study" of Certain Properties Owned_.by Mills Land. and Water Company .and the State of,California in the;,City of .Huntington Beach. " The ,report evaluated_:£aur parcels located on, the 'inland side of: Pacific Coast Highway from, Newland Street westward •t`o,•and including, a:•narrow strip bordering 'the west side of Beach Boulevard..: The .parcels �ri.•.owned by Mills :,and and Vs a' ter Company,:,State of California Department.of Transportation . . (caltrans)';, .Sassoon-Mayer, and the City of,Huntington Beach. Parcels owned by Sasson-Mayer and the City of: Huntington Beach are not parr " of' the white hole area. The Soule Report states` that•*the,'stuay' area .priesently supports a 'partial salt `mii`rsh, incomplete' i'n� structure and function, 'n declining ,-remnant of a once extensive 'ecosystem. T e nding i s supported by the following observations •by, Dr. Richard Vogl,, Professor of Biology, California State University, Los Angeles: 1. The. vegetation on. the Mi'lla Land and Water `Co. land` represents a remnant 'of a once extensive salt marsh. 2. The present veg"etation is similar to the middle littoral zone of an,. 'ndisturbed . salt marsh, but .is decadent ann no longer functioning normally. (As of October 1930, al,►ast all of the pickleweed appears ,to be dead. ) 3. Only cne out of four plant 'associations :or zones, and � only 8 out of the 21 species that are common to .Southern. California salt marshes, are present on the Mills property. 4. Almost all of the mud dwelling animals are currently absent, probably because of the long period of isolation G from sea water flow and exchange. ; (0284D) -22- i 5. The `e'ndangered gelding' s Savannah Sparrow was observed on t the`priperty, but the recent (unauthorizea7) * openings in thi Orange County Flood Control levee have ,apparently resulted in the temporary setback and possible destruction of almost all of the Belding' s .Savannah Sparrow haaitat,• (stands of pickleweed) . Other adjacent parcels.,undergoing development have (or had) similar endangered species habitat, some of which is in better condition. 6. The land is primarily used as a resting and loafing area for migratory and local shorebirds and gulls. Foods for most of these and other birds are largely absent in the marsh. 7. The ,Mills parcel contains wetlands that are comparable to ' =' the 'State, City of Huntington Beach, and privately-owfied parcels that have been .or are committed to development. The�. report -does not disagree with' the Department, of Fish: and Game .. determination. It does, however,• disagree with the feasibility of . restoration. 3.2 Restoration Cnnclasive evidenc:e� of the possibility; of restoring ' the wetland 'areas was .demonstrated on .-the 1.7 acre Caltrans parcel between Biookhursi . . and .the;.Santa' Ana;. River... where culverts were opened to .allow tidal f?ushing., ..-Accor'di'ngly to Fish snd Game,_. once tidal.-flushing was re-"established, a', -large and diverse; complement of !fish. and invertebrates olonized the area within six months. Similar -esults can be expected in the remainder of the study area. 0 . The following methods have been,prbposed to restore tidal flushing: A. Removal of the levee wall. One possibility for wetland restoration would involve 'the removal of the levee, on the south..side of. *the Talber t Channel. Dikin,g would. be constructed, to protect the - mobile home park . at Paci-fic Coast Highway arid:Newland Street as well as ,the Edison Plant, Pacific Coast Highway and the other arterials. . ' This "alternative would allow maximu;a tidal range and-,,. by allowing freshwater inflow as well-, would closely approximate original conditions. The removal -of the levee would create 8.33 acres of additional wetland (Figure 3.2 page 24) . The channel . mouth would simulate an ocean inlet. Note: Since the completion of this report, the openings in the flood control channel have been closed. The present 'condition of the .; pickleweed is not known. j (0264D) -23- r a /r f r ip m _ '�� �� � _fir•, � w V f Grading. would: be required to re-create the elevations necessary to establish, all the. salt: marsh zones. .. Care could be taken to assure preservation of sufficient ,.� pickleweed habitat for the Belding' s Savannah Sparrow. The Orange County Flood Control District is tentatively agreeable„to this alternative. , Removal of the levee and the.construction of protective. dikes_around the perimeter of ,the,`marsh would be. cheaper than- the present :.plan' to widen :and re. a the channel. ;k Further, the .restored marsh will act' as a flood retention basin,'for peak . flows down the Talbert Channel., reducing.the .flood •hazard • upstream. Finally, maintenance costs would_'ibe..minimal when compared to the cost of -maintaining culverts .with flap gates in the channel levee. This alternative may be the :most feasible and is preferred by the Coastal , , Conservancy and the Orange County Flood Control District. (OCFCD) B. Construction of •Culverts .With selective water control devices in the chv' nnel levee. Section 30411(. Mb) (1)l of :Elie :Coastal Act,xrequixes'cFish: and Game to determine whether major':'r'estbration eff or' ts ;would be;'required, to, restore :t6 --idehilfied ,degraded:•wetl`ands. -,Fish,', and Game •found that'. tidal' flushing`;and- restoration,; could: be feasibly .and; e,asily'.achieved by the construction of culverts`�with. selectivE,dwater ccntrol�'devices -, (flap gates,.slide gates,Y,,flashboard risers,. :stc.:1 between the wethKd1*'areas 'and .the;.channel.. This.'method:;was:used , su ssfully:.in.`'the 'past on ;the. 17:;acre Caltrans:parcel. Protective ,diking would',again be required, but(,the culverts could ;be; constructed to allow. a controlled amount of inflow into the march. The height of the dikes could be set accordingly. ,. Again, the restored marsh could serve as a flood retention baxin. _ In: this case, however, the OCFCD would. still need to improve the channel.. The cost;-of the. installation of the culverts and continuous maintenance to keep them free from debris•- make . this alternative less feasible, both technically Ind economically, than the removal of the levee. In addition, tidal flushing would be less efficient and less tidal range would be expected, . � C. Construction of an ocean inlet. The Soule report states that the construction of; channel culverts as described above would nog provide sufficient tidal flushing. The only effective way to restore the degraded wetland, according to the report, would be to reconstruct an inlet similar to the original Gamewell ,7 inlet. i ,� (0284D) ..�5_ ri Due':to "economic, engineering, social and political considerations, this alternative' appears .to be the least feasible: - According; to' the Coastal Conservancy. 'the cost of' constructing asimilar inlet in the Bolsa ChA. .,has M been estimated at $50 million.. Constructi'on .of. a. bridge over the channel 'woul'd 'b'e necessary on Pacific Coast Highway., The channel .irould cut through. Huntington Beach State Park, disrupting recreational- uses and disturbing sand deposition. Finally, an ocean° cut would only allow salt water inflow. Fresh water is also needed to r, provide the wide salinity range normally found in a salt marsh. f 3.3 "Summary All three alternatives would restore tidal flushing.,to the..degraded ,� I '"wetli'nd.�i Alternative',A:seems�_to. provide ";the` ureate'st tidal. range at the, loweet' cogt`, but ,.more`detaiied- feasibility studies should. be completed.-befo'ie' ' a,,method ir3 chosen. Past. restoration., effoirts .have .A6monstiated %tbat'la' fully functioning -marsh would re-establish itself prcwided` that, the marsh' design allo� s`the eleva+;:ia►is that` are necessary to establish the tour .salt marsh pones. Csre.mus be taken n to`preserve an 'hdequate amount of picklewee'd for 'the BeldLig 8 Savannah Sparrow. ' The:Cali oirnia 'Cnastii Conservancy :is Uuriently •discussing ,the':'. -r feasibihity.':of'the •above,.aiternatives 4ith..city -staff,, the -proper y owners'; Commissfon,` the ArmyCopf Engineers .-and:'other. agencies,. and :will develop,conceptual plans for permanent j.rest"oration 'of 'the Caltrans . 17 acre:parcel lbetween -Brookhurst and the :.•Santa:AnaI'Riv.er. These conceptual plans 'could •be applied to the eestoratio!n of the remainder of� the Huntington Beach wetland. (02840) -26- : . d i z 4.0 OILS AND GEOIOGY Exists Conditions The white hole azea io located in a coastal plain within_ the_ greater :r Los Angeles Basin. -The.ground surface 'consi.stg *,Of,;rila' iiv4iy , t1it marsh and some upland which .is located along Brookhurst and Pacific '..Coast Highway and along Beach Boulevard and 'Pacific Coast Highway. 4.91.1 Soils h^arsurface earth' characteristics within the area,' icesult:'from g ol'0916ally recent't alluvial and tidal marsh sediment deposits. . .. These`.deposits. are primarily caused by stream' channel.. and •floodplain activity within the Santa Ana Gap. General characteristics of the soil are:** Unconsolidated. channel deposits colaposed of generally coarse-grained sands and gravels. s Floodplain_.depcsits, composed of fine-grained sands a*6d silts. i with..numerous •layers'.of peat. Concentrations . o peat, 'one half } ,to,five feet :thick, have been identified 'at :the southwest corner: of Beach. Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway. and the, . a southwest corner of- Magnolia Avanue and Pacific Coast Highway. * Within the la 00 st 15, 0 years. ; � ** Source: Geotechnical Inputs, Huntington Beach Planning Dept. (0284D) -27- .-. ... _....._.'___'_. .. __..__._.. _.�-_--.....-. _......_..�.�, ,,e.....r.s:ra., ..-s r a.ti..+.. .,-.,... .v.:r..-...r.r:..,a,n..... . r,'r^!x::r.i'",�.�•.�;.""-.'-„ n V:,rying zones of clay, soft to firm silty clays and clayey silts mixed with significant amounts of fine organic mud. For example, a geologic survey in 1983 of the site that roy contains n the "Breakers Apartments" revealed the following: Varying zones of clay and sand to a maximum depth of 71. feet. Five to seven feet - soft to firm silty clays Low strength Moderate comoressibility +' High expansion potential r) High moisture content f , High clay content Under clay-loose to medium dense fine sands with intermittent and discontinuous zones of clay silt to a depth of 'about 20-23 n feet ' 4.1.2 Geology The Breakers geology study reported tbat .ground water levels weze • slightly above sea level and when 'heavyfequipment°.:began,'work in theo low areas of the site, water percolated to the surface. ;Significant engineering geology properties are:*.. � . ' Channel cieposite. Form-.important fresh- water aquifer `confined by . : overlying relatively impermeable .floodplain and tidal deposits. Shallow aquifer subject to artificially caused .water quality . degradation. • iPeat -lenses compressible under moderate static loads., Shallow ground water from highway runoff and sea water percc.lation. Fault' Locations The white :hole 'area •.is within' two miles •of the main branch'. of the Newpor` -Yng1"ewood fault and a pproximately.five miles northwest of the .epi'center, of, the 1933 earthquake, which .was' on' the north' branch of. the. Newport. Inglewood fault and had an 'intensity` equivalent to 6.3 on .the Richter; Scale.- , During the 1933 earthquake the -zone of "rupture spread northwest from the epicenter in a direction that: included the white hole area. * Source: Geotechnical Inputs, Huntington Beach Planning Dept. (0284D) -28- =lt. is assumes that<.there are branches of the fault spreading out in northerly. and southerly directions from the main fault, or north branch, as it is depicted in the Geotechnical Inputs report prepared for the City of Huntington Beach by Leighton and Yen in 1974. During the mica 1950's a southern branch of. the fault was Identified (Figure 401 page 30) . This.-southern branch bisects the white hole area. Between 1982 and 1984•, however, Woodward Clyde, during their study. of the Bolsa Chica, did not find evidence of a southern branch of the Newport Inglewood Fault, Woodward Clyde that it is unlikely that a southern branch exists.* I William Bryant, of the State Diviision of Mines and Geology, has recently studied the Newport. Inglewood Fault in Huntington Beach** and -indicated that he could not rule out the existence of a southern branch. Mr. Bryant stated that there •has not been evidence of ~` neismic' activity in the Santa Ana Gap (which includes the white hole area) during the Holocene era (within' the last 11,000 years) . Liguefaction ' Sacfaee, rupture is, not a .significant: risk, but li4u,i4action., is a high,. riek� in. the •4 hiie Hole, rea. W ith''unconsolidrted channel i deposits of' clay, silt and sand combined .with. peat . (Figure 4.2 page 31)' and subsurface depocits. of water', liquefaction is probable in: the. area during :an earthquake. During an earthquake, the resulting ground shaking will tend 'to } ' ,�- compact loose. deposits -of cohesianless soil$ If the soils are ' saturated, :'the :compaction process wily, result in an increase .in. the pore water:pressu're in the soil. ,W ith the: increased: po're .pressure, the water' within the soil. will .tend- to flow upward which may' turn the soil deposit,into "quicksand" due'to loss of. shear strength. 4 Flow to the; ground,• surface may. be iranifested' by ground cracking and ►. lurching.. Lurching is a sudden .sideways motion of the ground surface, where the surface stays essentially intact, due to a loss of strength' in underlying' strata. Where soil thickness is variable or where the subsoil conditions are erratic, differential compaction of soil .la layers may occur, resulting in differential settlement of Y Y 9 •li Q the ground surface. 4.2 Impacts 4.2.1 Geotechnical/Land Use Cagabilitien Seismic ,and. ioil conditions present important considerations for p potential de'v'alopment in the white 'hole area. i Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Pi-eliminary Evaluation of Surface Faulting Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Pr ram, January 1984 U ** Phone conversation, November 12, 198 (0284D) -29- f t t \ � `1% ✓'t✓ \ Y :. V\`�t �'' a•:`1 J �, 1 TRH � o�.OA ssutxcxT Ru�+rt vr t ANTrAlm f SOQRcrt LctcH=-YCR L JSSOC. 7-1-73a FIGURE 4.1 ? ? UNCERTAINTY!4S TO E%IS?ENCE ;.......N..r HGiiEST:SEiEMIIC NiSlS{_: A�racrn'ate l t�cetion Of a OR CxTENS10N OF FAULT (GREATEST-SURFAM..0&�TO E HcssrWe South Brauch POTaITm vd i HEN✓arw of the mw4)ort ingbm000d Farah .......... evRIEo.TR eE.oF FAULT Nt)NCER M E© IwrTMN 4OW-ZONEy: , , COASTAL AREAS w ym" roc►+ C4UFCOM 0 mod' O 4 • 4� y• WC SANTf t�OM • ANT f � iiiii ram' !mow- iii:si• sw• - r + •�'�� AW NY- t I FIGU 4 PROBABLE LOCATION OF PEAT _ tAREA&DEPTH VNKNOWN RE14T.14�iD .:,•'�i"'Y1/2' 67FiICK U4YER ' ; /®► NONCE'R 1-MEQ WArTAL AREAS Bt7Ui'i'3Y4W -: r+cMw a� MUNT 91 7 3 cx cesou SOURCE: ORANGE COO27TY DEPT. OF SLDG.& SAFETY � p�� WARM". •. t� - . i i t ' , i Although the existence of the south branch of the Newport Inglewood fault through the white hole area is in dispute, concrete evidence of 'a fault could greatly reduce possibilities for development in' tha area. Using the criterion of the Alquist-Priolo Act, no structures r i fbr.humainil occupancy, other than single family homes of wood T:rame construction, are permitted on the trace of an active fault. Fault rupture, however, is currently not the major issue in the area: .,, The c;reat.est amount of damage from an earthquake would result from ground shaking. Ground shaking contributes to soil ^ liquefact3�on, which is the major seismic related concern in thi. j white bol, 4rea. Bitter. Witer Lake-, Properties, which, has a purchase option on Daisy Thorpe Pircirelli's property. (area' 3 of this study) , has given the ., City a copy,-;.of a. geothechnical study •that. their.'consuIuants Leighton n 4 and.. Associates prepared. : The summary of the-study in shown Ln y Fiore,.4.3 and supports staff research regarding risk of. 1 liquefaction ir,• the white hole area !see point number four. which ` states that the potential for liquefaction is "very high") . 4.2.2 Mitigation Measures Measures to',mitigate the consequences of: Liquefaction haze been recently ptoposed: in the Bolsa Chico and Breakers geologic studies. =i Thoee measures include: :j Design provisions that permit structures to withstand O iquefaction, without. Serious consequences. Bulkheads can be constructed such that little or -no lateral { .. i movements occur. This car.-he �iacomplishel by. extending.; sheet-piling'well, below elevation, -20 ana by constructing a ; "dead-man". supported on deep piling.'. Sheet-piling is a.. type *of 7 ! bulk%'egad, that is made of interlocking ateel panels, about one half inch in thickness. The. "dead-man" 'is a support that anchors the sheet-piling similar to a guy-wire that stabilizes ti+ a telephorio pole. i ' Pile foundation systems for all structures. Deep densification, such as vibraflctation, to dEnsify the j underlying granular soils. Vibraflotation is a process of compaction in which a� sifting and .shaking of the material y � allow the heavier: particles to settle, forming a firmer or denser base. Site improvement that increases the resistance of the �. underlying cohesionless soils to liquefaction. Dynamic Lonsolidation and compaction piles appear .most likely to provide the necessary means to increase this resistance. L` (0284D) -32- .._._...._�.......�...._ .......-__.._v..w. •..r+.+w:r....,........_.... .- ..,..-.�_i•....,r- ... .. a ..s.�. .... . ..._ i.....a.w _. a...,Y:ri .,. _..:i:.. .f++'.✓. Placement of fill across the site. The fill,. underlain by a { rock blanket 12-24 inches trick, will serve as a means to mitigate excess pore pressure during a seismic event. � f Remove 'the upper one foot of the urderlying "natural soils, '► which. is compressible clay, that is located beneath building E floor loads. -4.3 Conclusion Discussions with the State Geologist (William Bryant) and City j engineers in Development Services and . Public Works have resulted in the conclusion that a variety of development could occur in the - i . white hole. area as long as proper mitigation. r..sasures are. taken to reduce seismic related risks. As stated previously,, liquefaction is .. the major soils/seismic related risk in the area. Proper bulkhead placement. and pile f oundation. systems, while not eliminating. will ` S greatly reduce seismic related risks to., structures. The, type of :.� faundation' and method of anchoring structures are key mitigation measures for development in the white hole area. � V • . i 4 � J f , • 1 a (0284D) -33- r" LEIGHTON AND' ASSOCIATES GEOTSCHNICAL STUDY OF THORPE/BITTER WATER PROPERTY SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL GEOTECHNICAL CONSTRAINTS 1. The: South Branch fault trace is considered a major active fault within the Newport--Inglewood fault zone and it parallels ' and underlaia the northeastern property boundary. 2. The epicenter for the 1933 earthquake which devastated the City of Long Beach was located 3.5 miles directly offshore from the subject property. 3. The hazard of seismically induced ground rupture at the site is very high. 4. The, potential for liquefaction` and other secondary seismic hazards is very high.` The 'occurrence of many of- these.' f these. hazards at or near the site during- the' 1933 "Long Beach" earthquake has been documented in published reports (refer to "Secondary Seismic Hazards" of this report) . 5. The subject property is a natural tidal marsh environment. 6. The. site is underlain by 1,000 vertical feet of unconsolidated, alluvial sediments, which accumulated in the lower flood plain of the. Santa Ana River. In. addition, pear deposits may, underlie the subject site within the predominantly sandy and Q silty alluvium. 7. Ground water at the site is very shallow and locally ponds on the surface. It is salt water derived from seawater intrusion and the ground water level is influenced by tidal conditions. 8. The flood hazard at the site is very high. due to. the : inadequate "design of the storm drain channel which borders the north side of the property. Daring the heavy rains and high' tides of 1903, channel waters reportedly overtopped the banks and inundated -the subject property. Sedimentation may also be a constraint during and after flooding. 9. The onsite materials have high potential for total and differential settlements due to additional fill or structural loads. 10. The salt content of the soils is very high. Vegetation planted at the site may need to be salt tolerant. Figure 4.3 (0284D) -34- Fil��.+"db;::.it. 5...:.... -...r.va.,.,.v>,...................:,: • ..y.... . .. .r -.. �_...,.. ......«....«.......... -....... . .-... "....._ ...,.. a .. t lr� t A 1 5.0 OIL PRODUCTION 5.1 Existing Conditions In years past, oil production activities have occurred in several �. portions of the study area, as shown in Figure 5.1 on page 36 and noted on the following table. Year Date Name Location Drilled Depth Abandoned" "Mills" Mills Land & ►A ater 1955 7, 520 1955 R.B. Watkins of Newland) �+ "Myers '� . Huher & Myers O.C.F.C.D. information not available (W of Magnolia) "Thorpe" Thorpe 1956 10340 1957 Exxon (W . of Magnolia) "Thorpe" Thorpe 1953 7, 622 1954 Texaco (W . of Magnolia) Y "Thorpe" Thorpe 1955 7, 889 1955 Exxon (E. of Magnolia) State 1549 Thorpe 1956 10, 886 1956 Rxxon (E. of Magnolia) (0284D) --35- .-.s+++wniw+rw�...�._..-.+�+.+.-•�+...,._-.._.r.�_..-...M. ..._..............................ti•i...+b 1!_..�..J:.. . l.l: -rao-...n...v.+.r...r..r.n...11`rJ r,?Js ylMtnLrl Yfi,J irS:C7Fw1:2:1:'wNliar'+'.'ry ' f 07 " ... ... ...."t-'... ...... n. br4,R•YY..iCT`.Y.tvJ.`�..✓..sw.�..�.+...�.....-.�.............�-...�-�.....".�....�..-..�.+......�. ....+.+n.�.uw �. j _9c_ el Al A1,00 St ~ l t � �A z 12 Q rl ar ,� J ry Year Date Name Location Drilled Depth Abandoned Hook Caltrans 1958 5, 872 1958 Hog Gill & Assoc. C4 . of Brookhurst) "BB" Caltrans 1935 4, 586 1935 B.B. Oil Co. Cry . of Brookhurst) � . "State 1549" Caltrans 1956 8, 695 1957 { Exxon (E. of Brookhurst) )� "Willow Comm. " Caltrans 1943 5,006 1943 Phillips (E• of Brookhurst) .'. Each of the ten wells drilled within the study area was abandoned soon after drilling commenced. No significant amounts of oil were discovered. In 1984, Daisy Piccirelli entered into a lease agreement- with D & L Investments to permit a gas drilling operation on a one acre site at the exireme northwestern corner of her property, adjacent to the Southern California Edison property. The lessee for the mineral rights for the site has requested a zone change from LUD to LUD-01 to allow for drilling. 5.2 Abandonment f The Division of Oil and Gas (D.O.G.) , a division of the California State Department of Natural Resources, regulates the drilling and j abandonment of oil .,•ells throvghout the State. According to the D.O.G. records, each of the wells was abandoned to D.O.G. standards �0 which were in effect at that. time. However, since the late 1950's, f numerous technological advances have occurred in the field of well abandonment. None of the abandoned wells in the project area are considered to be properly abandoned to today's standards, according to anginers at D.O.G. Prior to any development occurring in the vicinity of these wells, each would need to be re-abandoned to I .1"p current standards. This_ nost likely would involve drilling out the I ! old cement plugs and replacing 'them with new cement plugs per current D.O.G. standards and procedures. New development should also be sited so that the abandoned wells do not lie beneath any structures. t 5.3 Conclusion + D.O.G. indicates that if portions of .the study area were to be. inundated to enhance the wetland areas, any well in the inundated area would have to be . re-abandoned to meet current D.O.G. standards. The cost of re -dbandonment of the wells must, therefore, be included } as a cost of any development or wetland enhancement. This cost, barring complications, can be estimated at $25?000 - $30*000 per well. r � pI f (0284D) -37-- ;j 'h V 6.0 HAKWON AVENUE EX�HSION 6.1 Existing Conditions The..Huntington Beach Circulation Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways designates Hamilton Avenue as a Primary Arterial. Running f east and, west, Hamilton Avenue constitutes one of only two arterials which presently cross the Santa Ana River ,in the southern part of the city' Hamilton Avenue' s value as across-town connector.- is minimized, however, by the £act that it presently terminates .at ° Newland Street.. A portion of the white hole area separates the Hamilton Avenue terminus from Beach Boulevard. At the present time, through traffic is rerouted via. Newland Street and Pacific Coast Highway to Beach Boulevard. This rerouting adds approximately one mile to the distance vehicles must travel in each direction and ' increases traffic volumes on Pacific Coast Highway. Although Hamilton Avenue presently terminates' at Newland Street, the Circulation Plan indicates the eventual connection of the street to Beach Boulevard. This ccnnection is intended to coincide with the extension of Walnut Street from the Downtown to Beach Boulevard. Together, these two extensions will. provide an important access between Downtown Huntington Beach and the South Huntington. i Beach/Costs Mesa area and are expected to convey substantial volumes of traffic. i C7 �4 i. (0284D) -39 a n The segment of Pacific Coast Highway between Newland Street and Beach Boulevard is presently conveying approximately 44, 600 average trips per day. This is. well in excess of the design capacity of the street ^ in its present Primary Arterial status. After Pacific Coast Highway is improved to Major Arterial status, the existing 44, 600 average daily trips will place the street at level of service "C" which is generally considered to be the maximum desirable service level. Any future increase in traffic on Pacific Coast Highway will then exceed level of service "C". Because the Hamilton extension will serve to relieve future traffic congestion from Pacific Coast Highway, it is r' viewed as an important component of the City's circulation system. Preliminary designs for the Hamilton Avenue extension call for a 100 foot right-of-way containing a 4 lane roadway, a landscaped .median And a bicycle lane. The extension would continue. in a straight line from Newland Street to Beach Boulevard and would skirt the southern edge of the-tank farm in the white hole area. This alignment, however, would traverse marshland in the white hole area and may violate Coastal Act Policies for wetland preservation. In order to reduce the impacts of the extension on the area it traverses, two alternative combinations of alignment and construction have been proposed for consideration. The "no-project" alternative is also r' discussed. 6.2 Prolect Alternatives A. This alternative would consist of the alignment of the t right-of-way through the white hole area from Beach 01 Boulevard to the° corner of Newland 'Street and Hamilton Avenue by' means of an elevated structure• on piles' (Figure ! 6.1 page 41) . The elevated portion of the extension would be 2,500 in length and. would not impede wetland restoration. . This alternative represents the least i intrusive method when aligning a roadway through a sensitive environmental area. A small amount of fill would be required' at the bridge abutments, but impact to r any wetlands would be minimal, B. The second alternative would be the alignment of the 0 right-of-way from Beach Boulevard to the corner of Newland Street and Hamilton Avenue partially through the 'white hole area and partially through the tank farm north of the white hole area. This alternative would require a 900 foot long elevated structure on piles from Beach Boulevard east to the tank farm, complemented by right-of-way improvements on fill through,- the tank "farm (1,700' feet in length) to the corner of Newland Street f and Hamilton Avenue. The construction of the right-of-way improvements on tank farm land would require the abandonment or relocation of 19 at leant a portion of the tank farm. The impact on. any wetland would be reduced substantially, and the high cost of constructing one third of the roadway on piles would be partially offset by constructing two thirds of it on fill. (0284a) -40- �1 ti ..... r, n io w 5w I or W t r) , Y Or e OP s wa 1 1 ' o { riv `ti • � O 1 J/�V � �E �a v .- cq ' t a ... - .._�._,..._�_...._...__...w.r.w.•..+..t..:C�.�.W.•w.'4.w»��.�.:.I...r.... ..:'L'•�...:ur,:..r.�►..ram.e+c•cagti.a..wn[w+....�._.....�.. ''t r� C. The third alternative is for "no-project". This alternative would continue the existing conditions, routing traffic. sround the white hole area via Newland street and Pacific Coast Highway. to Beach Boulevard, using the existing street and highway system. No fill would be required and any wetlands would be protected, but this alternative does not prc,, de a cross-town connection. 6.3 Mitigation Measures r' Two of the proposed alternatives locate the extension of Hamilton Avenue through areas designated by the California Department of Fish and Game as degraded and restorable weLlands. Pursuant to Section 30233 of the Coastal Act, any loss of wetland habitat must be � mitigated by wetland restoration. Possible restoration plans are discussed in Section 3.2 of this report. 6.4 Cost Analysis Several elemeits must be taken into conssideratioti when analyzing the costs of each of the alternatives:, land cost, construction cost and .mitigation. measures cost. Preliminary estimates by the Coastal Conservancy indicate that the construction of - the entire structure on riles (Alternative A) would be the most expensive method of construction. The Coastal Conservancy has estimated the cost of this alternative to be approxAmately $4.7 million, The mitigation ell for this alternative, however, may be the least: expensive, thereby balancing the cost to a large extent. The establishment of the right-of-way on fill through the tank farm and on piles to span over the white hole area (Alternative 0) appears to be the least expensive approach from a construction standpoint. Its construction cost is estimated at $3.0 million by the Coastal. Conservancy, but this alternative could be prohibitively expensive in terms of tank farm acquisition or relocation. . . The no-project alternative (Alternative C) would require no additional expense .by the City beyond minor upgrading of some of the surrounding arterials. However, Alternative C .would not alleviate cross-town traffic congestion on other arterials leading to the Downtown or the beaches. 6. 5 Conclusion It appears that the extension of. Hamilton Avenue to Beach Boulevard 0 can be designed in a manner consistent with Coastal Act policies. Alternatives A and B satisfy wetland restoration and circulation objectives for the white hole area withoui: compromising highway design standards by utilizing construction on piles to minimize s landfill. ko� . .....-v.,�,rr.wv..w.h..w�.�+...r....... ......+......� ti�ww.w ...-.-..,... . ..«...... ....... ..a.. tri r11....},1 �. .w. .. .mil .rr..Y.rw.....s si�i t:n.+r.+.v.'i'..f: 41 ..v:^f:• �.' . ' 1 7 f � �II � I 1 j t t • 7.o PACIFIC COAST HIGLW AY t!IDENING Pacf.fic Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River is .prcaently constructed as a four lane undivided Primary Arterial with aright-of-way of 100 feet. In 1983, however, the highway's �. arterial designation was upgraded by the City, and County to that of Major Arterial. This amendment was enacted in response to Caltrans' plans for the widening of Pacific Coast Highway to relieve traffic congestion. Widening of• Pacific Coast Highway will, require the use of additional right-of-way on .both the ocean and inland sides of the Highway. While the bulk of, the widening will occur on the ocean side of, ' ! Pacific Coast Highway, approximately five and` a half acres will be taken from the white hole area on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway. . Caltrans has estimated that 1.33 acres will be taken. between the Santa Ana River and Brookhurst Street, 1.6 acres Liatween I Brookhurst and Magnolia streets, 1.6 acres between Magnolia and I Newland Streets, and 1.07 acres between Newland Street and Beach ; Boulevard. Utilization of 5.6 acres of coastal upland and degraded wetland in the white hole area for highway purposes will require mitigation _ through wetlands restoration by Caltrans. It is largely due to this '. need for mitigation that Caltrans is working with the Coastal Conservancy for restoration of the 17 acres between Brookhurst and ► � the Santa Ana River. JJ .a I' I (02640) -43- �._ .. ».._...»_ _. -..._.. .... .__.......»..-.-.� --• --..-..- »...r•,.+.waararo.....-'rr R,a•++.e ...•.n•..�+. ,..<'. »f:.•c9i,Z';:S'^J7Y.:.6.:'.::.t'c.C71'i :.'tU.ft.r+.+�...... r n r t 8.0 PISCAL ANALYSIS t , # � 8.1 Alternatives :7 Thrae land use scenarios were developed to assess revenue to the City from development in the white hole area. The scenarios range from minimal to intense development. Figure 8.1 on page 46 lists the. land uae scenarios, including acreage and .general location. In addition to staff discussion regarding feasible land uses in the area, development. concepts were acquired from the Coastal Conservancy and Bitter Water Lake Properties. The Conservancy provided the hotel concept used in Alternative 1, and Bitter Water* :. agreed with the condominium concep i staff developed for the area j between Brpokhurst and Magnolia ust, in Alternatives 2 and 3. Dan Brennan, City real estate appraiser, was also consulter: regarding t { estimated land and development coats for portions of this analysis, 'j The lane, area used to this analysis is a total 'of 147 net acres. ' Right-cf-way allowances for the widening of Pacific Coast Highway l ' and acreage lost because of the extension of Hamilton Street were .3 deducted from the gross acreage in order to arrive at the above .� figure. For this reason these acreage figures mny nct. be completely y congruent with acreages elsewhere in this report. s � t ! * Source: Ron DeF._&1 c2 of Bitter Water Lake Properties. Bitter ' Water Lake Properties currently has an option to purchase that site from the owner, Daisy Thorpe Piccirelli. i ''W. (0284D) �45- Pigure 8.1 - FISCAL'ANALYSIS Q? LAND USE SCENARIOS - S Commercial. . Professional Visitor.,.Serving .; Residential.. industrial Office . Wetland Beach-& Magnolia Brookhurst Energf, Oil. Hamilton Alternative.,•Restoration. PCH s. & PCH= - Beach PCH/Ma!inol•ia-� Production • Production Newland &.,R-5- 1 1 124 180 0 0 0 17 1 0 acres room acres acre 5 acres 2 78 400 Commercial, Condo's Condo's i7 I 0 acres room 3 acres- 15 23 acres acre ? hotel acres acres cam, plus retail 10 acres 3 27 400 Commercial- Apart- Condos 17 1 Professional acres room 5 acres ments 56 ' acres acre Office hotel and acres R&D plus condos . 13 acres retail 18 10 acres acres y, • 1 i The assumptions used for each scenario are as follows: Alternative 1 A. Restored Wetland: 124 acres. It is assumed that the wetland area w ll become public trust land and is, therefore, exempt from property tax. p. hotel:;. 180: rooms on a five acre parcel at, the northeast corner a Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway. The :hotel rooms would generate an average room rent of $80 per night with a 73 percent occupancy rate. Assuming the developer retains ownership of the hotel, the construction costa on which property tax would be applied, would be $13,420,710. .7he construction cost includes an underground parking structure and �I ground level amenities such as tennis courts and a pool, plus restaurant and banquet facilities. In comparison to the construction cost, this hotel development scenario, provided by ' �.he Conservancy, showed a total development cost (including II profit) of $19,456,416. C. En6i4y Production: 17 acre parcel adjacent to the Southern California Edison plant. Property tax is not paid by a public utility. and it. is assumed that Edison will eventually expand their operation onto this site. D. Oil Production: one acte site., At tt::• southeast corner of thei floBd control channel' and tl'ie Edison Company property line, IAilliam Curtis has- surface rights for an oil production drill site on Piecirelli's land. Currently, the property 'is assessed by:` the Orange County tax assessor at $38,000 an acre. , For the purpose of this analysis it will be assumed that this site does not incur .a change. of owner, the property is not reassessed to D current market value for oil production and, therefore, for a one time only fiscal analysis the above figure will, apply. If oil:.is discovered the City. could,. in the future, collect } royalties, on oil production. Because there is no oil production c.i that site now, royalties will not be considered in this analysis. D Alternative 2 A. Restored,W etland: 78 acres. As in Alte' rnative 'l, this would be public trust land and exempt from property tax. Also, with the exception of the 16 acre (net) site between the Santa Ana ' River and Brookhurst, this alternative integrates wetland and development. U (0284D) -47- •.�..++.+wr.,i.^*.+.•..-....•.....�...... .....,.,...,.,w.«..+.•�-._.___. ...... ._...-. .,,.«.,..,r. -....+....r.�...,.._._.... ..,.......,........s. ....-.a...eea«.. st,w::*.tfarw..�.�.... 1 1 � s B. Hotel and Visitor Serving Commercial: 400 rooms on a 10 acre parcel at the northeast corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard. Using factors provided by the Conservancy and n Laventhol & Horwath,* this hotel would have a restaurant:, coffee shop, banquet facilities, conference facilities and retail shops. It is assumed this hotel would generate nn average room rent of $80 per night with an average annual occupancy rate of 73 percent. The total construction cost is estimated to be $32,000,000. C. Three 'Acre Commercial Site: at the northwest corner of Magnolia MR Pacif ; Coast H FF.,ay. This development is assumed to have both the components of a nei5hborhooi center and visitor-serving commercial. The buildings will cover approximately 32,670 square feet. The construction value is estimated to be: $80 per square foot for the structure** and $30 per square foot for the land, totalling $6, 534,000. D. Condominium' Deve_I_02m_e_nntt: on a 15 acre parcel in the northwestern corner of thewhite holy area,. on Beach Boulevard adjacent to the Breakers Apartments. At a density of 15 units per acre there would be 225 condos. . The average unit value is estimated to be $200,000 resulting its a total project market value of $45,000,000. E. Condominium Development: at the northeast corner of Magnolia n Street and Pacific. Coact Highway on a' parcel consisting of 23 acres. At a maximum density of 15 units per acre there would be 345 units. It is: estimated • that the average unit: value would' be' $230,000,. With a development unit value range of : x $225,000 to $250,000, resulting in a total development value of rj . $82,110, 000. F. Industrial Energy Production: As in Alternative l this site ,consisting of. 17 acres is expected to be used for future. Edison plant expansion; as public utility land, it would not generate any property tar. G. Oil :Prod uction: onp acre site. At. the southeast''corner of the flood control channel and the Edison Company property line, William Curtis has surface rights for an.oil production drill site an Piccirelli.'s Land. Currently; the property is assessed by the 'Orange County tax assessor at $38,000 an acre. For the a � purpose of this analysis it will. be assumed that this site does not incur a change of ocmer, the property is not reassessed to current market value for oil production and, therefore, for a * In addition to th Laventhol & Horwath publication, "Hotel , Development," the City's hotel feasibility study prepared by Laventhos and Horwath was also a resource. ** :his estimate is low because the costs associated with mitigating soils/liquefaction were not available. (0284Dj -48- �! 7'F • 7" � A li r JA . Si r o 1 r g Jri I . j & , ' 113) AR : qr 4 'A. W '� W 5 - 4- I INAk .. �' . 7fto��K " 1. U9 ' 4 IM41(VM KI � j tI M 1 � one time only fiscal analysis the above figure will apply. If oil is discovered the City could, in the future, collect royalties on oil production. Because there is no oil production on that site nou, royalties will not be considered in this analysis. Alternative 3 A. Restored Wetland: 27 acres. In addition to the site between the Santa Ana River and Brookhurst Street, approximately seven acres of wetland, adjacent to the hotel site at Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard, would be restored and Integrated into the develvpment plan as well as four acres adjacent to the Edisort property . B. Hotel and Visitor Serving Commercial: 400 rooms on a 10 acre Parcel at the northeast corner OF—Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard. Using factors provided by the Conservancy and Laventhol & Horwathp the larger hotel would have a restaurant, coffee ghap, banquet facilitieS, conference facilities and retail shops. It is assumed this hotel would generate an average Loom rent Of $80 per night with an average annual occupancy rate of 73 percent. The Itotal construction cost is estimated to be $32,o0o, 000. C. Five 'Acre Visitor-ServJng Commercial Site: at the northwest corner of g7n—Olia Street and Pacific Coast Highway. Assuming a 25 percent site coverage with a One Story structure, the building area would be 54,450 square feet. The cost of construction is estimated at $80 Per square foot, combined with a land cost of $30 per square foot, resulting in a total constructed value of $100890,q00. D. Residential Development: on an IS acre site, on Beach Boulevard, at the northwest end of the white hole area, bounded by the Breakers Apartment complex an,J the 400 roatr hotel discussed earlier in this alternative. For the Purpose of this analysis this site will be divided evenly into a nine acre apartment complex and a nine acre condominium development, at a density of 15 units per acre. 'The apartment complex, with a value of $70,000 per unit (135 unitsII ) , would have an estimated market value of $9, 450,000, The tors-Jominium development would .have an average dwelling unit value Of $150,000 result total estimated market value of $20,250, 000. resulting in a E. condominium Devel2pjaent: on the 56 acre site between Brookhurst M and Magnolia Streets.rt—reets, At a density of 15 units Per acre (840 units) and an average unit value of $238,000 (with a range of$225,000 to $250,000) the total estir-Ated market value of the development would be $199,920,000. F. Industrial-L7--Energy Production: As , 17 acre site is Ed any land,discussed previously, thin and assume,] to be utilized ��W: exempt from property tax, itilized for future energy production needs. (0204D) -49- Rs1 f t `NR C rt "{, t •"Mi`+, ' C sl T Si"Tr}j 4 r'z . x + �C } t s �r} t' '�`f�,�y:ti�`�• }•4 '"s��r>` �( � "r'r x �k ,j}f �}S�r'x1, ye%� �q•,. ���4..� x {} � Y's x,���. � '� •��:1 � j ° tL' 1f�\ �,�Ly�yryt'q •, � jT,� Y�yyh"� � {}r �a T t i t t, !!i (,{, i'�' +, �t .t�n ij4 it[7• � ix_. �r,�(7`,+' ,{. �k Y t 1+��` Yyi�. T y,.� �Ij •�Ss �;'''t L,+. .+` �� � •�4',�� }7 4j Z4r. .� `i" .� jf: TT•• -'.t' t Y.1 ' (c '� { S �{ • s � p„ r ��`�t•�'(jv C l As � 4'� ��'� 17.., If ���1,j }�. dC ���`s�r [�}� ir3� 'sH i'. t� � s' ?� �i'alr '�� `,'��'s � •:�+x\i TSj �.f\S c �� .4���� j i x# � C T°6('�7 +���� � 'r.yy4 �t� c�, �•*.�.f J,�'S � y1 �. �.. f � ..�"':, • j�s1 �rt" r f; t' �r � �• t 4 'r4 1 a,;}{ t:{'1.•t� =`7 1 �`, y, 1 k , f y� . r �i ,E 4 { y w 1 3 :: � Ti -� p !!�r p � ,s ! .,�� �} •�'11 1 , �,� .�,?' jP ',: Y !� ����j"., y1 2.��:b yn£'/.}:�} 4/ ,a�;l''; �f .,�: (�' }u'fq [ _i ,{M xp} .1:,.,.t y 7/fyavrN`(i'w,lf�{ � r ,S .y '3:;r M1�i:4 r;x�-� � � � <.�;�1-��1:�'.;,,'q ��t t'��• Ee �. i 5.,�r y,y�i T'�,t+ 1� � r' .�. +�Tit„(i`6'� 1 :';e^F;Y�tir�{Sr'4f'i�s i.+?�,�' 'x �1s'4i.1 '�y,�•.�`. S�r. �.�`4�� ��' wti �,. .�v{ { ,e/ p'Si. y . y �,r .,i _� 1: �,J Syr 14i�1(4 t ,�,r�� 'rp,Yr,.� ,rt�1�t+�'.t�ty f t,`, ��'}i :r yi"%J�a5:���� '" .:t•+' j�t)!i '�-,Y;R" 3"t �t 1;�•,�� ��'��+,t 1 5 .'��.t?ij � ``i•� ��SEh�'�f�' tif� j {k ,��„� ;�,ti\ ��-}�,ay't ti�,,�ag)Y' `4� . �u t.,�J�,,{},,�. '�`y��1�'.�pit;r r� E�t�!''?�771} ' �t L`i. �{y)'4q'�, 7•' •r4�t,����17`k�.�"�'�}'�i;a>�.� .�; '�'��' ��'�"�i M� '��'y�.� �x T1.11 r? 1.., ': '! fi1�r"�.�F1:,3y'.S,Y''�.`£kr.l,^L � f���r'\ 'wT� �id'C.lr"s44 i Y1 til+�l-'1•1 [1�•r�7' � i t�� { � '���. iDA 161�., i; ` Arr'y� a� .y t 1 }',t j' .4��Yjtl. 'ss + �. ... ��. L ; n r_ {• s i 1'�� �. •. , k ,.�}'M >a`f 1*J Y; ,�`'v A � } l�.�c �_;•a'' . ,l¢ � r 'Y�. +� S,'j 1 9 c�•1• '.s�,�, s.�.. +� q�,�, � �.' , .� ter,. .i;``y' '�,� •r�,, rl+,,.} }�� l'.� .;��., ;'f,4{ r`J� � /Cs�x 4 S�. y� � �Cxi ,} 4 �'•`i L +.s y �}' i '3 � r�� +tr t�� V x b5 , x; '!a•'�4}r �y.17$�� ,�,,,r�_}�1,°,Y�xt ��;7�j�i' .��'4Y �'" •"ti�tifi�`j: »�+�i:���+tt1�4��i?,r} � 'j,�4 f fa,,'.. `.��va y .�t ,fli .f:. r��..; <'4r '�{'�� ,��r.{4�j �¢" 5,,� .4, �� •i�.� jt�b - 2.1'si' � r kxpr.i � '� l:x,+R44� ••"..,Y � 'i is\ i r G. Oil Production: one acre site. At the southwest corner of the flood control channel and the Edison Company Property line, William Curtis has surface rights on an Oil production drill site on Piccirelli' s land. Currently, the property is assessed by the Orange County tax assessor at $38,000 per acre. For the purpose of this analysis it will be assumed that this site does not incur a change of owner, the property is not reassessed to current market value for oil production, and therefore, for a one time only fiscal analysis the above figure will apply. If Oil is discovered the City could, in the future, collect royalties on oil production. Because there is no oil production on that site now, royalties will not be considered in this analysis. H. Professional Offices On a 13 acre site bounded on the south by the flood control channel, on the Past by Newland Street, on r' the north by the extension of Hamilton Avenue (and the Tank Farm) and on the west by residential developments and the flood control channel, establish a Research and Design Facility. It is assumed -that this type of development would have a structure that covered 60 percent of the site with first floor arkin to mitigate the flood "risk. The structure is assumed, therefore, . to have 339,768 square feet of building area with an estimated construction cost of $90 per square foot. The land value is estimated to be (upon resale) $20 a square foot, resulting in a construction value of $38,507,040. This analysis is based on a, generated to one' year comparison of r'�venues and service cost impacts upon, the City of Huntington Beach from each land use scenario. The' eategories used in this analysis are major revenue and cost impacts. One time development fees are not included The purpose is to examine a sample of on--going revenues versus costs. This analysis is not intended to replace or be used as a detailed market feasibility study. '— Y , 8.2 Results of Analysis Costs are not discussed in this report, because the City's existing fiscal impact model does not accurately attribute costs to various land uses, nor does it account for economies of scale scale enable a functional unit to expand its capacity. atEconomies marginal of costs. The simplistic: model presently used by thj City allocates costs for each additional new unit of work by the average c all the old units of work. capital ost of improvements are already in place, any newunits ofsince s work would hav } a ouch lower cost than the existing average. t e 'predictions can be developed, this report simply comparesafuturee t. income to the City from proposed develo ment. Proportional to revenue, the relative relationship ofcthes are alternatives to one another would not change with the incl.usion• of cost. However, it should be noted that costs would increase with the intensity of development, and it can Lie assumed that the h intensity alternative, Alternative: 3, would incur the greatest ig costs. (0264D) 5, E"cCli%3( If I 3 Mv,8"i, , .1 "�! M AW IIi , A& /({ y'%,l}'iT. Y .)S r,,� i,A` r. .�Ifi7rfj{jg�f. h,t}.t j,`) ZT r�'' ).1'.`'{yl`JeC: �j*f 'ri{�1, .� :lit Y,lSi .;ti.� ft .2.'7..•q T,i'S "� 6'.t j+:. If's ON This report strives only to compare the three alternatives on the basis of their relative benefits to th-i City rather than to predict actual levels of revenues or costs. Therefore, the omission of costs . should be immaterial insofar as the relative ranking of the alternatives is concerned. By comparing relative benefits, it can be seen that of the three alternatives, Alternative 3 is the most fiscally beneficial, Alternative 2 the next most beneficial and Alternative 1 the least beneficial. to Appendix A contains the revenue analysis discussion. Derived from A that analysis is the following table which lists the respective J categories and totals per alternative: Revenue from Alternatives Revenue Categories Alternative 1 Alterative 2 Alternative 3 Property Tax" $26,917 $331,364 $622,110 Sales .Tax 52,453 170,526 230,671 Transien' t Occupancy Tax 228, 321 511,584 511 584 Utilit Cable TV Tax 12,431 86,634 141:600 Businessy/ Lidinse 1, 405 2,947 3, 014 Pines, Forfeitures and Penalties N/A 13,498 23, 088 Cigarette Tax N/A 3,363 5,753 Motor Vehicle N/A 28,147 48,146, In-lieu Tax N/A 19,779 33,833 Gas Tax Fund Totals $321,527 51,167r842 $1,619,799' While the rest*red wetland that comprises most of Alternative I is not expected Lo have direct quantitative benefits there in evidence that wetland and/or "open space" can generate a variety of positive impacts or benefits. 8.3 Open Space Benefits Although property that is placed in public trust for restoration and conservation purposes does not generate property tax or sales tax revenue, it does enhance the value of adjacent properties. The National Association of Home Builders (RABB) has stated that in the vicinity of park and re-creation areas values of building sites are enhanced UP to .15-20 percent with a level of sustained value over (02841)) -51- L A., 33- It ev ben AHBpruce throughut te the, years-* A variety of studies ha Thed subjectso of the United States supporting the findings ofe N - od nal parks to wetlands. it is common studies range from traditio to Central Park knowledge, for example, that homes located adjacent have higher in Huntington Beach or the Upper Bay in Ilewport Beach property values because of their proximity to these open spaces* In addition to enhancing adjacent property valuest open space areas also generate zero or minimal city service costs. The Nature Conservancy has found that minimal costs plus benefits such as flood plain and catch basin areas in wetlands make these arnas more attractive when assessing casts versus benefits. Wetlands and estuaries also draw visitors, who generate retail spending and additional sales tax revenue in the lo--.al jurisdiction. Figure 8.2 on page 53 ** lists thirteen coastal estuaries and wetlands in California and the number of visitors or "users" per year. A conclusion a.ne can draw from the above information is that undeveloped land in a community is not necessarily unproductive. Low costs, enhanced adjacent property values, flood benefits and visitor generated revenue associated with a wetland area can produce positive fiscal impacts. 01, 0 Source: Open Space Pays. : The Socioenvironomics of Open Space Preservation, Darryl F. Caputo, New Jersey Conservation FoundatioW— Source: Mature Conservancy (0284D) -52- PAN% Ni AN-1 14 It ��}�•ty+an, i•Nl tu rog N 011* Figure 8.2 ANNUAL VISITOR USE OF COASTAL ESTUARIES AND WETLANDS (excludes use for hunting and fishing) YEAR SITE ACRES* COUNTY USERSZYEAR 1984 Arcata Marsh 90 Humboldt 112,000a 1977-81 Point Reyes National Seashore 2,330 Marin 1,61 0,450b average 1970 Bodega Bay 756 Marin 10,000b, 1981 San Francisco National 17,500 Alameda 91,.718b Wildlife Refuge 1984 Elkhorn Slough area 2,000 Monterey 951400c average National Estuarine Sanctuary 22,400c Slough 73,000c 1984 Bolsa Chica 1,,200 Orange 48,150d 1984 Upper Newport Bay 1r200 Orange 250e/tou' r 500,00of (estimate) 1984 Buena Vista 350 San Diego 65,0()Od 1980-81 Los Panasquitos Lagoon 385 San Diego 119, 10009 (estimate). 1964 Batiquiton Lagoon 580 San Diego 12r000d 1984 San Deguito Lagoon 269 San Diego 8,000d 1984 San Elijo Lagoon 500 San Diego 10,nood- 1903-7.985 Tijuana River National 2,0 00+ San Diego average Estuarine Santuary 57,300-72,300h Border Field Park North End 42,300h 15. 000-30,000h *F.Asgures reflect total acreage. (estimate) t In most cases, the acreage accessible o visitors is considerably less. For example, Of the 1,ZOO acres at Bolsa Chica 150 acres are accessible to the public. a. Dave Null, City ofArcata b. ESA/Madrone. Wetlands Polidy assessment: California Case Study 1982 c. Ken Moore, Dept, of Fish ano Game d. Annual 11'se Report 1984, wildlife Consetvr,'%Uon Board e. Friends of Upper Newport Day f. Ron Hein, Dept. of Fish and Game 9. San Diego Coastal State Park System General' Plan: Torrey Pine,,. 1983 h- Paul Jorgensen, Dept, of Parks and Recreation (0284D) -53- YTIF TdP t � '����,� .f Sy . S � ' ' � '' � 'K,u �y �4 �" .lCi,<}. � .` + t�NAA lr'1 ' '1 '* '' 'F i } 3 �JY"f7�{ S J�� Y7 # � j§ [ J�,�ftj 1 t)� r14SE{yl ([p1 ;f` t K,(' ; F j•, S} # y 1k ,1 4 fjyj`t J t1•ty }t I..+, 4'F ` t, 1.4t �¢ `r' 4 K� i 1•[ ! �jf i4 S �FT;.i,,���fir'°i �'Y jj�y� � °�g1�il1'r �� �< j� V �i . } 4'�"• t.�! �, � �• � �!t'�t• ;• tt t "�j � yiE. 1 �, f}�;rl,.t�t �tt •.:��"», ti�d.+{f �`1�� .� .�•�,''4rt # x t f���. �{ �,. � y r� ,/y1 AA �j7,,� s. >i ♦ '4♦: �.�,y}[iI <;l{yyl t 41� d' a;�.tt y �r .tip,. t.�,!1 1y � e '� f'��5... i��!}<`'1. ' T iP I. Y+�Htid �,N,'�.. �`♦ j t ��� '' R � S X•.��. v.�; .�i *. "�J , i ;1 t #�}..t���y r , h. .t� �y� �+f ,,� � :y� I# 4.��" T t �#yy,i' �E{�, �}� "��f�g'�t *t;�, '�;�'•4�?�'s-f'+ ���1�4'b �l .�� "`4 clt�.��.;"��?,"�� �F'', ��i �#�'`1`�i� � {� '�:'�;`� fs�•� '� � `} �!;' �: �'� fie ;�{, i:;�t'' , :�i �l� +t '.}. ° a � Ya} • {x;� „ ;, .�;. ,ty.il .. 1 �..�'� �t#' •�4:�, +lt, 2 ( !` Jr�� t.;�'�3'C, } �� .'St�7'P fy�2 !,t'xy��iY.war �.7.,�i'�.F1�i ,.�J' `} c�v' Cf;T�.� ,�.�,"��ri¢� .�•�' � .'k '' r �j 1`,ld �k ��t`�}-'S•, i�'��'t �f, �, �•t', i' j�+�l�t"� .� 7'C �i�4,�t� ;� .K. �� r� , .ty��#'l�y�� •�• ,_ ��j�{��"�i� �. �1 �1 S•`ut��.� 4 ..�� j•1 1 6+f... i�{{;r( .rhM t �} 5ar' " t� .��f •' .[ , . i�i w � t�. 'a ;i ,' :}/} �t �+r 4jt t b t L 1 'J rs q i ti �# f t.. . 1 # lYl ,y}], j,, j� 3 Y •y N,j t i, ;1 i�*"?�' � r tf#�� f••bd /?�.,,1 .,.�#.,' 2�,)' aai1 � C,}� ,'7,f'�l' 'h� ,'h4tt,� k ` .i n � I I II .I j i s 9.0 PUBLIC INTEREST When the California voters adopted Proposition 20 in 1973, } preservation of .the' State's shoreline and coastal resources was a • major goal. Later the California-Coastal Act of 1976 incorporated these concerns into legislative policies which specifically protect 4 all coastal resources, including wetlands. The Coastal policies . pertaining to wetland protection are summarized in Appendix C on page 85. Since the California Department of fish acid Game has designated almost all of the. white hole area as restarable. wetlands, state policy , would seem to dictate that the City must designate the area for conservation. Prior to making a decision on land use, however, the City should examine regional and local impacts. This report has addressed a number of planning issues previously identified by the City Council. None of the issues studied presents insurmountable obstacles to designation of any land uses suggested in the alternatives. Perhaps the most telling argument in favor of , development in the white hole area in the enhancement of the local tax 4i base. In this post Proposition 13 era, responsible fiscal management is increasingly important. However, even in the fiscal arena, trade-offs exist. A large restored Wetland could enhance surrounding property values, and thus somewhat offset any loss of. tax base due to restricted development. Restoration of existing .wetlands to full function could also have positive impacts on local fisheries and tourism, which would indirectly provide positive economic benefits to ` the City. O `) (0284D) -SS- w•�.�ew�ti•✓. �.----'^.,w....... .. ...... .w........ •...-..-.... .... . s+•,✓n...[t.#.�•}:Lib.T%':N:v. w4+iw... . .r. ......n... w�r..e wY• ✓.wwiww�wlTw.M»r.1+Iw....+�.�.�.v ,. 1, �'t�'�. #�>4*r� �tt� y.� * 1 t ��•1 �' `"i,7 die �W����.•���j/1�56�� � 5w ;�, y��5 r.�l+V'y' �5�� / *#4 s �• )°� ,��;� h '�•, � 'j1•�'[ >�t:� ' �� 7?'i tt� to �F �!L►ii"�44Js*o � � '���� ��3y����f r,�t c :r'� `�+ ' 'f+ � ��� fir.+ rf{.�}%�����d'�r �� �i+Y.S �j '7 � ,.t. �� !?�1�,'Z��'YF,m " �;..' y�.. �j�, � t'��I,M ►I}}�t�h•►r s�`� r r ;� 't fY.� r 1 t 1 �i .rj 1 ..X 7�, ;t���`i }��� . r'� '.�� l� Vs J'+� •�ti (Skt' �. ,t `�Y /�; fy}�R �ii�V�i"' �' 7 4 Ct i' f h , y y'{� tj '�' ;�i , t (Al y( .a, `� .�is;#� , R } Y f '. !i' y kr 51 A'F .t' ,'"� .� ;��� '�, Y r���({ �t'(:}�.tt y �.+['.i �}l ^,� '�� "ri �'e �'{ �• jl•{: 'l�s! TI \Sr S ��. 1 �+ t+ � t� ��iis5 � l �f' L'`i. 1!,- fil'•f"+tS �' � �r �` � .+�'1 .sY f!. i.,/ {} l 1` r� }�� t+ �ti f{ i, /' i, �.e .�1�}�Y rl1t+ 5'C :ri.i •51� }5���� yF �t�y <•t' " `{�'''F4� ;` N � ��y'!; yr t�i J M1 ! xR s 'r'1t� �,Fr y� �Y Jr. 3ir,•1, "'!h�} ,, '�y:� C''TS �i1 l,f�``t •4 •^�l �. t k' Cif � 7 �,{ t j y ! , ♦ �'. �'.� Y, �A{ 'x. .v�` of �y,1 r •i} � ,r•y +� �i �f. r •• r,�'. �L',%..7777 F{ f ,{ > �, t ��y"'�t � .S� � � 1,t�a5i's'1�}t !� x�'t� l �3 1 '11 �i y j'�t$i. �,r 5 (> } .L� �.s. �' J•c �..r � rt ��.i T•1 �t�+ �': �fi �5 +.'f,�S'...�S•, �,(� � }4 S ,�Y �' t �:� rv� �c T'i r 1 yY�i 199V 'st �r�� Iit'.+i }p > t'+i / t t j ,, r u`'� 4 t ,1, G t y r >• L .,,a fir••..t �' S«, �..� � 9�� +. <1�x•' tw r',� i � r�Iti+ t.y� �' •� !. }• i,��, i.t, .Ij+Y '`. 1���Y{��� � •n� tri.PX�r ,r Qt s!!�,� 11." ",�'U�t �!s S ��!'• ! 4 f1 Portions of the City's adopted General Plan pertAin to the study area. The Open Space and Conservr.tion Element indicates that preservation of the Santa Ana Rimer Marsh is of medium priority in the Open Space Plan. The accompanying map (Figure 9.1 page 57) depicts the marsh area extanding from the Edison plant to the Santa Ana River. In addition, the Coastal Blement contains policies to protect and enhance wetlands and other sensitive habitats. n n 1 I 0 { y (0284D) -56- t "'"`+^'�'�'o�"I • ` w,• ...+w�� a.+a+1'YY+rw��.•„I•w..r��r+�r..w�arw.4w'{I�.a�..t.3.•>!!:f'.Y,s�MMr��'4hv..yl�1'nN..T,l.�•Yi wi��'4L'�rlwriw'�v.. ../.Jhi..•ak•..Y(.�,Iryr}�41�Y t..,LC' F c 4 j • • • r ......:7. M rf P. AMO 0 zo �qz ZA •:r. p� T �tw 1 • r f d:+ • j 0 m r/.� °• IN �j c cl f rn m s n t V �( {1 A � ei y�•��;�4 .:jai}{, y��:,�i'1 vr.•,'�AT�,�,;�•:.$, .&.%,�tS.� �jr�y,,,f�.• {'f.._};' j ��J,a•:e�.�; �{4�.�:,)�� �,�� �' a t �9,r% ��f#1•�` S i i'S,'�.��'4 ', 1^.�{ � ,'��fy;�t If. s 4` 4 fhi'1 > �'t fA 9$jTj,'R.f�' ,t.'�I���,,T,l!.'��r ���1 ,+} P ►.Sr r'.. Y'! 1�1 4. L'! vt }, �.j �4 �4�r�',41 7 .�l•yA+� `k r7. t ti1fi•S ��'C�1 t ! + � l: f 'i iR' ;: Y i�`iMf �`�}(i i •f33j*{f�C N} j y�fjt`f y r ����1i,,� .���r t �� � tf{t w• �,}t, ��•+�v�r'�'���. 4??Tj{r��� .,��J�iI�Y��t } � S � "`#;t� P,�)j�� ;j'�"•"4d ���1;:�j'' �t�- �.1,54���e,+'w h�t►��c'",�7�'t's5,.� �''a'''}��'+a�41�'t''$. r' 't 'p' r �; ���(1 �'V���;, ,,�„ �}' � 1 �5;'7� �l��v�� 4) ���{`•���.. t�•••�r)�1��K� r' "'�y{A�- •ti1� ��i r�1^ 5��4'�ra ���9r�.�` f t` rJ .i{,��;1 �?�ir�� ft�i:`�jj{/ � �t � jr�'•y}���i,.��1` '�}1++'� ���'•d !I '�* . .; 5 r�` � .• 11 1 r r..T•• '� � �s�l \�,���� l ,.� !�. � ;'k�.\�� '�� i { ]r f.. �' �� 1 tt�tt�,1 C}� j� 4' k q' ,vd � :f e � `�1+�Irr. 'Sry� � } •• 'f 1���CK'1'4:a , :. �'`y ,., , �' %� •F� }t , S "SJ ��` ,t +�•���n ��d��� Y%s{y"F�t� ��h� �.i t � � 1 ,�' i � � �i1i5'�;.J�i� '��, ')! }Sy��S'��•i !, r� ht}, k��5��••D + to t�� ��( .[j�/f� ^,• � l3 r'".ti � �, ".�?���� �� ., �k 13 } � '� '4���. �� r��. ; [ �`�`h�}� K ?'iL'� � ,a't �i ,t �r �� �' cr 1�r��i ;�. k Fa� 1t r�� 1•f SL��' � ���. 1 .f �y ?T { '!� 1 `y 1 'i�, �,� j C��� t:#� t� �. 1.+��. t��j '1} .5��' . ''•Yy�j�4 r. �'S �}y ��,;i' < � j 7 i �j t � ��.,� F, .,�I � f i�.L `'� (�4t t'T - k�t ' r� �� �'•� .�� J i'!.�'��•� .�:4S' � y �Y�ty�� /,�', ^� �� !(11�A }. ..�,�T1�.�.1,�j�'}tT� t ;a'�f'� � qh, .�. '{lii , +`�t Y � ;�,� .+�•Y���, 0. � x, C �A` ti, .�-r,� l' yt�+ � 5' � Y.• � � 1 �' 'f��� .:�.. � t *•,� � ��Y,��r � ' �.,. �(' „b� ,r' l j •_ � ��t � � !1C i � '•�f x.. � Q! /!ru ' � '� yr A� 't�'{.$gy1',S.f�.i tq,+ � �y,(� ( +`y t���,. { �''� �t �4t� '�• t; � �t�,asf ! 1+�5: y� u� " Y "� f��• i d; � + t ��7f '�<�t I" � '!'�Q Ifs � +'t{ ��t�e''�t�': S ,,��`�� y S F r t •� '�" .� �4 t� ° tti� � �� �y y, � , '��'�1}t , YY�• � e � n p,�t'•" ,� � la, � . t t t Y .J, PPP .�F �.Y .�, r Y• ,Y.. Y {,• VIN Se p4 •Kt ,4. 'M/`� 7 4 .c '+ i ...;*• fr �i 'R•� �"}� ?, 4� X^r�ytt }, ��"�r �, '�-�; .� cf�". l�.R �,t� r, �� i.� r�t�, � !���-• '�tt� �i4�� �� 3;, 4t�Yt+ } � ''t, •�� x i 3.,r :�'� ' 'Stu}�r'.ts� t�d' IJ" _}}(� a=• yF� ti.f �k" a .} yr 'j' ,`fit ?��t "74 �t. c i' i�j RCS kf(a�t t� e,t { i• r 1e,Y CYt 1; +-!4 :R !•'� hi �s� 1 :� t " 4'P� . ,,i.t47� �. •�' 'ry S . � r1 yy,,� a ,,,a �t lZ t�, 1 i� ! `�R �iS;f•�,� ��pkk �+y� :iv"'(R'Ss )t� �, :�� i .V "t� �'f t{'4 tt + v�littiS �:}t•`� P a. iF1fi �•M��.. a �'s7,}• �¢��{ At4,�ehtls� �!ii�� / {t t d;,� `•�.t; t �t' c• � j '��,� ;ey, ;,js y�'i3 t� }• ,i n..•1�� ;'ys. •� �r',R i � • i;'Rs�,`'�A t �. r j 4 !. ' {{i";� '2 'S►° r 4 � ky�s }t +ty !', "i,, ,� y � }t r;aj3� f� � t ,a �! ;•�L.�. '�:t .� �'.a�� ��^, w�•><�����y��ek�j St+'h�'� �' ��,}��� � r.�{�i{�. ` ,• ,�'�, ���;� Y. 'F t k E,a .t t �' fu R� r tM .r.. t i �'.` ij� .� �( .r e, tf nl Y�, r�{.J` !i. � �} 4 •R'ly 4,�.. �,�+. `wv•a f i � :j 30.0 EQUITY FOR PRIVATE IlANDGW NERS One of.;the most difficult g �land' use delicult issues affectin na , g. tion sin the white hole area is .the problem of private property rights:. The majority of the white hole area is under private ownership. These owners. have paid property tax on their land ' for or many years in the t expectation of.. eventual financial reward from 'development. If the ,.� City, in response to ,the public interest, designates the white hole solely for conservation purposes, the expected financial rewards to the property owners will be greatly reduced. • Whil e there is a market for wetland property;• which is in ��rieed of enhancement or restorations the value of land for this purpose is considerably less than the value of .land which can be developed with housing or commercial centers. The Coastal Conservancy, based on its experience in wetlands acquisition in Southe,:n California, has found that comparable values for setland acreage range from $7,500 - $10, 000 per acre. band values for residential or commercial `( development range from t300,000 to over $1 million per p acre. ?.� ids conflict between private and public Interest is not new, an i indeed, has been faced in many other coastal areas. Sometimes the 1 Public. interest has prevailed and private lands have been designated for very low intensity uses. is The California Coastal Commission has successfully defended a number 1 of lawsuits on this point. It is likely, given the Coastal' Act mandate, that such a defense would prevail in the case of Huntington Beach. (0284D) _5g- . ...._ ,.. -.«..-._... ... ....._... ._.........•«......♦ .. .Hy. w ..w..a w.... ♦.. .e..✓..r..i..... 1..a•Y.a•.a.t..H swami if•tYt.r.{M USr�� ... •.1 a , � �y 14�,,y r k ,�y . �L y fi`�j ti':t `'r�„ •}�h� ,T�.}�.f ,�'�'r � s�,#�,i� � w 1� ! � �'��ikr�`t..t � a p�' .�y "T f i r4�'f"V�t •� yF:�L° "�t,:l�;' 11•t�' r., " ! 1'iy� fC, '�i� .� 'x"3S+Z� "Lt+. at + !.j v�p� y ��t',y ,�"( � .�. ..�� F ���^��,` Gr i1��..�" �" 4 `..�,, 1 d' "` 'd•'�J �, r ,4: Si4. .{� �.•'�[,.t; r�,r:s� kj� :. 'sti / . is !'a'' t } t .. f{�►• rX YTt; �1* "'t" `iiM tf y{ 1i �. i.�. 1 f {�{ r .� �"'` t t� �ta �I ti�,+fa �'� �'� }r{f� �• 1 �* �i}i� �tj�(��` .i� r ,�+;�St1� E t? �t��,�y I```.•��r �� i� .� :� � �� �i,r� 'i'�� i j�+�1e'. � �� � ��tJ y,i f n?}° °�`# , r }1y �b^ ^�} �;��..., X ti �(� {s`r1 ��5 t t 4 �•lfl 7J.�. �• �, '�• t � 1 ,)t , :a t,�, . ;j1;r i; i',a � � .a�',1'{r 7 1 r;���j�� ',� f.�iI' �t i v' �,'' 7�. �+i�� 'f+'Y �Y,3•:� ��+.�:u�3 S't r- �7��.C '�It����'tt�• }�+4"�f,� �}j� ` r. ' •t�t�. � yt� i' i�1.S�� l+l+�ytlR }°`� �ry `"" i��`11; °�ku?;e.!, .tt .R} •�. f '! �;�:1" '\ `•fyJ^t�''P t°, � ,�..,t�, z •1,`ap�{:.,{�. �� {�,s,`},+?'�y'° y:3[u♦7r. fp] M,�.r. �. � .S(+� �,{�� �'.;,r , •. ,,�• e� r �a��:f t. '"!•IY,pt;� t � i,•�t ,# 4 rn.� "��; °3;,;'.i•Ir,�('3.•`4 .l.�r„'t} 1 •h � Lf` .#S{. �.� �� TCt�. f 5.,• ��] •R' `�•� { f•�� j�4 1.'� f.l"jJ "�*� l� Ut`;,�tr .J.' )��✓(tri1, 3e?,�7y' , • � '�t,�.r,(t'+.�'� f[ ..i�j , �,+} .v tf'�pT °7 r ! r � ,r l{v;, ,y'1 ..r. 1 � , 1ifi `lS� 't..Ar .� ! i rt �)6 a tf �� sL� �! lrj f e .F' i;i �� 7. � 'a •� �� t, l S r,�i' " a � 3 �r+ ,yTn y f� � �t t.. rRQ�I�.A� �R ''t. �� iT,"�j� ;�• ,� r,� i'� �''.�s� rY,� 2 �� •f �.��•ii�"3•`��� r'' {�t� 1. tr1 1 ���,.���jx�} � .� ,r� �; �" ��, �,�tftif}y �;aw�)'� y��� t'l �,YP x On the other hand, sometimes public interest and private property rights have compromised, with a resultant portion of the land devoted to development and the remainder preserved for the public r, benefit. The recent conditional approval of the Bolsa Chica Land Use Plan, or the Ballone wetlands development in Playa Del Rey are examples of such compromise. 10.1 Land Swaps One method for compensating property owners for not permitting n development of their land is to give them other propety to develop. This might take the form of as) outright land swap, with developable land held by a public entity exchanged for the land needing protection. For example, the City could trade land it owns in other parts of the City for private property in the white hole area, thus providing the owners with another place to develop. 10.2 Transfer of Development Rights Another method of swapping development privileges is known as a "transfer of development rights" or TDR. With ,this method, the City would grant each property owner a certain number of development credits based. on criteria related to the size and location of their holdings in _the white. hole area. These credits could be sold to property owners in other locations and used to increase the amounts of development which could otherwise occur there. Usually a. receiver area is designated, where intensification. of allowed � development could•.reasonably be accommodated without negatively impacting surrounding areas. TllR .schemes' a,re intricate, and only a few ,have .been successfully implemented. . They have been used to preserve historic buildings in . older downtowns and to maintain rensitive.,open space. A TDR program � would requir�3 that the City locate and designate areas where the c� i development credits could - be used. The value of the 'credits would j depend upon the desireability of the receiver locations and the economic feasibility of intensifying development there. 10.3 Restoration with Development A third possibility for a .compromise solution is to locate scale development within the white hole area itself. To accomplish this, a number of agencies would have .to agree upon the amount of acreage to be developed, as well as its location. Even within the white hole area some form of TDR may be necessary to balance development I Possibilities with restoration priorities. Acreage which could be O developed might include small a,*,wae rf highly degraded wetland and I�I areas reclaimed after removal of the southern flood control levee. These could be consolidated -with the non-restorable acreage and located where restoration would be least feasible. Authorities have all agreed that the most likely and productive restoration areas are ,a those closest to the Santa Ana River. Thus, the areas least feasible for restoration would be those between Beach Boulevard and (0284D) -60- ._. �....,......... ..f...-..-........_..� ............. .....n.a... -til.:ah:/.a:.,.,a r.:.....:i::....iji�;` � iIN ( !,� `. t. ! " � ,d �'e 4 1 Nlm,(�, �P5 t ++� . ,� +l s ,?• 1• .3.rJ �rE ,L, .� {7^. �; �VI:• 1i .'�� ��: ,r• i1�,�•�r,� S}i � ��,�,1�•i�f. �`y����� t�, ,�5 4• �;'���. '<' � �; K � �� •� :'�, •;r`` rd + �'�i.''� ."^ •`,a�*�x ,'tr�, �, �t ,�, v � rC t �'i.�l.� .1 tsj't S� f �.T�'! .�,.� �Lr�) � t{J�� { 7�; �• :;� j� ��'t��T. �f. �f �� r�! }+�� ,i'� ,i tt }j t j r .� k {t / r 1�• •'�• � �I,S � t+t S �� r� i/+�j� ,�.0 �`4. { 'S't i '�ij �. i'y l' �5) <�'t4'�,�' iv" {.1�, �'�y�.� .t`ty.1'S���'� t�� ' � ��d`�.. xis�}iir•�y eY''v� (,.�T x, ?�jr.�'�'?''�}SC�.� ,tti?�.;A '�Cit�r'�3.�•a-, l}' �+�5. �{�,t�• r�y��lr�j,��,��' '� ��� �� i f M r 4.st "� .4�j��' _qf, + �i� :t ii 'f" �'F. ':� til�j '�� �„d •ri St•,..-T° -' '{•`! '� �' t•q, `t/l ':v[gi4':�'(�1' '� t,' � t r-�,•i`! p.i�7.+$.� i ;• a , �.; �a �• .�, ��� S�'�:�•,j� y :x t ,'+ 1 y,ti.t ,�:p t t r!' i i�itt,tier, l r4iyyµ,� 1 Y, j ri' 2,}y ��p'�' 2.•a,:+«r.Rwr�, !tU 4,r.:ry '� tp� , ry-4. it '7t.��''11i'�. j.�,''�, ti7.�.Jt. s'j�•,+r,. e "'���'; t�tC�f .i rr. •f, .diq �' �1� .,�i. E' �.�!•,,y+�'�tb;t.,.f��.. � 4 T :��i•+;`� '�c ��l�t`�,,�� t' 4` � +�4i.r.a . i ty� r i 11 �� {:%.! �y��rnh: :� {y y'S �?. :f�sy1t �f�; - �J '.t".itr, S>tEMYY i j t7�}" 1 iL� 't I•'3`t �Ty,, i�.t, ..%�'f ��u,y5eA ` i f 'ii',r,,t4rf�� p�.,..�i 4t.ti �'' t �`pt�is� +'iJ^�• t t((J 1 ;�^•� ., k �[.�r;"T}r'y� ! °1 T� ,S�i;jr 4 �! iA E r t i�, �'1� �1'� i. '�A �..� , � 7�g (�pg �' - j,.i �.i•�� �R•.t �k +� �. t '! •...�'Y;t ,(•j• �: « 1►.1. i! � � ,.f t �( 1 f Newland Street. The consolidated acreage for development could be located adjacent to the existing developable land at Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway, creating an economically viable � ^ development node. The remaining areas could he bermed and restored to a functioning wetland. 10.4 Outright Purchase Perhaps the simplest method of compensating owners for the loss of development rights would be the outright purchase of their property 1 by the City or the Coastal Conservancy. Although this metfsod is straightforward, the difficult part would be establishing a purchase i price. The appraised value of land is highly dependent upon the allowed use of the land. Since land uses have not yet been established for the white hole, an appraisal would be very difficult. Based upon the highest and best economic use of the land, the value could be very high. Considering the constraints to development, however, and the mandate of the Coastal Act to preserve wetlands, the value might be low. The Coastal Conservancy has already talked with Daisy Piccirelli's about the possiblity of purchasing her property ,at fair market value as determined by an approved appraisal. Although no official offers have yet been made due to lack of interest on the part of the property owner, the Conservancy has stated that they are interested in acquiring all the property within the white hale for wetland restoration and protection. Their interest in purchasing " will ill pirobably continue as the City's land use designation process proceeds. f � i I � i I � , (0284D) -61- �t .��`r AkI�w.1'�� •. .q, 4 r.�u`rr`��� Sy "�n Y � ��(�yl f}�� �+ful `,�..��'} � t1 1 i •r `•�';�r�y <! ��Ft����'�� �•!t..f'1 E;� 5��.�'� f����ti: i���{�r"��• ���L�`4'�,��iY r Q7,v '1 2 �;f p}� t. r1' S�I"1�.. r[e�•.��F:3'E,� ) 44.' � 'S"ftl,�. .� :� ;'� { t'ftrk f' � y 'j(i/,+� I '�,'1'{."1��,;'.�'� "''Y}� � � fia1 �f �t {I'•k�l� �� f ,y,. .�. i4��� .� �� I ';��3 n.4k 1?-.�,1"n�`'.,�,{�• S'`'�r�`' � �� �1'�',`PstS� 7�•y'i)��4�t ;�Rij+ tE¢ �tit5��1i{�� t.,s>S,y��� r �!�!F{ r�+ � '� t' � �� _t�`. 4. 's 7 fi,,f `� t1"�4'•tirC�t i'�`�k :� G•�j�11 �hrrC`ne�r' r1!, �+r'.t�f rt •�;.• �r�q �r�r f {�, .,1�^. y E •f,�, r 1 r +7 ,k "' . �) P 4ir;� '�}�'••: 31+, ^l f L'• ��'�' Y.lfr11 r[ .17,it •/¢t °1i3 tt � �t,, UP j.� F�St � � ..1'?�I�}�� Y�+���� ���, '4 .��r�� �� '� 4•..�� �. � ) «.l lt ��p! .�•L ::}u � r a [f t� 1sil' �, 'R41, f 1 •K 4�► 1' . �S +. 1 Y`r 4 '.S` r ,_ Y y .h (i J t �r�j('4.1 i c� � �{, `',f •1 A � � \NL( I t1 ��Y' �,, � r' ��y � y. I { � �, ��..Rt.�'{{• � � FI �}�{<ti. .}�� l. +F �' �'�", • ��. �'��``t����t i�:y -�•�1$iilyj)��{A�j(yf ��y'+^ �. ���ir�4``tj'?!1'l �`'i(tS�t �'�,fl�;.:7!•,•_ �'S'� i,?�J, `�;x_'�y;�� E.�+� •'���P 1iS i r 1 t� !` 33 � 1,1, tt} . �.��r ,�}t vM1 i' +14 �',ti�� •r f r �,�•y :��il,lyt;4 rS' 1• 5, !f � •' �� 1� ����,,# it l; 7i'f t �� ,�d �4.F.• iE{�/f'S il'A`} aN �' b G x � � �t }.�J�•-,t.y ��{•"S , 'L: � i� � -i. °.� ti`Gi�F3iS" f I t 11.0 RECOMMENDATION ' 1 This report 'has .presented' three land use alternatives for ' the white hble 'area. Alternative 1 featured almost 100 percent wetland i restoration, Alternative 2.'featured substantial amounts' o€ f: ) development along with restoration, and Alternative 3 featured I• '� nearly 100 percent development. The intent' of the Ianalysis was to examine the range of extremes of development versus restoration which could conceivably be applied to the area. - In reality, however, some compromise between the three alternati-;es will be necessary. S`.ich compromise is needed in order to comply with l Coastal Act policies for wetland restoration while still allowing property owners to realize a return on their investment. '} In selecting a compromise, perhaps the most immediately pressing constrain- involves the Coastal Act policies which prevent development of restorable wetlands. If the City's selected' land use alternative is not in substantial compliance with Coastal Act policies, the land use plan will not be certified and the white hole study will .have been a .wasted exercise. While Alternative- 2 in the white hole study !is -certainly a compromise midway between 1 Alternatives l and 3, staff believes it still allows more development than could be found to be consistent wi-ch Coastal Act 7 policies. This determination directs the City to eramine 'a � compromise between Alternatives 1 and 2. 'J (0284D) -63» i S, ' 7n qjjm %? -).P, I V ,,4 _�R Is 6� jgt' 1.WNIA, 10 _W one rationale for selecting a land use compromise involves identifying non-restorable wetland acreages throughout the white hole area. and transferring and concentrating I.-hose acreages into one or two cohesive areas for development. Section 3. 2 of this report discussed the possibility of removing the channel levees on the south side of the Talbert and Huntington Beach Channels in order to restore large areas to active wetland. Staff has conservatively estimated the south side of the channels to comprise approximately 8.3 acres. Since this land is now developed as channel levee, it is not classified as either wetland or degraded restorable wetland. Staff proposes that the development rights for this acreage be transferred and reassembled elsewhere in the white bole area. Apart from the channel levees there are also additional non-wetland or non-restorable wetland designated acreages in the white hole. There are presently approximately 2.0 acres located at the mouth of the Santa Ana River which are zoned IUD-FPl (Limited Use District combined with Floodplain Development Regulations) . This property has been identified by the Department of Fish and Game as non-restorable former wetland. Additionally, at thenortheast corner of Magnolia Street and the Huntington Beach Channel are 1.2 net acres of city-owned land which are not designated wetlands by the State. . Together, these two areas comprise a total of approximately 3.2 acres. When combined with the 8.3 acres contained in the channel levees, there are approximately 11.5 acres of potentially developable property in the white hole. All three of tho land use alternatives addressed by 'this report- have featured 5.0 acres of Commercial at the northeast 'corner ,of Beach . , 'Bo levard and Pacific Coast, Highway. The development potential of "u this property has never been in contention and, in facto, the State Coastal Conservancy has proposed a commercial use for this:. area.. This 5.0 acre site, in conjunction with the 11.5 acres identified abovel, produces a total of 16.5 acres of .potentially developable property in the white hole area. blace most of this acreage is dispersed, in otherwise non-developable fragments throughout the white hole area, howeverr, staff proposes that the development rights for these fragments be transferred into two cohesive area.s. M As indicated on Figure 11.11 staff is proposing development of a tij total of 16.5 acres divided into two nodes in the white hole and in return requiring the restoration of 3.30.5 acres to productive wetland. The smallest development node contains 2.0 acres of northwest corner of Magnolia Street and Pacific comniercial .-at the no i 0 . Coast ,Highway. The intent is to attow a 1.5 acre service station with convenience market in conjunction with a 0.5 acre oil/gas production facility. The gas facility, discussed in Section 5.1 of i` this report, is - presently planned for a one acre site generally - located further to the north.. Staff feels that the impacts of the production site .could be minimized it it were reduced in size and If moved to the south in conjunction with a small commercial center. with proper landscaping and architectural treatment,, the two uses could be combined into one attractive and compatible package. The convenience market would serve beachgoers as well a8 neighborhood residents to the north. (0284D) -64- ` (., {b r, y>l +j ! i S x i •.� r+ �t `�d �, !• i�`S �,�(.� yC t t x 'V` ; fit't t k • }7 ' � �� 1+7,, }t 'ry } � �i(�i,,�?t ��•p��j.�,' r+��+� Y r!�j �;�"Flet.I�t�Y� '� ,_�•�'}J, j P'� . M j��"�+,f�� '�,y`.+. � �!}�•{ g ."�":1 {+ , j'J! ti/y/q �' 1 {. x •t ( 1 iy 1,i S Y. •o l •( .{L F fi ♦ h �y(.•t` i{}' /• {� t! t t'1tt '�Ti l.L �� �!''('?I ! f, �. .f1".,t3 b:�t �: F�i7} � t. i:' . } 714 7y{•y1 ( �x �i 1., y } r c {S� ,r �, 1 Jg ? '� f r f•r ,`r ,+ �`q`�� 1'�l � •'l 3 �' 4 �:�' c i. ,� } !"f G t. �,7. S. h �4t. r . y I��cliy4 k. I i7 Sr }• ',�l t� " 4 x,' dkiL�+� �St'>` r.� ), �. '`' r, •xi� �' "•'{�. ttl ;! '� c •�� !� •�,�i 'fA � t ,u.�`Y¢ll��t�axtt�'r1•v,F�46;'4'✓<` Irtx K��'��i ;': �ST�; t�?..�,��. �' •� 1 '�, y l� (��:'�f���'i�` t �►, .'����' t .�� ,� :rr �. �' ' 7x "t ,t' y..; 1,S f•yf fir. �,4�n Y t . s .• •,a j; t. r. � . 4`t I ,°iC;{c.:AaS ys, ,�,, '���. y .��1,. � t�"F; <�. �� ,/' Srt� !'w., �,f� �• +;�>,• � �i d4 sib $, w, 3" E. �S,.. { I 1'� � j �jll �� � �Q r5, r. � 1s � } t�' •».. � t .� f � •,. ��,��.� !. �' S= 7 ,:�� �;' ?� �/.��3 F'yy,'((.i''f t'<7�1,, �4y�1F• .: 1 f�a>� 4�,tt,$.�j'h +s1 �;�,.t� + + k + 1 With With the 2.0 acre site at Magnolia Street and Pacific Coast Highway, 14.5 developable acres remain. Staff proposes that this acreage be located on the east side of Beach Boulevard north of Pacific Coast Highway. . 5.0 acres of this area would remain as the Coastal . Conservancy's proposal for a hotel/commercial center extending eastward along Pacific Coast Highway from Beach Boulevard. Staff would then add are additional 7.5 acres of Commercial along Beach ' Boulevard to the north of the hotel. This expanded commercial area could accommodate an enlarged hotel in conjunction with restaurants ^� and other related facilities. The combined commercial Grez would i total 12.5 acres and would extend northward as far as the Hamilton Avenue connection to Beach Boulevard. The remaining 2.0 acres north of 'Hamilton Avenue would be designated Medium-High Density Residential and would abut the Breakers apartment project. 17ti Discussion of staff 's land use recommendation must also address the 1 Southern California Edison Company's undeveloped 17 acres of property to the southeast of their generating plant. Although this area has been designated wetland by the Department of Fish an the Coastal Act provides for expansion of existing energy facilities in wetlands under certain conditions. Staff, therefore, recommends 1171 that this property be designated Conservation/Industrial Energy Production. This designation will accumRlodate interim leasing of the property for wetlands enhancement without precluding future expanniori of Southern California Edison's energy facility. In summary, staff's recommendation is for a total of 2.0 acres of � ^ Medium Hign Density Residential, 14.5 acres of Commercial and 130.5 I •of. wecland restoration with 17 acres of that retained for future Faison :ompany expansion. Staff feels that this proposal constitutes a realistic compromise between the interests of wetland restoration and return on property investment. While much of the proposed 16.5 acres of development certainly are located in areas of potentially restoVable wetland, the fact that a acres of degr%<ded wetland are proposed to be restm credelsewhereately �5 constitutes a. realistic trade-off, This trade-.off is enhanced by � the restoration to highly functioning wetland of the 130.5 acres proposal is further bolstered by the fact that the 16. which are presently degraded and continuing to deteriorate. T his 5 acres are i salvaged entirelyfrom ex;uting non-restorable or non-wetland designated properties. From an economic standpoint, Even though 16.5 acres will, probably not appear to the various f in the white hole area as a substantial. o Property owners it will allow them a. much better return onptheirity for_ development, straight sale for restoration Property than a . , purposes. Further, since staff 's proposal does focus development at one end of the white hole area, there should be some typo of transf^r of development rights t agreement prepared to allow the major g development of the 15.5 acres in ajpro-'rataramountebased to on the in Percentage of the white hole area they own. n the -65•- 1 { t .f x i F rr L �A. ' I fJ c �i`!.`\\ .Q,R� •�� !/.� � R: i,_it�t.. . tif(' :}� 1 0C.EAS AT10M Or oil � 'lam%'s .+',+...-n+l., `rJ�� rr.JilaJl�•' .iir�aZ,�i+...�.�• ��� r`,�;. cr.Ca p2.1 ' ' _� cr. v �� ram' /�% •1�l�.r�ii�• �c��� "t� '�` r �'•� � �:. COKPAICY i ACREAGE TABULATION VISITOR COMM. FIGURE 11.1 AREA I AREA 4 Viaire:- sezv. Cvr ezcial 12.5 AC Conservation lE AC 1i f CONSEIATION LAND USE Iced. Density .tea, 2 Cantervatioa 33.5 AREA 2 TOTAL ACREAGE RESIDENTIAL STAFF RECO��AMENDATION Visitor Serv. Cd. Energy 2 AC Visitor sits. Ca-sercial li AC C `"�NSENATION ��NCERT�f iED ' CcnsarvationJInd. Energy Mod. Rc.nsity Res. 2 Conser7roducvation 17 CDnservutiaLJ2ad. Energy IND ENE"-, RROOI� �+QAS'i'AL AREAS Conacrvation 8 Prodn:t 1? AREA 3 Conservation ?.13.5- FKTfIMGION E61C14 GQfC4NA ?' Conservation 56 AC TarAL 14? AC �G DEMAIMiidi i 3 f r-► r APPENDIX A WHITE HOVE AREA REVENUE ANALYSIS: ' 1 I? � II , •1 ii i l ; ' ✓ (0284D) -67- i • � t. t • 1 , r A WHITE HOLE AREA REVENUE ANALYSIS 1.1 Property Tax �� Y The County tax assessor collects one percent of the market valuation of new development in property tax. Of that- one percent, the City of Huntington Beach collects, in tax rate area 4-001, 20.0 percent in property tax revenue. f1 Using the assumptions discussed For each alterantive, the estimated property tax revenue generated by those alternatives is discribed below: Alternative 1 r � A. hotel, 180 rooms on a five acre site. Construction cost $13, 420,710. Cite property tax revenue = S26,641 D. Gil Production - One acre of land, no structures, current assessed value of$38,000, City property tax revenue = $76. Total property tax revenue estimate for Alternative _ $26.917. Alternative 2 I B. Hotel and visitor-serving commercial, 400 rooms on a .10 acre, site. Estimated constructed cost is $32 000 000 ••Cit property s Y Pr P Y tax revenue would equal $64, 000. C. Commercial - neighborhood center/visitor-serving, 32;670 square ! f feet of building area on a three acre site. Construction costs . j are estimated to be $6,534,000; City property tax revenue estimate is $13, 068. D. Condominium development, 15 •acre site, .225 units • with an estimated market value of, $45,000,000; City property tax revenue estimate is $90, 000. E. Condominium development, 23 acre site, 345 units with an ' estimated market value of $82,110, 000; City property tax revenue , estimate is $164,220. G. Oil production, one acre of land assessed at $38,000; 'City property *tax revenue estimate is $76. Fatal property tax revenue estimate for Alternative 2 $331,364 . G !0284Dj -69- .......w........ w..�... .. ... .._. ...•,.-.......��........r.. ..___ ----+..v....w.v...w•... t..:'YM J.•.•.e! ••tM•.v.. wr+... . . +H.w.. •r.r• wYr. w wMA' 1.etH.www r tl . Alternative 3 B. Motel and visitor-serving commercial, 400 rooms on a 10 acre site. Estimated construction cost is $32,000,000 and City ' property tax revenue estimate is $64, 000. C. Commercial, visitor-serving, on a five acre site containing a 54,450 square foot building which would have an estimated construction value of $10,890,000 and City property tax revenr.e of $21,780. D. Residential - apartment and condominium development (total 270 units) with an estimated market value of $29,7000000 resulting in City property fax revenue of. $590400. E. Condominium development on a 52 acre site, totalling 640 units � at . a market value of $199, 920,000 generating $399, 840 in City property tax revenue. G. Oil production; one acre site with an assessed valuation of $38000, generating $76 in City property tax revenue. H. Professional Office, R-5, research and design facility with a .building area .of 427,846 square feet resulting in a construction value of $38, 507040. The City property tax revenue estimate is $77,014. Llotal estimated property tax revenue for Alternative'• IXI is ' $622,110. 1.2 Sales Tax i State .saies tax revenue, six cents on every dollar, is collected . is from retail sales in the City. of thzt revenue, the City receives one percent, or one cent of the six`cents. In this analysis, sales tax, revenue will be generated by the hotel development, commer6al (neighborhood and visitor-serving) and from new residents who would occupy residential units (apartments and condominiums) . In addition to Laventhal' & Horwarth's hotel study, 'another Urban. Land Institute publication (Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers) was used as a resource for this section of the analysis. Alternative 1 B. hotel room charges. The 180 room hotel is estimated to have an average annual occupancy: rate of 73 percent and an. average room rate of $60 per night. This would generate an annual revenue of $3,805,344 resulting in an annual sales tax revenue of $38,053, (0284D) -70- ..-...,�T -....n....��ti..+.. ..... ..............r.... r.«.. .u• ..w u...-.......... ... ,. ..w r.. ...r.Y .• v .r . ...,_. ... .. ..... . ....w.rl �J.`1.:1•IAr.. { `IT..�;r , I I 7 , r S The hotel would contain a restaurant, coffee shop and banquet facilities. Annual food and beverage sales are estimated to ;h total $1,440, 000 based on a 7, 500 square Look facility generating $192 per square feet. Retail sales tax revenue would be $14,400. i Total sales tax revenue generated by Alternative 1 = $45,575. Alternative 2 B. The 400 room hotel and visitor serving commercial retail sales Is estimated as follows: Eotel room charges -- a 73 percent annual occupancy, with an average room rate of $80 per night generating $0,526,400 in room fees, resulting in $85,264 dollars in retail sales tax revenue. Food and beverage sn les 'cased on a 16, 665 square Foot facility, 41cluding restaurant,. coffee shop, banquet and conference ! facilities, is estimated to generate $192 in taxable sales per square foot per year totalling $3,199, 680 and generating $31,997 in sales tax revenue. :i The hotel would contain boutiques, gift shops and - clothing r; stores requiring approximately 2,000. squarE feet of building iM area. It is assumed these retail stores would be in a companion structure adjacent to the hotel. It is estimated that these stores would generate $200 per square feet per year i in taxable retail sales, generating $4, 000 in saxes tax revenue. C. Commercial -' Neighborhood Center/Visitor-Serving. This mixed use center consisting of 32, 670 square feet is estimated to generate $150, per square foot, per year, in taxable retail sales. The annual sales tax revenue generated by this center would be $49,005. S. The 225, $200,000 per unit condominiums and the 345, $238,000 per unit condominiums in this alternative are estimated to generate similar sales tax revenue per unit. An annual 'avexage income fora family of two persons needed tn purchase a $200,000 unit is expected to be $60, 000f - for the $238,000 unit an annual income of $71,400 would be needed. The IRS Optional State Sales Tax Table estimates that a family ofc two persons f � with an annual income of $65,000 will generate $456 dollars in sales tax revenue. The City would receive one sixth '(17 percent) or $78 per family in gross sales tax revenue. , For. the 570 units, the annual revenue is estimated to be $44,460. (0284D) 5 ' r •t I 1 It is- assumed that a major portion, 60 'ercent, of sales tax revenue .generated by residents in Huntington Beach is collected by neighboring cities; this revenue loss is referred to as "leakage% Because of this "leakage", the estimated net sales ' tax revenue collected by the City for the residential portion of Alternative 2 would be $17,784. Total estimated sales ta:: revenue generated by Alternative 2 = $188,050. Alternative M B. Hotel This is the same scenario as Alternative 2. The total estimated sales tag: revenue generated by the hotel and affiliated facilities is $121,2610 t C. Commercial-Visitor-Serving. The 54,450 square foot facility, supported by both seasonal customers and year-round residents in the adjacent 840 units, is estimated to generate $200 per square feet q per year in• r.etail sales. The estimated City sales tux revenue would be $108,900., n E. Residential - The IRS sales tar, table was also uaed as a ,J resource for this; alternative. _ - The family size V1All be the same for all units, one tc+ two people, and the sales tax rr?venue is shown in ',he following table: 'i IRS City Estimated Estimated Net l Family Sales Tax Gross ' Revenue Tvpe and Value Income Revenue 4( 0% Apartments e $70, 060/unit $24, 000 $270 $46 $18. 40 Condos . ? @ $150, 000/unit $45, 000 $399 $68 $27.20 Condos . c•; p $23R,000/unit $71,400 $494 $84 $33. 60 Sales tax revenue per type of residential development in: Ri 135 apartments $2,484 1, 135 'condominiums $3, 672 ` . 1'840 condominiums •= . $28,.224 Total 34,380 Total estimated sales tax revenue for Alternative 3 is $264#541. i . f (0284D) -73-- C� F ,....ram........._......»....._._.........._... .......ti:'1: •..o IM • ♦.a.... .. .•.-"'l.i,,. .f.:y... i..M_'.l.f,f•. +. ..a t: .. .f is...l: • rr. + 1.3 Eco� nomic Spin-tiffs/Additional Sales Tax Revenue .-� The Loy; Angeles Visitors and Convention Bureau published .a study that assesses the e,sonomic spin-off effects from the establishment of' a new hotel. The hotel guest can be expected to frequent local business entities within the City, generating additional sales tax + revenue. Depending on -the available amenities, the City of Huntington Beach would capture 25 to 60 percent of each dollar spent + � by the hotel guest. The distribution of hotel guests spending is as follows: Sow Percent -�, Food and Beverage 26 Lodging 26 Retail purchases 14 Local transportation -11 Entertainment/recreation 15 Wisa 3llaneous 8 100% Although the data is not available to estii.mate the "igin-off" cffects, oi sales tax revenue- from the hotel scenarios discus6ed in this analysis, it is reasonable to assume the City will. in, fact collect additional revenue. 104 Ts�ient Dccupancv Tax The .City of Huntington Beach collects a six percent Transient Occupancy Tax an hotel and motel room fees. A.lte� rn�tve 1 The 180 •room hotel would charge average room fees of ,080 Using an average occupancy rate of 73 percent the annual rrevenueht. ;could be $3, 805,344. Transient occupancy tax revenue collected by the City would be $228,321. Alternatives 2 -and 3 4 • 1 The . 400 room hotel scenario used in both ol, these al�cernatives .`.would a room generate $8,526,400 based on an avers and an annual occupancy rate of 73 Percent. fee o£ $80 •per night revenue collected by the City would be »511,584ansient occupancy tax 1.5 Utility and FEaitchise Huntington Beach collects a five annual sales of electricity, percent utility user tag: an the television services in theCity natural gas, telephone and cable . (0284D) -73- t ," A Franchise tax of two percent. of the annual electricity sales and four percent of the annual natural. gas Sales is collected from the respective utility providers in the City. Factors used for this section of the analysis are as follows: Acaording to the California Energy Commission -- average electricity chargeu are; Residential = $38. 56 per unit, per month r' Commercial = $.0754 cents per kilowatt hour, using 12.2 XWH per square foot ,applied to both hotel, retail. anti professional office. Average natural gas charges are: Residential = $31. 91 per unit, per month Commercial = $5. 53 per million BTU's, using an annual rate of .42 BTU's per square foot applied to hotel, retail. and � profeasional office General Telephorie .could not provide an average service cost for renidential customers in the City, therefore an average charge of $40 has been used in this analysis. Annual phone charges for commercial- retail and professional office entities were not available and, due to 'the differences in phone usage Iper business, an average 'bilt or use could not 'be''calculated at this time. For cable' T.V. service in the City, the basic rats* paid:by residents is- $12.50 per month. It is assumed that all new residents in City will subscribe to the cable service. This would also apply to' hotel development. Alternative 1 The . 180 room' hotel is estimated to have 129* 900 square feet of building area plus a parking structure. The building square footage is base:]' on 650. square' feet per roam (tot;al 117, 000 square feet) , 7,500 square feet of food and beverage servicF- and 5,400 square feet of office and ancillary space. City,Revenue'. Electricity 1U H Annual Sales Util t FLanc ise — 1,584, 780 $119, 492 5,975 2,390 City Revenue Natural Gas BTU Annual Sales Ut{lit ► Franchise 54, 5-58 30, 17 1,509 l.,20! Cable T.V. 180- rooms Annual Sales City Revenue 1867 T. $27,.000 $1,350 Total utility related revenue for Alternative 1 $12,431 (0284D) -74- Vt nr Alternative 2 B. The 400 roam hotel is estimated to have 290, 600 square feet in building area plus a parking structure. The building square footage is based on: 260, 000 square feet for rooms, at 650 ' square feet/room, 16, 640 square feet for food and beverage { service, 11,960 square feet for ancillary spare and 2,000 square feet for retail shops. City Revenue Electricity MIH Annual Sales Utilit- Franchise �,S45, 320 $267, 317 $13,3b6 5,346 i City Revenue Natural Gas BTU's Annual. Sales utili!�x Franchiser =052 67,495 3,375 $2,698 I Cable T.V. 400 Rooms Annual Sales City Revenue 40T.-V:'s 60, 600 113, 000 C. Commercial; 32,670 square feet of neighborhood center/visitor serving uses. City Revenue,.- Electricity *1H Annual Sales UtIlit Franc se 398,574 $30, 052 1,503 601 . 'City_Revenue Natural Gas BTU's Annual Sales DUE tyFrarchise 13,721 7, 588 379 304 D. & E. Residential; Combining the residential scenarios results .in 570 units from which average utility related revenues will be calculated. City-Revenue Electricity Annual Sales Utility Franck se f 263,750 $13,188 $50275 City Revenue Natural Gas Annual Sales Utilit Franchise M8,264 10, 913 8,731 Ci!Ly, Revenue ' Telephone Annual Sales Uti1 Franchise 2 73, 600 $13, 680 NIA- City Revenue Cable T.V. Annual Sales Utilit Franchise 85, 500 4,275 N/A Total utility related revenue for Alternative 2 = $86, 634 J (0284D) . . -75- T r r Alternative 3 B. The .400 room hotel is estimated .to have 290, 600 square feet in building area plus a parking structure. The building square footage is based on: 260, 000 square feet for rooms, at 650 square. feet%room, .16, 640 square feet fcr food and beverage service, . 11,960 square feet for ancillary space and 2,000 square feet for retail shops. Citz Revenue Electricity KA H Annual Sales Utilit Franch se 3,545, 320 267, 317 13, 366 $5,346 City Revenue Natural Gas BTU's Annual Sales Utility- Franchise- 122,052 r_67—. 4 9 5 3,375 T2,69804 Cable T.V. 400 Rooms Annuai :Sales City Revenue 400 T.';. rs 60,000 $3,000 Co. :Commerciale 54,450 . square feet of visitor-serving uses. City Revenue- Electricity KIH Annual Sales Utilit Franchise ' M,290 $511" as 7=. City Revenue i Natural Gas BT1J's Annual Sales Utility Franchise 22,869 $12, 647 $632 506 f D. s E. Residential; Combining the residential scenarios results in 1,110 units from which average utility ► related revenues will be calculated. 1 City Revenue ° Annual .Sales Utilitv Franch se Electricity 513, 619 W , 681 10, 272 i Natural Gas $425,041 $21,252 $17e002 Telephone $532,800 $26, 640 N/A � Cable T.V. $166,500 $ 8,325 N/A Total utility related revenue for Alternative 3 = $141, 600. 1. 5 . Business License Fees f For commercial- and office uses professional business license fees are based on the number of employees per businss. For hotels, the fee is based an the number of rooms, a flat rate `or a restaurant with dancing and the number of employees per retail shop. i j { (0284D) -76- Alternative 1 B. According to the City`s business license office, the 180 room hotel with .restaurant/dancing will pay an annual lice: oe fee of $1,405; $6 per room per ,year and $325 for the restaurant. I Alternative 2 i B. The 400 room hotel with restaurant/dancing and gift shops will pay an annual license fee of $2,766; $6 per room per year, $325 for the restaurant and $41 for the gift shops estimating four employees (at one employee per 500 square feet of floor area) . C. The 32,670 square foot commer::ial center is estimated to need 65 employees, at one employee per 500 square feet resulting in an annual fee of $181. Total business license fees for Alternative 2 =$2,947 Alternative 3 B. The hotel scenario, a duplicate of Alternative 2 would generate $2,766 in annual license fees. C. The 54, 450 square foot center would require an estimated 109 i employees, at one employee per 500 square feet, resulting in an � annual license fee revenue of $246. Total business license fee revenue for Alternative 3 $3,014 1. 6 Additional Revenue Additional revenue is received from new residential development on a :�. per capita basis. In the Preliminary City Budget, Fiscal °Year 1985-86, four major revenue items are applicable to this analysis. Based on the January 1985 State Department of finance population i estimate for Huntington Beach of 179,925, the revenues are collected as follows: Finesp Forfeitures and Penalties are $2,1310000 divided b� 179,925 equals 11.84 per capita. I Cigarette Tax is $530,000 divided by 179, 925 and equals $2.95 per capita. i Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Tax is $4,442,000 divided by 179,925 and equals $24.69 per capita. Gas Ta:: Funds (2107 and 2107. 5) are $3,121,000 divided by . l 9,925, equaling $17.35 per capita. 47 Q' (0284D) 3 -77- ... .....�_. ._.... .....mow. ..r- ..w •s' Y•ta..-..r.......-.. .... ..... .... ....-............ r PoQalation 'It is assumed that the apartments will generate a population based on 1.8 persons per unit and .that the condominiums will generate a population based on two persons per unit. Alternative 1 will not generate new residents. Alternative 2 is estimated to generate 1,140 new residents, r Alternative 3 is estimated to generate 1,950 new residents. Summary Table Revenue Factors Alternative 1 Alterative 2 Alternative 3 Property Tax $260917 $331, 364 $622,110 Sales Tax 52,453 18810501 264,541 Transient Occupancy Tax 228,321 511,584 511,584 utility/Cable TV Tax 12,431 86, 634 1.41, 600 n Business Licenne 1,405 2,947 3, 014 Fines, Forfeitures and Penalties N/A 13, 498 23, 088 Cigarette Tax N/A 3,363 5,753 Motor Vehicle i In-lieu Tax N/A 28,147 48,146 Gas Tax Fund N/A 19, 779 33,833 Totals $321. 527 3, � , $1,185,366 �$1,6-53, 66J f i i Q 1 . 0 I (0284D) -78_ 4it i 1 ,' i � A I. APPEN IX PLANTS AND ANIMALS OF THE DHUNTINGTON BEACH WETL ANDS A survey was undertaken of the plants and animals in the Huntington Beach Wetlands by Harold Hunt, Water Research and Testing Unit, CALTRAN5 in July. of 1984 for the Pacific Coast Highway Widening Project EIS. Included in the repart. was a table, taken from the 1982 Department of Fish and Gamelletlands determination, which lists all the wetland plant species found in the area. ii t r� > (02840*) --79- . ' ;'—...•.«», _.......__.—_•._....__._......__._�. ....�.•._.-....�..^.........•.._..,.�.........:.r.,.. ...x:.:.+-t.- .....tea.,•.._.......•. > .....:t>r... .�•_._ :a•'. . .rt!:. ..:'i :v�i{.iGy.. �►ETLAND PLANT SPECIES WITHIN THE-HUNTINGTON BEACH W ETUND i Wetland,. pecies S Landowner.. Location (SeeLeae nd): Le end State of California 1. Santa Ana� Rivar to Brookhurst' St:- 8 10 1 Salicornia virginica I ` 2. Brookhurst`St. to Magnolia St. - 1 3 4 6 8 11 2 Salicornia subterminalis f 3. East of Beach Boulevard. 1 2 8 9 12 13 3* Frankenia grandifolia City of Huntington 1 Beach 1. West of Beach Blvd. 1 3 5 6 7 8 9 4 Juncus acutus So. Calif. Edison 1- 114est of Magnolia Street 1 8 5 Scripus olneyi Thorpe 1. East of Magnolia Street 1 3 8 6 Scripus californicus j 0 2. West of Magnolia Street 1 3 4 127 Cyperus sp. Mills Land a 1. North and east of the flood j Water Company control channel i 3 8 Distichlis spicata 2. West of the flood cantrol' channel 1 3 9 Typha sp. 14 Ruppia martima 11 Jaumea carnosa 12 Scripus robustus 13 Cotula coronipifolia This list is not intented to be exhaustive but rather represents most common wetland indicator species present on August 23, . 1982.- i * Mostly dead vegetation as a result of disciiig' z From DFG, 1982 � r R Invertebrates The following in�rert«braces are ex carateristic e holearea}cal Dune-Coastal Marsh Habitat Comp water Boatman (Trichocorixa ret� culata) Damselfly (2„—,5h nL a Sp—) �.� Seed Shrimp (Subclass ostracuda) . ti s Amphipods (Order Amphirlda) i Notonectidae) { sack 5w).mmers (Family mosquitos (Family Culicidae) ti Salt Flies (Family Ephydridae) Near the leaking pipe that is. on the blind end of the Huntington of Beach Channe l near Beach Boulevard, there are smalle opulaarshsSnail the Linea Shore Crab incthe marsh arearajosis sad7acent to Serc�inouk Slough Melatm us olivaceus. exists a populat on of the Calielowithirnia n the5parcelcoritegracTed californica) . Along the chann coastal marsh between BrookhUcat and the crenulataj,nta Ana River there is a s population of Fiddler Crab (__.,,,,,,,.... Vertebrates No reasonably comprehensive .survey of. amphibiatns, r6'P,tiles or mammals has, ever- been undertaken in the Coastalapenmbxeasecre'tivestal hin. Complex of the APET. Generally, a surveyof the area would their habits than...are many birds. Doing f a trapping network and night. require the establishment o observations, things which were own that atbleasttoneacoyote (Canis constraints. However, it is known that latrans) and populations of Audobouirreltontail sen Rabbitare (Svlvilagus t. audobonni) , and Beechy s Ground S9 Birds ject The following bird species are known to occur .intit isbbasedwonland area. The list is not intended to be exhaustiv ,e• actual field obr,'.rvation by the Department of Fish and Game and other reliable sources (DFG, 1982) . (0289D) _81- i 1 , t Y'I♦t,+ i {i{+/ 1� P IC.. i4'� ri' �'.�f f'`�'," i i�it,a7,. �r. 'r. � >` t� ,�,,, ',� !' �{„.,� t 1i.}� !!' .' V�4 { .^�R,t. �`. ,��r 4�'` �+.•� t���`da .� t i,�a �y:i•.rrr� h��'�i .roe �1�.� .�.�Q .»)fir tt1'"1• ,• �;j."�', 'Y`�'t a jr t,} 1 �tiF° ts Y"�� '� t�r ti{r{o pf iti 1,' tt t •..� r1 2 e s.�.3'r rC •.. ,yi7^i }. {Z .t's r',�Y\a { {%t .� ,�t .j. {�y� -j.?ty 't�' t ,t i t z t{ t t 4x1. dlt 1^, {t. ii""•.k.'� ;�+ �+4. ir. Y f.yi{'ir�-t i.�1 ,i41 �ti.�x Y'�;411i t;�y ��4f�`!$}:1itt 1>.}� 'K�ltttt�!V{r}t1�'111t�'1 '4.� 1r.,11fv ,,l�.ta.' t 't +�. 1.�8z"'.•�y? i, tifT� �'.,, iC, �" 1tj4h+ rix,��2t�i�1SS+Ca 'j:�,,�,,, .��;f� :��r ``1t.ii4,^y•�s�=`,.`�' #��p Rt��d.�� fS^I»t,�t •1 .t�F ria;r �.� r ,.r.� i .igrt, 'zP t �.'a} �it..j}1 4,:{ �$ �t� ,t (}. 1,.c'F,zJ.^•.r t .A� t. s.Ti t.^.t^� ti�� ,S � ,.r •r �!>�: t-t ar�} is'�� "5- a rw "y ,x 1{�, 1 \�.5.. T ;3•`d l:yf.'".F4{>.t'.i -rk'" (r�-�..i i'y wl ! ♦Tn ,. �. t � Y„Sa` •t'Y � i+ii�.l tx 4tit •�% ��'} � ��.t4�'� iS! i.. ...ral �i.. 1t,�"t � ��� t a 1t 1�,1 �t .SAY:y �� {{,,•�a4'J•^t1.M"4`` 1 'j t( �` .Y,¢ !�; 1 t�;w i t1t a is '�'s tt;�d,{;`� 1ai r`t' f r Yt°{,Y ;i�'�«. ` , �,)1 r �l:M � i l� �,{✓S".*l�-..`+..,. z 9.1115: -.� 5 i C�' �.G. �� 4'+;:7.t xtt�x.'.S� rt l r '4x � 't�." r�. 4 :�.� -� r ,➢., i'«�'j "t 1 (. 1. :i,i�t Fs' I: 1.•-ey e t s,'S .�_tri t" .tx t^; •� rt ,L.ri"e1'r 1 },.�",;;W; 1A �, �1� {•;, 1 1 a'tC �1 a z.t "i 7 !l ;7.'a':7:,.r• i.,,� >s '"{.% zy �! 4 t. -•!, ,,t 1 \. ;�. �! i a7i t-_ gg .1: i, 1 Y 1 !� N Y :4 ��,�k..I �3ai aa'�+ :t .�S;,S,},^.��=��is, '>; � 2 *.�.5. .1•, �'��'t.`)) ,"t{';'.;;� -,S t 1 ".� \�. -�S,;iit ti;j`..,r-,ie4 ?�@� r- '•`}9.a,.�i.". rt.t.s a3 t{2� �`' yy�1 i .. ..~••a,.7L 4 •�} G { .jy - ,, a: a lii:: ?`�-i �X'...a \! t "?t. lid{" F''.l f -yp�.,'ll,�—, t;t, to ! w•t.� � �c qx tR. r �.t }, {!t yd � t !a .`'1 1 iT S r, \ tt} � t r ! ' .}'{ q ta,„ CT"... 1 �..}' W1t} r Ge. M[,4 r {[4tti�{1{tr iSS a }�!r\" gyt',yl .'4�.h"CYO'; t,�'y �L ..{,t�'I j"i.r. r•, t� v T'^"Y}. �'{2�'t x.s .ra ar .l, r• i'.1 ^A :\.. t .i'1.t1 a) .L , �4tt h4 h�. ''�.',C. �. "7it4+'.f.f..rt Filr�tq Wading birds: Ardea� herodias Great blue heron Casmerod us� albus Great egret ggretta thula 1 Snowy egret Bubulcus ibis Cattle egret Black-crowned night heron N cticaraz n cticorax (' Surface ducks: Anas n, >P Y Y lat rh nchos mallard• Northern Pintail A_ nas_ acuta��'� � Green-wi rged teal Anas ,crecca: * Blue-winged teal Anas d scorn ,* Arias cvanoptera * r' Cinnamon teal American wigeon Hnas americana Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata Diving ducks: Lesser sc:aup Aythya affihis , Surf scoter elanitta ere icillata M Bute dial a_ . gufflehead --�•-�'-�-• K Stiff-tailed ducks: Ruddy duck oxyu amaicensis Kites,' hawks. falcons (observed foraging in wetland areas) i Black-shouldered kite " Elanustcaeruleus Red=tailed, hawk Buteo 9V censis C'riz s c aneus Nortilie�rn harrier ; Falco ga" s arver _us American kestel �--- Shorebirds: , Semipalmated plover Ctia, tadrius semipalmattits_ l Killdeer Char rius vociferus i Black-bellied plover Pluv- alis s uatarola Long billed curlew Numen us amer canus Whinbrel Numenius phac012us W illit Cato tro horus semi almatus Greater yellowlegs Tringa melanoleucus t� *` Denotes Sensitive Species m (0284D) �82- } .-��),1 4.1: t: 1j 't J� t •. ;R ' r, ,x s 1. • t .�, 1 t, �� ��� �• �• 1 \ � �Sr1�. 1 }.� ``'F'31 � ,"� ',��.i�e y � is �•4 +^r iTl SAS �b +tt,.+ S :s> 1 ; titi , 4 'ti + x l� 1�11t:; kiY! w .kiat`M e�c�•!^r�' �� ;� � � R t ,� . t , e ir, »4t 't � � , #t z 'r�t F�=�"K��+.x.,��t ,r,. ,t➢ i {..�,f 1�:.#4't,.�+,;y��'}1'� , ,. \, t,#r, f.�,1.rc, j.,;'dt 1�}�, .�S Y`:.�`1Y}• : tk.'iF ' '�' +i , 1 F �•y 7t i q } a f T , 1 7�,�r ?`Avh j. 1 "; yc 4, g1 ��,1.a ,yil4} {:i y�'t'`V. ,�.,! ++'rr:,C5 f �+ f�_4' p,�ir�,S'..,.. };}:w ,�' .li 1�]fr r z,'.i. :t � r',! :\ v-" i 1tt +t' ���' aa � i5'.r. s n3� S w .+. �! }=:tC•i�.,'ic+�;, K-• # {{ .yJ,,^ ,�'.r c�•'a,. _d-, �cy -Itt Xtt:L�, ,-V + `�� 1:`. �.; .,x. �: .•rt �.�..t ;?Y-, � V � )1:.V' t�'�3T .'a: ? ,� .tr+ 7 K ,)i wry y�.�.. ti4 li.,fw:• 1r.+. 5!^- t1 1'V1.. ,.1 ' i Y oi.d �4', t�1; F u�V r •., -�'• 4;4L 1}"j a '!.i'�. lV,f,f.,,,,-�, ..at2l,vi t!! .s� �C. 'i' r 1t,�e.i.t'i!, .a',{,.«t t•i}.k f�',x,, t- f�' '�itr^^ a �( .'�.f{t �� .c p.,`k,�{�.��' ,t �1 f} :,�,��AAtiil. ;.i.�r ::tty'�.; �l1>; �. jr.y.;. }.! ,� y:�:jy�Yl L`.{.;, ;.,.•i}�:;; t,�:},r;�y ;�r i,4q:,.� +G a .�.�,a- ?,' :,1y, :,� "+.}'� i.}V.t tt 4 • t 'Si\.-.Ar1}.��''.',r.�g1• g,.;S! Sr.,�+ t•Y r �. ��`+• 15 i\1 /•v�., k +:�_�'.�,, t),h�� 't 4 .}_'S¢, .Vt ,�7,,,.k�7 ..S'1{t � �e+}�{.}" ;;� � r L+�n.� .d.•+f, t'", '+Iw l7l,�n�.,� t4� �,x r, 'i' t ���•,ti; ,::'-`�``6! w1��:' ;V' �,f?�� .�, .Y„ •A�iLw� t`tr�},!, �'.�:,{�'1.,..l��i;"1 ,.St 1�:R!•;� ',r �; le}ktt t x,:;F �}.� .ht"1't� v 2+• +��1• 1 Y, �'�.F} 1F �:.i a.G j. •„}Xd� .3�." � r���:'` 1:`�4 t4\ �i •�:�r'.t� T� �F` •'4F t L^�" h�•� $ •Y{ � � .wYb ,V' .� t�_i a,.� �.�.} F � i..,,�{ lA, A ,iY�,� s ,�err,iS ,,��;)+� t. 'j1. ,{, !t. ,�.PFiy` :,>.,,,,} �` , , 'p'.�.•: i �� is"v r ��7!'"r,3I.•.1�4� � �" ,��� + t�, .\•�w *"{'iT� •,r }t; t. ,� � t } •nz,�,t,'• "t a 4 + 't t..� tt�t:"� ��%,"�'t,�, 2 t+.>r�''. }.t11 ,,„+.•!, �� 'e7' �' T V, i. t�;,��� .,t! �, .1Sxt'�' t4� 4� ( Cr~. �..�f! 1 !.tt' �1,�r.tahL.Y���,..�1"f„�'�.j,\ t n,•I,`• a{' 't ,,�J '�".,y��e �1� � 4 �4 ('p` ,, �^� ,, v i VC i S L.14_�i # V �^i n � 1,�� {,'"�3.`, +'�` ,��'� •;El}t `.�^.V�.`:�«..P t. t a Lf ! r�':Yi + + (4 �'Sp � i. w 7�s ;.., � { S �, i�.t x%''••+A r a f �, t ,, lt'`" v }r + , , � ,� t`+c !Ep���l1t lti+rC-� -tS. ��? �: t,1 rt. ti�t�+�.,�je+ y�i;er��4Gq,r,7. y �•^t��,��� 'Ci�, 1���,il;�r11'4, s'.v.4�.i_ ..lt.. t.�'t��•te{ Fk , ..t\��,,;+ , .ai K��s 4t �4`-t. ��' ';>>� l}4� t� 4srtir•-�{�l�ri3t.-y#t�1 y''°�T.tt e _Ri t�"' S' �". .+itf�.1 ,L�4, .1 .',:, , i..1. _:5.:..., h '1•.�k IIi>.,l !�.. .,S v.'i. +,A bait... 47.x t\ � ..) Shorebirds Least sandpiper Calid is mi.nutilla Dunl3n Calidris al pina Western sandpiper Calidris3 mauri ► Marbled godwit Limosaifedoa; . American avocet Recurvirostra ,, �:dmericana u Black-necked stilt Himanto s mexicanus P alaco us' o atus Red-necked phalarope L mnodromus•...spp- �► Dowitcher sPP• phalaro us tricolor Wilson's phalarope Caltaris albs ., .. Sanderling Trin a flay es Lesser yellowlegs Pluvial s dam nice Lesser golden plover Act tjs mac Na—r-Ta 1 Spotted sandpiper # ,., f G�11s and tErns: Western gull Larus -occidentalis Herrin'; gull Larus ar entatus Califorl�fa gull Larus,-cal ors�t� "n Ring-billed gull Larus>delawarens3.s Bonaparte's gull Larus Philadelphia LaruL heermanni Heermans gull Sterna forster " Forstert s tern Sterna ant llar m browni* California last tern Sterna cas a Caspian tern Miscellaneous wetland-related species: tFIA ry American coot Fulicaamericana `*..' nelding's savannah sparrow passercu usssaan wichensiss be'din * Red-winged blackbird A • eta - s ,hoeniceu3 grcsPoALSe s: n t u sEared Grebe Pa�acro:orax auri Double-crested cormorant belted kingfisher Cer le alc on Marsh wren C stothorus alustris Miscellaneous s ecies not directly related tctwetland habitat: Zenaida macroura Mourning dove Corvus brachYrhynchos American crow �.----- • Northern mockingbird Mimus of lOttusi European starling Sturnus vulgar s English Sparrow Pas er omesticus Western meadowlark aturnella nealecta House finch 0 AMOR mexicanus American goldfinch Carduel s tr st $ Lesser goldfinch �Carduelis psaltria ; Song sparrow Melos iza melodic Cliff swallow h rondo�) r�roo otaHarn swallow rondo Violet-green swallow Tachyaineta thalassina j + (0284D) ..83- 14 AM t � Y �k?� ryye ��",� jx� # � i� '•.,� ,�' � �:. '�i }, R„ .Z�' i r� v r ((t3tr 4 % '{. Sri• �1yh,, �, - « q% �`��' �, •}� +. �+��;i�' j 1 � F' �•.�-\�, ' 4 % �r{l �� i ,� �iy�,t1 � A� P �' ,t 4 1• � y � .raw w;"L "'�•►� T'�;C.'1..�"'�'C71r��r.1'+�Fy x l��r�.' ,�t.,,.p Crl,�}��; ,�"St� ., '!♦i<M1 R yf -a +x�r�T{I' it S"1��it;��`� -�y'�.. +�-`\f.�' •sy�*� "A A`Y%`r.�S:t,.4 r. 4F •, Y' f T ik ir. fr t J+ X t .:it ii �t �{re (y" } ! "s,' C'"",Sli�x:•;?�+rah.,t4` �"f{^ �7"•�."�•5�i���'7iy' }f'S,`✓,� S.� � y�'il rRs t. r f#i i� 1 4, +c••"" .S .s } f j�� p{ " �, �":a � � •y, a� �� ry`�r, t ��t'���� fry� y .,c r 4� �4�Y;Y9r1 ?;'zi! a j �1 Trrai':iS�'+�u•,`X,•±%,��st,.:�i •%'!. �;. 04( tr+ s j{`! "��°'�>t�'}°x��[s .�.: � ,►r.L1,fi.'!}�"�{.} ,.R'►,, tki �7r l'u+!,\- �"f`jr'�': .+ .,.!,��' `+i�'1�J�',[t,;.Cj";,,iz`1"+�.i,`t -ate t,,. 4. $Y �i. ,,.i,•ti.+fin `'IP .�'S t�. ,�',L"t i ;) Yi"�rl +.rrp -�X i � ie...�, #d i }y �a �{. f r +L 5 f s r h?r4 ``4 t 1'jr++ if ';iw, t.s�� �,+.�,. ey:a:> :iiz' �7•-+�fir: �.t}t. i' :'l.4{ j y, ,;ti t z, .4 Aa.•i> t . �i` s4 /4'.,""t4 t� ° •�t�t�",ti .a ��''; �r}IX"`�'.; �'�. �ti.r,Ica t y(f.,,2 'i,. ,rS :►�'}.�a 1t��. t .i�'E"'��,}i "+�i4¢ �'�a9`� ( 'i 71� y'� drf i Y rJ.} �, +.l" , + h>i. `�.±. c'ti...�,;.fi "�'yi. { t.1 r ?,r':.t%r�ti .r'} 1�',{It 11 '?�•' s �: .,t.4�y.;k'.'.`l>k�44'!'. ��t Pii;•}'a+o.it•�;•"`S�-i.���+k, �� tt.,.;� L� .•;�"'7. t "a ` t)}�t�t�t,►'!; 'r 't�'iro:.r' Y r � ;.%k'p `+.Y.(+A'�:a',�',+,,,�;.�y,,,•�1, �1 r••��f ��1:f;� +}:..�h�'y+.#iy�u:r�1j4'Ayy� .i;4`.4'k rtf,:yr•.C.rtdiA:: �f *e� y^;i}.Pr y, .,A��,r;ak`t-i 2. ,�% t y f*�, �,(�,�t fl,yt,a..1L�.y <.� ^+ �,�' � �,., s*r E}-�;s,� �,„s Y,=-�Y�;;'t�,4 >r} A� �'yi, *r, t k�.. i #..� .4 t:•� +.�:•�� `, 1 � r:: C� ��•��.�i >. '?.�� i t�v;.1�,, +f � % ',4ix'c: ((,t.,.;t�,u �' 1�'•ci:h�� t\` �• ;R,};� r ,a�+ '�. ..�• '}}r4 ;r*, �;;d # t�t�,:`�.�` y'o""}t�}R,i�,�tr.;''+1,"f S. ^;� �"!��'.�er.�l�dir q,r L �"'f,. t,t�k,��`"•�b+. �` �r• 4 + ti �n» •,. � � tier i"d .�?•t. ]?'�,„},,,_�;I.7"-'"� S �p7. i. i :;�'F+�'.:r{_'1,+ �!i'� 'y'+,, } �It, r r1 t\, i t F f d 1, 3.r•+Qf�r� t y l� .: t 3}•+t [[ Y { are � ; rt''1 "� s ':`t d.rS i J} l x r�a"ir 3j } �e..3+,�1rg i�• •�, �i*sty -L:. �'}t "S rt� r�r}R0.AS"P +'t cM.:•: ,i,� �r;. w„at` "'4�`. i . .1 d � 'fir�. < 7 1 h )"w �{4 ,sty b ! r .5�,•�. "'I }1; ..y. t�q`•/s�.•y?i.. +"x�n,}v -L r _.�.st, V-ly,.m c.ais3 fir.,{s�4 }r,. 4 sr} :..rr,e:.•y? ,��:�tt.+t+•.1+ }'.LifY4t^rvrd ,i. Miscellaneous species not directly related to wetland habitat: (con't. ) Northern P.ough-winged ���,�3 swallovi Stel' ido ter x serripennis Bank' swallow R ar a r a ia, . `-"- toggerhead, shrike Lart us u oyic anus Northern flicker Col-alates auratus Anna's hummingbird Calypte anna Black phoebe Sayornis `.nigricains Rock dove Co1lu a .l y a Raven I . Cor�vs corax White--crowned sparrow zonotrichia' letcophyrys Water pipit Anthus -s inoletta Yellow rumped warbler Den ro ca coronata Brewer 's blackbird Eu a us oc ep alus Brown -towhee Pi� cyan la funcus 01 r of i w Donotes Sensitive Species (02D4D) -84- rd t },,Y���s'�n� i° 3�,. 1'Lt'��r `q ..�5 "�'� ,i 4';�y `;�x > i;fy3, {��� e�J i t` a*•M ,��t,it }� �'�5y�(�' �s ����` °33�� �??��'� `I�, lj* �`.�'+[ r •�I 'VY t.�l 4 kY1�y1.. ��� I�,. .{}��'1 t S" �' � 'i� "L t t �� t '�a�tk'. •�."i •� a V.t ��. ;e���, .�M,. �; .+�",.4s�� �� '�{''1 .J�. ��(�. 3`';�14j 1't�11 � ' ��L � +-}.+�j� �1., # �,..,�,+� "k �'�` 4.•. ,r . yl� ,�'iFy' '3Jt �`, ,t !� '� k " �i�� r� I;,�`yf i ' + Y 'K� '`� ` •'ryl / 1�! '�, / , t. �1 .1 �, i' Via, y} ."�*`.�a'•(" ��Q .t'��' �t`�4 c 1�n�� �y `�• •' �'����tjr + rsl. 1. "+� � �,�• �t�•:• ��"'�# a.�""} ,�I �`7 f, J + �� j' ji�r' ' :t 1 ; ��t� � / �r+� '��i � i. ' ��T t r 1 `��f ft,k �l,�u „, �t , •°`1.7 �� 1I .�>?1�7i.Stl."2�i: .cw i.�►:V. �y � I 1 • 4 I APPENDIX C SUMMARY OF STATE AND ,FEDERAL REGULATORY II3VOLVE14ENT RE GARDING•WETLAND AREAS The. alteration of wetlands. assoc iated. with development, such as diking. .drsd9fng or filling, is 'subject ,to the regulatory :requirements of sever al• federal and state agencies. 'For development in wetlands to occur, permits or agreements by the California Coastal '.� Commission , (CCC) , the California Department of Fish and Game# and r the Corps of Engineers must be obtained. Additional permits or anp may be needed by the State Water Resources Control Board (Son t and de the Regional Water Quality Cocttrol Board (MOCB) pending on the r, (SLC) if the operation proposed; and the State Lands Commission 's Deed on land that is owned by the State• proposed project x p P A. Coastal Commission Decisions regulating development in the coastal zone made by the Coastal Commission in permittingand Lcal ofastal 1976,P1an certification are based upon policies in the c #t 1 11 (0284D) -85- I�. "T x3 .a��i° �i' �� � � .4 '� T�rl��tr A t .��' ! ��11 1 r 'j �,'ti ':�,� ��� ,i r �+�' •t�� +1 �• �� '�{t T �Y } � �� Y ,1';� .t } ,� � �"ii ter- t, � 7 b�-•". 1'71. ?t+, y��4 x- M Yrr A+�[ t{�y t � � '�l� ,,r, .�r i .�i I 'X t +, 1r•'� i, Y K�`'�f.�"� �..,:. •''`?'fg ���' r � r �- YT.i ! e� ,:4 r , MY ,,.gt.,tt1.,. �l�ti�{ ! ,,�• ti.Z Yr" ..�7 t 4 ��, "i ,,tc,°'S�.r�.' ` . . w .�� r,;�t -�,tv. �, + 1I �M�t f 1'A��.i• i1Tr . ":5,?1, ^�'� � 7 y��"� lJ ,,:� ,t�s're '.!{ ".jy.G�i 1 ';,. f,# r ' '"-4� � j �i�,.: .. � � ,�+• � •�•r' a` , •:,� � T� ! a,,.q dot.. n r ? � t•� r Y;V <� �: -� �.• ,.� �S t ��.��`��, 3. . ? �`�� t; Am4 �" t:#t��} f � tt,. •I..M 'tr t t l r Provisions for protecting and enhancing wetlands: I. Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be against significant disruption of habitat values Protected 302A0-a) . n 2. Development adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be designed to be compatible with the continuance Of such habitat areas (Secton 30240-b) . 3• Coastal-dependent developments shall not be sited in n wetland except as provided (Section 30255) . a 4• Marine resources shill, be maintained, enhan feasible. restored (Section 30230) , Ced and, where 5. ' T a biological productivity of Wetlands a maintain optimum populations of marine organism sh to 1� maintained and, where f •' red (Secbions30231}e feasible, restored TYPeS of development permitted in wetlands: 1• Wetland restoration activities (Section 30233 2. Nature shad a) Y. a sure or similar resource- activities (Section 3ndent (Section 0233-a) , depe 3. Incidental Public services which temporarily im resources of the•area, such as burying cables and the maintenance of existing intake and outfall l� (Section and 30233-a) , roes (Sectior, ` . Entrance channels for new or expanded be constructed in wetlands (Section 3023 -a). facilities may 5• In degraded wetlands, as identified 3 a) , t and 'Game. boating facilities ocher than the, Department of Fish be constructed under special, circumstances (Section channels may 6. Coastal-dependent industrial facilities x33-a} . fishing facilities, may be constructed orsexpanddeda Se Lion r•� 30233-a) , (Section 7• Energyfacilities may be constructed 30233-a) , or expanded (Section $• Port facilities may be constructed or 30233�-a) . expanded (Section 9• Existing degraded depths basins and boat launhareas nmay beimaintchannels . dreged depths may ed or Previously turning Y be restored {Section 30233-a) . Previously (0284D) i i M lit . + �b 'f� r' ��j th�-y� r ,t• - '�L•,#.. i�.�j"4 �f n L a ' 1' �•'""^ t '������� 1' �i l �i �S5 ���''ii r�;.i. P� �', �, t +�, r ,s,T � �t}..fit r i, .r•� : � `s� yyy.y�, �'" r i� �..i +"f" sA t '�s� .shy `� i,'ss � � �1r •i SS! +i� �r(� iq .t`�x�2 "i t'�a`y� t���r � �+ f4r��. '. .l'!�ra1�3'+�� t � t'�� '� '��`.'. �"'� {:.� .;t'•?` s,l�•s's•��'4 '^��'�{Y� � ff`��• .'r��;� tip. '� ��.� .c � �'+���� ��t , '";� � ��t� )) ���+ � �` x �r�1.Y'';{ w���=�t L y, lrR•Y _` !. .�' S '1 �` _� 4,;• y�"�T:� ..".1,• •.i. 4r �, ?,� Z �� „ � .�, yt•. _,..�; ,��I�tt•1i}}•` a ti� t ��+�'}'��' r'h' ,•��� , y� �� !'%+���; .1�� t s �'yi�`r• !^ .k.�.��� � ' 1R q� �,, !, #S ,f`• a d•'y(�f, e 1, �a"�� ��;'�+, s�.� y.[4( j7��;r ti��', }7�b� ;? �} �, ti,�• ,,t • ' ,�,'•,`1 I y 1 ... Y;t .t• to +q x, T r,'k4 � . 'l 'j!'t . ���� k;t71 "Ala�t,/`}� "- '��'� `� " ' .e '{ - af '*,.i� [, s `��i=}t r ' , :' `'rl'i. s'' A*• T'` , 7f .• ,'+Y 4R� ., •t 3 'tdt4� ' �?►•}.tlii 1{A_ l ). 1.!:!' �..'i+ �SR 43 r.. . A 9. Califcrnia Department of Fish and Game Pursuant to Sections 1601 and 1603 of the Fish and Game Code, the 1 Department of Fish and Game (DFG) regulates wetland alterations. A written' agreemerst issued by the DFG satisfying Sections 1601 and 1603 is required prior to any development in a wetland. The DFG is directed by the State Endangered Species Act ,and State Native Species Conservation and Enhancement Act to protect the State's3 endangered species. yg Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 28 '(September 131, 1979) has given the 'DFG the' responsibilitcy of, proposing plans to protect, preserve, restore, acquire and manage wetlands. In addition, the DFG reviews and comments on development permits issued by the Coastal. Convaission M and the Corps of Engineers. Both the Coastal Cemmission and the DFG take under advisements the State Resources Agency Basic Wetlands Policy. which' states: ."It is; the basic policy of the Resource Agency that this Agency and its Department, Boards and Commissions will not authorize or approve projects that fill or otherwise harm or descry coastal., estuarine, or inland wetlands. Exceptions to this policy may be grantee provided that the following conditions are met: w' 1. The proposed project must be water dependent or an essential transportation, water conveyance or utility project. s 2. There must be no s'Qasible, less environmentally damaging alternative location for the type of project being considered. j 3. •Tire public trust must not be adversely affected. 4. Adequate compensation for project--caused losses shall be a r part of the project. Compensation, to be considered adequate, must meet the following criteria: a. The compensation measures must be in writing in the form of either conditions on a permit or an agreement signed by the applicant and the Department of Fish and Game or ' the Resources Agency. b. The combined long--term 'wetlands habitat value' of the lands involved (including project and mitigation lands) must not be less after project completion than the combined 'wetland habitat value' that exists under pre-project conditions. " s (0204D) t �r �� by '� `'�� � Rt ��.1 + �,. ' r l a #j`' � ;� a �• .. t,., r .+ a t • �ti .`�t� ilk � � .'' �� ! t.a;;M1t A, � `� } 't y Y �� !y r •y ;�� �'�� ' � �� �� �i. � �yw a+�, yi,� �j �y ►� `� T� tit �a.� +y�tr��� '�t 7 t� I�, s a!� � �wr,'�; � � � { � � 3� t•+�, �; �St�' 1�t1` i?r\i 't' '�"� �� �" •"; •ttl�•� 11'�,�[ '!� }?t�i�,i` � :� "'4 A ,5 }6 ix.t'•� �"� +tt'ft �1' t'i. '. rF nl,, , ,r �'r�_n' M i ,�� y 1• 4! 3lt�t? ;� y `' 1 Cl` r S t a 1 tyy ! iaAl�f io i .f!"� ���� �.`: l{ ,l`� �;F� .�.,�.' �t ;�,�� e .r!�"ll y 4 *'1� i ,�,� j��'i•'�y � FF�+t�r tTi r+( �}i'� •t�i )� �� `t �}l � �f ta( �rY�•trt 4� `t ���( �!d ��'� 'i4z` � � ,k44 t� t, t '4} 1 s •�S q, `1�,• 1 ,(�`�' # �t.Ec{ A � 4 t -1ttr ,. 1'+` ! ka ti �,Tk"�j�k ll}a•� , ��a '•,! )! I"'lt' f " �aC« "' � Xi � i�1t'�t�#Z ��'��y r •�. . h. .,��rt,.,. ��x, ft ' �yi�'��. ';`'�. 't t `'�t�'�rat;, �r; {�'`• i�Lt�� ;;+i�•+,{"1' � �1 �� `� � f',� .f ti '1�•� � Yti�}YI�y1,6i�y �"^ �t��!!r ; iYi°�������(��' .1� .RSJr(�` t, .aa\ •l5 tt�� �!(' Iia{i'y�� V5 i t� ' `��' � 1��;. , } G' 1 )j. t ,L .y i" Ar v a .1 tiJ '.S T`( �' ..K• }1��1• 7 .'�'t';t ; x t •" /:�i` .�"5 k i�' � '� S+ � i� ��y t.Y.�•�.' A� �:of i'i'. �,y ! }t .'q 1} (t�. �+157,.�{,;_ �`'� �Jip' ;�, t�s)'' °�`�,41�� ��Y � �` L'�., � f� •`�,�;1 � t�l 1$tt �ti�1 g,'°'t; 333 a. S: L y �r y fit` T G a.,, t }i•. as {, Ii a� 'i• i � �1.�} t. " t ;'.��'" �'� fit.. �'. � l�, >.'; � a•. '.S 1y�1 a rJ ,!'}?°ao`#• �.'t�j .Y• ^'ti"' rat `t.�a�,{tr � l+x!} F^ik4{.,�tA �1•1d/{f Y' }�tv• 1 S +�} + gf��� ,: .ti� -� �� .`y1i�V �^ L. :t t } .'�s.. ,it�l. C ,�i41��',. ,�7 e:`t t•� �1' '��� 4`' �' �d .ayr� � 't tk�t}�•'+4 ^34��� r >��}' : ��'a 'dTi•^� R'��, �fy��� +Za "� ,', i��?k. � rt�� .lC� �t' �'1,,•dff,`�1��7 �{ � k t�'!•���� ���iA t�te < ,tl r {�1�,r�,�j,�i,, ,t ! Y�t,� ��� 4 �=1�Y,� !!0.�,;. •,} "' T .,Jl•.I� .w� e .5 �j�� a , ' .5. xZ ,t .:I Y` � A 1 �t 1 4 yTS,f tl }. t�tst.y r ! t t i J y t• tl Y"� 5• r• iy�,ir �' , � � �h��: � \{• y��A'� '�,! LF, } r !fit !`+ ';., �. r,�'�'1iY�yrarip}`[�r t ,� � �`:F ��. .� � r.a �� �' �j��tsY���. �' �.��J�xl� ' Il�,y� � �� ..,��r j 1�' l 4 ••5 ��R � ,'1��9`�.(,� 1F��1�� t f n1 r 1' 4 .� Q�,. :f.� .ail ��{� ft t A7R yV�9Yp-A,Y•1ti t ;�,u r '�� �t� �`i p p ..1al�.� �ti•Y�it t �� i � t 1°� i :� X ... �" f�� t I � �'1�lR ��"•�'�7/���$..>Ft�`+�`' ��6'���t�.��Fi+E ,,�?� �� Mkt ,� �a�kl��l'�'4�.. i ate. �'ii � "sY • i t• `Y T f 4 �t !�rt�+� L t. 7 t'�1!��v �f'"{'7 1t }v n ' � s+'•' t if t-�--e. t.R r ► t .ay• + y[_. -y55j .'� .i.r �: y d f xt' :ifr 4 tr.t t(, •t �y� '.. t lf {:a ^r."r7v".:.� NEW aY �l .. ��sk'', '.3'"- .. r' ,ir y•, t'}�•. ".i S .° ..r,t,5 t°,t"i.4�YJ 1 tff •}t. a i -� ti •t t Y, x -� i>f+ y7f ;,.Z„ '.+"a'"r..',,..i"'1' :r^', > '•t.t' Iµ�i .,T r jLR� ';! ;#..f//f.• rt t', 'S t.fitt+� 4,,;! ,n.r."ti, Ft; "Eel: ?,.j+`, 3i1 °t`I.;�'.. t'. . 4 s } �;io, t �, tY`ri l• ..� "t.i.. .` r 1.1t °a:.1 l..;t .x: y i.�., 1y +}x� .1v1•'" .lr iy..L ;.r.^ >"9Sa2F, a l ° �%r4 {,\ri ,f t- 1. ,4*t;:.:r'% ',tY. 11±i Ott ii ��it ,r t. ' ., -.. ilf y!c +.l 4" f'1{ • cµyt�`' t ry T ! 5i., }* !�. } { `l.'�1 I)•. V ' f: ='"'�C a• '�: '! �.1 'lt.. ��.ih r ji ii�,} 1 "�-` 5'� :S� -'��n�' � ".1 '''i�'i.1 tl{�l'`� �^4', n,/iY D}' -'�dit ,5. i.(_�f 'its.:R:�i .t1 3 ..f ;.'�I'�'•�71,i '••l.0��t S .� 1'�. d'� :�. �;t(a. � ar., •! �'i� = $��{•.?` �.W }.•:rt, ° .{}` .t'.r..,} •€t�':�_,+ia}� t '. 't';i`f1 :t .5. ?; �� l # .� 4'` .�•}<•4r.�n• f.+„�,.��,� 1 a• t7 �{. C �. k, '�'. 3.: •1.�a � �l3> `i�'� t"' .�y�r ',,�J,• �a ,ly'�! t •'.^l.. � t tG',w .""�A"{ +� t(..SA, ;��x u/'' .S .t�f/.t_t .+�.,F �,�r'.Srl � ,t '.} Y! S;ir t,t 5,•;7 rf r:•�. 'Y�.�r C•: �; ,t`. t ,{�r.. .1'S' 1t ! -! 'Yf `-I^a33 + '� .y, r:aE •� ! c ! t. r n} � ;i �.rr{.:, �'1 �.• t :�.,! •1� } t,, i&: "�ri. tj^'f r .5. 4 t1:1 i�� t{.•.t;.�T I�;,jtr J`.�L � , �.'.4 a��•`4•'a:�}�:{Z �. 571.'i�' 1r.; ]'�;14 4 � 1�. r,ii t3!;�t }. �Yw{ .,14iil t;.td .��tL4• ttR �p..1,i' +:,�;'�� Y •� i � t ;t "fir. -f 4 t e.' Lip "� s �ly t t at i ,�: 4+� ! t2"!.°t �•''i r {' I tSt' ! e, 7. :� c F.'"!•t .b .,+ t 11 yn t . n y.,. 4! a q i ,x ,°�!> rk',t ,lfi.. •'�E` ,.t ! t i„�, i iY' ..rt•Et / 'f't: ' � ,1X tl�,$�'}a ,Y;r � �(y'�1�a t,t t�t"i^...t,}Y )' �P►�«a �+q r�/ i•k .9:r �, 1, ,'S,�+y•�.}�':-1. �i� t ` ts,."p. '"`. {{11 ?t 'i:rr '� g'• rt rd..f!"' x n�, -� ''' t t}-.,,y� � ' ',� 1;1 i `� •'�{ I,a r`s h at'�t''` `' � t. 'Ft�-a�at,4.{ a t�.:rC'f �s�: .f� �. ..,'k'Ft '•^i. r s 'i'�'' a�' !"• r 1 x- .,? {�r.. t+.. :�t'i.t:..wi_ t1. f i ��.. 'r }��t # (� a, �«^r: .�i.,.{`. 1� � 6 a t' .ir '1}:=¢' ;}'•W. la .,� st.'"!�` �`t� ,� �Y �, 4} L y�, ti�.'tt •�y_� � �i '71 .r }S15nstt. S' .4 �'� • +s: �! i� !(t l+;, ..�, {p, �,�, e tR.. �'. ta,�t `,rt , i -t' '�7:r. 1° .i•1•.4_,,:r >c' rYt...Lir ti '"+- {,.,'t 1�'�..,.. ,�!`: .t ;g : :,.';v. dAt�"' w, -.l,` a?a `R7..;� rt. .r.4•ta },.. �• �'2 '.,; .?. !t 'R!t? .a% "t,' " `:t;,i" t. ti ,xp t.. �t !,,/t tr F.. r�y i t � i `:a?,'t! 'Ft tj 1-4 -. i.•rt 4° .7�R .r EV s. ty- F7.n tJ t 0.' ;'la !c•�h:rtat t j' t yyat'i':i)c.�iryLt W{� r,Yi• 1�,�...r r"}- �). t v,ar ty (, i R'j� �r 5 t1 s:' ..4vr k• t i •''i t,:',a., C-t�•t ti.A t+'` a'. i.'1 }r t 3 i,+`'.�,�?, •{.,b �'}S� y}'�+' �.t!i [ �} t�!"`' ' � �"t kA '���' 4• �} , y 5 r °. V a�. � �� �} t � ,,., S t !t r�'ti4 r.l' �,, i4 t„- t d" + 1 - a P t #y x y`\,y .,1f tF p ,r(h, x •( aS t}p7 L} ' d� .`C AaS.sirs•,•}'R�.X.},1#3'r7,�5'ht-t:t b�'`.`� 'w{l.�t.t'ti 1` a"'1. f1 i['tla;`S".t_:rt;s,�'i_:.,:ui.i..F'aw.i i7-.#..v4.itS't{at .l4:q '^°1+ C. Corps of Engineers The Army Corps of engineers (COE) , under Section 404 of the Clean i Water Act of 1972, regulates development in wetlands. Section 404 ^ � permits are required for any development that would discharge dredged or fill material into any waters of the United States, including wetlands. The Corps of Engineers wetland policy guidelines state: r% The purpose of a proposed structure or work will be examined with a . view toward avoiding siting in wetland areas. If that purpose is not dependent on waterfront access, or can be satisfied by the use of an alternate site or by use of existing public facilities, the f application will ordinarily not be granted. The applicant will be required to demonstrate that a feasible alternate site does not exist; the inability to finance or acquire an alternate site is not a factor in the determination of feasibility. Unless the public interest requires otherwise, no permit shall be granted for work in wetlands identified as important . . . unless the District Engineer Concludes, on the basis of the analysis required in . . . (the public review) . . . that the benefits of the proposed alteration outweight the damage to the wetlands resource and the proposed alteration is necessary to realize those benefits. (33 Code of Federal Regulations 209.120) . The guidelines mandate the denial of Section 404 permits unless the applicant is able to demonstrate both of the following: (1) that i the activity associated with the fill must have direct access or proximity to, or be located in the water resource in order to fulfill j its basic purpose or that other sites or. construction alternatives are not practical; and (2) , that the proposed fill and the activity associated with it will not cause a permanent unacceptable disruption to the beneficial water quality uses of the afected aquatic .ecosystem (Secton 230. 5 b-8 of 33 Code of Federal Regulations) , D. United States fish and Wildlife Service The United States Fish and wildlife Service (U.S.F.W .S. ) , Pander the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Estuary Protection Act, and other Federal laws, reviews 404 permits before they are issued by the Corps of Engineers. Although these permits are issued by the COE, responsibility is 1 shared with the U.S.F.R .S. and permits must be consistent with guidelines issued by the U.S.F.W .S. , the Environmental Pootection Agency and the California Coastal Management Program. * Source: Wetlands Protection: {?^. The Regulatory of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1978 Coastal Zone Ffanagemen Journal Volume �0 ti Number 4 f ° / (0284D) -88- Ci1 mn , � � � �. F ,M t f. t�, �l\ 1,}t �U. .yl +.,,. t s � �' .!(,1;.4i•�, ; •N 'y'y 1 '�,''y 1� ♦; • y.ry'� � r F ��, y 4, +� �s�'l7t + � t ft'{ r r� ttt ',� ��{ +s l C '�f r',�`h.1 0'tr��. •I�R} l s� '�tt �� � u ' '�� • �'. � ° +� 1. �+ f k � y �� '� �91f , .At >A' !•]� 44tstr' 'Jt• i1j� } t; t •frt ` ,� "i[y, .1 x :At t M • XIS f.' {t�� � �' �, j �,r ftn +" '�_} Tf x t �!'r�� , i�^+�t �i 1 � `+ �• °� j t��C .t;t�:�f �•. ,� �Z � "S #���: 'yy.1i4, ��. ��`��'. )��:+'����,<.'ta; � ��-�s''�i�' r,�, Rty�`{"�� �}���:����t, �y�'�4y� � ?F'' �`"`,F"a+,t ;�,� �,�"'���+i. ;�t•�;g "� t�� ,'� �r4� 1.1. � +1"i �•}[�<,. •2s �t. i��� .f'r��«{ .yy'���`1��+ •t�.*:y��� ytr. C, .`t� •' t1 ,..j Ar`y{�1 y1: ��` `� '�•' }� t'''i ,� 4• %+•�(�.,;1 �•� t' cI NY f 4� . N 1 \ ' ...tS '"t }t4 1�. h 4 t",I—1 y r t �} 1d,:i� :;1 •Ji � , '1 'f"1 ' p} `� t+ 1�1, s ! ,1' tsV:i'. °L �O� 5 v' t ` nt ` �• i ♦ . sit p � •"u �"�j y';. C t {t(1rX. 1^ 1•qj +i,l `` ��ly � � .: ` t .�, 1, �.�f,,4h.a + ,^ijat�' • ;p :-f.' .t ,tf. !y4 S.{t. � Y.� �{ 4:' t t :1 . >t'"Z, 1rI,4° � ,. :;� ,}7� Y- � �,�� �� L •�S,�Z, j2,t�•.� •3 � !�sl.a \.t.ir��`4 ,! 1�> �ri `'�C ,X. i;,'�r.iT f,'�''...of: � r'(4; �:•,i f�. '1,��•�+f �,���t,!. � ' ''yiA. y 1.�.5Mi tt�+t� �+�y �\ t �y ]([r♦.h JV.r `Z>((t t• t, 't�'j ti t 4 �' :; }((J h y(�) S ^ +14y�,��,Tt45'�. ti/fe1{Cb��Jt\k'.! 9 ;�3 xi q 6{t,} �;1 t h p"�'��,Y•! -�, t�{q+ '• r(�dt�+j � y t�t[ kk'��Q f>• t ���� h',,,?y+t r"¢s! r! .,}l'�; '} i 4!W�kj"[LJ� s f 3°+ �( 1• t'S _'i r Y'���.,r �''r'z ti} hate Y 7" 11 �tg �"TJ1/ Kt. R'''1'gt Y °1 '`^ 1 �, \• {4 #�'. _ti�` ?` ;`l ij"'t" 'Il�,�`V,• `a ly°tit,t� t` ;'='ll 'y�;ti:+ �Rsf�s$iL t ��yt +1 .tt,.� �t.�tSb /y,'�.,`}�',,• t�"�,• }, f S 1�y •s f.Y„'�}, ��'��,'���� ,�"��; t�;',�S}�J,��'/�� "' r6'•l z"�.,.�tYt/��'�1. 1`��d t;•,r. '"�;`1}+ 't 'k7rAf,*•+�:''6'!'a/,11':T� "� ,t.+t\ �, • V t: � t� t{ti•� .LN � ,Y ;4..� 'IP' � -` i '5:�.° +��C �*r" ��t� iRVf.+1 J1 I��'�` ;R"r' tJIG ,c°A� g�?, s ' �."7r�1!!4 , ' . V. • 1 ' ;'IT^"��r ar"?t' t4. ^,^Tr 'S'^, t4r ,^s'" ?"' t''^* F CST„it ��^a'�*t*7'"r�"?t. }tC' .�, ,rx�s i' .(�, r ,• 17 �tyjti`^iY.I tLj ; y, t J(tjl �Z ;t 1i. " t�1 , 1 t \ j'•�.ti:j t l i ,5. �,, + t,'�. tt\r' -�4 y {{ t kt.i`. it!`Y r,.Jts- .i'+i �:l �j[t i. 5,t. 9 :i r l t fi:r}t'+` -r.� .,1."r } rf a.s + t,�i i ;t 1.'• �. ! ,•A J fit: tr ii1`ia1t} f`j 1 f fF,l t4 "; 1TYt 1 �4. '•1x.o ;if i l ,.t.`.t.t{.y :j,V r.{6i 'i- tj:i .I f+ }, S 3� .st •alb' ,l r " s�t. } ,ltj l} # 'R 'rr' :!. ') 1 r,{X i. 1�,} %t r. ) •it��" �!i r ^. S.[t:.l.tr t .,; is, 't. ` t .t t}.' t ft( '+"tl ` '4 qt, t[[{. jl r. �j il�•�; �f. :t'.ii iC-t: .t!tr.4.`st•��' .t •IA. 'j1a`j`� .i,. . .i. .aa t'"t 'i!r '1rt111 ))�t.S5P .i�K :¢ .i< t;- r t t t ,ii 1t ',\4?is' •t »i"p r i �lF t,�..•Y,' -��, ,., •ttti��tta i;.:a „1•`'t t P*rt j?i �. 'A 7�.1, .1 r t i:`j, VK•{ �1ht• rt's° t }s}Ir't4",',i.t'�'te` �' ;:\'t}(.4 •'>71 t•r•}�it'f'•�,�' i�,S•�-14.. !_� �l.l \� '�`�.tl. �. sl IN t vi2� .. y ; Y1 � G.T�+t,s,,.(S S `t{ lr St':1 tt�•t. I a-t? t.)Sr :,t:4+. , ll'. tr.tw' _ "'.s:•�b` 'I.�. ,:�i 1. 1 L tl:.. 1 ;�.•rti. .,s. a 6•.iir j '::iw ,•4 � ,tr i's{ A �¢ti .i.• Rai :�,..,\v^� e t•, s i': 't;t:', •s-r .,e{! .,� tq S . `a• 1'' -it S•�' r-tit. ,M t t,.. � '>' IF t i r r t{ }t li;`''-' I�f'y,i iFF 1- 1 fF../ tlV .I,.- pp.dQ � >r«- ��i .r: K :.t ,f Y.,t + i .� tr'':� ril tt.�S.; ,ta;4,. ,�`..••yt ?'�' Ala .:xt„a+ :f.¢. .'1>q P�,:t*f ;?.a X.Pt ly�• i39..1/-;.. {;�1 yt rt. 'f }i.•'� J�.t ot.: � i{tyt> }r,•'>�•t,4,At t �t�r t�,�'• tr f}}},,, t "r;" 'l: ti,j, t,`t+j•{, !„ •�r i�4 i`. .. '4 , t C. -i...,�,: r: ?~ •ll. • , ''9 't. F. •± iyr - 1•;-.. d {,s f tt. ,'"1,, s`.A,� .{, .. I:t .. tS -a l•tr;st.}ix rY r �tTC �,::r.t=r F.t.0.t.ty .l.�:1,1,1 t:7f4vi. ,�iw}.,,pry••-, tii ti:,.es��. ; e .['r .fir' t. tr e "��1.�, -�kt t�rti•.i+, {MS''t. '?�! l �_..ri1.; 's ..i`3' n' ^t`t t APPENDIX D i GLOSSARY I t Alluvial: of or pertaining to alluvium # Alluvium: sediment deposited by, flowing water, in a riverbed or floor plain. Aquifer: Water-bearing rock formation or group of formations 4 Biological the rate at which energy is stored as organic productivity: material. Factors which indicate the quality ` of productivity include the efficiency of the i transfer of stored organic material as food. Brackish marsh: marsh area receiving an influx of both salt and fresh water. Degraded wetland: wetland altered by impacts associated with man, resulting in reduced ';rigor and productivity of the marsh-wetland system. } { Dunes: sand formations located in the uplands. 4 Ecosystem: the complex of a natural community and its environment functioning as a unit in nature. Environmentally Section 30107.5 of the California Coastal Act. sensitive area: ' . . .any area in which plant or animal life or Q� their habitat are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be Easily F , disturbed or degraded by human activities and � development. " { 8� Feasible: Section 30108 of the California Coastal Act. ". . .capable of being accomplished in a successful manner, within a reasonable period of time:, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological Q) factors. i, Fresh water marshes: marshes where the water has concentrations of 1 salt less than five parts per 1000. Hydric soils: soils that are saturated with water at or near the surface and are deficient of oxygen long enough 'wring the growing season to result in properties that reflect dominant wetness characteristics near the soil surface. _gg- w a ,� �� d � e '� ;�'� } tdt;�n, "'cif �� .;' '€, k� •.,1 �� ',��,� y 1�'�. �1 ALA •'4 �Yt`r( �; 1 t�� :, r t,.t �"� '' ►. � 'In �l �'' ;�.� .( �, t. ��?�14 /• ii�t .,•?A ,t'�i ;�, i�' .{; 4,`» e � t. �1! ;.. f a•`• � �j' .1 N"' ` r t k,��a �� 1f ,' � �� t��t� �r y t � t � .i^ �"� �tl��/ r*••� � n.�' �'� ' � �'�� Z •t i �� �,c'� :��,, •' �I�,` r�� ���'�� "1��1 is� ,y. �� .` 1f:•� � f:�.t�Wt�k � 'tft� � +� (*���i�, �t�\ t .�" fi � a I» �; �s��r'I.�.s �� ���V Y1 � 't �yY � 7• lY '�t�r. t'6 � .�` •� t � ,y4��,,, � +�.• i ',. r ,� t ,,,� �r a���d+.►:���L1.�� � ,� `Vt t'� r i ., '}•�" 1. � ��.� V. � t. w1 r` •Y,. ,:, '� .�i'�3 i 9 •t4, ' 'A ►? ;'i .'� Mia� ;4. {: t Y. i ��{ All (A.!. � t:5.`���, '�+'�'V�' ,`�, "�' �,�► t�F y+." u�► ?•;��.'� t t��"� �;. •'"tiR»"��t�'!`-�• t ��• �• .,. '�q'+* iR, � • 1't.tl �'�,'� r 6$= t. . �, ;�i I� 1' 1' w .,. �,' 'i. ,": tY-`( '.rt�j",, Y 4j'{• .t ,�,r �{h '1�' .� �^' .$;' ,� Sy 4 h,• {. - y +�•.. ,yc'� t•R {� "{ �4L7 '1 a•\., .'i t s�� S7�t� fl �1, 'ir a• `���1, ��i a ,t+�,[ ��,�a. 1` � yi� r�� \ N,� � +�•,,�� ,t +�t �°c•��r��:i ��°,�'.!�}•}fY,i� ..¢ rr..A"a� rtf 1)��� ;�P, 4�r �;^t'!f N��*��• �t�F�if{ p4' {�"f.�'{.(.e'�•, r T� ?"St, .� �, {° ' �" Ft �,r;s' `d�f� 1 •� {'�ht�4r�.,�"�tt4� (E' �:1ht.�s� ��}t �•' r'{y � .r yYti ' ( t, 1Y �R' 'n�'t 1,it.tl`!\�,. " •�g ^r�t{y�(� 'ali k }S ° ht:S7), �b t �." i� " '` �y�" 1/� `' i} �,. �� `•Y !. 4 i .� r � 1a ►I bW t S•.• � +�,`#.��M�� ;t'�+ Wit, ti ti ;!�, T �t.;''et"`•�,...�4�•;. F ' '� '.�`{ .�.�; �,_,� �y �* ` !`', Tt ...��tt , +I�,�p ;,r.,. s,; ;1t�:��, !��� U ,�� r�':���}� ��� •y 1 "�i "4� .\''l r� � r � ,��' t 'th ,�l� :�}.r.,iA• ...�.t, , �,�+"`+1`�,,w{t'S #t:l'�. `?� f � i �i.� r {"��'( 'r�.�s,�' ����' 1����'\ '�� tr. '�41�' �}'' ;�" ,�i't•'l;�� ,!�'��,�� `" � ��'"�l':`,� °'�_;�t ct'�`� +,��'#o' +,+ if' �� ;�, �i1R ;���� � '� ^ems; �'��i.X� ;+fly�� �,t Yl� �" `"�t, � j.,�' b:��}i�t`•�ft ��. �� �, '�"'��{' ,;,« �"t�k„ � V��'�? 'y1t � " �''1 !f � tt °�,i*4. �.,y�A,� ;r ` 4� � e��t��i,{. {t' �1� {'gAt"4�.re �+��t`�� ,� {, �,f ' ,�n �' t 1� �} �.'?Y• � ti ;t� :�i f�� 1 A3 '� tk r.�;� � �' � •1 s t��'t�� St,� � .�� i� `'r�iS y'�, I, '}� `�;� +t 1. ,'aye'.. �� • ,� .,;�'ir �• •' >,r r �t\� ,�' �,9.'. ,�� �,,j,,. 3 �. �' +•?,{ , "�yr.1 +� ,,�*• it, ris ?`,t. 1 �C�.'s�'. �• a .tft '.tt a t'yy �, . .� • � :�;r'$�.•� •�'. �1'Y.'t .'Ay„�'���t- ��Yd rL•S 5+� t")'� � ��jy ;���_ � ° ���11'*;il'SrF,.f �'�4. .'`+,ri 1 1� ` ,tf{t�' �.Y� ,�� �.�tk F���+.' 8��. a�trt. t�'a. hAXif jj Imo:. -•--••Rrr-+r"'- •,^,'^*'�'.q'-"^' " T"",". •�s-.� . ', tir.'+R" m•� "--+r .ws.r* T. -• y:- r{'L°. _ "+•.X �i :' •i(f �. { t r :)- it .y'� r5 .' t .1" ' •+ry pr 1 �� ' ' ti .41.tt,r+n.,t t..; ,yti- t _.f�t,7"` i .., tl _rt }jt t,L��l! 1�' h, r� - t-r` 1 �t`ft.4-�? tF •�i.^fir r.t f•. t �.••tA { t !• � .A, k, e F LY t rr `��f r.`• ,. r1�, .tita 4 :t�99F.,1,,,5, Itl}�„�I,c){at } t" ' Ir .tty, i+• i q .x a. %1•',��� 'j{ r c' t 1 'r r.f � t,#*�tf=,).'t 1 ,. t} .t,:r .1 F t...F i � `,�l},C.,.f+� ,.' 1. l.}� tx '<' t +tS � '#� -! t ) L.' - t3Z 1,,. + �;.`�•rt'r is � f, t:.� 1,Xat ,t l'�Y 1 C�• ,yft f.,Y S ,.t.. t rr ` - rt •r t,_ i;; t .. .f . � x,r €{ r.,�A il', rr 1 '.} � .�;�� t .1t f i' yy) Jr,� .{, ,f 1�• �f 4�` t: l:f..t SIv�7f t'.. �' �, 1 �� I,f t: f , ;.r.� 1��, 1 , 41��•S�'`. ,4 ::r'i .St .. t t .r 7 •v .,t t"~1 a; t .t11•�•:.' �1 ..t��- (( '{ t i i1. � .. fi41. Y:t a{ k { • t l; F ��}%..37 t {{,, �t' 4 ;iY 1{, € rJ� al.�ll UN- TM- f� .i,.•I' !s r i11•t 1t�rr°. •.y �. ! 1 ..1� f,e + t9�' + ,{ � ��� \ A (� it• .' 1� +• i>t'i 3�, '' i`' `',}.r_ t r. tt�!,r f r( t,.:. .�rx.. .7 ,J, rt .,4.'' .C+ t,+��. 'i w.1 .r'•ra.rrsl: �:.,..... .. .. ,. . a.. _e'L.�� i.'.., .tr'r�`t.L� ' ,t.r.+r.• f'.tUuh Y'i - plants which grow in or near water, wet t:ydrophytic plants: habitats or hygric soils, embankments to protect flooding. Levees: oral zone: area between the lowertmtide water nark an Litt the highest tide or sandy coastal strip usually submerged n laud flat: muddy at high tide. sh vegetation that provides a primary salt mar pickleweed: feeding ground for the California Least Tern. Has the broadest distribution of any marsh plant. �! flat area. Playa: a pening, or passage,, admitting pore .- a small o Pore pressure: absorption or passage of liquid. Significant pore pressure develops most �"► commonly in cohesive ted with intake of wate • areas exhibiting vegetation characteristics of Riparian habitats. those which grow add acent to freshwa water courses and the associated animal species. salt pan. shallow bare spot with bad drainage. Salt flat: water evaporated leaving salt behind. a marsh in which the water is salty Salt marsh. brackish containing salt tolerant vegetation. s ubte.rranean seawater that passes through ' Sea Water s seeping up to ground level. porous soils, Percolation: as used in soils engineeringFshearr strength. Shear Strength: usually refers to the total shearing reau from resistance (an action or stres or tendsto�cause ! applied forces that two contiguous parts of a' bndy to slide eacion relatively otheirhplanero£ncontact)twhich a parallel t C� specimen or element of 30 conditionspabl� o£ developing under area that is by tides Tidal influence: e affected an or surface connectionvia subterranean to the ocean. area above and adjacent to the level of the uplands: highest tide. Includes the dun .-9 Q-- Ink �� it `�� � .r` t 4 u• t i L r 71 .��,� 'r � '� �4 i 1.' i. � �� y+y ��tt '� 'iil4�L+�tii,..1� � �r t _4 •`�.v• � l� � � •e�;.`'i;h'�.. ." t, M t yr 4•,���;y� � ��t ;' t +� lct* 'C4� ' +��`,'t��, � S`�. -ir�y�' '�y,�� �'� �y T , ,4 F 1. -.�1 t V , ���",tS';Y�. t'y+'� ,;• � '��i���t�•r�y'4f �`�; iy"��1, h�"� �,�?� S . � A s `y``. lk ` i%+' 11 . ,?tti� M 'atS'' .� '!it{�ti ��,V ..t'F'�� {f ,,�S l'�'1� �y Lett•r.. �•}t '�'��1:�3 t .".,'' ,1 t5, S' � " tl i� 4 ,' tt l't1�4 ' \j +- + i 5;.�`, •.; :•AM :i I '.h '' , .., I im �.��"� ��i t�' a Ste .t"-r"* '�r MIT` x ' i ti,. n ,,•,_.,,,..,. . fie ,� r> 2+�- ,} I i`}4}+)r s t ��tl t � 'T . w ic- � ! i���!. t; .t t, ��t �..t-.. , -.tt(i•.t r�+,.-ri,t t�':,4. �,1' y`F rS�i_ ,y1 t,''1l}. I,•SrS z'•.�1x•5!: � , t bR tt :'•�r t 2 ;tire t'i,.+�� y } , 'c ��r � �j;'y� , �, s s r , v�+iF,y� .' ',,:Zsx`t S+ ' it , -t�k tr - ..t• �y+t.•1 t•, t t. ,.'i. .�.�^rrn ,'ti,. p:t t�.\. t+ °' 'S�'�t,S, ti� \_i t. -� t�t� t tS.Liy� �'v�s; .,,. t, t:�:"ft �'� Ptt4 Yti•' °?; 'ti'y'r 1t tH� 'Y,t l r S,t t t .1!{ � A+;+ t .s; �,'1,`; 1 ,,�i o,� t , , �c, ti a �,Y'. +:c��;i�r , .t t "t Si:c; ,�Z{ Ssy� t �,z �zpp.�} ! �)..;fit �:az r(;;y!t'`It � t;�itr� � r"L(^!`�z F•rf: �ii'.1•,. ,4,ti'�j `, )1�1r �,�wttr�S�� i}}.s.}x S, tt�+lr�:.i,� r .ti n Wetland: Section 30121 of the California Coastal Act. •. . .lands within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and includes saltwater marshes f open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mudflats and fens." Wetland Section 30233 of the California Coastal Act. development; ". . .the diking, filling or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries and lakes 1 shall be permitte a.n accordance with other applicable provisions of this division, where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse effects." (g289D) 1 1 s t,1 _91- t , t) 5.��� :�•,• � � 1 � 5r M ';�� .�55�" iy�M�ti'A 1, �.�`. �•'t$.+*� +� � � y r� ;i•i _�1r; '•� ^t {Tip 1; , 5�• � � '�y�T � �1�:'�t�i Y ; .t �'� 1�.S{�� � �� i, + ��x�� J ''„ . 9°�• " r 'l t+r},.����� ��►r`�'4�y 1Y. y {t�i'I�,��`� t1t�• i \,� � � t.t ' � . t't ,{- tY eiri' ' • S `4 '�, .�'f Ft} ;. :`,'{�r. •t r.; �((� �h• }�'h i ' 1 ['3,,' y. ,�� r�� 'fir i 1 '� ��� ��•, 1'\� �{��,y '� rt"+ '��� 1, � }� `r) `'t {a N. ...t jy' , 5 0 1.Y-�'r1, )�.�.:"}�•r'''�.7 "•y�� '•'.,ey ri ,t}.. I�.)..•�:n `t t.•,,� } ��,STTiTf, , t ' ,i1 r t ,'r.` ,{;�� . 1 1 � s i•f Al 4l ; .•r �tj .' y`�1t15� ttr,a•.? i yyyr-""• t:11�1 + ..�� it� SS++/ .t �p1Y .'•rj •l + i.:i �. �_ y,.. �j •, 4' ,y id. fftr� ,t��.r tt�y 51 y- f-+�,;t4 �i� ) .{{ ,4t h ;.S t rl ;`i�t51 ) .,1 i1 5.>. ;tc zu.S:�S.+, t�.tV` ;; t.•x.{rJ t! y +3i•(„1 'S l55 ro�11 , {1 � i t "•+ �. .<,it r f�`'� :t �tl Y';i i ::t�k, • 5 t. 1�t.�►Xir 4)111`{j",3'' },'� ;}r�4 �,�4r tf�.� } 111.e. �1;�--YS�"i l' {7�„t+'Lt 'J �� �. 4{ ,t I °t1 rii 1"' .i�� ij.'�!•jl '�, f:.'�)t� �5 i1 jy1, �7 - i}L'f q.,,, } -1�•:4.'sS L S �.�S� , 1 iiR�! ;!� { a.r.'lr•�.1.!� .i, 'l ^,�',�,�5.f1{r ilt} � '�b1.��.�p .y�.`�'•t-',1. ply y �! !1` .$Jf.1j+�`j1t-,ii.l 14. sr Y? ,i�r1�-�1�,�'9c, 5�j1^+,�c. ,5,5,,� r�'� `Ti+ _i � � + •.� 1� jyy � P� �, � ' 1 � s!t`� : .S�;i:'- _ ;4t�,,'�;5.; 3,- ,��. ' '1� „j. `.•,`:..-,; �_ y;' ).�.ij, �� {,. ..z1,� .i)5 .1� e c< 4 ' 'r- n1'.�i � ' '114{ :.�•{ +, s.• -� �,�+ {',1 e t " ,S r, .'Si_ :�I,.. ., "Sj it '�1lt?i . �' a �E 5>. 1 ;il�rb +] ;it 'i�}�tt � {k+ 1. 11 5. .)�`fa�. .s. �+�'Y °I : ��5 ,).,���� '�5?S,,,tl�kti�t) 1. S.S i .ai�'',�`4 „3 ijd5,�•�,�.s' it .L,L � '� `"', 5 ` e,f�"� gts '•f t1 } i y ), E:.•:. r 71 ni) tr f(} 4., ,ti C` 11' T •1••+:) �1'f .1 i 4 ),Y,�,s K'- t ! `. 1` 111.41. 1 ,. 1- �I O. ......, ....�: REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date February lls 1983 Subl7itted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administratoawll/ Prepared by: James W. Palinr Director of Development services G► Subjwt: INTERIM AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICY FOR THE COASTAL ZONE Do root ,9cd�-- C1 �31k-5 revi'ew ar.3 A,uue ej C�4 C�:�Pl�rfAke &,,6�, - pt �/a Statement of Issue,Rocommendation,Analysis,Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments:CICJtQ'•lf STATEMENT OF ISSUE: rf i At its February 7, 1983 meeting, the City Cot,ncil considered the Interim Affordable Housing Policy for the Coastal Zone and continued the item to the February 22, 1983 meeting with a request for additional information. ' The information requested was a clarification of what in the proposed policy is required by state law and what is an additional City require- ment, RECOPZIENDATION: ; ! Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt , Resolution No. 5200. ANALYSIS: 3 Staff has determined, after consultation with the City A;:torney's office, 4 that the requirements of the Mello Bill (Sections 65590 and 65590.1 of the California Government Code) are mandatory and apply to all cities, ; 'Including charter cities. The California Government Code was amended by Assembly Bill No. 321 in 1982 to clarify that the provisions of the i Mello Bill .were to apply to charter cities. Thus, even if the City Council were to remove the reference to the Government Code from the City's zoning ordinance the City would still have to comply with the Mello Bill. The proposed Interim Affordable Housing Policy for the Coastal Zone spells Out how the City intends to implement the state law. The proposed policy closely follows the Mello Bill in the majority of its requirements. ! There are, however, three major areas where the 4 from state law as follows: Proposed policy departs f 1. III. NEW DEVELOPMENT. A. Inclusionary Requirement. The Mello Bill requires that new housing developments 1n the coastal zone provide units for families of low or moderate income within the project, if feasible, or within the City, if feasible. The Mello Bill does not specify what percentage of the units should be affordable. Also, it allows projects to be approved with no affordable units if a finding is made that provision of such units is infeasible. Thus, in order to implement state law the City's interim policy could contain a general inclusionary statement with no percentage specified and allow for a feasibility test to be made on a project--by-project basis. P!O 4/61 .1 ��� �! ''kF i�; ��� J x � •bi'ivy 4 11 � �• y ff{�} �� ����t �f"•,�1',�..'t�`t' '4�f �t � V '� r�, 1 � +t 1 1 �4i' �i. 'i• �t'r ,. �a� ,t � "�ti��t�' �\�►,�' C1t `� t �t�(l`4 { y , 1�.��iY , ,ia� .+( �;. �,ti% @r` ',`i ' t 3xb�'iit' �li�' `'�1t.�....t3��, I�x`�at�, ,,.d. i 44• •���� k�i � �� i �,�, �.� t;'� i"��' �� th d ± t t Bey`' .,; ��42�.'', �"�i;4`. 4"; •fit:'.rt�,, {�;��.!'I R�. ,.}f� ����►�` ~F. t t���21`t{, .�,� y�t,1't��"'i`'i �s'.' r.� t��i�'�,�� �„ '"� �. tklAa: t '• e ' .�', t ,� �N r t 11 � '�St�. qvWNiN \t"�1 ♦ -;t4,11 i?t 1,11101l �y+'"r '►� rttt ^�"rr h "VV'}TY s, k �Y 5: rq��h 1't; IYr' �y 27� 7,j',7 :. icy q •.t r, 10 , '��PIT, � 1. apk t1; �'\. t f is t •��x i �1 �, ' � ' � ��{{1. E.t �� x t ;y.t {� � t��i?k�i, 1� d;41}'�'�Yh'rr ,, �r.i�.' i.�. �� ��;hr,. � � '' <=k l+t�/ S"5 L"•r, '� :t. q Y r '' 7 tx ` i LINNow +�rtM.. .—ire-c•R- ...wrti..tT r �� tit t t � il�tk .� f. 'r ': .+ '� 1 t '�"..,ilx-! \.r.. y F''� e1 R.4 (+ Y4 ..F {� ��• 1 , :Sa 1� �1� t.. 4 t � ,� ta .. 1t i t .t tx t p sX� , f ♦ iir x. tt 4�4 .�rSt t ly} `t� t +.l..�x{fi i iji(�f t.�. ,f� +i r �� '!• Y�-( Y}r�f rr{ . 6.. k rA,'r.�f��" �'�,5•l.l"t�i�/ `! tf _ t°.+S'�Zt1+` 4r ,lj.-ter)}'i4 r =� �j,"�?;i6 � r. -t I? r .r x. _�,'��=ye t, r ? r !t".S I { �t f 4f�wr r t':•t `'�r� t't,, t ,'. ,i t l {+i ,� t+ { ..t +��r 1 {;i \ry\t , { •'^��x -x t) ., �'(1��� +, li x, t i " th l.1 1 '.i "'r r f t 1 S .S'vt �.t.Yet, 'rEl,:l_.. ,t l '` i.s "Zi f•, l��` t ` ' t , t : .: t itp t y'i lr t 1 e rY 'l,t, `�'�',.��r� •�,r, r:.' :s;x�,. ��tiae��ix 1f�t1�� ��;tM1, , •=><jj "il, _ :h`...r�` L. .\!, .°.a , �.l:.r.>._, ,.:.. S:i1. ..':1•u,.. r... .!.,..i....i. F,rv'"�.. ,'ip, ..n$f,. t_ ... ,#: ,. •;. sfi 1 aY�l�.`., J. Affordable Housing February 11, 1983 Page 2 However, the City has previously adopted its own inclusionary require- j ment of twenty percent in the coastal zoae. This requirement is I spelled out in Policy 15f of the City's Coastal Land Use Plan. This inclusionar; requirement must be applied to all projects in the Coastal Zone in order for that project to be found consistent with the City's General Plan. The Council could direct staff to initiate a General Plan amendment to remove this policy from the Coastal Land Use Plan, if desired. 2. IV. GENERAL PROVISIONS. A. S culation Control. The Mello Bill does not contain any requirement that replacement or inclusionary affordable units must be protected against speculation or remain af- fordable for any length of time. A speculation control requirement of five years was included in the City's 'proposed interim policy after: a discussion and vote by the members of the Housing Committee. Such a provision would help ensure that units produced with the aid of a density bonus or other incentive do help low and moderate income families -for a period of time. 3. IV. GENERAL PROVISIONS. B. Banking and Transfer of Excess Afford- able Unit Credit. The Mello Bff1 does not specifically mandate that a transfer of affordable unit credits be allowed. it has been in- eluded in the City's• proposed interim policy in order to provide devel- opers with some flexibility in meeting the mandatory replacement provisions of the Mello Bill and the twenty percent inclusionary re- quirement of the City°s Coastal Land Use Plan. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: City staff is looking into the implications of removing the reference to the California Government Code from the City's zoning ordinance and incor- porating only selected portions of the Government Code. Staff will report back to the Planning Commission and the City Council with this analysis as soon as possible. FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Adopt the interim policy with modifications. 2. No adopt an interim policy. The City could review each proposal for if=lit:ion, conversion, or new development in the coastal zone r,. case-by-case basis for compliance with the Mello Bill. - JWP:CI:df I 1 t S s t 1 YY ' 1 i � •S �x � + } * t �}!+ �y�i� \�i + fit S �y k rir y . ?"• , eta �Y *4� •� t 44,+4 +` � , ': it �, '� ,'� z}ti.. t !+ + ".:Y •.r i+;ir•1 �: ..�•.'ia�^'[\{}.. '{ :1 t.. I ;!k 3D �'x lt,;� F.` +' "t �.i �� i'ja•.. '� t �. 1 t(1+ +t Y{ 1,(if<o ', r} S �4+�.i,r Y d' } ,•.� .r St��e .3t:t)1{{ '3'�.� 5}`Fit{ r '-`{,V' t i d 11•rYn�+ (A�..a+ tyr. Y rdiA 4..y�.,•C'YtU'� ,13 jltY,Yif- i,1 iS i.t. .a.'t ri:��Ql i.�f'y,,ylri :`�'k i.i,t, t7�'�i;' r\i +'' �E+ n�,a it i'I.\.j C. +rS x�S�ti„- s~;�2�e'• +.t�:+ 'r i +� 1.-+ A•.-�J't'Fi` `. :t.+Cr.{ .+ .5 :. } �;t it '+��i� ,.�IrS' ,.t�R. ai. . 4i'•' �Y t,y�' ,{�+i11 ,+.;.1+����C k.�a. t .Il{ ':7,•�tA��+.}`x� !1},R.}-'l: .tc:i.l't jY(3 4 t'�` + .t..r�`Y+.i '1S.�+r.:�ttka:t,a��,.�,11f. 1 > ,t+ d Y, .1 t t ' ,. \ l .,.t ,w t' t�i• ,.r.� �}' ! �..��' j �; � r i' .� � � Iwo i, 1 t a� M 'y ,C. t y � + t.";Et ,C.+ 99 SI '+ '��l.n 4y�' 1 l} � r t•ti� 1{•i l tlR t,c e � 3 e,{• Y ,A:4+.�,iir ,`1•��, f ,1l l�l ! ,{ t .Sl\r'l+ff )rt+ �!{} (+. iS t+,.'�ti ,.? :7� 4 +t� �'`6. ,+,it� y ��t{� ».:r i! Sri•.Sat' :�i�+13 Y i{ + ;'� *t ,t.• 'I}`yl�'f i�`�1 (, F + tt.ia`t Y '!1',v,'�'{rj.t. ,fi,i ,t,t*�J ,(,� .} ,. �f �� r`.� J• 2 .� 4 ,df1 .?f.•1 \({ '1�'i,i� E, �l H E t,,`• t # i y! n,r. i { h +. r i t r#1. Y i J.Sr ' +��.. � „»Z i I'� � ..},,;r.; 1 .r,� Y .'kS,+�� 'r,,1 l y ,,1•t t� ,�p !:•,t• t +t t� ? 7 ,ta'-.: k •+5 ,t�� S.�S�i y4�!{�4t. ii;'��' {}��. t.1,+ •1 ( r�'�, ,�fr '! ,v+ 'r / ..L �it.�C�/S. ,t!^ 3S r-t ptk f`tj`�r.1'�`f'> t7 '.fti;, rrk.si � �7�+:7+ as a.�' C r��t�x• `(, j {'..i �11 /'j ,1�' t�'F,+��"J+:' j ,j h�- ,+ I�:l.r vFti i F. (,tte�,�AS}'.+� +,}`, x}il t•(fi(te"S 1�•'�?,ya -:+ .� t �F[t' 1 i1�:4+:{. },�1 � .��,ril'4iXti., f,{i.1,'p.x' g{,r �S.t.,.l`v+e' �`lY�,`'.,,+'�t.'Y,r ti„ ♦,�At,Yr�{•�I '�.J'y�Ml`t,{ t`�°,r Y t�i,,^\ifc4'�..�.L6 r.(xi�i(: t�+',g-�':,�lt'C!yrlZ ,i i.r1.-t�•T.tlt ;;�' :j'i1 ��. t -�}S!`y�2Z'.�t1+.;, `1 ,T �.tYfpp [�,.y,Sra i•ti,iS_, .r+.i'� �.,:/t l �.�� .w :1>:t_.�i 1i,i,'t,i'M.r.�1.4 _ 1.i`�.�1?..:Y.. �=r�ri�.h.._L1�++1','., •hY',:"fYAf�hT'1Tt � �61t.Sh {-"x f• ; �:�,..�„a:.,;,......�..r� - - - - dim ti Cit. 1246 CItI;lMIffM OCAFEM=r t70ZE SECTIODI 65590 --3-- Ch. 1-,,6 year prior to the filing of un application to conve►t or demolish ilw .. ..a+ _ -.t •. ndattcl b} t1 state.Other provisions require the Department of p g pp Fina-heqJa review statutes disclaiming these costs and provide. in unit and if the eviction was for the purpose of avoiding the =r r k requirements of thin subdivision. If u substantial number of persons certain ca for making claims to the State Board of Control for l reinibursemen , or futriiltes of low or moderate income tivcn• evicted from a single This bill �t...•'.'t r e that no u residential development within one Sear prior to the filing of utt .,, „ p ppropriation is made by this act the evictions iction5 shalt -�r-••�. �. application to convert or demolish thin structure, :� ,- � >; - ,-•;� far the purpose of ma reimbursement pursuant to the Pp „ t.- nn �� be presumed to have been for the purpose of Avoiding the ,..r. . . , " ,..�„ �., cons etutionul inundate or Sect 1 or...r34,but would recognize --- •.- " :.3; -_ requirements of this subdivision and the applicant for the conversion that local agcncies and school disc may Pursue their other R' �-~� available rciredie% to seek reimbur=e_ these costs. or demolition shall bear the burden of proving that the evictions .Rat �'s*r -� t-tS This bill would prot ide that natwithstan e+ cNon?231.5 of tt'ere not for the purpose of avoiding the requirements of this the Revenue and Taxation Code,this act does not con repeater. subditi:ieti. as required by that section;therefore,the provisions of the u_pvould The requirements of this subdivision for replucem-nit dwellitir �%- *'N : rcmaitt in effect utttcss and until they:tee amended or repealecT'b3• units shall not apply to the folloning types of rantersion v demclition unless the local government detertttines that a later enacted' uct. replacement of all or any portion of the converted or deuw�ivt!!wd f The people of the Slate of"ifornir do enact as follatu r dwelling units is feasible.in which event replacement dw,`1:tip;units :� ..�. shall be required: SECTiO\ 1. Section W90of the Government Code is amended i 1l The conversion or demolition of a residential stt.icttire which contains less than three dwelling units, or, in .Iie event that .t .,..•„� �, �,..- 6354t3. (a) In addition to the requirements of Article 14.6 proposed conversion or dentulition invah(•, more than one - (commencing with Section 63M),the provisions and reeluit:me:nts residential S1TUCturC, the conversion or d:•tteotitiatt of lfl uc fewer -• a- ' � d�ctlling units. of .his section shall apply within the coastal zon_ as defined and {mil The conversion or detnolitintt of a residential structure for delineated hi Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000j of the Public Rcsources Code. Each respective Iocal government *all purposes of a nonresidential use• ,%%hwh is either"coastal dependent," eotuply %x ith [hc requirements of this section in GAt portion of its as defined in Section 30101 of tho Public Resources Cade,or"coastal related:'as defined in Section 30101.3 of the Public Resources Code. „� - . ...•:� jurisdiction which is IccatcYi within the coastal :.one. .�. demolitioni however, the coastal-dependent or cmutal•reluted use shall be {bti `i he cony e�►on or nF existing residentia,dwelling r , •� - .' r consistent with the pcp\;sions a,the land use plan portion of th.. locat units oc:•urie d by persons and£arr►dies o. tow or moderz<tt, income, is defined in Section N%3 of the Health and Safetx Code,shall not Sovcrnrnent'y Ioce?4 coastal lzrogrtm which has been ct�rttli•_cl as , provided lit Section 30512 of the: Public Resnincrs Code. Examples -•-���' •�••-• - '_ be e:uthoriz_d unless {:rorri:ion has been mad. £err the replacement t of coastol•time:ndent or comt.-i- l 4!V-11 eises include. but are ltot of those dwelling units with wets for persons and families of.ow or litniN isitor-svr, :ecrciul or recreational facilities, d t v moderate income. Replaccrnent dwelling units shall be located within the same city or county as the dwelling units proposed to be COW! ' * .l� , ur Wonting or harbar facilities. converted or demolished.The replacement dwelling units %haU be r�ictt or detnalitian of a residential structure located `,.: f� - - • located on the site of the converted or demolished structure or the Jurisdiction of a local government which has within the elsewhere within the coastal zone if feasible,or, area encompassing the, coastal zone, and three miles inland if location or, site. � g X„ s or elsewhere within the coastal zone is not feasible. they shall be therefrom,less than SU:•cress in aggregate, of turd which is vacant, ,y„ , e ttel owned and available for residentiul use. ltw-aed within three chiles of .._� coastal zone. Vie replacement p� y dwelling units shall be provided and available for l sse t4-ithin threes {.tl The conversion or demolition of a residential structure locators `✓�` f �` }ears£rout the dote upon which work commenced on the conversion v:•ithin the jurisdiction of a local government which has established .�Z7 or dcmolitica of the residential dwelling unit. In the event that AM a procedure under which an applicant for conversion or demolition existing rr,;det:tiitl titvrliing unit is occupied by more than gone will pity an in-lieu fee into a programs,the various provisions ol'which, P p- y x 3 person or family. the provisions of this subdivuioit shall apply if at in aggregitte. will result in the replacement of the number of me.µ r, .. •. which would othernise have been required by this � µ , least one such person or family, excluding any dop Z„ e c3e . thereof, dwelling units is of lair or moderate income. subdivision. U otherwise required by this subdivision, the .-� ... For purposes replacement units shall, it be locutad Mthin the coastal zone if T• iitg snit shot! e p if location within the z,=stal zone is not feasible,shall be deemed occupied b a R } ,c � feasible.or, p' > person _r famii •of.ne+•o- ink.rate income located within three tr.tlrs of the coastal z:,ne, itttd tii; short be if the•person or remit} was evicted£rem(trot d1`ellinst unit within one Ch. 1246 --4— —5— Ch. 1246 provided and available for use within three years from the date upon (gl As used in this section; which work commenced on the conversion or demolition.' section- (I,, "Conversirii means a change of u residential dwelling, The requirements of this'*subdivision' for replacement dtseHing includingt a moailchome as defined in Section 180M of the Health units shall not apply to the demolitions of any residential structure and etv a or,a-mo i e some, ot�in a mo i e ome sr- s which has been declared to be a public nuisance under the provtciorss c e n in ec on y 3 of t e. e t an 5alety. L e or 'a of Division 13 'commencing tivith Section 170W)'of the health and residential ate as a in In Warn a ! of S s )1 at � j Safety- Code, or any local ordinance enacted pursuant to those '$MtiOn 50319 OF else_Ilea t "alld 5fei�.tZQ&,-to u condominium,,- provisions, cooperative,or similar form orownennip;or a change of a residential For purposes of this subdivision, no building, which conforms to dwelling, jp;` iaQ a "mobilehe[rio: or�a in tiilehafii 'tot in n,,,. t the standards which were applicable at the time the building was mgbilehame•za;k,ar u tesidental hgt,�l to a nonresidential use. constructed and which does not constitute a substandard building;as (2) "Demolition".:Weans the demolition of u residential dtvellini;, provided in Section 17920.3 of the Health and Safety Code,shall be Including a tnohilehcinu�rs`deiined'in'Seetion 181M of the He:11' deemed to be a public nuisance solely because the building does not an n3' I eh, Code,-,or,is•mo i e omoz lot.,in a mo i e ome ark; conform to one or more of the current provisions of the Uniform a sae n tiont -o t a t an i building Code as adopted within the jurisdiction for new residential ote,_asdefined;in era ra {i -.of subdivision b .:of construction. son o : e, e t .an a etX 11 ofle,.w (c:. as not n (c) The conversion or demolition of any residential structure for declared to, u pu ic-nunsunce,un er vssnori"19-(cotnmenciiig r purposes of a nonresidential use which is not"coastal dependent",as with Section'.17000) of the H611h''t nd'Safety Code-or any local defined in Section 30101 of the Public Resources Code,shall not be ordinance enacted pursuan06,those provisions: " i = authorized unless the local government has first determined that a (3) "Feasible' :neuns_capalle-,of being accomplished in a residential use is no longer feasible in that location. If a local successful manner within:a*reasonable period of time, taking into government makes this determination end authorizes the account economic,cnvironmentul,social,and,technicai factors. conversion or demob ion of the residential structure,it shall require (ti) With reipeettothiii64uirernentsorsectioniGmund M84. replacement of any dwelling units occupied by persons and families compliance with the requirements of this section is not intended and of low or moderate income pursuant to the applicable provisions of shall not be construed as;any of the following-- subdivision (b). (1) A statutory_ interpretation or ,determination of the local (d) New housing developments constructed within the coastal government actions-whieh`rmav be necessary to`comply with the. zone shall, where feasible, provide housing units for persons and requirements.of.those section;;'except that compliance with this (, families of low nr moderate income,as defined in Section SOM of the section shall be'deemed to i6sfy'the requirements of paragraph(2)` Health Rnd Safety Code, Where it is not feasible to provide these of subdivision (c) of Section 65683 for that portion of a 10 t housin,; units In u proposed new housing development,the local government's Jurisdiction's which is located within !he•coastal zot.J government shall require the developer to provide such housing,if (2) A.limitation'on a program;components-ivhich`rnay be feasible to do so,at another location within the same city or county. included in a housing-'element,!or a'requ€.-6m'euf'thaCa' housing either within the coastal zone or within three miles thereof.In order element be amended in"order to inco;poratc withiis it`Any specific i to assist in providing new housing units,each local government shall provision of this section'or related polkles:Any revision of u housing offer density bonuses or other incentives,including;but not limited,- element pursuant to Secdori amskall;`however,take into account to.modification of zoning and subdivision requirements,accelerated; any low-or moderate-income'housing whicli�has beet' provided or, processing of required applications, and the waiver of appropriate required pursuant ta.this'sectiiinJ :` fees. (3) Except as otherwise specifically�regailed by this section, a (e) Any determination of the"feasibility"of an action required to requirement that a local government adopt individual ordinances or be taken by this section shall be reviewable pursuant to the programs sn ordec�to'iiiiplemeist thi-' quirenients`,of this section.`,' provisions of Section 109�i.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.,, (I) 'No provision of.this sce66fi"shu11 be cofiAiiied ru increasing or ' (f) The housing provisions of any local coastal progrsrnm grepared decreasing the authority�af`e local govern>zaent io enact ordiriuisces and certified pursuant to Division 20 (commencing with Section or to take any other action"to ensure the coiitinucd isffordab3lity of` i 30tx1t1) of the Public Resources Code prior to January 1,ISM shall be housing. . deemed to satisfy all of the requirements of this section.Any change (I)_Local governments may impose_tees upon persons subject to or alteration in those housing provisions'inade on or after Jaftu#y 1, the provisions of this section to offset administrative hosts incurred : 1982,shall be subject to all of the requirements of this sectiiiri: in order to comply vrith`fhe requirernenis of this section-t j • � . . •'lam(. - i''.w�w.isa+�n- ri.rr:ig _w.Ny,iy. K.+ru_.y �,J,.t�c ,. .tt Ch. 1246 — — Ch. 1246 (k) This section establishes minimum requirements for housing p tha ro►Isions of thf5 act shall�rernui7 in effect Within the coastal zone for persons and families of few or moderate;. unless anti until they are amen or income.It is not intended and shall not be construed as a limitation", i or constraint on the authority arability of u local govern'ment,as ma} j other►vise be provided .by lave, to require or .provide low or moderate-income. housing zonr"within •the coastal' wrhich is in ddition to the requirements of this section.•' SEC.L Section 30414 of the Public Resources Code is amended to rend: i 3 !4. {al The State Air Resources Board and air pollution J cant l dIstrtets established pursuant to state law and consistent%Wth 1 i negate cots of federal law are the principal,public agencies I respons: le for the establishment of ambient air quality and emission standards nd air pollution control programs.The provision,of thin:; divisicn do of authorize the coriimission or any local gave-i itnent tot- ' establish an mbient ale quality ataitdard.or emission standard,air;-. pollution conikol.program or,facility,or to:nodify�any emblent'air ; quality standar emission standard,or air•pollutioq control pragr`aiii''. or facility which been established by the state boaid or by an air II pollution control trict: { (bl Any provisio of any certified local coastal program which { establishes or mods s any ambient air quality,,standard, any i emission standard,wily r pollution control program or facility shall` be inoperative. a (cl The State Air Reso es Board and any air.pollution control dirt:ict may recommend►va in which actions of the commission.or � v ti any local government complement or assist in the J' implementation of established quality programs. 4 SEC. 3• Anew time-share F oject estate or.use,as defined in Section 11003.5 of the Business an rofessions Code shall be dre*ned to comply with subdivision (c) of tion fiM of;the Government r. Code if it provides for replacement ail'residential dwelling iihits occupied as a primary residence by ns and-fairilles of 6 or i moderate income as. defined in'Sectio SM.of,the Health and Safety Code with an equivalent number o residential dwelling units; For persons and families of low or•mode a Income prior'to'"any ' demolition ar con. -sion.of the existing 'res► endid use., This provision shall remain•in effect until J uary 1;'7Q85. ' SEC. .4. Notwithstanding`:Sectiori'S,'of Ar cle 'XIII B of the ' California Constitution and Section'2231'or 2234 o t6 Revenue and' ' i } Taxation Code,no appropriation is made by thL ac for the ptzrpcse r of making reimbursement pursuant to these, bons"Jt is recognized, however, thara local agency or schoo distiict•-may '. ; pursue any remedies to obtain reimbursement availabl to it under 1 ; Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 2201) o.Part'4 o ivis{oii! of that code. ( SEC. 5. Notwithstanding Section,2231.5 of-,the Reven�a and Taxation Code,this act does not contain-a repealer,as mjui d by H.B. Planning Commission Novenmber 2, 1982 Pagc; 6 , 1 - NOESs None ABSENT: stone ABSTAIN: None , DISCUSSION ITEMS: INTERIM AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICY FOR THE COASTAL ZONE T '"Mello Bill" .became.,law*on January .1; =-1982 and requires cities with coastlines,-.io,estiblish ;implementation_ police's .relative to,.af.- fordable hou`sing"* " the Coastaii zone. The Housing.Comriittee estab- 1ii'hed by the -city,-,Council, 1 presented ;a%policy 'addressing R such `'con�- t cernis: as restrictions,on�demolitions ,and conversionsf replacement requirements';; in'chusionary;"xequiie .' "' ' ,speculation " ntro�.;:. an,d so' transfer:�of._credits ` ' Alpresenteu was>a draft';rei�o].uu`ion`-to"b presented to;the,City-Council for adoption.-;-Sore;;discu�sa.on took place` regazding:-the.`buildings:-in the downtown :;area;, as .far';as:some of:::those buildings.being: ccndemnec . Art-Folger stated ;that ;the City di`d. pass an ordinance .to;bring ;those-building-up, to6earth ' . stan- dsrds', ;however;,, they would not be .condemned as long aa.,they,.meC the building .standgrds at the'-time they-wars built; Chairman'Paone' sug- gested that a ,change be,made:on',Page 3;,;the ;first:paragraph-,'under "Policy, for Affordable'111ousing •in Construction of New Residential.. Uni.t1 in the Coastal zone". Staff was directed to reword the sentence to state that ,the _de' veloper has the- choice-to- locate the affordable units 'on the site or elsewher:s within the City. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD.ANO."SECOND •BY WINCHELL STAFF WAS.�DIRECTED..-TO TRANSMIT THE INTERIM AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICY TO CITY .000NdIL. STATING THAT THE PF.ANNING COMMISsroWsUPPORTS THE DRAFT FT'SOLUTION WITH CHANGES AS STATED ABOVE, BY -THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINi None CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS OF OCTOBER 25 AN VEMBEF. 1 1982 Secretary Palin reviewed t e. ac n 'taken at the City Council meetings of October 25 -and• November 982. He informed the Cortmi s's'ion that the code amendsrent.on ga a and carports (CA 82-8) was referred back to the.,Planning issio . A request for a variance on a small lot, which was. de by the BZ and. the Commission was also. denied by: .the=City. Co il. The precise plan of street alignment which was approved.b a Commission for Cypress Street was also approved by the .Cou On the zone changes proposed for seven mobile home parks, the - incil approved all of those to be changed to tiH (Mobile Home) D. rict. fir . w'.•1 •-�•iy.Iw"...i. �.'.ISiIwR 'ieM'F''Y .3Y 4' 'r"^y,�M"'.� n RESOLUTI011 NO. A'-'RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING AN INTERIM AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICY FOR THE COASTAL ZONE WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code see- Lion 65590 (SB 626, Mello) coastal cities are required withi:1 the coastal .zone boundary, to prohibit the demolition or cen- version of residential s :for nonresidential purposes', to requ.tre repiaeement�o: affordable housing that is demolished or converted and to require affordable housing units in new develapme,nts; and It- is the city'$, goal to attain decent housing with a satisfying, .living environment for households -of all socio- economic, racial and ethnic.*groups in'HuntinRton'`Beach, . . .,r NOW,•-THEREFORE, .BE IT RESOLVED :that t•he affordable housing policy, aet out in 'Exhibit A;• attached 'hereto and -by this ref-- }. erence made a part hereof, shall apply to the city's coastal zone 'and shall serve as an interim implementation of Senate , Hil1: 626. (Mello) until such time as a long-term implementation ,,. • ,. program is adopted. .PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the r day o , 1982. . - f •f Mayor ..ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: � City Clerk City Attorney ,;/ahb ,0 11/23/82 -.F.irt":[ ;;•:7 .+;+.wa+++.r.w+..r.ivt:ts•:Y.:i.i.:ti�.:..✓-.•r�.•...-•�• .... _ w-....�..._-,�_�.--� .. ... ........w..�..+.r-.+....—•.....»u•++..w.�.wc.r.c�rr.i.+.....•+ '_'f, HOUSING C014MITTEE MEETING SUMMARY Meeting Data: July 2, 1982 Members Present: Ruth Baily, Dick Harlow, Tom Livengood, Don MacAllister, Grace Winchell Staff Present: Florence Webb, Mike Multari, Carol Ingr Jeanine Frank This was the first meeting -of the Housing Committea. Discccsion c:entezed on_the.. Committee?s goals and direction. , Committee members agreed with staffs recommendation that they focus on developing ,(11 interim provisions to..:implement .S:B, 626 ',(Mello) - in the Coastal. Zone_ (2) long term programs 'to implement the Mello .Bill in the Coastal Zone ai:d. (3) a comprehensive rtirategy to.'increase the stock of affordable housing City-wide. : The Committee suggested that once implementing procedures..for the Mello Bill -,are 1n place, . the City should consider deleting,,all housing nolipies from the Coastal Element. A suggestion was also y made that the City consider establishing its own housing authority. Several Committee.members felt it was,•important ihat *the City not yet in-c61:ved .in building� affordable 'housing but .rather. assist private .enterprise in providing- such units.. . It was.;'noted that' the City ini.ght- need to rethink -its requirements regarding..allow- . able.. densities,, unit 'size and covered parking requirements_-in order to encourage the provision of:affordable housing. Dick , . Harlow cautioned that density bonuses alone did 'not necessarily enable -,a developer: to build affordable units since .the amount of required open space and parking area increased with the addition of the "bonus units. " several Committee members stressed that the City's ,ovarall 41 housing strategy should address relocation of low and ioderate income residents displaced by the conversion of affordable units as well.. as, the conf»inued 'affordability of any new low and moderate income units. Other Committee members disagreed with the relocation aspect noting that the City's. primary intent should be to increase the stock of affordable units regardless of who the individual tenants are, at any point in time. During. the .se'cond hair of the meeting, the Committee_ discussed the specific provisions of the. Mello Bill and reviewed staff's draft interim .ordinance for implementation of that bill. The Committee recommended that the interim provisions be adopted as City Council policy (i.e. by resolution) rather than as an ordinance. The Committee decided to spend their next meeting discussing and finalizing the interim provisions. A meeting date was set for Friday, July 30 at 12 noon. t Cl:bas HOUSING COMMITTEE MEETING SUMMARY Meeting Date; Friday, July`301 1982 Members Preveht% Dick Harlow, Tom Livengooa Staff Presert: Florence Webb, Carol, Inge { The meeting was brief wince only two membi- ss were..present. � Several `revi"lions in the interim policy were. suggested and discussed. It was felt that- there changes should be brought back to the committee at another meeting'when more members would be present. r` � r.. . .- +�►r++►'awwn'F.+v.M.iR .r•wrwn .nwrw wt�."..f•.'' `.. ..uLY`.+Y.A•a.++W.tv+-rrv.. ' HOUSING COMIMITTEE MEETING SUWIARY Meeting ate: August 20, 1982 Members Present: Ruth Bailey, Oick Harlow, Tom Livengood, Don MacAllister, Grace Winchell Staff Present: James Palin, Carol Inge, Michael Multari .The, Committee clarified for staff that at least three committee members should be present at any meeting in order to constitute a voting quorum. - The Committee reviewed the changes to the Coastal Zone Affordable ffousirg Policy proposed at. the. previous meeting. 'Committee members concurred with the new definition of affordable units and median Income. Other minor corrections and clarifications were suggested and agreed u;hn. Two provisions of the interim policy were discussed, at length.. The ffrst of these was ,the requirement of continued affordabili.ty' for a period of five years. Don MacAllister could not support.'this pro- vision as worded and was concerned that it would result in too much 'City involvement in a resale control program. Jim Palin, suggested the use of a second ::rust deed 'as. an anti-specula Lion"control that t would iequire� minimal City involvement. After much discussion, the Committee decided that some anti-speculation mechanism should be proposed by the developer and included in the agreement with the City to be effective for a period of five years. The second issue discussed at length was the 20 percent inclusionary requirement for new projects, Don MacAllister and .Dick Harlow opposed anyinelusionary requirement. Grace Winchell, Tom Livengood, and Ruth Bailey supported the 20 percent requirement. Tom Livengood suggested that staff add wording to clarify that replacement and new affordable units need not be built on-site but, rather, any place *.pith,. the City limits. Ruth Bailey asked staff to include additional wording in the pro- posed resolutiou ' to reflect the City's intent in adopting the j affordable housing policy. + i Dick Harlow proposed that developers be allowed to bank and transfer affordable unit credits as soon as the interim affordable housing policy goes into effect. The Committee agreed with this suggestion. 1 Housing Committee August 20, 1982 Page 2 The Committee asked staff to come back at the next meeting with wording for the changes to the interim affordable housing policy discussed at this meeting. The next meeting of the Housing Committee was set for Friday, September 17, 1982 at noon. CI;df r i, paiwa�..... -_-,.•....--.�-�...,,,,,,+.r+an.x•awr.new.....�...r.w.ua,C_::s:x+i7:i.im�:".'.t:h+•r.rrr.�!xra.s��u.......r. �.•swearn ts.n.,w•+++ � •• r • .. • •` ICI `, a • ♦ • • ... HOUSING COMMITTEE MEETING SUMMARY Meeting Date: Friday, September 13, 1982 Members Present: Ruth Bailey, Dick Harlow, Tom Livengood, Pon Mac Allister, Grace Winchell Staff Present: Florence Webb, Carol Ynge, Jeanine Frank After a brief discussion,, the committee unanimously agreed to approve the" interim housing policy for the coastal zone acid have it forwarded to the Planning Commission.:for their review. Don Mac -Allister and 'Dick Harlow asked that any transmittal to the -Planning Commission reflect the fact that they were not in .agreement with the. provision' requiring 20 percent affordable units for new development. The.4,Comnittee discussed possible`programs. for encouraging affordable housing .City-wide:. .:The members agreed.-.that.they needed;more background information` in'order'.1to.' assess the nature'and extent;_.of;,,the problem and'.to -discuss possible solutions.,,. The following type£ of,information were requested: snedian. income,,:median age,,-'family size, land availability, Existing housing .cypea, housing prices, and average salaries r and:.place, of residence of persons who work in Huntington ! , ., Beach. Committee members. expressed the. opinion that allowing "Granny. Flats" in single family neighborhoods would not be i desireable. The Committee agreed' to. let staff schedule the next meeting after the background information ha-: been collected. It was agreed to hold the meeting at 12:30 instead of noon. `= 4. .r. r. , REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL. ACTION ' Date January 27, 1983. Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Cowicil Submitted by: Charles W, Thompson, City Administrator { PtgxrW by: James W. Palin, Director, Development Services � D Subject: INTERIM AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICY FOR THE COASTAL ZONF rlt.n� Imo_ C.• Statement of Issue,Recommendation,Analysis, funding Source,Altemative Actions,AttLi echmfmts: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The attached Interim Affordable. Housing• Policy is intended .to implement Section� 65590 of the California Government Code as, enacted by, Sa, 626, the ."Mello`Bill.". - City'Council 'previously cunsidered,,the -Literim' policy at its December 6,. 1982 'and January., 3,. 1983%meetings z . The' -policy is analyzed in .the attached Requests forLCouncil .Action pre- pared for those two meetings. ' Staff has slightly. reorganized and revised the policy for clarification following comments at the Janus ary .3, 1983 Council meeting. In revising the policy, staff. has 'clearly set: forth the three types of conversions. A one-page out:line, summary of the interim policy is attached a.s, an overview of the provisions. Attached for background iiiformati.on is a- copy of Government Code Section 65590 (The Mello Bill) and summaries from the four Housing Committee meetings at which the interim policy was discussed. RECOWIENDATION s Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 5200 adopting the Interim Affordable Housing Policy for the Coastal Zone. ANALYSIS: Staff would like to highlight three provisions of the .interim policy. First, as discussed previously, the. policy requires, that new projects in-the Coastal Zone provide for. twerty percent affordable' units either onsite or elsewhere within the City. This provision imple- ments a requirement of Government Code Section 65590 that calls for affordable housing in new development but: does not' specify a. percen- tage. The twenty percent figure is taken from policy 15f of .the City's adopted Coastal Land Use Plan. The proposed interim policy implements both the Government node and the City's Coastal Land Use Plan. The second provision is the banking and transfer of excess affordable unit credit. This provision sets up one method of providing afford- able units to satisfy either the replacement and/or the inclusionary requirements on the interim policy. A developer who is building I RCA January 27, 1983 F Page 2 I affordable residential units in excess of any specific requirement for such units anywhere within the City may apply to: have those units credited in his naive. The developer can later use these ciredits_- or sell them to another' developer for use in meeting affordable housing requirements for projects in the Coastal Zone. In order to qualify as credits, the units must meet all the provisions of the interim policy with respect to occupancy or cost and speculation control. The third provision is .that the Me11o' Bill` states that the conversion or.;demulition of a residential structure for. purposes of a nonresi- dential use which is. either "coastal dependent". or "coastal related" will not require replacement dwelling units, unless the local govern ment makes a determination that replacement of all or any portior.' of the converted or demolished dwelling units is feasible. FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable. ' ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: if the City does•:h t adopt inplementation messures3 for Government Cade Section 65590, it will have .to evaluate. all demolition, conver- sions, and new development of residential units in the Coastal Zone on an individual basis for compliance with State law. ATTACHMENTS: 1. ' Resolution for Council'Adoption No. 5200 2. Summary outline •of-'the: Coastal Zone Affordable Housing Policy 3.. Coastal Zone Affordable Housing Policy 4. Government Code Section,65590 , 5. Summaries of the Housing Committee Meetings of July 2, July 20, August 20, and September 13, 1982. JWP:CI:jlm i REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL, ACTION Date oeceMber 20, UZ Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council / Submitted by: P Y Charles W. Thompson, City Administrat r Ftepredby: James U. Palin, Director, Development Services 0 Subject: INTEFIM AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICY roR THE COAST ZONE St rternont of(a", RewmrrAndation,Analysis, Furi-Ring Source,Altemative Actions,Attachments: At its. vecemb4r 6, 1982,meeting the ClIty Council considered the Interim Affordable Housing Policy for the Coastal Zone and contiiiued*:it to_ .the. 4 January 3, 1983 meeting., ,-The policy is analyzed in the attached .Request for City. Council Action that was previously transmitted to the Council for the December 6th meeting. The intent' of the .interim Affordable Housing Policy is '.t'o implement Section 65590 of. the"California Government Code (The hello Bill' ) in `a` manner that is consistent .with .the City's adopted housing polici.e's. The MellotBill requires among other things that new residential developments . in the coastal zone" provide affordable housing, where feasible, but does not specify a na*:centage. The City. has an adopted housing policy in its Coastal Land Use Plan (Policy. 15f) requiring affordable housing in now residential projects in' the coastal zone as follows: Require that 20 percent of all new residential projects .,of 20 or more units be ifford-o-b1e'..6o low and,moderate: income households as' defined by- the City'e,Housing Element. . The, developer. :shall have the option' to provide the affordable units within or- outside the coastal zone. i .New residen:-Aal developments of less than 20 units may pay a "per-unit" fee in .lieu of 20 percent'of the project being affordable co low. and moderate income households; rental units are excluded from the require- -- Monts of this policy; smaller projects of ten or less units will be excluded from the provisions of this policy. s The Interim Affordable Housing Policy sets forth a mechanism for im- . plementing• this City requirement and,- at the same time., satisfies the, requirements of the Mello Bill. RECOMMENDATION: rN. Staff and the Planning Coami.ssion recommend that the City Council adapt Resolution No. 5200. ATTACHMENTS: I, Request for City Council Action for the December 6, 1982 meeting. JWP:CI:dw P19 4121 , 1�;y! REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL A071914 Date NoYemhe,r 22._1982 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administra r (�, Prepared uy: .James W. Palin, Director of Development Serr;ces � Sibloet: INTERIM AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICY FOR THE COASTAL 20.0 i Statement of Issue,Recorwnmdation,Ana!ysis, Funding Source,Altemativa Actions,Attachtnents ek/ t- STATEMENT- OF ISSUE: Senate .Bxl•1 626 (Mello) which became effective on:'January 1, 1982,,`re-: moved.-the Stat'a. Codstal. Commission's authority: over affordable housing. The bill also,'placed specific; requirements' on local governments,regard- ing the :replacement and proyision.of affordable housing in the 'coastal Zone.-.The attached interim affordable 'housing'policy was prepared at .the direction of the .Planning Commission to implement the Mello Bill in the •City's coastal zone. PLWKING COMMISSION ACTION: ,At-its-November 2, .1982. meeting the Planning..commission.approved,.the :in-- terim affordable_.housang..resolution and .policy, and recommended that it be : � (forwarded to the City Council for adoption,.. by the followinq.vote: ON MOTION BY LWENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL: 1 AYES: Higgins, Live.._Jood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES:'- None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: . None RECOMMENDATION: Staff-and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 5 tD ANALYSIS: Senate Bill 626 (the "Mello Bill") 'became law. on January 1., 19P2. This bill, which has been incorporated into Section 65590- `of the California-; Goverrment Code, directs . coastal cities to restrict the demolition of existing residential uses for non-residential, purposes, to .require re- placement of affordable housing, and to include an inclusionary housing requirement, If feasible, on new residential construction in the coastal zone. P10 V11 � 'r r' �T.~1.i�•;'-:r.:,.,yF'.r;-c.��u:x'=.;k.<`.:. .r, .. ..��-... `.{.' .._......-. .•. .. .. -...._._ __.., .. -•---Y-' ,• t �.. ....t,,.�....,,,,..�: . . .. ..`r'-..' .. _ -. . ,.+(.�. -.~'c�'•...t• ...moo T _ Interim Affordable Housing rolicy November 22, 1982 Page. 2 t At .its April 20, 1982 meeting, the Planning Commission'directed staff tt to develop draft i.nr_erim measures implementing the Mello. Bi;l require- ments., for the short-term. while a more comprehensive long term implementation program was being developed. The City Council then appointed a five-member housing committee to assist staff in .the preparation of both the interim measure to implement the Mello Bill . and. longer tettn hour ing programs. The committee members are Ruth •, Bailey (chairman) , Don MacAl.li.ster, Toga Livangood,laraue Winchell, and Dick hirlow. Staff, in conjunct. -.z with the Housing. Committee, prepared the attached interim affardable housing reso1ution:and. policy for the coantal' zone. The Housing Conmi:tes approved the. resolution and policy and recamnended it for Council adoption. . Two committee mcmbe.rs, Don MacAllister. and Dick Harlow, asked to go on record as .being opposed to the provision "` . :_n .the policy that requires new development to provide for a number of Affordable residential units equal to twenty percent of the proposed project. The interim housing policy.-would remain .in" effect-until such time as .a Y' longer=tern or more permanent "ctrategy. for' implem4 iting ;the Melio Bill in ado4ted. Staff, in cdhjunction.'with the Housing -Committee, is look- ing at.such a' long term. strategy in relation to a. City-wide .affordable houiLhg_ . pxogratn and anticipates that permanent implementation of the Mello Bill could be developed within the next six months to one year. The. follcwing is a summary of the :major provisions in the proposed interim policy: Restrictions on"Demolitions -and Conversions ` `The _City can--'approve -the conversion or demolition of a residential use in the coastal zone tc a non-residential use only if it makes a find- ing.'that a resident.:Gl use is.. no' longer feasible on the-site. This finding; is 'not necessar, if the new use Is coastal dependent. This rovieion. also does not a l� to existing buildings that contain less . P PP •1 � 9 9 . than three units in one residential structure or ten ai fewer residen- tial units in more than one structure. 1 - Replacement Requirements � . There is to be one-to-one replacement of low or moderate income housing units:.in the coastal zone that are demolished or converted. This xe- { : quirement does not a,%ply if the new use is coastal dependent or coastal related. 'This reauirement also does not apply to existing buildings that contain less than three units in one residential structure or ten or fewer- units in more than one structure. ? Inclusionary Requirements New projects in the coastal zone are to prcvide for a number of afford- able units equal to twenty percent of the proposed project. The afford- able units can be located onsite or elsewhere within the City. i,��..rw's�+l iR.w w..ww. 4�tr.0.`.ra,sly.<r,r*.�..��•--...._..... ..� .+-r.r.w.. ...::..[rra a.4r'�a.L*.z•_'.....a.+n.►....���. rti... .....w+r.,-a.ww...+r.wwMr� Shc-• . --T � • Interim Affordable Housing Policy November 22, 1982 Page 3 Speculation Control Developers who are providing replacement units and/or affordable units in new developments muEt propose measures to control speculation on these units for a minimum of five years. Transfers of Credits Affordable units that are built within the City that are in excess of any affordable housing requirements can be accumulated ry a developer as credits and used to satisfy affordable housing requirements in the coastal zone. FUNDING SOURCE: Not appticable. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: ,Not adopt an interim policy to implement the Mello Bill. The City would then have to determine how it was going to implement the Aiello Bill at such time as a demolition, conversion, or now housing project was proposed in the City's coastal zone. . ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution for City Council adoption: No. I 2. Exhibit A, Interim Affordable Housing Policy 3. Minutes from Planning Commission meeting on November 2, 1982 I CW'I':JWP:CI :df I I �MT��..Zl...i T..•M,r�......„-..... _ _.. ... ... ..--._.. .....�.-.. ..-_ _ r u... . sr .K al.."5= +.-7.SLry::1b''N/�� •r , 1 luntin ton beck-3- in rtnwnt Staff repoll I r COASTAL COMMISSION'S ACTION ON THE HUNTINGTON BEACH LAND USE PLAN This report Is Intended to brief you on recent developments in the process of obtaining certification of the City's Coastal Land Use Plan. It consists of three sections: 1) Actions taken by the Coastal Commission, 2) Options available, and 3) The effects of new legislation. 1. The City's LF!}d Use-Plan (Coasts. ..lement) was considered by the 'Coastal Commission at a public hearing in San Die ga an September 169 1981. the Commission first denied the plan, then certified It with conditions. If the City were to adapt the conditions approved'by the Commission, the Plan would be certified administratively. If, however, any oubatentive changes are inade to the conditions,.or.if All the conditions are not adopted by the Clty, the Plan will have to be -resubmitted and reconsidered by the Commission at a netj public hearing. On October 22, 14811 at their'meoting'In Los Angeles, the Commission adapted findings to support the previously adopted conditions. The findings clarify .Id.he Intent of the, conditions and can provide a 'basis for developing alternasive language which would meet the concerns of the Commission. It changes are made to the Plan, these will be evaluated by Commission staff on the bmis of the adopted findings. The 'conditions -adopted on„ September 16 can be separated Into three main areas: a) Wetlands.and environmentally sensitive habitats, b) housing, and c) new development. These are din-aussed separately below. An oxcerpt from the Staff Report`containing the text of the conditions and findings adopted by the Commission In attached, and a transcript of the Commission discussion an these Issues is on if you would like more detail. Wetlands and erivironni:ntally sensitive habitats. The Commission designated four wetland.areas and adopted separate land ups designations and develoryment conditions for each area. The four areas are: the MWD property near Bolea Chico and Los Patos; the City 'property at Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard, Beach Boulevard and Newland Street, and Magnolia Street to the Santa Ana River. For each area, the Commission would require that a conservation land use des.gnation'be combined with the present land use category. In ,addition, protective easements are required for the wetland portions of thu . sites. Development could not take place unless a planned unit development was Instituted for the entire area to ensure that wetland areas are not subdivided off from developable land. This would prevent development' on . upland parcels without a plan for preservation or restoration of watland areas. A92bk �� The grove of eucalyptus trees near the MWD property was deemed to be " art environmentally sensitive habitat and language adopted to Insure It Is protected and buffered. In addition, the following conditions were tvquired: 1) The definition of wetlands used In the plan must be the one specified In the Coastal Act. 2) Buffer policies must be made more specific and factors to be considered in designating buffers must be detailed. r 3) Tne plan must state that road construction Is not allowed In wetlands except to serve permitted uses. If.these last throe conditions are edopied, then the plan could be certified without the inclusion of the geographic areas described below. This Is the technique that has bean called ,!'creating a white hale" or a void in the land use map. Commission staff and Chairman Schwartz have assured the City staff that this could be easily accomplished. b) Housing. jhe adopted conditions relating to housing are on Page'40;of the attached excerpts from the Commission's staff report. Because the Mellu Bill (58 626) will become law on January 1, 1982, any housing conditions may be effectively Ignored. While the City will have to. meet the affordable housing standards required In the bill, this, need not be i accomplished through tKa Land Use Plan. A resubmittul, therefore, does not have to address housing. A legal opinion an the Mello Bill has been requested. It should be noted t.".at the condition requiring permanent mobile home zoning on the existing mobile home parks was determined by . the Commission to be a housing-related condition. At the October 22 hearing. considerable discussion took place on this issue. A motion to find that mobile home zoning Is a land use Intensity Issue was defeated. e) New'Deyewjpm 6t. Conditions relating to new development are on Pages 45 to 47 of the staff report. The findings adopted by the Commission to support the access conditions are on Page 2 of the revised findings. The findingA as revised,: and as discussed by the Commission-on'October 22, make it clear that access will only be required to sandy beaches or other public recreational facilities when vacant parcels are developed or If structures are completely removed and rebuilt. The modifications necessary to oring the shnrellne access policies Into conformance with 1 these findings should not have an adverse Impact on the City's plan. 1 Conditions relatingto visitc. servin commercial development and 9 P Intensity wauid require' one-third of the floor area of deiv'&opments In visitor-serving designations to be commercial and, In all but large consolidatinns, would require commercial to occupy all of the ground floor. Devnlopment between Goldenwest and 6th and on the City property would be limited to a floor area ratio of 3; developments In the downtown i core could not exceed a floor ratio of 6. -2- i �',nws....r...—.._.._�....r..- ._ ..__.�...-_....au.a11._... , •.a....- _...... .__..._.._._ ......_...... ,a... ••ate ..,^:.t.�.c•.... .,.i.,-. ...t.a. ....- .......,..W..................�....�...—f......_.._� I 1 A final condition waidd terminate Palm Avemin at the proprosed extension of 38th Street. Staff feels that the above conditions relating to new development would be. acceptable If shoreline access policies and floor area ratios are ro morded. Housing is no longer an Issue. If the wetlands and environmentally sensitive habitats can be recolved satlsfa^torily, certification should be obtainable. Geographic separation of the MWD property and the area from Beach Boulevard to the Santa Ana River will � allow time for further study of their resource values and devolopniont of possible alternatives. If the City can accept the wetland definition, buffer policies, and limitation on roads in wetlands, the final issue to resolve would be the City property on PCH and Beach Boulevard. Stuff to confident that conditions can be worked out to allow restoration of equal wetland area within tha required open space on the. alto at the time development occurs. Adoption of such a condition by ;he City would clear tics way for partial certification (certification of all but the "white hole" area3). 2. Options Availeble Several options are open to the City to proceed with the certification process. These are presented briefly for the Council's consideration and discussion. The first option is to accept the Coastal Commission's conditions, or all of the conditions except those related to specific geographical areas. In this event, the plan could be administratively approved for certification. (There Is some question about how the housing conditions would then be handled; If the Plan 1 want to the Commisnlon after January 1, 1982, it Is possible the housing conditions could be omitted.) The positive fa�tor in this course of action would be avoiding another staff repert and public hearing before the Coastal Commission. The negative aide would be that the CIty could not modify the ; conditions significantly without a formal resubmittel. Thus, unless the Council Is satia'ried with all the details of the renditions, this would not be a viable option. The second option would bp to resubmit the Plan and reword or rework the ; conditions so that they accurately reflect the City's position on the issues while meeting the Commisslun's concerns. This would be done based on the Commission's findings. Specific geographic areas could still be left unchanged, In effect creating "white holes". Again, the housing conditions can possibly be loft out If the Plan is resubmitted after January 1, 1982. This option offers 1 more flexibility than the first, and entails only some additional time for a now hearing. ; A third option would be to do nothing further toward certification at this time. When specific plans for the downtown area are completed and/or when other zoning ordinancri are adopted to Implement the Plan, the entire package could be presented for certification. This strategy, while relieving the City of the necessity for Immediate action, has the disadvantage of reducing the forward t momentum which the LCP has generated, and may be misinterpreted ' 'as vacillailon or lack of commitment to revitalization. -3- �• 3 ..1'/i v .J. 'J.U_. _. 1' .. ..4:r.n.i lllc':'...7.:"!(:.,r..J♦R}i• t � 3. Two pieces of recently enacted legislation will affect coastal planning in thm future. The City Attorney's office Is preparing legal opinions an both of them bills. They will be conveyed to you prior to the study session on November 5. SB 626 (Metla) was mentioned earlier in rotation to housing.. This bill essentially removes housing concerns from the jurisdieation of,the Coastal Commission. While local governments would still have to comply with some affordable housing criteria, It would not be necessary to address housing In a local coastal plan. This law may delete come of the condit;ons the City would have difficulty accepting, and make certification of the Coastal Plan easier to obtain. AS 385 (Hannigan) deals with a number of Items to update tiv I Coastal pet In the wake of termination of the regional commissions. The key provision of this law, as far as the City Is concerned, Is-Its mandate for local jurisdication►s to begin processing coastal permits within 120 days after certification of a local coastal plan-;An additional 90-day extension can be obtained, allowing a total of seven months time to set up a'permitting process. Emergency ordinances can be passed by the City to accomplish this. Even so, It may take considerable staff time to put a permitting process In place within the allowed Interval. If the City decides to proceed with certification, the ramifications of this law need to be assessed, and perhaps a work program developed to set up the temporary permit process. Cuestions that should be addressed Include: How will other work In progress be affected by using tttaff time In this way? What relationship will there be between the temporary periniF process and the specific plans fur the downtown area? Should some permanent zoning ordinances for the coastal zone be completed in time to be used for thie permitting? What will the process be like, who will implement It, and what foes will be charged? Some of these Issues 5 have been examined In a specie! staff report on coastal permitting. The'Ideas In the permitting report may need updating and revision,'because It is already a year old and wam intended to address a permanent rather than a temporary permit process. Thia, concludes a brief overview of recent Commission actions on the City's Land Use Plan and legislation which could affect coastal planning. Staff will be prepared to discuss thesa topics In more detail at the November S study cession. JAf-:dp I r. STAVE OF CALIFOR';IA EDMUND 5 BROWN JR.G00re"p. - —" aeaeaarsa�a•,•+e� au� � - CALIFURNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 631 HOWARD STREET.4th FLOOR SAN FRANCISW.CALIFORNIA 94105 -October 21, 1981 REVISED FINDINGS To: STATE COWIISSIONERS AND INTERESTED PERSONS From: NANCY LUCAST, DISTRICT DIRECTOR Subject: CITY OF Y.UNTINGTON BEACH LAND USE PLAN � I (For Commission consideration at meeting of October 22, 1981 as indicated in the enclosed meeting notice) Staff Note The Commission on September 16, 1981 denied as submitted, and then con- ditionally certified the City of Huntington Beach Land Else Plan. In so .doing; the Commission directed staff to develop revised findings. re- flecting the .Commission's, action. in asst ing for a land use designation for existing mobile home parks and the provision of access to undeveloped . areas of Huntington Harbour. Further discussion with the city on the findings for access in Huntington Harbour have resulted in modified findings to page 53 of the staff report. Commission Vote Prevailing commissioners on the vote to deny as submitted: Flynn, Grossman, McCarthy, McNeil, Parker, Corbett, Ryan, G. W. Shipp, Wornum, Vice-Chairman Nutter. , Prevailing commissioners 'on the vote to conditionally certify: Flynn, Grossman, McCarthy, McNeil, Nutters Parker, Corbett, Ryan, G. W. Shipp, Wornum, Chairman Schwartz. Staff Recommendation Following a public hearing on the findings, staff recommends that the Commission adopt findings supporting the den ia o tie L"an3"U.se Plan, as , submitted. Staff further recommends that the Commission adopt findings supporting the action to conditionall certify, the plan with revisions.- (as detailed' in Section IV of the staff. report) to address .the areas o r'. .._ a€fordable 'hous'ing, wetland protection, energy expansion, Environmentally R. sensitive habitats, intensity -of development, access and visitor-serving uses. w+.+ww•.er.�..—... .. , ...'...-...-.."`�"+�+w.NM.41tMYLa.:tT..i+.......�..w.+_�--... .»... _....-�-ti. ra'.a".:� �•..•.Y..:. ..rr.'l:v:...ws...`Jrcr as Lw.ia.........,.r..n A.+...)4�1a.'`YMV•4M rw.� 1 staff. further recommends that the Commission adopt the follow revisions to the proposed findings on page 53 of the staff report. 1) Paragr„a,ph 2: Ver i'ca1� access,-shall:iris rovided fo'nly"to sandy beach'�'and-:'re'creation # areas gn:••con3unction�w thr development on vacant,-parcels or �re lace- mentjof existing structures. Vertical access shall onl kbe requ red . F n unct on with new evelo ment where it can be accomplished cons stent with the privacy standards establ s ed in revision IV.C.2. 2) Paragra2h-4: Accessl shall bei ro'vV "3 u"nc+ on with new:".aevelo `ment,,on ;ar= vacanto 2arcels.�;'an +s along a aiI.Wsandt,77 Beach`rareas.:J?iAln=sexist n eve�Ia ed resident is wareasl,,.wh citldoenot•.tfrontkaTsan at each area,,vaccesshw genera ,1 .;ion . ei.re u re swhere y trcana a vaccon is a %w it .t e. :- r vac cstan ar siesta s e in rev sion,,IV.:C�: ° ,:.T a:Commission7,. oun :abovexandsin Sect oniKTII:A,. :•::that>-access»to. thei ulkheaduareas o ,-Hunting tonbnar oure4s . enera r nut:;.a ro r late,.' ecaeise.in ,most case�s.41tvcanrot lbe: Providedaconsistent�with = r vac t=standards.k..e;How- everi,,a ere:;ma .i, e..situat ons B'.w ere7access -to an •a on ,'t e bulkhead lswa proRri,ate ' •s,Where'.,,a arcel> s: large enough ,to provide : u lUc access:=•cons stentx,�with r va �i standards in inew eve opmant, access a on •: t e u k ea :ma e:-a ro riate, part cu ar i u IF use areas such< as. f shin iers can,be reached or• rovided pn new de- ve opment -t rough such accesswa saccesswa�. As revised, the Plan woul maximize public access consistent with Sections 30210, 30211 and 30212 of the Coastal Act. sws � I 2 'T I -40- ProDosed Revisions IV.A. Housing The'MP shall be revised to protect existing affordable housing opportunities and provide opportunities in new development consistent with the following policies: 1r in coordination with the Orange County Housing Authority and local housing proponents (builders, lenders,. real estate board members, consumers provide for continued long term affordability for all Iced and moderate income units resuiting from the City's inclusionar-y program or replacement policies. 2. Affordable units required as a result of the City's inclusionazzy program or replacer nt policies shall be-located within or in close proximity to the c mital zone. (i.e. walking distance) . 3, The City shall perrut dominion or stock cooperative conversions only when they could not result in a net loss of affordable hours ng oppor tun:ties. 4. Existing housing opportunites for persons of low and moderate in- come shall be protected and shor.ld be maintained. If exsiting affordable u_-sits are proposed to be demolished or rQssoved for an;: purpose, no den•.olition permit shall be issued unless the applicant has con.nitted to a program of mitigation for the loss of the existing units. The mitigation required shall be of a kind in amount ade- quate to reasonablay assure long tern maintenance within the teas_a:. zone of..,the number of affordable units for which a demolition ae=it is sought. The requirement for mitigation shall apply to all r affordable units in mobile hone arks and structures containing two or more residential units and may utilize such mechanisms as in-lieu fees or bonus densities. 5. The areas that are in an:existina Mobile 'Vome nark use shall be re- desicnated on Figure 10.10 to "Moblie Home/Residential" for continued mobile home use. Allowable intensity of development shall be linited to the existing number. of units. i IC. B. wetlands and Environmentally Sensiti.e Habitsts,_rercv 1. wetlands Deflnition: The LUP shall defire wetlands as: "Lands wit:r_rs the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallca water and include saltwater marshes.fresherater marshes,open or closed-brackish- water marshes, swwps, mudflats and fens." 2. Land Use Designation Modifications: a. Northern Properties of the eolsa Chica: the "Residential" designation shall t,3 deleted. (Plan at p. 119 fig 10.10) The LUP shall Cesignate the area as "Conservation/Low Density. Residential" for use or uses. consistent with the protectie.r.. and main- tenance of the- resource values of the wetlands. Permitted uses shall be those specified in Section 30233(a) (1•8) of the Coastal Act. ' Development shall be subject to the following conditions: ,.�....._...• ... ...«......-.....»....�.w.r.��nC.K 1•aal.Fgw.r•...��.. ..�--.... -.._.._.........w.••.•, 4:,.... • ..+�i.'Trl.s r •..Lr1.1•. .J�:..+.w a.s.a-w...•'»s.a4f.s+.wW•wr.b•rw....-..�.. J r i - -41- 1. As part of any application for development, the City gill will require the submission to topographic, vegetation and soils information identifying the extent of existing vetlands. ' The infor- mation shall be prepared by qualified professionals, and shall be subject to review by the California Department of fish and Game. If t:.is f subsequent mapping indicates sufficient upland area Jlow density residential uses may be conditionally considered as cart of a planned } development for the entire parcel and would be subject to conditio:s 2 and 3 below. 2. Prior to permitting any development or subdivision or this parcel, conservation easements, dedications or.cther similar mechanis-s which allow only the uses of Section 30233 of the Coastal Act to ensure protection of all identified wetlands shall be required over all wetland areas. Specific drainage and erosion control requirements shall be Incorporated into the project design to ensure that wetland areas are not adversely affected. 3. Development shall be required to provide buffers consistent with the standards as modified in Revision ti below. b. City Property at Beach and Pacific Coast Kiclr4ay The "Comm:-is/Support Recreation" designation shall be deleted. The property (excluding the mobile hone nark •bich in AA rnsSca by rP^;rijz^ shall be redesig- nated "Commercial support Recreation!Conservation" for use or uses consistent with the maintenance of the resource values of the wetlands. Development shall be permitted only pursuant to a single planned unit development and subject to the following conditions: Prior to permitting any development of this parcel, the City will require the.submission of topographic, vecera- ticn, and soils information identifying the extent of any existing wetlands. A smalllmtland area has been prelim- inarily mapped by the Department of Fish and Gas:a an this property. V.e in.far;i ation si:all be greaarel by qualified professional, and shall be subject to revie.i by the California DeparL-nent of Fish and Gaza. Conservation � easements, dedications or other similar mechanisms shall be,required over all wetland areas as a condition of de- velopment, to assure pennanent protection. Public vehic- ular traffic shall be prohibited in wetland areas governed j. by the Owmervati' n easement. Specific d.ainage and erosion control requirewnts,shall be itrorporated into. the project design to ensure that wetland areas are not adversely affected. No fui-tber subdivision of any parcel shall be permitted which would have the effect of dividing off environmentally sensiti,.v habitat from. Other portions of such parcels for utdch urban uses are permitted in the op. ,J J -42- . c. DOT and Portions of Mills property at Beach and ?acific Coast Highwa-y The "Visitor Serving Commercial" designation on these two propertieu-shall be deleted. The areas (excluding existing mobile homes which are addressed by revision N.A.5.) shall be redesignated "Conservation/Viaitor Servin, Cormercial" for use or uses consistent with the maintenance of the resource i values of the wetlands. Permitted uses shall be those of section 30232 of the Coastal Act. As a condition•i1 use, for each separate legal parcel, ' or contiguous series of parcels in a single ownership, development scull be permitted only pursuant to a single planned unit development for the :. entirety of that parcel of ownership and may consider restoration plans which consolidate the upland and wetland protions of this area in order to restore or enhance a wetland area the sane size or larger as the total ntsrsber of acres of wetlands which have been preliminarill deter load to 'F be de,.aded by the Department of Fish and -Jane. only the least envir- onmentally damagin,- feasible alternative for restoration of the wetlands ` . which include the DOT and Mills property Will be permitted. Restoration which requires consolidation of upland parcels in order to be feasible shill be subject to the following conditions; 1. Depart=nt of Fish and Game's Resocnsibilities The Degas n ent of Fish and Game must determine that the wetland is so degraded and its natural processes so substantialiv irr- paired that it is not capable of recovering and maintaining a high level of biological productivity without restoration or enhancement activities. -. The Departrent of Fish and Gz.^e must review and improve a• re,:toraticn and manacement plan which :mist be produced by the attml is nt. 2. &Mlicant's Resxnsibilities a. The applicant must demonstrate that the mai.ritenance and en- hanoa;ent of the wetland's natural values, 'including its bioloc- ' ical productivity and wildlife habitat features, can most feasibly be achieved and maintained in ccnjunction with thr type of develocrcent proposed (i.e., there is na feasible less envi cn- •mentally damaging alternative) . The applicant shall be required to submit a restoration plan and a management plan and any other information necessary to permit adequate review of the project. b, The restoration Flan should generally state when restoration work will can nCe and terminate, ,should include detailed dia- grams drawn to scale showing any alterations to natural Iandforrs, and should include a list of plant species to be used as well as the method of plant: introduction (i.e., seeding, natural succession,. vegetative transplanting, etc.) . t-- The management plan,would constitute an agreernnt,between the applicant and the Department of Fish and Game to r�.:arantee the wetland is restored and maintained to the extent established`um3ez . � stated management: objectives and within a specified time 'frm7 e. I ,9 < -43-• i l The applicant will be required to sabjeat all privately owned wet- land areas to a conservation easement or to dedicate such lands to a public agency or to assure permanent protection of the wetland through other means. Vehicular acxcess shall be prohibited within such conservation easement areas. The applicant will be responsiblefor implementing the habit ' restoration work before or during construction of the permitted development. 3. General Requirements cftn development is allowed in degraded wetland areas in order to accmnpl.ish restoration or enhancement, such develornrnt shall be evaluated based upon the following priorities, for uoesi a. Visitor serving cc mercial recreational facilities and other uses &--signed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recrea- tion. ` ' b. Private residential, general industrial or general L _Mrcial. : All permitted development shall conform to'tha buffer policies as specified in $, and shall therefore be canpatible with the con- tinuance of the habitat area. d. Wetlands' South of the Power Plant: w+ ;t The Land Use designation for "visitor serving Commercial" and "Industrial energy Production" shall be deleted. The area including and south of the power plant to the Santa Ana River �... shall be redesignated "Conservation/Industrial Energy" for use or uses which allow repsona'lle power plant expansion and which protect the resource values of the wetlands. permitted uses within this area shall be those of Seccion 30233(a) (1-3.) of the Act except that in the area southeast of Magnolia, power plant facilit'as as specified in the power plant siting study shalt be prohibited. Development within this designation shall be subjec•. to the following conditions. 1. . Such uses shall be permitted consistent with other provisions o: dana in= `. w t feasible, less environmentally o ere here is no e the LUP my h . g alternative and where maximum feasible mitigation measures have bee- provided to minimize adverse environmental effects, and the functional capacity of the wetland is maintained or enhanced. 2. As a corditior precedent to a:.y energy facility expansion or de ellopmeat into the wetlands . so_tf ref the power pl a:.t sr- north of Magnolia street energy facility expansioa inland. to the 14 d Damp msst be ;undertaken or the: ir:feasibility of doing so deranstrated..he determination of infeasibility will be mode by the Energy Cann?ssicn ,: •t daring•or before the Notice or Intention Proceedings. ..f�_,._...... .. ..�. ...--..wr..w.�ar.w,.rw�...... ._....r+r.r.www...+M1•t.- .....»?.tit ..,J......s.r.I.� w...'+ram.........r.��w.. .r.�..w..,,i.y,.e�.. ... -44- 34. If further expaneion or develoc.ment of power pla.:t facilities a^d neces:arl accessory, facilities on the inland site is infeasible or causes trreater ervirormental damage as detenained' i_n #2 above, then s.ch pave— plat expanrion may he permitted north of Marnols a Street provide" that not less than two and one half acres of wet ands soith of Jla.:.oliL are permanently protected by conservation easement:., oledications c: similar mechanisms for each acre of wetlands filled for aefel3p.; t, a. that a program acceptable to the Dept. of Fish and Dare is im-plenented tc ass.re long term habitat enhaacenent or restoratiDn of these protected we:lands. Vehicalar access shall be prohibited in conservation easement a-ryas. r 3. _Other Environmentally sensitive Habitats— vorthern bluff Frar-erties - Bolsa Chica*wicsa Development within the "Recreation" designation (Plan at Pace 121 a-nd Fig. X.10) in this area shall be subject to the following conditicrs: a. Environmentally sensitive habitat areas adjacent to the Bolsa i Chica shall be protected against: any significant disruption o: habitat values and only uses dependent upon such resources shall be allcwe+d within such areas. b. Pecreaticn uses adjacent to environmentally sensitive }. habitat areas shall be regulated to prevent: inpacts which would � significantly degrade such areas and shall be co-aatible with the continuance of such habitat areas. At a miriirrnt , -- the sian'.6&rds-specified _rt 5 belztr, a:d specific runoff and c_a!rtzge c:r.:=-i sit"all be req.d.reed as a condition of development. t.. °.oad Extensions No fill shall be allowed in any wetland areas for the Furpeses of road con-struction of any kind, except as provided by 5ectLon. 30260 :or coastal �. dependent industrial uses and except as provided by Sections 30262-33264 ' for allowable energy facilities and shall be linfted only to access roads appurtenant to the facility to serve the uses outlir►ed in dectiors j0260-;-:,cn�. i S. Buffers The LUP. Policies 9a, 9b and 9c shall be modified to reflect the following standards for buffers adjacent to wetlands•or other environmentally - sensitive habitat areas: r, Page 144, Policy 9a i I Approve only-that development adjacent to wetlands-and environ- � I mentally sensitive habitat areas that does not adversely inraet- s�ficantly d�rade habitat values and which is cmipatible with the continuance of the habitat. i . a = II I -_t , • -45- I ' Pace 144, Policy 9b Require now development continuous to,wetland or;environmentally sensitive habitat areas to include,buf fers which will calsist•of one-or-morrof-tihe-fR1 ig`a criiiiu m of-one'1htindred foot'setback from'the Jandward edge of'the wetland where Pvssible ,exceet-eleng Pnei€ie•£oea4-fIighi�a�+., If e:tistinq de��elorxnent or site configura- iibeP�r'eclt�des a 100-foot buffer, the buffer shall be established accoRantt to t14 factors listed in policy 9c and shall_ be reviested by the Uepartrwnt of Fish and Gam. in_'case"of substantial development or,significantly increased human impacts, a wider buffer may be rtM!ired in accordanre with an analysis of the factors in policy 9c. Pace 144, Policy 9c ' Develop specifications for buffers creed- cum-gees taking into consideration the followiyY4 factors: Biol ical s'i 'ficance<of F+d'acent TAWs.• The buffer should he mdf iciently wide,to 2rotect the tunctiona I relationship Fetween wetland and a T3acar:t uo d. "iJ j�r :rAcc��E#" � '� _,. . a i' Y, y, • ; .:r . �ensitivi af'S des•»to`Oistcirbahce. . Tfie Eiuff�r should be sufficientlyi wide:to:ensure tthat the neat sensitive s - ies;w111 not ne;distur si ificantly rerniit deve .rnwnt, bases en habitat tregu mm ents of both resident and rdgratoiy snecie_s and the short-and loN-tern idantability or various species to " i uman disturMWEe. �. Susaeptiibili_tof`Parcel =to Erosion.,` lxiffer stiouid'be` 3 sufficiently-,wide.1to tallow for.:'i Rrception'of an additional Riterl Fereded,as.anresu t of. _pied developwnt based on soil and vegetative characteristics, slope and runoff character- is�and ous surf..ce coverage. Use "Or- 'E5tfsti.ligicatural,Features!to* Locate Buffer Zones:-' Where I fe.asible, develoa, nt should be'located,on the side of roads, • dikes, irriaata on canals, flood control channels; etc., away frcm the environmentally sensitive habitat area. IV. C. Shoreline Access s' The LUP Policy6a)shall be modified to assure provision of access in new development to and along the shoreline as follows: �. 1(a)"Reoui.re an offer of dedication or an easement is an new develomx nt to.allow vertical access to the shoreline or to public recreatio_n areas o: to public trails and bikeways, unless: . .Adequate access exists nearby or is proposed in the land use plan within 1000 feet; or, Access at the site would significantly degrade environmentally sensitive habitat areas; or Findings are made, consistent with Section 30212 of the Coastal Act, that access is inconsistent with public safety, nilitary security needs, or that agriculture would be adversly affected. is r, _......�....._ _..,...�.. ._.._._.....�........._..... •r..... -__...... .. .__.. ... ...w.r. _ ..... ...... .'Y... t .i.. . ........�-•..r.rw,, .'.LL.4v.431.'7.ktLi.rKL+•er l.•..r•. . A ' -A6- t For existing developed lots only, where the parcel is too narrow for adequate privacy buffer separating the accessway from the exising !! residence. The following guideline shall be used in dptarminidg adequate privacy buffers: there must be at least 15 feet between the existing residence and the side yard property line. 1(b) Require an offer for dedication of an easement in all new development. to allow lateral access along the shoreline unless: Findings are made consistent with Section 30212 of the Coastal Act that access is inconsistent with public safety, pilitary security needs, or that agriculture would be adversly affected; or,' for. existing developed lots only, and excluding sandy beach areas, the parcel is too narrow for an adequate privacy buffer separating the accessway from the private residence. The following guideline shall be used in determining adequate. privacy buffers for existing residential development: There must be at least 15 feet between an existing residence. patio cover or.p.00l and the shoreline in order to accomodate both an accessway and the privacy buffer. In .no case shall development in any way diminish or interfere with the public's right of access to the sca where acquired through use or legis- lative authorization. 2. At a minimum the City shall accept offers of dedication For access ' which will increase public access, coasistent with the City's ability to assume maintenance and liability.. Such offers of dedication if nut . accepted by the City may be accepted by other public agencies or private -. associations to ensure that such acceusways are opened to the _public. Any association or agency which proposes to accept accesswa_•s oust be able to sssure maintenance and operation of such accessway prior to opening it to the public. r I1I. D. New Develocment/Visitor Serving Facilities_ t • 1 1. The "Visitor Serving Comnernial" designation stall be modified to f. limit office and residential uses. Development within this designation � I shall be subject to the following coWixions: a. office and 'residential. u3es shall be conditional only and shall anl_. be available '-f visitor serving uses are either provided prior to other development or assured as part of the development, and include lower cost visitor and recreational facilities. � b. In all. development the street level and not less than one-third of the total floor area shall be devoted to visitor-serving commercial uses. p c. In the event of a consolidation of.a minimum one block area, con::xt:onal t uses may be located in separate structures or on separate portions of the parcel in the context of a planned development, provided no less than one third of the total floor area permitted is devoted to visitor-serving' uses, and provided that substantial public open space and pedestrian access amenities are provided to maintain a predominantly visitor-serving orientation. d. No ofiice'or residential uses shall be permitted in any visitor-serving designation seaward of Pacific Coast Highway. n "13 t ____.-_,.._.��..-.�..�...-.�... «..�. .........�........�...._.,......,.ten... .. r's_ - .. ...a..'«..+.-.•.+.w..., •r=-r'a w..v+ars...rr+.......•--�'«.. a 't. tR�,RL '";t rr JY 'r�"+ i' t r', aa�t� .'��t + f' ro1"M r l+�);+.} S ,3 t•. �l�f� .,,,i+t? i rl t c/ :�t3 .�►.ti f' ..j .3' 5::>t i�tv. . 5�1r .. '. ,;r't . �i+q,�s.t�• f.; min- F„ } ¢ t t Sl47z, 4,1s { r2,;, 4 • .i Y, .`}, �y" }�r,�` "t �' .�. a- &ri•�'a '$ '�". 'f rt r�; i`l ,1 t�t )J .,�fQ�V y t� 'r'�i ,3�. t.c � J •,•Sn)��t<w( �'i7� vy;�i '�.tl, �Y..i ' Yrsq 4, }{,rrA�l �t ! .A i �'r4.P'3?• 'i S `'� fr t91,6''� t H� t{ � � + •Y' �r 5 7kkly}1•.�•� e � "t" '4-..i w � � �1�� Y'•, � 17r 4 f� r. 'C'+,Y'A.} 1 •� � � .s S rq • rA i`•.0 � ''•i{ ,tit J� =;s �.r� f 3;�' irt?`e,� �(z�t �t , ��r �•tEj�^, ijf��C'.,1+�'�4" �` (f °�`t�f i�si,. J,�" ' �; }�• 3•: r i,.. @� d �" t l t J•�s '� 1t �I.� �4`t''c r Att, it t, ,,l,:i i;f ,) r� ,I,f 1' t t t' iJ 1 r'L• °�j � ,r f4 �!. �r � 'f ` � .�,� n �'k }y�• ,,.�: '��•;..l}�� Y A 3 x f.�}.�;�r', '�ys I' p t � y� ���,r , b 55�, � ��j F 7v, -1t f '� ��LLe # n' 4A � �•;,r a+) +� ,tr } tiS ti ;4..,,.`. �t •�' �t ,� r t'jj tjr�,�;s l'��► stt r `1 i 4I y �' f r i J (' R .J $ti t,�ylr 4,d � 'ti .�rJ Y.. ,�'1V tr t• 5' >. ,,Z.x. � i Vi t, t I',-+ a Jr !' � �t �15.' � t r.�k �5 t 0, t :i Yrr 't tip {s : ��s f+�r�fl.�•.a�*+�'ti E£s,�,�� i�',A t ov ��.,�a tlt�i��*��•,f #+�k.l:i:� t 4rxr�' �t''4ati�k ;4 iy 4t! J� 'Y t4 � � �x !�r s''. r,� lc i.y t tt t' Y ; ,V,V'` t8 +j ".j ,[JVr V:: ,A..,4-�t.`hl �.'1`:C^�i>i?.•ar ir.,r J.,, s! +5�r,. ,.� r t�; .{.� ., { i'.E1•�r S. '��,Gj`�'„'�, i i :rt.� 't�t .�fi ""}� V;��.tYa i,,NtS- ���.�. ,.Nlr i}'��!'�w k r'.'.tf••�,�j�rt�z� �� )i,-S 1 k Jt !"-f�f,� t1C;= ::'ff���iF}ia=.�a Ott.J.Y i��,ti'yt j'�r��''„ I�,lr� �( 'f>Ai,*•''.� 'if';�. s{]',-'`}, ^ . e 'Crityr }„yTr. i t rti:r3 },E jr .�.,.. �•5m } �y{"y 'r'l•�pr��t+ i� Ylf aYt. {''t .� 'j'!, 9.j �+�,l� x•t I�i, 7ii fs'♦ �.i t.'1.�:.�'"J{{�1• 11 ,.a'�0'�.. .1# YIrA�'j' J' !,X_`. f„ ;� �t� f.♦"� r1J,.t fY ..��`�.�; '( t �, lrr yr({ �r','� � �•rx ,�. ,,,>r+ :�,.r; � r. <;51".ig1Jr i � '.h',, as ,.,.l-�,,, ,. fi`#:a .r„ .J}•�; ,,r #r {.. �}J., �", ,�,i .f�j� t• :fit` � t1 (��„r ��r l `�6.1 � ,{`Jl�� C,.+,�( ,•,l~ ,; 1�1„+ay:"i '�.. V S.1, {,Je -1 `?"` ,� f�;�?.;; :��5 • ; ;�.t19 tti 4�..a# "1. t�,t 1. ri 111 f., j . I. f c r,^� e;:. : r `'..,N :�)R, s S•�: , tt, t d 7 tj' ( ".•.: �/( u. t�lS r 3;'t.{;,i',ra it,{V) „2 4' y f•. t t �.. i. 6 1. 4'') r It tl a E ,t i"• ) +' .�eT ,lt"`� ."•�`:Ka S �E'. 'iti•7 .a p+ 7ar'., �. i�,lb`!r`•r r) l 1 k if �, `�5 "''t-( 1 t. q ,4¢ t Via,is N ��t, � t C- l r ;', q r �;i`N�1 r a, � pE' Y1',}• ,,. r h7 y r.r 1,.5 J ro•_. 'a'+ �J";Y/�T�1� ' ,�t•�7 " �j ��. �: i of ,a.'.i5! t,� f }5•. 7' p, eiJ�� J'r:r: !•/1 "jtt k 11.s,^,,irE�ff{� 4 Y,� ! iy, �.-. ,�i,' p k• $rt.i I },� 'Y'�1?Ii?'rr� }•;� j. V { Y1, !'r�t 1','Ji.� r. y ..V.g l r't }. tf,L.i �};p.w4; .�� 1`f�r �'J t► (� •J� �r t` d .' `� xV l i {�i 1} J''xti41". C, t r j 'M '{ 71.Y4 ', •err e { J J r1.,1: i j �.:YVlS. •{ t •l�:.J.*,• tl�rtt i s 1 . ! ri Vl�.r.,t��. ( r.,�.{ ti��`"'ay,f�sa � 1r�s•t��,; r i� r1ts ly �; .tt!` fj � �`�".. rrt t:f,.. S � rl :v-11' A •f .,t5 JSIt � • ('4J� �= } ci)' •t`�l./ >+"• 4 J {t', �#r!.tr4,'d.6yk-. 'Jl ilk- � 'Y,1 �'•FF,,,,rr Ei. �Ws� fry.l�r.1.,�.`.„1 i, r �}��Y= ,k l' "Jy'' t r 1 � -1 F' � ' ♦t y +t R f� 11!) ��}iy f �;, 1C 1f �"' �• ' . t. a <St'`"' '',� 4 � '} tf� ,�. 7} t �t�,l' r-,sY t7 a lb'�j �'��r�6'c.. i�' J4�yl� �jf' .�� !jR 4.� � !."�� 'C. 1.sjy,,,�2sj#.fy'1a1�•t /,rtt�Jr,4 5�f.:�ii, fC.;'�j t�ti't�{(��f,' 9 � ,}j!' ,�r'f I!(`y��� 11l ,j��,J.,{fl,+t� -ta!i' riiy jt"t ��e �.s �;wt �) �!S. Fir :�Udiii....Y3.i„a�..i"LRweGi.�..3YiLL[�.'..�XL':tw,3` '• `'•� "�e.j,'.r,...t:' � ti�. t:;jWGL��i►LI.�.i�.1,t.�:,.,.: t,- + •� r � Y l .;, S' , 2. Tt.e UJP shall incorporate starulards limiting intensity of develepmrit in the i "Vi:sitor Serving Ccrrrnercial-', "GE'.-Waal Camlercial", "Office;Resleinti.al" and ; "Conrercial/support Recreation!" designations which provide that;: • i a. intensity shall be limited in the Harbour, and Goldenwest to 6th t Street area and City property at Beach Blvd. to a maxim n of 3 stories; intensity ! shall be limited it the 6th tc Lake Street area to 6 stories. � t b. In the evsnt of lot consolidation of a minimur, 112 black area, density bonuses allocating daditional intensity to a maximum floor area ratio of 3 in the area from Goldenwest to 6thl and the City Prof=rtY, and a maximm Floor Area Ration of 6 in the Wh:to Lake Street area tray be condition- i ally.allaved subject to the following conditions: ! i (1) Variation in building t•.eights shall be assured to avoid a single cluster I Of tall Wil: inys cu;u to incorporate a "step" approach to site taller avilaings inland `-r. t'-e Imier dries. (2) DeveloEment shall incorporate adequate controls on bulk and siting of ct*l;cturaa dtxi ;1ar.urQ ct1h5ta*ltiR] 0rpn �t1clCP ar?tdur);a Ar<1 r1�-k;.+R to) nt,r tecct the public access and scenic and visual resources. _ 3. . Tie LUP shall be modified to delete the extension of Pain Avenue consistent with the Conditions of A-349-79 (Huntington Beach Co Seaclif= Iv) . E. Findings and Declarations I. Housina The policy provisions of the Coastal Act place extremely high priority on the provision of public access to the coast. The Commission has previously deternimad that meaningful access to the coast requires housing opportunities as well as ether forms of access. section 30213, of the Coastal Act, states in part ". ..housing opportunities for perso:;, of low and moderate incoale shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasiLle, provided." Thus, the Commission in its review of both individual development projects and land use plans, at a tninimwm, is required to preclude or mitigate the elimination of existina affordable housing units as well as develop policies which f r'� promote an increase � in the existina number of lo' and moderate housing units in the coastal od zone. With the suggested policy revisions described in iv A. 1-5 above, the Corm.ission f l finds that the LUP would be in conformity with the requirements of the Coastal � Act, that affordable housing opportunities "shall be protected". As provided in revision 4, demolitions of existing habitable atfordable units would not be I permitted unless a substantial mitigation is provided, which should permit the long term maintenance of the exist.`•ng number of affordable housing opportunities. P bsent such mitigation, development could not be approved consistent with Coastal Act Sectirn 30213. In addition, the revised plan would protect rental housing, a major part of the City's affordable housing stock, throuch the control of condominium/stock cooperative conversions. Such conversions will require mitigation for the displacement of any affordable housing units to ensure { .• that there is no net loss of affordable units, as provided by revision 3. i Also, the city's i.nclusionary policy provides. in Fart, thatneW affordable housing opportunities will ba provided where feasible. This will result in f substantial positive impact within the CiLy, since a large amount of new residential development is expected under the LUP and will substantially increase the affordable housing opportunities. However ` � absent mechanisms such as z M71 FF 4�y }%�'V, I ®R, i SO IflU�AV Vt V 11 1 111'f;1%;J-, �gvi� qvi m�jj%-07. eq, �ill Na ZR,11� V �$i I . , i' !! � � �� r 1 1 ,4y} �, �' 4 1 f�} t7 ttD� .y�+�4,fTtFt ,tc' ;� Stky�`"� ,Yz.a �t�a�j,. t� t r w5 1�}t{t.rf! .1�,'l.i�1 -AB- • resale controls to ensure continued long term affordability, sqch units will be subject to speculation and the Plan will not assure that they will remain affordable past first ownership, thus conflicting with Section 30213 of the Coastal Act which-requires that such opportunities "shall be protected". With revision 1, the Plan will assure continued long term affordability for units resulting from the City's program thus protecting affordable housing opprotunities. while the City's inclusionary policy does assure new affordable housing opportunitie4, revision 2 will ensure that such units are located within or in close proximity to the coastal zone. With the addition of revision 4 the Cominissicn finds that the Plan would be in conformity with the requirements of the Coastal Act that affordable housing "shall be.. .provided where feasible". The Commission finds that (as discussed in the previous findings for denial) the Plan mus: ensure the maintenance of low and moderate cost housing o222r..Inities as presently expressed by the existing,mobile home 'parks in,order to be consistent with Section 30213 'of the Coastal Act. The Revision #5 provides such assurances throuch a land use designation. - Arty amendment to the Land Use Plan which proposes change to such designation -dill therefore be required to prove that low and moderate cost. housing opportunities are being accomplishel in another way._ with Revision 45. the Plan will provide-for a mobile home land use,desiinati6r, for existing mobile hone,parks which-currently provide affordable'housing oEMr tunities and will assure that the existing mobile home use will remain. With the'-addition of Revision 5, the Commission finds that the Piaui would be in can!.-rMit-, with the requirements of Section 30213 of the Act that affordable housing "shall be protected.' With the described revisions, the Cor=ission finds that the plan 1:clizi.%rt ail: protect, encourage, and provide where feasible affcrd3ble housing Opport-anizies consistent with the provisions of Section 30213 of the Coastal Act. 2. Envirorgentally Sensitive Habitats/Znergy As the Commission found in Secticn III A.2 of this report, extensive wetland and environmentall7 sensitive habitat resources exist within the City's coastal zone'. Absent the definition of wetland as provided by Section 30121 of the Coastal Act, full prol_�Jcuion of wetland resources as required by Section 10233, 30230, 3-3231, and 30240 would not be guaranteed since resources will not be protected if tt-nev are not identified. With revision IV*B.l the Plan would assure that the I.�r J111 extant of wetland resources would be identified, and therefore subject to the resource protection policies of the Plan. Revisions M.3.2(i-d)sfill provide for rede6ignation of land uses consistent with the requirements of Section 30233 and the resource policies of the Coastal Act. North Drooerties of the B61sa Chica The Commission found in thu denial of the LUP that the area north of the Bolsa Chica between the Wintertburg Channel and the base of the bluffs is wetland consistent with the Commission's previous action in the "Preliminary Deter- mination" of wetlands in the Balsa Chica. The LUP with Revision delete the low density residential designation which allow:; uses not permitted by Section 30233 of the Act. the revision of the Plan would limit uses, provide an informational requirement which will allow that if future specific mapping indit:ates sufficient upland area, that low density residential may be Considered for non-wetland at-eas as part of a planned developnent and subject to conditions whiclimould ensure vermanent protection of the wetland resources. I VK N I , it{ A�A0 X) Al K•V Pig 0 �v f$ Mi"L 5 NIK MCI -49- With the revision, the Coontission' finds that the Plan would restrict uses within wetland areas to these permitted by Section 30233 and would ensure prvte=ti.:n of the wetland resources, The re;uirer.ents of the revised LUP that a planned development mechanism be utilizeJ only if upland area is identified in -rare detailed mapping, will assure that mitigation is provided for develofrent ezf the area. Use of setbacks and buffers, and drainage controls to direct run=f_-- away frota wetlands and perranent conservation easements are all appropriate mechanisms to meet the requirements of Section 30230, 30231, 30233, and 3024*0 of the Coastal Act, City Property at Beach Blvd./P13H As noted in the findings for denial Section III.A.2. of this report, the Commission found that a portion of the City property is wetland as defined by the Coastal Act and subject to Section 30233 of the Act. Revisicn rI.3.2(*_-) will delete the 'To=ercial./Sapport RecreationdesignatIon --rcr -uses in the wetland areas which are not permitted by Section 30233. The LUP as revised will adapt a planned resource management approach which provides continued mobile home use And cor,=erciii/iuppqrt recreation use only on the developed non-wetland areas Of the site while assuring_ that uses within the wetland area are limited to -hose a allowed by Section 30223 of the Act. The revised plan will assure that adequate mitigation measures including buffers and runoff control measures are provided in conjunction with adjacent development '.a assure protection of the wetlands. Absent this revision, the Plan could not be found consistent wit!I the Coastal Act since the land use designation Cortmericial/Support Recreation would result in a permanent loss Of wetland resource values Area st Beach Blvd./ PCH In Seution ZII.A.2. of the findings fur denial of the Lt;;, the Cor.mIssior faux-~ based on substantial scientific evidence that portions of the property as depicted by the Department of Fish and Game Exhibit is are wetlands as -defined by the Coastal Act and that the Plan which designates the area for "'Visitor' Serving dom.erciall, uses would result in filling of wetlands for uses inconsistent with the Coastal Act. Absent the Revision rV.P.2(c the Fier co,—*Id rat 'L-e fx_nd consistent with Coastal Act policies 30233, 3010, -�Ml and 30240. he Coamcission finds that the designation of the area for Conservation;'Jisit-:r serving, as a resource managerent areas for use or uses consistent with the maintenance of the wetland resource is consistent with Section 30230, 30231, 3 a233, 30240 of the Act. With this revision, the Plan will adopt a planned resources management approach and would allow visitor uses an a porr.lor. of site that has'been identified as being filled upland, ia conjunction with the preservation of the identified wetland areas This would allow visitor serving development on a portion of the site, and would allow consolidation of filied areas consistent with the procedures adopted in the Statewide Interpretive Guidelines to assure the erdiancerr*.ent of the -wetland area. The Commission finds that as revised the Plan would ensure that uses within wetland areas are strictly limited to these of Section 30233 to preserve the habitat value of the wetlands, while allowing development of adjacent urlan2 areas along with adequate mitigation measures to ensure protection of the adlacert wetland areas. Power Plant to Santa Ana River Pevirion 111.9.2(d) ie necessar-, to provide for a reasonable emansioi of the existing 3 Huntington Beach power plant A a manner consistent with the C6astal Act, Section 30250 provides that new industrial development shall be located within. 65 contiguous with, or-in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to � Ef �3 ar*��,�t•�1 �I ��r` tr�t'•��"� .'N.1 t�yt���r, k r��� ��,:�� ji 4�,�!', x ti M ' rt° ¢ r}!4 yrY r� }`;l ''r API t �� ky, �R i e yila ..i?� , k ,�•� r� ��:4.�R•�`! }',s�, �c 3. �.�� .,�yaa ti� � E � }k ,�, �, ; x'� � .� :� �• ,vii'�� ��:�.+ k� 4' �i 4Ls �`� ,�ct� ��. ., ri. j .r �•� �' r . A , »,ti. .' �r.{r - '`; ,}! ,y trkt "t ) tS' Er' � " ' ^t F• .'.{{t x i.y f,y., � ''$l;7. "k } • t . `t,�,� $ ice,4. t;'• � ,�' i i �,•�I C.. ', *,�t-,a �• �'}k�6`yit�''�, f}q• C. ;. �t�; :. i' lfj�t ' : { tix� rep �,,. , x r,.x• + t{:)"i �S { { 4' ra+;l a�.,+ . ttttity'ty�'>,5�� � y , i k.,{;.i. i�l�� 71 V� �'lf' ♦�l �ikilr}Y` ,���v��'1�`�t .� d�.�1 : t � .}'A ! � � � �`��} ry k�](ya * �'i � 1�1�Y1t�. w' .S`: � � P '� ". � �1y �t �. I �•i\ �7 �1���'7,tY+{ �.B.rx 'S E'�i 7: if�x1 y,:r1,�" ct } !4 F N 4?r„ 1 �(�{ { r• �� �.'� 1 �} r•, 1;. # ,t}' ��,`}�'�y. l( t t i 'l. �t S ,�k. s� c•�����{t}L• t' ,�" {9'Fhx.t�F, k:���t#° �§!!;'�� ys k4��1*t�ix,:'{4'dt�'y� r•,i,cdf�����, t�. �k1S{ `•r;`�tr Al:. .�,"•�r,5'ii���4 c�x,,dif��R�t.��:r+�-4it X' �q���"",1 ji[,�x• � � (, � ,`� ( +/' � t � �t Arta �,qy� � �tti � .� � .i q, `�' {�i��;r )' , Sri, t"a'y�`" � ) 'i�f f�,. � {��� �{•p.ics�i n;1 ".ic.�'�(�J ,:��rt t; fi�c '3~� .k n � '� S r { �, f t�;tr-4rfr'�i�' rl!� A r Y, i �ti {,�,(�a. ¢�� '. �fx .� t i ��":�' t• "�K 'Gt�i �'k � '• ,��' )' '� (�'�ta*� °'� �S. r� ( �( fi ,. ., �: �,�Sr,. .t�� rt 'hi� { ;.,ptR�i.�.e? • ;A(•.i; 6>. t f. i �jY �jj�� yi 'y��1 t , (!e rl�i r :i x�kN`7 t r Y,r Iv c ri i t r f � '' r :'f Y i t r r r,•b/ S:!f h�? r t{ !� Y 1 f}t \S',•, ry•. �F ^ :�' i +� Y?' t lr� •A,{�. +7 S�'F C� 'f,"S�(I�t(� .l�^y�1,r r ri'c1 iyr /i��f,��'[ + _5 0— accommodate it. Section 30260 arccurges the location or expansion of coastal- dependent industrial facilities within existing sites and permits reasonable long-term growth, Ys::-:ever, Section 30260 only permits the expansion of coastal dependent industrial facilities into wetlands when the following three reuirerscnts have been satisfied: (1) alternative locations are infeasible or more envirenmentally damaging, (2) to do otherwise would adversely affect public welfare: and (3) adverse environmental effects are mitigated to the maximum. extent feasible. Seeticn 30233 of the Coastal Act prohibits development into wetla:uis if _here exist feasible less environmentally damaging alternativn_s, and further requires that allowable Expansion of energy facilities into wetlands must also meet the required test of Section 30233 that no feasbile less damaging alternative exists aitd that the functional capacit? of the wetland is maintained or enhanced. As found in Eec_ion III.A.I of this report] the C0=i3sio:. lfi:.ds th 4 inland of the existing power plant is a feasible less envi:onmentall-I datiacirs alternative. The COMmi5sion, in its report to the EnergyCc-mission an t;,w Huntington Beach ;Notice of Intentions, found that this inland site gal be j feasible less environ-sentallf damaging aiternar.ife. After extension pa:tic:- Yaticn in - e Notice of Intention(nal) proceeding, the :ina'_ Cecs,�aissicn :r-ef on the NGZ states, "The Coastal Cosrtission believes that :he alternative inland s site, based cn the record in this proceedinc, is 3 feasible less ervfrwn:-erta_r;• damaging aIternati•se site to the applied-for- site at Huntington. Reich." cWe..->rr, the aer;y Cacunission final report on they :•ION aid ret find that -:he inland d':rsr. si,e s+as not a feasible site for construct!or.. - 4s Instead the =ne:sy :,ac::siss:c:: .-ound that the inland site was not a "score feasible, less prvircnnentall•: �ara-'-i:c site." The Enercry Conn- ission has yet to crake a detemination of the =e3sibili_•: of using this inland mud dumb site as an alternative to using the wetland area next to the existing Grower plant site. Therefore, the Coastal Commission must maintain its rositiore that the first priorit_ 'or siting power -fart ?, facilities shall be at the inland site. Absent specific conditions reca:ri::c , alternative inland siting priority at the mud dump site, the LUP as resuL-r..it_e4 could net be found consistent :with �he Coastal Act. Revision -LV.t".2(d% ,r;; pmvide � for such priority siting as conditions to development within the Industrial ! Energy/Conservation designation. t i Revision IV.B.2(d) is also necessary to ensure adequate protection of wetland resources consistent with allowing reasonable power plant expansion by providing specific mitigation measures consistent with the Corm.-issfon's adopted remit to the Energy Car-mission. s i { a "California Coastal Commission Report to the Energy Commission on the Possible Use o: the Huntington Beach and Ormond Beach power Plant Sites for a flew Southern California Edison Co. Cor„bincd-Cycle power Plant No. ?8-NoI-1, October 11, 1978" `t7 2 ! i.�p�� jli •f. �t��� �.,a�r � �i���jf� r c � T.�% '7' �* ;3 t;�,, S�y1' T,��y 'J r ':({� � �41, 1 �7' �t�'� �'h �, 7 +r;�.'•y�, ;1' � .:�� f, �µ '�� �` ��,. .r. �.�, P +� ti� i�. �* � ,J. �' . � *`t?�, � " .' i! � ��tt �1'sl, ty1']? t � t,13`xY � 'ii'" � <''�.) � ,"il +i i"�, �`' F+�,*���r� y •rt �� f;.l ' }�� {�. C, 'E„s,��"��� � r �. ��t t r3' �{t •.," , +�� P,S �,�d � �iy`" :K.{.� tj.,�.�'y t; k�. r.�,. �j t ,,��•��, r � 1. .� t . � d , �.�jf`a�'.k`1; ����•!)E�};r'F a r��.,u'�n'.,.�.�ti�f,��i tr'r.•R1Y.��.i.*li f,kxz{q1� t t�3 •, l' a+.},{',�,a1t,�l�x���j��."{,r/s.+,���Setf?7rYr1",'j r.}�t'So-�zF).1A t.,.,f;j����rr=,'�s`��.,�P'�,'�ai�..att,t,Er's(x"Y,•��'I i�. i+`� '�K1i ��X�' ' r�� .�r'v �, s r.tE�, i;itS�i � ,"qtY t .�� E < t'\ � �'xf'.;("1 ' �? t�•' �' �` �t,� : ,t�;.3(:,�. �� • �'�,; � .t S ��� + `r' sE.khr !j}T• s"(� �1t'_r.. P°�lyr,• Y. r�,�, +'+`�.�' ,r "'f';! �.� � �,�:xF:, 'tt cr�r� :.>+ t�;��a ,t(, ;�; .••,1> +,yj]; p�' ,j�[ �• `R. � L •.�:' t c ft�'*�!, '��1P 4T 5y ac [{r, r� ` ,. 5 � 11 i ;•�.S.t, �,js,� ? � l i 4 2 ' �� �� J� . ' ,, ''�^ �' � �{. q, `�S•+.� _ f .r� � 1�K ���.��t• �` Y •< � '�t�i.r`dl"�,,'rys�7i k. s• �' t` �•r P ����•�, L"tLSt��yl' +' � !`���f �' , ''C �S i" Y{ E�i.+, �.}i \�➢�';�f:• }� , , `wS� f•� d'.,`.;: �t �:F {l• `7. t ;� '1 4..�,r 1. 7t �.r.i, fr' �. a -51- • The Commission finds that, at such time as the first two requirements of Section 30260 as noted above .,-e found to be meet, then, the third zequitzfinent car. he sat- isfied if any development north of Magnolia Street_ is modified u:+on the permanent protection by conservation eacament of similar mec:manism, of not less than 2� acres of wetlands south of Magnolia street. for each acre of energy development ncrth-3f Magnolia. The Co--nission finds that such protection schemem is consistent wish Section 30260 and necessary to mitigate adverse environmental effects to by the ;1=imu.= extent feasible. in this particular situation, if expansion on to the Mud Dump is found infeasible by the Energy Cor'.nission, there would be only one undeveloped area of land upon which energy expansion could possible take place. rurtheramore, such undeveloped wetland area is bisected by Magnolia Street which is a logical boundary to separate developable from undevelopable lands. Streets give clear definition to wetland areas and provide for a partial buffer, although not a legally sufficient buffer (See Section III.A.2 of this report. titled "Buffers") , which can begirt to mitigate damages to the wetlands from energy expansion develocr-ent. This also marks the boundary between areas designated as unsuitable for power plant siting and those area3 not designated in the Power Plan Siting study. Such revisions would also be consistent with the Commission's previous findings and .'re 1101 report to the Energy Commission which :rooted in part: >>The Cor :issien 'further recommends that, if the inland area is feasible and less environmentally damaging, that SCE be authori_ed to submit an AFC only for that inland area, avoiding or minini:irtg use of the degraded wetland area for proposed pot►,er plant facilities. The Commission also recommends that if SCE does fill and place facilities on the degraded >>etland area, reducing; the area available to birds are marine life, that the Energy Commission require appropriate mitiratie: t measures to minimize adverse environmental effects. if degraded-uet lan,41 area is to be filled, the Commission recorm�nds that the Energ. Cor mission require SCE to pay for the,acquisitiun and restoration of the degraded wetland area between Aagnolia and Brockhurst Avenues and between Pacific Coast Hight+ay and the Flood Control Channel and convey that,land to the Department of Fish and Cary or Parks and Recreation for purposes of betland protection and restoration." Therefore, the Commission finds that permanent protection for not less then two _hir4.: of the wetlands areas would mitigate the adverse environmental effects of 3ereloment of coastal dependent industrial facilities in the remainder of this wetland. The City's UJP did not contr in conditions to energy expansion into uetlands t•::ich t rvuld ensure specific mitigation and maintenance of the functional capacity of the t+-etland. 'Therefore absent these revision, the plan could not be found Con- sistent with the Act Secrions 30233 30260 and 30:64. The addition of revision rv=2(d) ifin also delete the Visitor S erzing Con rcial designation.. The plan as revise44 will designate the area from the power plant to the Santa Ann river as "Conservation/ . Industrial energy" for uses consistent with the parorecrion of wetland resouces and Section 30233 of the Acts and allow reasonable erterSy expansion. The Commission finds that, as previously noted in Section IIIA2 of this report. the Visitor Serving designation proposed for this area allows uses inconsistent lath the Coastal Act Section %10253. The Ccmmission find;, therefore, that revisions EVB2(d) ennuree that ti:e area is designated for allovebls••lres c3:.ristmit hzth Sections .30233 and 30607.1, as well as the pater plant siting; sections of the Coastal Act. ............ .. - .�...................�.�..,....i.rs..t.,.,t Hz::r.Y t... ._. »•�.... . ....•-+� �."...I..: _ .. I.. ,,.. . V.C..✓...w�.....-..iw..-..........-.w ♦a.a«7^'4..a.a wua 7 {�� 1 i y�••r y ,�;`A ,`=�l rl � �rSf. .:I ({f{ �! ^f�, l r } t. �+(�iy �,,�{'y��.' �{(}`�( .I`At �y� � 1yi. �11',1.+. Y 1, SE���`�y�q ' 'f i r� �.. �A 41 ri�•.p •Y ��,( �t S✓i •? tttri�yl •�•&1 k t t ��.41 4 1 Y�`j; {,S���� 'K 1� '�"' ��7{� L ;�,r71 ,`.��` �� +��r 7iC � V."i �t� i '�� �''4'h'�..,)�Q� � t �\1 4 ti��1 tti t`.G1At � � �` ' )�cf:.' � �P{.�, t w*��_ � � .i�?,�.�.'�i}�.ly��pi'�i� � fir}•' ,i w� 't:`t}':5��"�¢X ]gyy,•trt�`� �'' r�� .��� �, , k, i � �� �'. '� •;At M C �, �f" y < `�..., �•• %�"' Y r w .4, 'iti�•�" l r�'^ 1(�1.IM 4l�, �. � ,rg�y r r h Sj�t ,�1:t]j � r"4'.{1:�?• a t.+`�i; `��'��> � �,`"s r,,{ ' �r ',�i •�"` � •fit ,x^f •�i.. .}; ,i� ; ., •r.K'� i" � 't):t'�4 .:�y,`�r t� `a :�S t'i ,�'„S'. ,+,�".+-�1 �,3' �ir A'�...1, t4+� � !�' ..� ,p� •�# 'ti'l�y r rl,. .� ,y .tt.#,1.�. � 't 1ij�.t', �� f��k ;w `iyA� \ a`t � .} t�r�' :71r h' .1� i'� �� `.�%�' .:•'�:� 5,.�t 1J �,� f Y !f .. � 1�,.. .�� " ..�� �#r��� 41 �}t•' r .#.l.f �i i Zy�' i W, j}t?i c `{ M • ti.� "C (�t Y . 4 ! s,�r ilre.�l` t:l V 9 t �lP1 }7 1�*�i.j�• ,ij p,:1.;,'�•,i .Tr"7.7 �1r,(, .At '] i1.' 'W f}} ,r i Z t �. '1 `� c(~`{. :h`��. Sr,�'ti�ttx�i• ��f. +TS� .�,•(`t, � �i• ce.r•,�;}xy�d� �, �r �.�t' � r��r �. `fir +f�1� i•,1.+ to t ,7 +4Tt s.' • x; ,i f'f! f ' t,;' } t �fi c �# a '(�' i t r #, :�•s� ' IY}�. 's t. f¢"� tia �;'; r, � i S`•"!/ .y.1'{�{�•�, + a�„r�t'� •� a�.�'�+`��I.FF't Yd�, :`,i,-J'•ft =f,, �..` �'•.l' '�-• �' S•S�tr r .rsF� :4 f f ' r '''e .'t#i{=t i� yj�ll'� '�. t .:+> i ; rt •� /art y ,y:l ,,.c •g., + t�A1'x. 4 c�' i�,5 t'4t-��' ar,wfl�.� t :• ,rri r , , �S' �yAl v,S t s;�`.' ,AS, { !". ,s+, t 1�,�,�1}•,i � �. ,j'•�;,r..i. �1 •t�"�.t, t�l.,� �` '��P. Y t �,f r�:S y t•v4 � 1.y� i i�`• .,�. r,Yi• 1�Y:'s•� ti r � } '} ;��yy,J �tr ,}!'fir A+i• a '7:'S » �' �c + �L� f 1Ati{"�,'! •Jr s' "d�1'+�f+�'t7t !.�4,1, 'e] �,rh .`Y3�"tt �1! ; ; ; +ft`. ',,'•'Y+itAki e� �4*"�+�1� {f{. e A F7 :i�►isLi� � F -52-• Road ECtenFions The Cowission found in the denial of the Plan that the proposed extenion o: Hamilton Ave. would result in filling of wetland area. Since roads are not pem. fitted use under Section 30333 of the Xct, revision rv'_4.L wotad delete the extension of Hamilton Ave as located in Fig. 9.4 and Mould ensure that ro fill for the purposes ofr•Jad construction would be allowed in wetland areas jxcept as required by the energy policies of the Coastal act in the wetland scuth of the M;er plant. The Commission finds that with revision N•B-4 the Man w-ouSd presen•e w'etlanJ resources and would also allow reasonable energy expansion con- sistent with Sections 30235, 30"140, 30360-64 of the Act. Other Environmentally Sensitive Habitat: .'northern Bluff o:ouerties of Bolsa Chica AS the Co, i 'ssion found in its denial of the Plan, the eucalyptus grove on the bluffs adjacent to the Bolsa Chica are envi.rommntallt sensitive habitat area and provide significant upland habitat for the adjacent wetland. Recreation land uses adjacent to the wetlands as proposed in the plan would have resulted in uses which would significantly degrade the upland habitat value of the groves, unless adequate buffers were assured and uses restricted. Revision V-3.3 is necessary to ensure that other eny4ronmental17 ssrs"I".re gcitstr are protected in a manner c`orrsistent with Section 30140 of the Coastal-'act. Section 50240 of the Coastal Act requires that environmentally sensitive habitat area:; be protected against significant disruption of habitat values and deteloprient adjacent to such areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which Could significantly: ,degrade such area's and be compatible with the ccntinuance of such areas, The Car.,- mission finds that given lack of adequate buffer standards in the Lih, that such: areas„are not adequately protected. The standards proposed in revisions,-J.3.-i adjacent development and that limitations on uses, buffers, mitigation measures, and runoff and drainage controls will adequately protect habitat ♦-alues of the environmentally sensitive habitat areas consistent with Section 30240 of the Act. Buffers `i Buffers are required for al: areas adjacent to the envircnr.�entally sensitive habitats, including ,.etlands to serve as essential open space between the develornent and the habitat, in conformanc_ With Section 3Q_.r0 of the �r-t. The i, ortance of the wet nP lands and other em-i;orurentallr sensitive habitat in the Cit�-'s coastal :one j was extensivcl•• detailed in the findings for denial section III. of this report. i The Corr' 55IOn found that the LUP policies requiring buffers did not contain- su,%ficiejrt standards to ensure adequate protection of all environmentally sensitive habitats consistent Frith Section 30 JO, Absent revision IV-8-5 the P'an could ..ct be found consistent with the Coastal Act. Revision N.H.; ;?w1 ass-are that 'a•,,:::ers are required adjacent to all environmentally sensitive habitats, not just wetlands. and that the extent and location of such buffers will he based on standards whichNill maintain the habitat values of the resource consistent with the Colmission adopted guidelines and Section 302.10 0� f the Coastal act. Shoreline Access 'r As noted in the findings for denial- in Section IIIAS of this report, the Cc+unission found that Policy 4a of the Cit, WP access con.nonent uns deficient in that it did not ensure provision of lateral and vertical access in new developmnt as required by Section 30213 *of the Coastal Act, �r9 • ". 3� .r ... ...a..'3:, a.a . .ewlw�-lrl...i.6.n•4:,'.'u a...,rl'-,`+N.wn.ww_r•—..� 1 s '•try — —_ ,�� '�'+^�'c114`nY s 'l�;i�.•t• �,I57.�i)),y�t�(E ri���,�1' � (., . '.�,' ���!.#�} �'�`� : ''� �+�`j'�1,,���'~5 k �^4 F1�j i„`4� ,� �� 't '� Y � � °• P� lr.t tui •d .1 ,f fr r .9 r 1 �s ..'t Y :w.. � ,.t! x .}},�, . t �{ yy �,� i�xY fi �I . t�' vztl �l�t 'S • 1i, �,1•) �y + '��� �r.;!� �i'� •�` ,�iti � ,I l[�,t .� w. .t, .° ' . fY� �Y.r )1y�•},uk�. .� ,•/ ,.i ri R �. f� t , t' r{ "'� ��4� t!" ^ ..T .. � � � q f? ' J'� � "I.�•�� ', �. . ',;tr%� .F�,1, r; '�- .� �i �' �i 1 �•`K 'dry ,�1' t �R +•11 .a�i r4�•� f�{' � �'hiy,!•�yC�( ,�'1t� ��l ..� '�'�.'� t,.. t'c { i tt �r ��..�A �. tA�r ., .u�..!��}tf�1\? ��. 3 �. ��,0.{�'t * ;` :ti{t�:1 RR�` ;�+`✓rR+�/Ts l�,�.'��Yu{�r 4'd 1 �j1 t+y}� •1,, N R. � '°!h,�����''�,''+ ,"� id ! S' A • �ftrf t S {fir#�1}}t, i, �Aj •/ �r.t �� .� f` � !' � 57•'�'��' �. .S` +Y �jr `tt i'•� 1�' t � '�:} `t R ,^�/4 d. 4 }��,.7. .'�;l�,f}T4�,{ ��1•'R9��•^7.�Q'��;t .�I�d 7f •!� ��t'�. `�(�', �. r, µ'A : F�' y,..EI.�... ��i:Fr, r��T"�A 1 ?�'1f:wAy} ;'lei S, '� t'�,� � ��i fr�I �'� �'� ;�31� '{y.{{''�'+ Y�t��. `tt!• �. Y ,1, H'fit ti• t�'; N��s, �'�!7 i, tiit;l`^�a�s�l� 1�4�` '' �,�t4; ! }�t 1,}, ���y : :.y! ?' ���� y j 4t;S� ,y�., :. '�i�y.. Y •y+l 1 t,�k f .4 f `A'h; � r „ � K'yy y't'a, k�ly "x y ti{ .,.+a y�$y5 •. `� fp{��'#��,, r. ; t,!#. fx' �. �u3J �R^ i }jiT'+�'.,t�°� � �tr.j�'� Y� !`�"h�• rJa�`�,��f• t�1 �Z�.�� 3� �,�+ 11'•1 *�� ��3'•F;?"` 'j� J'..., }� L.�,"�l'��• �ls��;{fit ,�,�, i4,�{;. . � �t 5� ( � ,.+2 ;+L:� 7{l a:t���cRltf t[•S`,:.'.lf��te��di��}tn�'�5� ��` . RtR.�.i �t `'�� Et 't� •t�,F'l;• r�4\�.?1 i.�•�n�! ,�it'�,f+ �•f 1 t. THe addition of suggested revision Iv.C.1Ca-b3 vould ensure requirements for vertical access :chile clariffinc exceptions and constraints to provision of access consistent slith Section 30212 of the Coastal Act. Vertical access shall be provided to sandy ileac:v areas and in conjunction with development on vacant parcels. Vertical access shall only be required in con"sncticn with new developrent on ex; sting developed lots where it can be acconplisaea consistent with the grivacy standards established in the revision ZJ M�2, Regarding lateral access and policy (.sa), uhile the Conn,ission acknM ledfged the constraints to provision of continuous lateral access along the f•117 nulkneaded Harbour, the "exceptions" as defined b,►' policy Ja would preclude also lateral public access along pocket beaches or along the uraterfront in conjunction with new devel- opment on vacant parcels. The addition of revision IV.C(1) Woad clarify the co:- straints to provision of continuous + la„e.a-, access yet would sns•.:re lateral access along the reruining beach areas and along vacant waterfront areas which provide recreation and access opportunities. As revised, the Plan would maximi'e public . access consistent with Sections 30-710, 30211 and 30212 of the Coastal act, ,vertical access shall be erovided in conjunction with new develo ent on vacant parcels and along all sandy beach areas. in�existing developed residential areas uhich -do not. front a sand beach area, access will 9eneralIX only be required where It can be accomplished consistent with the 17 ivacy standards established in revision W.C.I. The Cocmission found Wlbove and in Section MI:A.5 that access-to the bulkhead areas of Huntinaton 1farbour'is erterali� not a proariate, because in most cases it cannot be provided consistent%with orivacv standards.' . Hcwever, here is one situation there access to and aloe the bulkhead May be appropriate. Where A varcel_is'lara_e enou h to rovide ublic access consistent with privacy standards in,new devela nt. access along the bulkhead may be appropriate, oarticu2arIX , jfy public use areas' such as fishing piers can be reached or provided in new development through such accessways, As revised, the Plan would maximise public access con- sistent with sections 36210, 30211 and 30212 of the Coastal Art. noted in the Section III.C.5 the Commission also found the public access com- ponent inconsistent with the access provision of the Coastal Act on the basis that the Plan failed to ensure that maximum access was provided due to the loci; Of polio enabling the City or other public ag:ncy to accept and open accesswars offered for de,.xcation, The addition of policy revision W.C,2 would ensure that these offers of dedicaticns were available to -Mximice access, As such, the Plan would prevent the less or- an opportunity to m aximi=e access Wi+`hin the Harbour, j and Mould be consistent with Sections 30210, 50211 and 3021Z of the Coastal Act, t Sew Derelo sent^'tisi-tor facilities With revision TV.D.1, the Plan as revised will assure the priority of visitor uses within a development While maintaining some flexibility for mixed use_ tose n•ing support lower cost visitor facilities. As revised, the Plan could also assure tH..�t priority of sites Seaward of Pacific Coast tlighs.•�y would be protected for visitor serving uses by prohibiting office and residential uses. Absent these revisions to strictly limit non-priority uses, the Plan could result in visitor •serving areas being predominantly private residential and could not be found consistent with Section 30222 of the Coastal Act and the public access Policies Coastal Act. As revised, the Commission finds that the Plan provides visitorousesecon- sistent' with the priorities of the Coastal :act and is consistent with Section 30222 and the access Policies of the Act. %y.-.+..-.-....-,_._ �. ._.._.�...,....__,.- .. .. ,-,..-_. ...-...,_,.,........_.._..-�._�..._..._._..._.. ._ .. ,....•h.. A.t.. .. ._. ......-..r..,a.,•n>s:...-.,..•.aa:c.rtt1: s..a.4tArt.+c.s>++. wmo ll q , I tit, wit I 4N M N i •rl�, �1 ti , 4WO f 4' NO M A:- found in Section ITI.A.6 of the findings for denial, the Commissicn found that the lack of specific standards of intensity of developmene in-several desinations of the plan failed to ensure that new development siould occur consistent with the protection of public access, and, absent such standards, could not be found consistent with the requirements of Section 30108.5 cr 30250, 30252 of the Coastal . 4.'Lt. With the addition of revision IV.D.2 the Plan ticuld ensure that M. xinmzn. de- velopment standards are provided which ensure the ruintenance of access and mitigation for.potential iripact6 s from density bonuses including conditions to development re- quiring standards on siting, design, provision of open space, and setbacks, and parking. And, as revised, the Commission find!; the Plan* consistent with Sections 30108.5, 30250, 30252 and 30251 of the Con-stal Act. Ac noted in Section III.A.6 the Commission found that the Plan as r)ror)osed located the extension of Palm Avenue beyond the bluff setback and buffer area required by the Co=.ission in previous permit 3ppro6l for the Iceacliff IV developw-nt on the bluffs above, the Balsa ChjcaLA-349-:'!9).Absent revision or clarificat:ion deleting the extension and locating it consistent with the provisions of A-549--9 the Plan could not be found consistent with Section 30240 ofthe Coastal' Act, With the addition of revision IV.D.3, the Plan will assure that Palm Aventie is sited adjacent to the Balsa Chica, in conformance with the previously adopted Corrassion. approval and as revised the Commission finds the Plan consistent with the provisims of Section 50:40 of the Coastal Act. �rq� � ty � q �� �,yFy{� •y ; , , ��'�tQyq,'� y �'f S illy yl �S � �' �y�' ill}`; + � y�, � � �'•i'"li • ;;"'t '•�, ,�'f� <��';s�&}�' •�. lt��"" }, .��`�r.r q'j�ti �����'�: � �.; ��5,�.� t•.,�,tl.�'t`� tyti. ? , }�; . , i� {r� '.(ill w 't` �+`+ ,.,, +1`fit• ;i�T+��4r7, )(( 4t r`�y f5 - . ) .r,j ` .rtrk ) r1 T� . ;.i ., �F ! A 1lff.f3» �r1r jtdts �,C .p'4 "kaj,yay ,M`q ? � tS ' kit`! ; s�,?�r31 ►" I a, ' r�yy �, �.`��i d,' 1� :u >� 'y �" } 4 x )+ +`1 ; S moo. 1r�. d+0 ) c F. ��. q� ,rii �} i�Y;�r� �i >¢�.�f'.'�' y).�,� � �1`d. ., ��� S i t.,.��.� ,l ( �.�t,1"t7 �• t� r 5 v � t � �. j,�l till r .� �G'_^ 6 .P `t�j. }.f1•y�yq'{ .r; y ^ aF,, t ,A1.r � 1 1'• " - S A`ii "� .!. l .'i ` .�.,t � '1'C :t (. Y !!} yi� r T•{• �. �,;�, w i)• i-.� �{ !..� 't`( ,• t+', t�^f"4 ! 'r�'` '.k '��' �;. 1 i� e� iZ';+jy t�,,;�."� c� r�+�,.,��',�;��,�1•� � ala•�i'Vsga�J;t1�.-�t•,.+fit S.i a�••� 5.."'y � ir� � _Y) `i � �"� t,' 1 �}j.IkYN"t.�'1� 's f.'X',it;��,��•} ) t ,��'�„ (�. ��� �t�'1:i t�; •y y �*Y�rj �'���,,?�, �� i'r 4^x ti�{ti � +l A. S.y %i� / r� y� {'v�' � �� f�. �3 +f�A,�t1 `�.ry{t. y,��Ti(� ` '��^� fQ''"t ;� s�f�'+�!���'. t y�i!''' .S' �r r�, '�'t',+t +t�4-t/: 4 s p�'' ,� c � � i ��;'����•• t"4�i tSy � r' ,1� �i. .S +t° �� tt .��/�;��{ `;"{� �,' ��.�','4 '��"� A,} �f����ut. i ;-{�;'ti i� '��.�5?fi; •'�+�;4 �r�+��' t}� ''�)y g;'• )�q)�`yS�'"il.�$.��F���511`��4'� �4�k,�'i� �Ty�ti1 t�� �Wc��.:�.�.Y �t: , �+. 'i � 1# �S , E .1.,• ,� � � t F J�c�^�3 1 F` t`i��., J �,�ii t .V( K4�r �l.. huntmgton leach planning department i fluff If , COASTAL COMMISSION'S ACTION '7 4 THE 1 HUNt•MTON BEACH LAND USE PLAN ' i This report is Intended to brief you on recent developments in the process of obta;ning j certification of the City's Coastal Lard Use Plan. It consists of three sections: 1) 1 Actions taken by the Coastal Commission, 2) Options available, and 3) 'Yhe effects of new legislation. L The Cityr. Land Use Plan (Coastal Element) was considered by the Coastal Commission at a public hearing In San Diego on September lb, I981. The Commission first denied the plan, then certified it with conditions. if the City were to adopt the conditions approved by ft Commission, the Plan would bpi certified administratively. If, however, any substantive changes are made to the conditions, ar.lf all ttw conditions are not adopted by the City, the Plan will have to be resubmitted and reconsidered by the Commission at n new public I hearing. 1 On October 22, 1981, at their meeting In Los Angeles, the Commission adopted findings to support the previously adopted cond[Vans. The findings c larlfy the ' Intent of the cundltion s and can provide a basis for developing alternative , language whlch would meet the concerns of the Commhmlon. If changes are made- to the Plan, these will be evaluated by Commission staff on the basis of the adopted findings. 'The conditions adopted can September 16 can boa separated-into three main areas: a) Wetlands and environmentally sensitive habitats, b) housing, and c) new development. These are discussed separately bellow. An excerpt from the Staff Report containing the text of the canditinns and findings adopted by the Commission Is attached, and a transcript of the Commission discussion on these Issues is available if you would like more datail. (a) Wetlands and envlronmentallv sensitive habitats. The Commission designated four wetiand areas and adopted separate land use designations and development conditions for each area. The four areas are: the MINA property near Bolsa Chica and Los Patos; 'he City property at Pacific: Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard, Beach Boulevard and Newland Street, and Magnolia Street to the Santa Ana River. For each area, the Commission would require that a conservation land use designation be combined with the present land use category. In addition, pratective easements are required for the wetland portions of the sites. Development could not take place unless a planned unit development was i Instituted for the entire area to ensure that wetland areas are not . subdivided off from developable land. 'Mis would prevent development on � upland parcels without a plan foe preservation or restoration of wetland areas, -1- { �t , •a ,�y�,;�r+'�` ��/ r ��tY�z,,t�� � �'�ati y ,� w'he" �. `� �� r• � "� � )� �.' �G^ fr ti J{,Iy , y( r.:� y. :�I {�`fi 4- i !h �,J 10 rt � IVT 1 , rnC n4R I I I;L 1UVIFi 7 P J. 1 II ti TN 41A1YNAtg" J4 -�IT , INg ,tN , N i ;f * 1I A . 1�� - 1. I5 0 ,, IN J MY, ROW, S The grova of eucalyptus trees near the MWD property was deemed to be an environmentally sensitive habitat and language adopted to insure it is protected and buffered. In addition, the following conditions wen required: 1) The definition of wetlands used In the plan must be the one specified In the Coastal Act. 2) Buffer policies must be made more specific and factors to be considered In designating buffers must be detailed. 3) The plan must state that road construction is not alloweq in wetlands except to aerva permitted urns. If' these last three conditions are adopted; then the plan could be ceriffied without the Inclusion of the geographic areas described below. This Is the technique that has been called "creating a white hotel'or a void In the land use map. Commission staff and Chairman Schwartz have assured the City staff that this could be easily accomplished. b) H66sIM. The adopted conditions relating to housing are.on Page 40 of the attached excerpts from the Commission's staff report. Bec' euse the Mello Bill (513 626) will become law on January 1, 1982, any housing conditions may be effectively Ignored. While the City will have -to . meet the affordable housing standards required In the bill, this 'need not be accumplished through the Land Use Plam A resubmitts4 therefore, does not have to address housing. A legal opinion an the Mello Bill has been requested. It shauld, be noted, that tie-.3 condition requiring permanent mobile home zoning on the existing mobile home parks was determined by the Cernmission to be a housing-related condition. At the October 22 hearing, conaidarable discussion took place on this Issue. A motion to find that mobile home zoning Is a land use Intensity issue was defeated. C) New Development. 'Cool'Itlom m-lating to new development are on Pages 45 to 47 of the staff report. The findings adopted by the Commission to support the access conditions are an Page 2 of the revised findings. The i1ndINs as revised, and as discussed by the Commission on October 22, make It clear that access will only be required to sandy beaches or other public recreational facilities when vacant parciels are developed or If structures are completely removed and rebuilt. The modifications necessary to bring the shoreline access policies.into conformance with these findings should not have an adverse Impact on the City's plan. Conditions . relating to visitor-serving commercial development: and Intensity would require one-third of the floor area of developments In visitor-sawing designations to be commercial and, In all but large consolidations, would require commercial to occupy all of the ground floor. Development between Goldenwest and 6th and an the City property would be limited to a floor area ratio of 3; developments In the downtown core could not exceed a floor ratio of 6. #j 1 {{��•,,� j,X'. ..Ill,y y ci4 r• Y�r{ps+ �a�ir.� ; .lily I `j� .+r• m ..r;-< . fit' S Y'!i' f+ .:} { d i ,f�iy fiF`�•,1�" � 't' F t t'" �Sr�'t1 �}� {'•3 l '3 � _ r' ��1.� �171Q }f#}' i Y ice' ' \;{ f " j b` tf t t ,r I $ 1 a. i ati, + t r '�} i ct 1ta 15' g,, 7 A �'_� +�a� r�. fit' ����x!+t� � �} '�'i 1 Y q�.'�i .� '1 k.tr •` j ai i f 3.. ( 7 `!�' �`� ` � 1} 4''a J>rrY t� �, ki ; ��tf 1' �yt "_�»'j f Sri !,9 ' 5� .�� }'1 {,��j s .�t ,r }y�,r � St •:./�t�,1�,r '��' (,•� ,{�' � i� i 1 X v:,l y:� t f t y F Ef t yr rj1t } ,. ti �` •. C,} � .0 ��•�. ^� �� ��'/� r y .h'.t� ��;...��1 T,Y 4, r '�� �'Sjl�'��y�.+ ;s t<L �r ��v..L� t`�`��f,, rt,'S��t�'�'rl<1��;t .•� ,{,�t���., ;�x � ��'- ` �' :�: ���t ri. • 1�:� ; t �`1 ilr. � _,"{•� t� � r txt ''y •* ttk;.;2•��. � )� �} `;7�fi S % t 1{ 1 r �r�r " {y[F *rt {j} 'V " (yf ( rr t l .i �;.■ i x • r 1}'"ry r: ,'♦•'. 'tr4".'1. Y + ; f ••�h 7• � [y'�, ^�� % �11 1; i,y. j•k Sis � �,� 5 ��A° � �'} id�", ��rJ-`i(r•S4 Yi�,}% rti �4.r ��i F t��� ( ,.+�., '�,•{�t,•.+ t t.Y ;�af•.'#� '�{�4 i` �f;i����� =':t ''�2�3�,� 4�" 'w,'t'�, rt.t 9�:��� "' . � `t F �''`�s � ! 4 9 'k�� 'x t.,,,�� - .' t, {� ;�t t �, �s .fit 4 ,((_ tr �-� �f�r L {�j Irt t !J '.).k'r i. .t�• t 4` � ��. i'1.4 �`�" .x ••il�ryi�;',i'�1 4,�1 '�.� rtk�}t S'e,����x�r 'Z;� 'N" "``^`°{�•''°- �!a �� �"'''`lt� �'+ ����i '�j� ,, .•aY•���5•�;�W.�'�;.4 `�M, .t.�'f,y 5���.�: 4�p�;t`frti�j.i �`' rt'f� ��,.�. `i:�•�*�c !, e. `tY •�t4q..�;�.. �l����ti�,. F t #:a a �1 �;r���•�r 'r.F� 1� 4�4 �' �.�,� *$�,aA��� '1� r � Y+.J�1 ,-}�}v t GCS t1��F��1�•tii►�i'1YY �•r , tAt a A. � r t '�. I � r . � 4 .��� , � }: 7�.t , �� .� �w Qy A final condition would terminate Palm Avenue at the proprosed extension of 38th Street Staff feels that the above conditions relating to new development would be acceptable if shoreline access policies and floor area ratios are reworded. Housing is no longer an Issue. If the wetlands and environmentally sensitive habitats can be resolved satisfactorily, certification should be obtainable. Geographic separation of the MWD property and the area from 0each Boulevard to the Santa Ana River will allow time for further study of their resource valuea and development of possibly alternatives. If the City can accept the wetland definitioxi, buffer policies, and limitation on roads in wetlands, the final Issue to resolve waald be the City property on PCH and Beach Boulevard., Staff Is confident that conditions can be worked out to allow restoration of equal wetland area within the required open space" on the site at the time development cccurs. Adoption of such a condition by the City would clear the way for partial certification (certification of all but the "white hole" areas). ,9. Options Available Several options are open to the City to proceed wlth'the certificatlon process. These are presented briefly for the Council's consideration and discussion. The first option Is to sc4r!pt the Coastal Commissiot's.conditiuns, or all of the conditions except those`related to specific geographical areas. In this event, the plan could be Administratively approved for-certification. (There Is some question about how`the housing conditiarx' would then be handled; If the Plan went to the Commiaslo.ri after January 1,. 1982, it Is possible "the housing conditions could be omitted.) The positive factor In this course of actlon would be avoiding another staff 'report and public hearing before the Coastal Commission. The negative aide would be that the City could not modify the conditions significantly w'thout a formal resubmittal. Thug, unless the Council Is satisfied with all the details of the conditions, this woulc! not be a viable option. The second cpUan would be to resubmit the Plan and reword or rework the conditions so that they accurate y reflect the City's position on the issues while 119 meeting the Commission's concerns. This would be done based on the Commission's findings. Specific geographic areas could still be left unchanged, In effect creating "white holes". Again, the housing conditions can possibly be left out if the Plan Is resubmitted after January 1, 1982. This option offers more flexibility than the first, and entails only some additional time for a new hearing. A third option would be to do nothing further towaiA certification at this time. When specific plans for the downtown area are completed and/or when other zoning ordinances are adopted to implement the Plan, the entire package could be presented for certification. This strategy, while relieving the City of the necessity for Immediate action, has the disadvantage of reducing the forward momentum which the I LCP has generated, and may be misinterpreted as vacillation or lack of commitment to revitalization. _3_ • 3 Mr; � 'h�j�� x, � ��.1 l'\ lift '' � `� a LI^�'S � �L ]. ,a�J�~�� 4 'T+�;`",t1 �l`i�+•R Y^1 JF � y,I�'��i \ �� �� "1 �+�'\•1• M ���f,.,Ff t� � X�� .:�tt�� .�t , ��� i#`2f'- ' `y�l _ �`j R1?!, Y1 i,+x'R .� '�;'�t[r.' Y� ! j �`!•tc` • ,` i 4� 1 �y � �� �"�Fi`si�:r�ir e ,.(+,i yYy.� � r�a�{�1 •t, , �i t' �3}�'�•{ Y '`"�st rya s ?7� �1 � "�{.• ���'�.,m+���,t �1 �, 1;�.�� �, ��� if q + \ #s i\t.ti\'•1� `t •ttt '+�,. �ti '��', k � �';� y�''��'� �: �1 l�F '1� '� 1. �� � + '��1.'.s'.1+' ' 1�� I�..�!:i�-°��y �j �. ,•k'iy;}� °:?4�ft1 ar i�t�' l F ,s °E; s ;`t . : t'y�t �� �' r d,. 1!/}�,~ . g7ya.'t "'.. r �+ 7r `� �� � •V q '' rl�..�,y� �l �� •�1 F��i 1 4 "'F �. 1 '�; � C t'i "r^ ��ki7A'• �•1 !fa S•/� • q x .1. 4 .� dy .4 /•+�. i /�. Vs, ,4'�J '} + F + 4 `SI , ����! �L{' s:� .S A ''i.{1 {1(` ,: 14}��it ft} '� ::`r;' �'� �t�y� �•{,#�` c�{ �+. i��- 10,',r�k:#�'� � 3���d 'f �ierq�� � ..�,.� f a h'e �� S t;y�; ��: ,{r ,A���2+ :�'`) v.1�'# .\ •, x� ,, �'� � �> •� }•, ��; i�t Y �� +�:,�E� ���+^' i'+ � '}t,�.{{;�'1����R�• ufir+ � ;� :,��y�. ,4 Y� ,i%' / ', `'�5+.}r�i!,�: s�.�€5ts,.P}:� ,?,'�!�%�"��i{4 �' `I3 t.'�•x � \ ; s 3. Two pieces of recently enacted legislation will affect coastal planning in the future. The City Attorney's office Is preparing legal opinions on both of these bills. They will be conveyed to you prior to the study session on November 5. SB 626 (Mello) vans mentioned earlier In relst!an to housing. This bill essentially removes housing concerins frnm the jurisdication of the Coastal Commission. i While local governments would stlll have to comply with some affordable housing criteria, it would not be necessary to address housing In a local coastal plan. This law may delete some of the conditions the City would have difficulty • accepting, and make certification of the Coastal Plan easier to obtain. AB 385 (Hannigan) deals with a number of items to update the Coastal Act in the wake of termination of the regional commissions. The key provision of this law, as far as the City. is concerned, is Its mandate for local jurisdication to r begin processing coastal permits within 120 days after certification of a local coastal plan. An additional 90-day extension can be obtained, allowing a total of. seven months times to set up a permitting process. Emergency ordinances can be passed by the City to accomplish this. Evert so, it may taka considerable stcff time to put a permitting process in place within the allowed Interval. If the City dacldes to proceed with certification, the ramiflcatione of this low need to be assessed, and perhaps a work program developed to set up they ! temporary permit process. I i [questions that should be addressed Include: How will other work In progress be affected..by using staff time In this way?, What relationship .will there be between the temporary permit process and the specific plans for.the downtown i area? - Should some permanent zoning -ordinances for •the . coastal zone he completed In times to be used for this permitting?. What will the process be like, who will Implement It, and what fees will be charged? Some of. theme Issues have been examined In a special staff report on coastal permitting. The Ideas In the permitting report may need updating and revision, because it Is already a year old and was Intended to address a permanent rather than a temporary permit process. This concludes a brief overview of recent Commission actions on the CitY'a Land Use Plan and legislation which could affect coastal planning. Staff will be prepared to discuss these topics In more detail at the November 5 study session. JAF:dp l 4 i� t -_._ _ ..-w.-.ter«..«._.. .. .. ..�..+«..v.. ram.....«r..._. ..-. �..+..«««... .... .. . .. . .... ......_, ......... «..... ......�.... .......'.....rw�w�-... - � .l` y+�"I`i. I i sy. {' ! I ,s+' ��/�.� �)�; ,r�'"'t , •jL yty � y �y�:3 R C a. d' ;t r.?t.(f`i�f*' i 'jt .TC ''� F`ky.•#} 't1+�`'�} -I! 14 y, .� •t (�}jfy "XJy,YF��, �y , t1r w,'y :` }'11 `J1 �fl ,t .��'! iS�.�� i` 1 i "f• �{� ��,t t .��.i, �i �' �� ,V:i!.1+1r�: { �!t 'L�"'` .�+-77►� �11.. G. � � y�Ck\$��7 'A X'i}�e� ''. 1 ,� ��47�, 4 � r �'x 1 S "�� j � Mar d � }'r'�t , `��1+19 • I�t'[ +i 'r? S �`' Y ,'�11� �, � .1��� ,�'�. "\ ���. �, s4 �r �T � Yt�' ♦' j}�5. :I� "It �t h c+ S h' ( 1 .,�. ,♦S'd ��t1;}�i4Y t.��� j r '�. �,�. .rl ;s. �� �s � +•S} t ,.t;�: x :_•�ti! � �. ++,,(rryy 1 i�:1.,� A ``r� �1r i h t.y.t..(q ,��,P}R k�, 'Y,4y��}� '�,.L t�1�� �?, ,^y� ��! �" x �i� �gt � s•d t70 k,• f17S ! "�r;r y(,t• t 1 1S T:tiA '{}ij '� ,.. ( Y M"': /h�•�Ta 1 t d' 1 + ,�y • i 4. .�t.� � ,^' -,N t �Y{{y{{�,. . (y ..+.�,. 4 !. �' .♦,�� .aT�•a J .1,C .�'11 '1f t. 1 1 •�jt �+�.� -,� }µ,[yl,�i/ y/� "!lI,L".� . . ): R ,(4» y,7 1,�. !1 J. f� f / �.{ � }.y�! .(, +f •M t ! �: ' !y j �� .�'� 1 `t sl�1a �' `!i�{' a �y..'Xrt 6„ � :t. 1 tY�. �1 r �r. p .�17��'„�����"`L 1 �.j4a�t+�,1, ���t �Ij C M �j J�1 �, 'T+A o- li�}k.c��• .'�.1 rA :�1 t� +1 ��.. .l"•I '�.4►P f 4 •j37F 7 ,�r�0 •ri .tn ��� ! 'j ��. f� .� r�s.. ��• .t 1 � •!.d r �t�ti-(ylX� '�f '.•�'!?, !y{' i� �'y-���' �.t' �':;.1�` �;i:�! `rt� �'i! +j`��tl.ja�'�L��' � �?' 1 i' ljly"�r�' �,� ,A�i•"{i{p1 t j'�� t+�•.r ��y�i,�F � �1 t t"'.�j�. , � 11'��`� i r 'w5�'�� ��y' " t'� . +�,R ,�k A:;J 7r j{�}f '�.�',. iT., t x=',�•"i v ry }4 »��,'V• •5,�f ;,��s �L t![�,;j: .`�. rl +� {'` F'+' +"}�5.�..�}.Fa� ,`d` ,� .4r,(�}yC YF� t Y 4•'�i T►U ! �" .i L> N ",;4 9 `� qqR� Tt�� . .S,,L fit. _�1 �,"'1 � �r� s'. .1 �4� •�'' ,Yil �l �� 4 i t +� '� ,;T ... a� s� � .�'s ,� � .f ir`•�( es 4��� '��,,: J• }�. is+'�k� ATM "'w'4 .� ��• F t° fi lY tl: x 4 �^i '.tS. a `+� ,tia .r 's {{{ rr;..:t ,1.,,� ��. A;`{ 'we ..('�.• t � ,. ,# BCli1 e STATE OF CALIFORNIA* EDMUND G NROON JR"Gorr—o- CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 931 HOWARO STREET,IA.FL007 -. FAN FRANCs$w.CALIPORNIA 54105 October 21, 1981 REVISED FINDINGS To: STATE COWSISSIONERS AND INTERESTED PERSONS From: NANCY LUCAST, DISTRICT DIRECTOR Subject: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LAND USE PLA14 (For Commission consido�r+ation at meeting of October 22, 1961 as indicated in the enclosed meeting notice) Staff Note �. The. Co=issian on September 16, 1981 denied as submitted, and: then con- 'cditionalLy certified the City of Huntington Beacti' Land Use Plan. In so doing, tne .Commis.sion directed staff to develop revised f+ndings ,re- fleeting the Commission Is action in assuring 'for a land use designation for existing mobile home. parks and the provision of ,acce' sss to undeveloped areas of Huntington Harbour. Further discussion with the city on the finidings ,for access in Huntington Harbour have resulted in modified findings to page 53 of the staff report. .. Commission Vote t. Prevailing commissioners on the vote to deny as submitted: Flynn, Grossman, McCarthy, McNeil, Parker, Corbett, Ryan, G. W. Shipp, Wornum, Vice-Chairman 1 Nutter. r• Prevailing commissioners on L•he vote to conditionally certify: Flynn, Grossman, McCarthy, McNeil, Nutter, Parker, Corbett, Ryan, G. W. Shipp, Wornum, Chairman Schwartz. + Staff Recommendation ` Following a public hearing on the findings, staff recommends that: the Commission adopt findings supporting the denial oa,- t e Lan Us3e Plan as submitted. Staff further recommends that the Commission adopt findings supporting the action to conditionally certify the plan with revisions (as detailed in Section IFS IFST the staff report.) to address the areas of ' affordable housing, wetland protection, energy expansion, environmentally sensitive habitats, intensity of development, access and visitor-serving uses. ., 1 _ • � �� �' � ,��, .a '{ `�,•. " C ,�, �,�`AM,`' � w.� �-� �v�i`� Y'�'1",,,.s'�• 'r. ; !:t�'0, � ,+, �, .. t�` ,C. � j;u J. 5,���y��'{5'�j � F1;7I X. a y .•3t N, Yi •, fAy llii i �y• f ''} . '� ' '� i�� `•; t ° ac �� �•,..1, :�{p1•.4� n t�� �.•Y '� ;��; �j )y/(�•' ft ��5�#�,� �, rS,�+�. ?'�'!. t .�j '. LF;iFF!rh'�J'1'rY :'� .�.v � i Li' ��YtKy �y �, 'rt i �t.� .►'M� t45,;- . , fl} -,r'�r .. . S? .�i r`� � f " ,��.� l��i �t,P ^'ir .1.���1Y'4•i' ;{ • � ( r i.•� ,� A�'J� '�, r 4�', pN�'� a'�f �'�'„ iP, r r. f i;;U;l:ri".tr� .y` $`� 5��� �4j'�' ��r.�' :;-;�`^ ai � � vi�:+•r'tj� rC��; .��`��C• ity3,r` ''i �,rfi�j�� `.t1��� ��{.����,} {�� f��, ,c•y ��`'1 '¢ "� ,� ''.•-..' {�,.� ,. �' tp� ��"C*+ ,5, �3ic +,1it� tr lr!�1;�c�:'��M7+iR Fps '�t t,(,"F,X�Y• h�" �'�r 7fr t�.•�j�,.l ��!'� � , �;{� � r r Staff further recomm-- ds that the Commission adopt the follow revisions to the proposed findings on page 53 of the staff report. 1) Paragraph 2: vertical 'acce5s shall be provided only to sandy beach and recreation areas ' in. conjunction with development on vacant parcels or replace- ment of existin structures. vertical -access shall onlX be re u�red in conjunction wit i new development where it can be accomplished consistent with the privacy standards established in revision IV.C.2. 2) Paragraph A: t; Access shall-.be provided in,conjunction with new development on . vacant arcels and *a?on all 'sandy.beach areas.•-- In,existing. eve oped t " resx eW ial°areas which 'do not front a san beach area, access will ,generally:on fit. be re uire ^,w ere it, can be accomplisFed wltfi the. rivacY {standards established in revision W.C.I. The Commission. oun above and in Section ,111.A.5. that access:. to the bulkhead areas o '^Hunt�ngton,„Har our is genera -not ap ro riate, because in most cases it+scannot be providedtconsistent with privacy standar s.. .,How- ever, -'t ere. mad be situations�:w ere access to anc� along~the�TkheaR is::-.'aEpro riate.i.' Where . aiparcel.,. s are enough to erov de puglic access cons stent with privacy., stars ar s 4n new eve opment, access al^ ong the bulkfiead may he:appropriate,,. ear ticu arly i p�u ��c use areas such as--fishing, iersF�.can be reached or provided in new de'- ve opment through such accessways. As revised, the Plan would' maximize publ accE :s consistent with Sections 30210, 30211 .and -- 30212 of the Coastal Act. sws I f ` I r � 2 -40- ' Pr=-sed Previsions IV.,.. Hous ino . The Li,'P shall be revised to protect existing affordable h.=sing opportunities atyd provide op-t*_rt pities in new development consistent ,rit.h the following policies: 1, In coordination: with the Orrnee County Hox sing Authority ard local txxLsinq proponents (builders, lenders,• real estate board members, consumers provide for continued long term affordability for all Ia., and moderate income ur_:ts resulting fmm the City's incluaionary program or replacemnt policies. 4. Affordable units re?si.re3 as a result of t.'ie City's inclusion--v program or replacemrt policies shall be located within or in close proxi-nitt to the coastal zone. (i.e. wa.lkina distance) . 3. The City shall pezru.t ' w im. or stock cooperative conversi::rw cnly Vhen they mould not result inn a net loss of affordable hoes--:c opportunities. 4. Existing housing opportunites for persons of low and moderate in- come shall he protected and should be maintained. If exsiting affordable .riits are proposed to be demolished or renaved .or any purpose, no demolition Permit shall be issued unless the apolicart has cc=itted to a program o;: :aitication for the loss of the existing ._ units. The mitigation required shall be of a kind in amount ade- quate to reasonabley assure long term within the coastal zone of the number of affordable units for which a denol:tion vet.it is sought. The requirement :or mitigation shall apply to all affordable units in mobile horse narks and str-ictures containing two or more residential units and may utilize such mechanists as in-lieu fees or bonus densities. 5. The areas that are in an existjna Mobile Home park use shall be re- designated on Figure 10.it; "4obixe Hone/.Residential" for cont!.-Led ;vbils .cme use. Allowable intensity of develocner shall be limn-e= to the existing number of units. I IV. P. Wetlands and Favironmentally :ensiti,*e Habits:sisrer-%, 1. Wetlands Deffra iticnt The LISP shall define wetlands as: 'Land: ths- coast-al zone which pray be covered periodically or permanently with small--.,' water and include saltwater marshes,freshhater marshes,open or closed brackish- water marshes, s-war ps, mudflats and fens." 2. Land Use Designation Modifications: a. Northern Properties of the Polsa Chica: The "Residential" designation shall be deleted. (Plan at p. 119 Fi7 10.10) The LUP shall designate the area as "Conservation/Low Density Residential" for use or uses consistent with the protection and mair- tenance of the resource values of the wetlands. Pern-itted uses shall be those specified in Section 30233(a) (1-9) of the Coastal Act. Development Shall be subject to the following conditions: -41- 1- As part of any application for development, the Cit,-, will will require the submission to topographic, vegetation and soils information identifying the extent of existing vetlands. ' The infor- mation shall be prepared by qualified professionals, and shall be sub;ec: to review by the California Department of Fish and Game. If —is subsequent mapping indicates sufficient upland areajlow eensit;• residential uses may be conditionally considered as cart of a '.1anned development for the entire parcel and would be subject to conditions 2 and 3 below. 2• Prior to permitting any development or subdivision or th.s r Parcel, conservation easements, dedications or other sini'_ar mechar..s:-s ?which allow only the uses of Section 30233 of the Coastal Act to ensure protection of all identified wetlands shall be reauired over all wetland areas. Specific drainage and erosion control requirements shall be incorporated into the project design to en4ure that wetland areas are not adversely affected. 3• ±%-velopr.ent shall be required to provide buffers consistent with the standards as :modified in P.evision 5 below. b. City Pr*perty at Beach and Pacific_Coast Pichwa:• The "Comm-i--:a/Support Recreation" designatior shall be deleted. The property (excluding the mobile have aar't IeL�Lf h 1„ arlArnaS�(��v tp,_,,_,a cis„ T�";�) shall be redesig- nated Commercial support Recreation/Conservation" for use or uses consistent with the maintenance of the resource vylues of the wetlands. Development shall be permitted only pursuant to a single planned unit development and subject r to the following conditions: Prior to p=,-mittirng any develccuent of this parcel, the City will require the subnfssion of topographic, vegeta- tion, and soils information identifying the P-Ictent of any existing wetlands. A small Ws--tland area has been preli.-% ` ina'r"y MaPPed by the De Partrmnt of Fish and Garr on tiiis property. The i.^.fo,mation shall be cre-ared by professional, and shall be subject to revietr 4t�litf re,. California DepartMnt of Fish and Gcvw. Conservation easements, dedications or other siml,ar Mechanisms � be required over all wetland areas condition shall as a condit.an of c?e- velcpment, to assure permanent protectica. Public v�hic ular traffic shall be prohibited in wet:.uxi areas govern- by the conservation easement. Specific drainage and erosion control requirement, shall be ifticorp�orated into the project sign to ensure that wetland areas are not adversely n.°fact . t No Further subdivision of any parcel shaad ll b':� remitted which would hav- the effect of dividing off enviro:uMntally �jerIsi.tive habitat fY'OM other portions of such rce? uses are permitted in the LIP. s for which urban . ..qZ- c. Do-. and Portions of Bills Property at Beach and ?acific Coast Hichwa•: The "`lisitor Ferving rotr.•nercial" designation on these two properties shall ' be deleted. The areas (excluding existing mobile homes which are addressed by revision IV.A.5.) shall be redesignated "Cons erva=i.on/Visitor ,ervi^; Conm ercial" for use or uses consistent with the maintenance of the resource values of the wetlands. Permitted uses shall be those of Section 3C213 of the Coastal Act. As a conditional use, for each separate legal parcel, or contiguous series of parcels in a single ownership, development shall be permitted only pursuant to a single planned unit development for the entirety of that parcel of ownership and Aby consider restoration rlars which consolidate the upland and wetland protions of this area in osier to restore at enhance a wetland area the same sire or larger as the total number of acres of wetlands which have been preliminarily de ennine3 to be degraded by the Department of Fish and Sane. Only the least envir- onmentally damnagin; feasible alternative for restoration of the wetlands whi:h include the DO': anti Mills property will be permitted. Hesto_ation which requires consolidation of upland parcels in order to be: feasib:.e shill to subject to the following conditions: 1. renu--ant of Fish and Garz's Resmcm-Abili ties The De_pa.rtment of Fish and Game mx:st determine Lnat the wetland is so degraded and its, natural processes so -abstanntially Lm- raised that it is not capable of reeoverIna and maintaining a high level of biological productivity withcut restoration or enhancarent activities. '. n. ey Depart:rent of Fish and Garr must review and aForove a restoration and management plan which mast be produced tax the applicant. Z. A=licant's Pespor•.sibilities a. The applicant moat demanstnte that the Mi.-itenance and en- hancer�nt of the a--tland's natural values, i-1clulirrg its bioloc- ical productivity and wildlife habitat features, can most feasibly be achiexd and maintained in ccnjuncticn with the tti:- of development proposed (i.e., there is no feasible less envi-mn- merdtally dwraging alternative) . The applicant shall be required to submit a restoration plan and a mmiagernant plan and any other informatican necessary to permit adequate review of the project. b. The restoration plan should generally state when restoration work will com once and terminate, should include detailed dia- grams draun to scale showing any alterations to natural land£cr:ns, and should include a list of plant species to to wed as well as the method of plant introduction (i.e., seeding, natural succession, . vegetative transplanting. etc.) . C.- The managet:ent. plan would constitute an agreement between the applicant and the Department of Fish ind Gams: to guarantee the wetland is restored and maintained to the extent established under stated management objectives and within a specified time frame. --43- The applicant will be required to subject all privately owned wet- land areas to a conservation easement or to dedicate such lands I' to r. public agency or to assure penwrant protection of the smtland through other means. Vehicular access shall be prohibited within such conservation easement areas. The applicant will be resl=siblefor iirplcanenti ng the habit restoration work before or during construction of the permtted develcp,rant. 3. General Reauirenents then develaanent is allmed in degraded wetland areas i r, order to acc:arrplish restoration or enhance rent, such cleveloanent sha l be evaluated bated upon the following priorities- for uses; a. Visitor seming ccrcr.-ercial xeer ational facilities and other uses designed to enhance piblic opportunities for cas.stal recrea- tion. b. Private residential, general industrial or general crxnn rcial, All permitted develognent shall conform to the buffer policies as specified in 5, and shall therefore be camlaatible with the con- tinuance of the habitat area. d. Wetlands South of the ?ower Plant: j The Land Use designation for "'Visitor serving Cz=ercfal" and "Industrial Energy Production" shall be deleted. The area including and south of the power plant to the Santa Ana River shall Eve redesignated "Conservation/Industrial Energy" for use or uses which allow reasonable power plant expansion and which protect the resource values of the wetl33ds. Permitted uses within this area s:iall be those, of Section 30233(a) tl-d) of the Act exce .t that in the area southeast of :Magnolia, rower plant facilities as specified in the power plant siting study shall be prohibited. Oevelorment within this designation nhall be subject to the following conditions. 1. Such uses shall be parmitted,corrsistent with other provisions of the LUP only where there is no feasible, less enviranneotally danars::3 alternative and whera maximum feasible mitigation measures have been bee:: , provided to minimize advarse environmental affects, and the furcticral capacity 'of the wetland is maintained or enhanced. 2. "As a conditior. precedent to a:.y energy facility expansion or development. into the wetlands so F. of the power pl art ar: no&.h of Magnolia street enerCy facility expansion to th-c Mud D.irrp mist be sndertaken or the infeasibility of doing 4o de~ors;rated._re f determination of Infeasibility hill be made by the cherry CcmaesiCn darine or before the :totice of Intention Proceedings, N -44- ,- If further expansion or development of power pla.:t facilities zutd necesrary accessory facilities on the inland site is infeasible or cazses greater ervirazwntai damage as determined' in #2 a:,ove, then sac^ power plant expa-►sion may he perrdtted north of Ha_..olia S treot pr vidpc that not less than two and one half acres of wetlands soith of MaR:.olia are per.-w.ently protected by conuervation easements, medications Cr :iZdlar'mechanisms for each acre of wetlands filled fer deve?op~s.t, j that a program acceptable to the rept. of Fish and Game is implemented a,s:.r long terra habitat enha:tcer„ent or restoration of these protected wetla=;s. C Vehic.:lar access shall be prohibited in conservation eanement areas. 3. Other F.nviromen,tally Sensitive Habitats vorthern blu}f properties - Bolsa Chica"Mesa pevelocxn�:,nt within the "Pacreation" designation (Plan at Face 121 and Fig. 10.10) in this area shall be sibject to t-he following conditicrs: a. Environmentally sensitive habitat area. adjacent to the &olsa Chica shall be protected against any significant disruption o: n. habitat values and'only uses dependent upo such resources shall be allowed within such areas. b. .Fecreaticn uses adjacent tt• enviromentally sensitive hah:tat areas shall be regulated to pre%kamt in=cts which -,nu?d significantly ckrade such areas and sloll. be _=gatible with the cc ntir mrx� of such habitat areas. At a mirirrnxr� . a burf el" cons'_s ten with. the standards•specified Ln 5 belx3, and specific r no'f and d:ai s.r_=_ sh be recri.reed as a -oncLti.on of devej onment. I.. Road Extensions No fill shall be allowed in any wetland areas for the purposes o`_ road con- struction o: any kind, except as provided by section 30260 :or coastal dependent indlistria'_ uses and except as provided by sections 30262-30264 for allowable energy facilities and shall he linited only to access roads appurtenant to the facility to serve the uses outlined in Sections 3024-0-.3-026:.. I • S. Buffers The IM Policies 9a, 9b and 9c shall be modified to reflect the following standards for buffers adjacent to wetlands.or otiber environmentally sensitive habitat areas: Pacie 144, Fbli+cy 9a Approve only that development adjacent to wetlands and.environ vent-all sensitive habitat areas that does not adversely impact- 0 f cantly deg habitat values and ui ich is c=Mtible with the continuance of the habitat. if r.i',ti ,.7..'r. ..:Y..�rw«........r��...y.....�.•.�« •r Imo,.r . r r��.,.._...--.....�. .-�« ...n• .rY.t• ...I .H.1W..lt:l-..r w.:...+�rrr... ..•«�.�ws� rw.tirwvwrw. ' 1 • I • -45- Page 144, Policy 9b Require, new development c:ontinLx-,us to wetland 'or"ernviro re'n'taliy sensitive habitat areas to isiclisde;buffers which will consist of eacic- sr-tmre-sf-t=fd�awim. a minimcm:cif•,one hurA red foot setback from-the lib rrvard edge of tti~ wetland where possible exeepL-eieng Pacst-�iig xf exzs;�� develgmr-n t or site configurz- tiolin' cludes a 10Q=foot buffer, the buffer shall be established according to the factors listed in PoMi 9c and shallbe re%riewe3 by the Deeartnxnt of Fish and Gams. In case of substantial develcnwnt or,significantly increased hL rran impacts, a wider buffer may be recuired in accordance with An anasis of the factors in Policy 9c. r pa=e 144, Policy 9c Develop specifications for buffers areeng-wetaerA-at-eas taking into i pns0eration the follawtrrg factor:: Biolcgiical_-Significance of Adjacent tands. . Tile buffer',should be sufficiently Aide to 2rotect the funetzrmI re atsnnshiA_between rand and adjacent upland. '— Sens 'fty_of. Srecies to' nisturbance.- ,1he,b 6ffer.should.be suf?icientl :wzde`to ensure:that the most sensitive—species ill not be'disturbed significant) v zmgtt deve camnt, based t on habitat a,.-ents of both resident and !n ator_y Wises i and'the short-- arrd Song-terli Mty of %•araous species to j human disturbance. Susce tibilit 'of Parcel- to rrosion. 'The buffer should be , sufficiently :wide to MOU for interception of an�add�i ionat materl.at Proded as a result of rccacsed deve t balie 1 on 1 and so vege is tative characteristics, sly and runoff cliara_G_ter- istics, and rirervious surface caverage. i Use of F•ci st* Cultural Features -to La--ate stiffer' Zc;ies. Wire , feasible,. de ve lop ment should be located en the side of roads, irria rl at�o Cana flood control ch3rune s. etc., ar ray from i to -mrirarxnental ,x sensitive habitat area. i IV. C. Shoreline Access 1• The LUP Policy(4a)shall be modified to assure provision of access in new development to and along the shoreline as followa: 1(a) rzouire an offer of dads cL+tion of an easement in all new development to allow vertical access to the shoreline or to public recreation areas or to public trails and bihaways, unless: . Adequate access exists nearby or is proposed in the land use plan within 1000 feet; or, Access at the site. would significantly degrade environa�antaily'sensitive habitat areas; or . Findings are made, consistent with Section 30212 of the coastal Act, that access is irrconsistrint with public safety, military security needs, or "that } `-,l agriculturs would be adversly affected. .t -46- For existing developed tots only, where the parcel is too narrow for adequate privacy buffer separating the accessway from the exising residence. The following guideline shall be used in deterninidg adequate privacy buffers; there must be at least 15 feet between the existing residence and the side yard property line. i l(b) Reauirs an offer for dedication of an easement in all new development to allow lateral access along the shoreline unless: . Findings are made consistent with Section 30212 of the Coastal Act t.h3t accass is inconsistent with public safety, pilitary security needs, or that agriculture %veld be adversly affected; or, for existing developed lots only, and ex-:luding sandy beach areas, . the parcel is too narrow for an adequate privacy buffer separating the accessway from the private residence. The following guideline shall be used in determining adequate privacy buffers for existing residential development: There must be at least 15 feet between an existing residence, patio cover, Dr.pool and the shoreline in order to accomodate both an accessway and the privacy buffer. In no cane shall development in any way diminish or interfe•2.wi.th the public's right of access to the sea where acquired through use or le - r lative authorization. t 2. At a minimum the City shall accept offers of dedication :or access which will increase public access, consistent with the City's ability to assure maintenance and liability. Such offers of dedication if not accepted by the City may be accepted by other public 4gencies or private associations to ensure that such accessways are opened to the public. Any association or agency which proposes to accept accesswaps :rust be able to assume maintenance and operation of such accessway prior to epe.i::c it to the public. IV. C. New Develaimentfyisitor Serving Facilities i, 1. The "Visitor Serving Commercial" designation shall be mod-'ied to �. limit office and residential uses. Development within this designation shall be subject to the following conditions: a. Office and residential uses shill be conditional only and shall on1 be available: if visitor serving uses are either provided prior to otter development or assured as part of the develo p t and include lowe r cost visitor and recreational facilities. �I b. in all. development the street level and not less than one-third of the - total floor area shall be devoted to visitor-serving commercial uses.. c. In the event of a consolidation of a minimum one block area, conAst:.onal } uses may be located in separate structures or on separate portions of the parcel in tha context of a planned development, provided no less than one third of the. total floor area permitted is devoted to visitor-servins uses, and provided that substantial public open space and pedestrian accesu amenities at* provided to maintain a predominantly visitor-serving orientati,:.n. ' d. No office or residential uses shall be permitted in any visitor-serving designation seaward of Pacific Coast highway. 013 i .t -47- 2. The Lb? shall incorporate standards limiting intensity of development in the. "Visitor Serving Gamn:rcial", "Geniral Camercial", "office/Residential" and "CCm ercial/Support Recreation" &-signaticros which provide that: a. intensity shall be limited in the Harbour, and Goldenwest to 6th street arp;% and City property at Beach 'Blvd. to a maximn of 3 stories; intensity shall be limited in the 6rh to Lake Street area to 6 stories. b. in the event of lot consolidation of a minimum 1/2 block area, . density !,onuses allocating additional intensity to a maximiva floor area ratio of 3 in the area from Goldenwest to 6th, and the City property' and a ma lr= I'loor Area Ration of 6 in the 6th'to Lake Street area tray be rand tion•- ally,allm-ed subject to the follcAng canditions: M' Variation in building heights shall be assu ec, to avoid a single cluster of tail ►,siiuinya culu' to incorporate a "step" app.+:wch tt9 site taller buiL-lings inland `+a`: t''C 3cr a:. ones. (2) Development shall .incorporate adequate controls on buLk and siting of at*uctilre,; 1mi iirnure cuhatanti-il nri-n npace -athnt kc arr, ryl-ki-7 to rm. teCt the public access and scenic and visual resources. 3. Tie LUP shall be modified to delete the extension of Palm Avenue .consistent with the Conditions of A-349-79 (Huntington Beach Co Seacliff IV) . IV. E. :inndirras_and Declarations 1. Housing . The policy provisions of the Coastal Act place extremely high priority on the ! provision of public access to the coast. The Commission has previously dete mired that meaningful access to the .coast requires housing opportunities as well as other forms of access. Section 30213, of the Coastal Act, states in part "...housing opportunities .or persons of low and moderate income shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided." Thus, the Commission in Its review of both individual development projects and land use plans, at a minim-=, is required to. preclude or mitigate the elimination of existing affordable housing units as well as develop policies which promote an Increase r in the existing number of low and moderate housing units in the coastal zone. With the suggested policy revisions described in IV A. 1-5 above, the Commission finds that the LUP would be in conformity with the requirements of the' Coastal Act, that affordable housing opportunities "shall be protected". As provided in revision 4, demolitions of existing habitable affordable units would not be permitted unless a substantial mitigation is pLavided, which should permit the lonr, term maintenance of the existing number of affordable housing opportunities. Absent such mitigation, development *could not be approved consistent with Coastal Act Section 30213. In addition, the revised plan would protect rental housing, a major part of the City's affordable housing stock, throuch the control of condominium/stock cooperative conversions. such conversions will require mitigation for the displacement of any affordable housing units to ensure { that there is no net loss of affordable units, as provided by revision 3. (i Also, the City.'c lnclusionary policy provides, in part, tha!ne� affordable }, housing opportunities will be provided where feasible. This will result" in fi substantial positive impact within the City, since a large amount of new residential development is expected under the LUP and will substantially increase the affordable housing opportunities. 11owever, absent mechanisms such as � 01, . r�rr-.................. .. ........�..�-.-....... .. __._...»......... ...+w .. .....,..... ......... .....a. • ..._..�.....t...w.M.l...4 y.,1f�F...ni.Nrwlnlw..� t !� -4a- . I • resale controls to ensure continued long term affordability, such units will be subject to speculation and the Flan will not assure that they will remain affordable Fast first ownership, thus conflicting with Section 30213 of the Coastal Act which requires that such opportunities "shall be protected". . With revision 1, the Plan will assure continued long term affordability for units resulting from the City's program thus protecting affordable: housing opprotunities. While the City's inclusionary policy do_s assure new aEfordable, housing opportunities, revision 2 will ensure that such units are located within or in close proximity to the coastal zone. With the addition of revision 4 the Commissicn rinds that the Plan would be in conformity with the requirements of the Coastal Act that affordable housing "shall br:...provided where feasible". The�Commissicn finds that (as discussed in the previous findings for denial) the Plan must, ensure. the maintenance of low and moderate cost housing opportunities as presently expressed by the existing mobile-'home parks in arder. to be consistent with Section 10213 of the Coastal Act. The Revision 45 provides !such assurances _hrouc_h a land use designation. Any amendment to the Land Use Plan which proposes chastge to such designation will therefore be required to prove that low and moderate cost housi:ig opportunities are being accomplished in another wave With RevisionrlS; tne• Plan will "provide for a nubile-home land' use designation for existing mobile Nome parks-which currentlE provide affordable housing oacor tunities and will assure that the existing mobile home use will remain. With the addition of Revision 5, the Cormnission finds that the Plan would be in confcr:14ty with the requirements of Section 30213 of the Act that affordable housing "shall be arotected." With the described revisions, she Ccr=issior. finds that the plan pclicies :ril: protect, encourage,, and provide where feasible affard3ble housing opportunities consistent with the provisions of Section 30213 of the Coastal act. 2. Environmentally Sensitive HabitatsiSnerav As the Commission Found in Section 111 A.2 of this retort, extensive wetl3nc' a:,: em►ironmentally sensitive habitat resources exist within the City's coastal zone. Absent the definition of wetland as provided by Section 30121 o: the Coastal Act, full protection of wetland .resources as required by Section 30233, 30230, ,30:31, and 30240 would not.be guaranteed since resources will not be protected if theL are nut identified. With revision N.B,1 the Plan would assure that the gall extent of wetland resources would be identified, and.therefore subject to 'the resource protection policies of the Plan. Revisions IV.3.2(a-d)wi1i provide for 7redetiexnation. of land uses consistent with the requirements of Section 30233 and the ierciurce policies of the Coastal act. north prouarties of the Holsa Chica The Commission found in the denial of the LUP that the area north of the Bolsa Chica between the Wintersbarg Channel and the base of the bluffs 'is wetland consistent with _t.he Commission's previous action in the "preliminary Deter- mination" of wetlands in the 8olsa Chica. The L,UP with Revision delete the low density residential designation which allows uses not permitted by Section 30233 of the Act. The revision of the Plan-would limit'uses, provide an informational requirement which will allow that if future specific mappiiq indicates sufficient upland area, that low density reai.dential mail'be considered 'for non-wetland arras as.part_ of a planned.dovelopmettt and subjet: to conditions which would ensure permanent protection of the wetland *rescurces. �S a . - -49- with the revision, the Commission finds that the ?Ian would restrict uses within wetland creas to these permitted by Section 30233 and .could ensure prote_ti::: of the'wetland iesources. The requirements of the revised LCP that a planned development mechanism be utilized only if upland area is identified in more detailed mapping, will assure that rftigation is provided for 'develoer^ent o: the area. use of setbacks and buffers, and drainage controls to direct rune': away from wetlands and permanent conservation easements are all appropriate mechanisms to meet the requirements of Section 30230, 30231, 30233, and 30-70 of the Coastal Net. City Property at Beach Blvd./FOH As noted in the findings for denial Section III.A.2. of this report, the Commission found that a portion'of the City property is wetland as defined by the Coastal Act and subject to Section 30233 of the Act. Revision V-B•2(=) will delete the "Comrerciai/Sspport Recreationdesignation :cr ises in the wetlarw areas which are not permitted by Section 30233. The LUP as re;isse: will adopt a planned resource management 'approach which itrovides continued mobile zone --se and commercial/support recreation use only on the developed non-wetland areas of the site while'assuring that uses within the wetland area are A inited to those a alloued� hy section 30233 of the Act. The revised plan will assure that.adequate mitigation measures including buffers and runoff control measures are provided in conjunction with adjacent development to assure protection of the wetlands. Absent this revision, the plan could not he found consistent with the Coastal Act since the land use designation Comsericial/Support Recreation would :•esult in a '.' permanent loss of.wetland resource values ' Area at Beach• ,B1vd.J PCH In Section 11I.A.2of he findincs for denial of the LCF, the Com.niss;or.. °o'Uni ` based on substantial scientific evidence that portions of the property as :'epicted by the Department of Fish and Cane Exhibit 4 are wetlands as 3efinec by the Costal Act and that the Plan which designates the area for "Visitor Serving Commercial""uses•would result in filling of wetlands for uses inconsisLent 41 th the'Coastal act. Absent the Revision 1V.13 52(c) the Plan o- d not ::e fa�::c consistent with Coastal Act policies 30233 0230 • lb231 and 30 40. p , 3 , , The Commission finds that the designation of ttre area for Conservation.^lisitcr serving, au a resource management areas for use or uses consistent with the maintenance of the wetland resource is consistent with Section 30230, '30231, 30233, 30240 of the Act. ;with this revision, the-Plan gill adopt a •-fanned resources management approach and would allow visitor uses or. a porr.xon o: 4.he site that has been identified as being filled upland, in conjunction with'the preservation of the .identified wetland arean. This would allow visitor serving development on ,a portion of the site, and would allow'consolidation of filled areas consistent with .the procedures .adopted in the Statewide Interpretive Guidelines to assure the enhancement of the -wetland area. The Commission finds -that as revised the Flan would ensure that uses within wetland areas are strictly limited to these of Section 30233 to`preserve the , habitat .value of, the wetlands, chile allowing development of ad'acent cland areas along with adequate mitigation measures to ensure protection of the adjacent wetland areas- Power Plant to Santa Ana River M v—A-4or IV.B.,2(d1 ie necaQaarf to provide fora reasonable expansion of the existing Rntingeon Beach power plant in a manner consistent with the Oastal Act. Section 30250,.provir:es that new industri.al•davelopment shall 'be located Niacin, contiguous with, or-in clone !9 pre7xfmity'ta, existing developed areas able to s 1� • -50- accommodate it. Section 30260 z.^.ccurges the location or expansion of coastal- dependent industrial facilities within existing sires and permits reasonable long-term growth, hwoever, Section 30260 only permits the expansion of coastal dependent industrial facilities into wetlands when the following three requirements have been satisfied: (1) alternative locations are infeasible or more envirorattentally damaging; (2) to do otherwise would adversely affect public welfare; and j (3) adverse environmental effects are witigated to the maximum extent feasible. j Section 30233 of the Coastal Act. prohibits development into wetlands if -here exist feasible less environmentally damaging alternatives, and further requires that allowable expansion of energy facilities into wetlands :rust also meet the required test of Section 30233 that no feasible less damaging alternative exists and t^at the functional capacity of the wetland is maintained or enhanced. As found ;in Section ITI.A.1 of this report, the Commi.ssior, finds t:gat t A inland of the existing power plant is a feasible less environmentally damag_rc alternative. The Commission, in its report to the Ener;j Commission "or. t;.s Huntington beach Notice of Intention*, found that this inland ,ate may be a feasible less environmentally damaging alternative. After expension parti;.i- ratian in the Notice of Intentfon(NO'1) ,proceeding, the -anal Cems-Ission brie: on the N01 stated, "The Coastal Cog.-ission believes that the alternative f:. an:site, based on the record in this proceeding, is a feasible less env!rcnne.^.ta_:.• damaging alternative site to the applied-for site at Huntington Beach." Rew•e:•er, the Energy Commission final report on the 2,101 did .rct .d that 't' e inland dtrc site was not a.feasible site for coastrac„ dr.. Instead the. Energ;• .:ommiss':.. .Found that the inland site was not a "more Feasible, less envircnmentall•r d3ra:j:c site." The Energy Commission has yet to make a deter.7inat°on of the !essibilit; : of using this inland mud dump site as an alternative to using the wetland • are3 next to the existing power plant site. Thereeire, the Coastal Co;raission must maintla:.n its position that the first priorit :or siting power :!art facilities shall be at the inland site. Absent specific conditions rec•.i:rIn alternative inland siting priority at the mud dump site, the LU? as resubmitte3 could net be found consistent with .he Coastal Act. Revision W.3.2(d) pr.-tide for such priority siting as conditions to development within the Industrial energy/Conservation designation. Revision Iv.B.21d) is also necessary to ensure adequate protection of we_lard -resources consistent with allowing reasonable power plant expansion by _providing specific mitigation measures consistent with the Cortmission's adopted report to the Energy Commission. i ' "California Coastal. commission- Report to the Energy Commission on the Possible Use of the Huntington Beach and Ormond Beach Power Plant Sites for a New Southern California Edison Co. Combined-Cycle Power Plant No. 78-NOI-1, October 11, 1978" � t The Commission finds that, at such time as the first two requirements of Section 30260 as noted above are found to be met, then, the third requirement car, be sat- isfied if any development north of Magnolia Street is modified upon the permanent protection by conservation easement oe similar mechanism, of not leds than. 2� acres of wetlands south of Magnolia street. for each acre of energy development north of Magnolia. The Commission finds that such protection schemem is consistent with Section 30260 and necessary to mitigate adverse environmental effects to be the maximum extent feasible. In this particular situation, if expansion on to the Mud Dump is found infeasible by the Energy Commission, there would be only one undeveloped area of land upon t4hich energy expansion could possible take place. Furthermore, such undeveloped wetland area is bisected by ;4agnolia Street •ahi=h is a logical boundary to separate developable from undevelopable lands. Streets give clear definition to wetland areas and provide for a partial buffer, althoigh not a legally sufficient buffer (See Section III.A.2 of this report titled "Buf:ers") , which can begin to mitigate damages to the wetlands from energy expansion development. This also marks the boundary between areas designated an unsuitable for power plant siting and ,these areas not designated in the Power Plan S:.tinq Study. such revisions would also be consistent with the Commission's previois findings znd the NOI report. to the Energy Commission which noted in part: 117he Commission further recommends that, if the inland area is feasible and less environmentally damaging, that ECE be authori_ed to submit an : -C only for that inland area, avoiding or minimising use of the degraded wetland area for proposed power plant facilities. The Commission also recomnds that i me f SCE does fill and place facilitiE< on the .degraded wetland area, reducing the area available to birds anz! .. marine life, that the,Energ}• Ccnaaission require appropriate mitiratio:. measures to minimize adverse environmental effects. If degraded-urtland area is to be filled, the Commission recommends that the Energy Commission require SCE to pay for the acquisition and restoration of the degraded wetland area between Magnolia and Brockhurst Avenues and bctti,et:n Pacific Coast Highuay and the Flood Control Channel and convey that land to the Department of Fish and C3.m or Parks and Recreation for purposes of wetland protection and restoration." Therefore, the Commission finds that permanent protection for not less then ttio of the wetlands areas would mitigate the adverse environmental effects of develernent of coastal dependent industrial facilities in the remainder of this wetland. The City's WP did not contain conditions to energy expansion into aetlanZI_ wii:.h would ensure specific mitigation and maintenance of the functional capacity o; the wetland. Therefore absent these revision, the plan could not be found con- sistent with the Act Sections 50233 50260 and 50264. The addition of revision -Tt;B2(d) will also -delete the Visitor Serving Commercial designation. The plan as revise,: will aesignate the area from the power plant to the Santa ana river as "Conserrarion! Industrial Energy" for uses consistent with the protecrion of wetland resotices and Section 30233 of the Acts and allow reasonable energy expansion. The Commission finds that, as previously noted in Section IIIA' of this report. the Visitor Servingdesin�ma ion ro osed for this area allows uses inconsistent with the Coastal Act Setion 30.33. gee Commission finds, therefore, that revisions M2ttd ensurer: that the area is designated for alloviabls-ores con intent with Section 302 3 and 30607.1, as well as the power plant siting sections of the Coastal Pct. t f } -52- Road E\tensions .7be Commissicn found in the denial of the Plan that the proposed extension o: Hamilton Ave. Would result in filling of wetland area. Since roads are not permitted use under Section 30233 of the act, revision I-J9.4 wotad delete the extension of Hamilton Ave as located in Fig. 9.4 and would ensure that no fill for the purposes ofroad construction would be.allowed in wetland areas ` except as required by the energ,• policies of the Coastal Act in the wetland south of the power plant. The Commission finds that with revision IV.B.4 the Flan would preset-t•e wetland resources and would also allow reasonable energy expansion con- sistent with Sections 30233, 30240, 30260-64 of the Act. Other Environrentally Sensitive Habitat: Northern Bluff properties of Bolsa Chica AS the Commission found in its denial of the Plant, the eucaltivtus grove on the bluff- adjacent to the Belsa (pica are environmentally sensitive habitat area and provide significant upland habitat for the adjacent wetland. Recreation land uses adjacent to the wetlands as proposed in the plan would have resulted in uses which would significantly degrade the upland habitat value of the groves, unless adequate buffers were assured and uses restricted. Revision ri.B.i is necessary to ensure that other environmentally sersitive.:.acitat;. are protected to a Manner consistent with Section SP730 of the Coastal Act. Section 30240 of the Coastal Act requires that environmentally sensitive habitat areas be protected against significant disruption of habitat values and development adiacent to such areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which t.ould significantl;- degrade such areas and be compatible with the continuance of such areas. The Coo:- .- mission finds that given lack, of adequate buffer standards in the Lift that such areas are not adequately protected. The standards proposed in revisions:,v.l,: 143 adjacent development and that limitations on uses, buffers, mitigation Treasures, and runoff and drainage controls will adequately protect habitat values of the environmentally sensitive habitat areas consistent with Section 30:4 0 of the act. Buffers Buffers are required for all areas adjacent to the end ronmentalli- sensitive habitats. including 'wetlands to serve as essential open space between the development an.: the habitat, in conformance with Section 302J0 of the Act. The importance of the wetlands and other environmentally sensitive habitat 'in the City's coastal :ono was extensively detailed in the findings for denial section IIIa2 o!r this report. � The Commission found that the LIP policies requiring buffers did not contain sun'- ficient standards to ensure adequate protection of all environmentally sensitive habitats consistent with Section 302.10. Absent revision iV.B.s the'k_fn'coulld ^ct bc- found consistent with the Coastal Act. Revision IV.9.5 w-4U assure that b=: fers are required,adjacent to' all environmentally sensitive habitats, not it'ist wetlands, and that. the extent and location of such buffers will he based on standards which will mintain the habitat values of the resource consistent with the Commission adopted guidelines and Section 30240 of the Coastal Act. Shoreline -Access As noted in the findings for denial' in Section IIIAS of this report. the Commission found that Policy' 4a of the City's WP access component tits deficient in Ocit it did not ensure provision of lateral and vertical access in riew development as required by Section 30212 of the Coastal act. f 1 -53- THe addition of suggested revision Iv.C.I(a-b) would ensure requirements for vertical access while clarifying excepticiis and constraints to provision of access consistent with Section. 30212 of the Coastal Act. Vertical-access shall be provided to sandy beach areas and in conjunction with devel_oryment on vacant parcels. Vertical access shall only be required in conjuncticn with new development on existing developed lots where it can be accomplished consistent with the privacy standards established in the revision IV.C.2. Regarding lateral acces3 and policy (4a), ihile the Commission acknowledged the constraints to provision of continuous lateral access along the ffaly bulk-headed Harbour, the "exceptions" as defined by policy da would preclude also lateral public access along pocket beaches or along the waterfront in conjunction with new devel- opment on vacant parcels. The addition of revision IV.C(I) wo-.11d clariSf the eo:- straints to provision of continuous lateral access vet would ensure lateral. access along the remaining beach area; and along Vacant waterfront areas which provide recreation and acc�,ss opportunities. As revised, the Plan would maximize public access consistent with Sections 301.10, 30211 and 30212 of the Coastal Act. Vertical access sha'-1 Be- provided .in con;unction'with new development on vacant parcels and along all sandy beach areas. in existing developed residential areas which do not front a sandy beach area, access will generally only be required where it can be accomplished consistent-with the privacy standards established in revision IV.C.l. The. Commission found above and in Section III.A.S that access to the bulkhead areas of Huntington Harbour:-is generals not appropriate, because in most _cases it cannot'be provided consistent with privacy standards. However, therF is one situation where access to and alcn7 the bulkhead maXbe appropriate. Where A parcel is large enough to provide public access consistent with, privacy standards in new development, access along the bulkhead maybe appropriate, Particularly rf -- . �P �J public use areas, such as fishing piers can be reached or provided In new development through such accessways. As revised, the Plan would maximize public access con- sistent with Sections 30210, 30211 and 30212 of the Coastal Act. noted in the Section III.C.3 the Commission also found the public access cen- ponent inconsistent with the Access provision of the Coastal :act on the basis that the Plan failed to ensure that ma: InVn access was provided due to the lack of polio:- enabling the City or other public a:;ency to accept and open accessti�ays offered for dedication. The addition of poli.cy revision W.C.2 would ensure than these offers of dedications were available to maximize access. As su:h, I' e Plan k'auld prevent the less of an opportunity to maximi:e access within the R-irbo►:r, and would be consistent with Sections 30210, 30211 and 301.12 of the Coastal act. � New Develo�menrNisitor Facilities With revision ri'.D.1, the Plan as remised will assure the priority of visitor serving uses within a development while maintaining sore flexibility for mixed uses to support lower cost visitor facilities. As revised, the Plan Would also assure that priority of sites seaha rd of Pacific Coast Highway would be protected for visitor f serving uses by prohibiting office and residential uses. Absent these revisions to. strictly limit non-priority uses, the Plan could result in visitor serving areas being predominantly private residential and could not be found consistent with Section 30222 of the Coastal Act and the public access policies of the Coastal Act. As revised, the Commission finds that the Plan provides visitor use: con- sistent with the priorities of the Coastal :act and is consistent with Section 30:2: and the access Policies of the Act. �t A-= found in Section III.a.6 of the findings for denial, the Commission found tha' t the lack of. specific standards of intensity of development in-several desinati(NIS of the plan failed to ensnare that new development uould occur consistent with the protection of public access, and, absent such standards, could not be found consistent with the requirements of Section 30108.5 or 302501 30252 of the Coastal .Act. With the addition of revision IV.p.'- the Plan would ensure that maximum de- velopment standards are provided which ensure the maintenance of access and mitigation for potential impacts from deci:.ity bonuses including; condicion-c to development re- quiring standards on siting, design, provision of open space, and setbacks, and parking. Md, as revised, the Cor.-nission findl the Plan consistent with Sections 3010S.5, 30250, 3025-7 and 30251 of the Coastal act. As noted in Section III.a.6 the Commission found that the Plan as proposed located the extension of Palm ?,venue beyond the bluff setback and buffer area required by the Co.-,mission in previous permit approval for the Seacliff IV development on the bluffs above the Bolsa Chiea; A-349_79%Absent revision or ciari,'ication deleting the extension and locating it consistent with the provisions of a-349--9 the Plan could not be found consistent with section; 30240 of the Coastal act. With the addition of revision IN'.A.3, the Plan will assure that Palm Avenue is sited j zdjacent to the Bolsa Chica in conformance with the previously adopted Corm ssicn approval and as revised the Commission finds the Plan consistent with the provisions of Section '0240 of the Coastal Act. I i I I • I • err, �i ryy�� dais .t � �}r i.� "ax'�. . �• � ��.����. ��.;+�,, `r • � ' �r t .YY���'i�,� �� i �x�y;5 �'h�S �r � �r, � v< t �+'►v5'��,����'`�4 �•r " ��d� \ '�� x �A' �Yllsc; + 4i,1 ' ` �; �•� sp;�Y�,{tA,�, ,}.y+��r'i�� •" � �ry�\�� ._�?}�Qit,� � � � � t ,, � y� (4it .r:t`• '�.,-y�iK,�;l� k', �� � �� ,YT1 .���`p+f 7��`;�,���y{{��r ,A i -k �s�'T t'g1v^7i'tti+"Za !� a ' ij3�• tti '� t ;,��yyk k�P.`�4� �f'`�, ,�1yt,.���ii y' a �•'�lii.4" �. ��' 13�5�. 4 ` 1•,l 'r"F` 4• � �� {� � �, �q 1Y `1't +`� � v�ja1',j'� ." " j <xl�,l "�•fj +F !'fir *S `a ! TC r j! 5 •� 5 +{ j �� } "+ ( " 'isl• ti t'' TI QVES0""IFt7R CITE( COUNCH."-ACTION 76 Date 24. 1 48 9— Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council LpC,,,kOvt%O By CITY ooUxOIL Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator ,,,,,,,,,,,•• Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director, Development Se '' C1 EW% Subject: COASTAL ELEMENT - PHASE IV GRANT FUNDING Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Atcachnients: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The California Coastal Commission has set aside funds for the City of Huntington Beach to develop a coastal permitting process. Staff has developed the attached work program and budget which would provide sufficient support to accomplish the necessary tasks. s RECOIOIENDATION: I Adopt the attached resolution and work p program and direct staff to request a Phase IV grant in the amount of $12,000 for the development of a , coastal permitting process. ANALYSIS: The City received approval in geographic part of its Coastal Land Use Plan in November. Staff is currently in the process of developing im- plementing ordinances for the Land Use Plan, as part of the Phase III Work Program. Phase IV of the 'Local Coastal Program involves .develop- ment of the permitting forms, checklists and procedures necessary to implement Land Use Plan Policies. Federal funding for Local Coastal Projects will terminate on June 30, 1983; it is therefore advisable for the City to begin implementation procedures as soon as possible. Developing a coastal permitting process will require approximately five months of staff time. All tasks must be completed on .or before June 30, 1983, as Federal funding will end with the fiscal year. As outlined in the attached work program and budget, the estimated cost of the program I' is $117,000. The Coastal Commission has tentatively reserved funding for the City which would reimburse these costs. The City is not required to provide any matching funds. After each task in the work program is completed reimbursement will be made to the City by Coastal Commission. Huntington Beach's coastal area is an important local and regional resource. The policies contained within the Coastal Land Use Plan were designed to protect this vital resource while facilitating local planning. An effective coastal Permitting process is essential in acheiving these goals. The work program tasks will be excut:ed by a grant - funded coastal planner. This project does not require an environmental impact !l 1 P10 4181 19 �. •1r2� 4 h � � 1 f'�` �Y� ,� 4„ � t ,�1� , � 6• �� ," 1.' �,,�'�.tl l�.�� 4 ,Y" f� ` AN . �*" � � s;'•is 1�.(t' �� � �' �4 �4' I4 y 1 r, .` z��� � � `t.•�'f A' ` 41 I t i. � y4 � ,�`I T t 1�+�f`i l. ���, it�i�''y�� .# t tt• � + i..� ,�ti3:' {�, i � t l�14 �„ �r`�•� +y� *�,Y � I n •COASTAT, ELF,tIEtJT �'"� , November 24, 1982 Page 2 City conformance with the general plate and all other 'r report and is in tasks and plans and programs* the proposed ram and budget outline pPlacati.an requests funding. The attached work prop . costs for which the a F UNI�IrG SOURCE: mbursed by the Coastal Can,misrsian o the grant will be r The amount ff t of the work Po gamo upon comp letionIV grant funds from thy- Coastal ALTERNATIVE ACTIOt1: The City would 12,000 in Phase rocess. or rely l for the $the coastal permitting p no not apply develop implementation lorereimburse- Commission costs associated with 5B ga funding- then absorb any . - of obtaining solely on the possibil' Y ment for such cost. , ATE C"MMENTS' 1. Budget 4 2. Work Frogran � 3. Fiscal Impact Report 4. Resolution jWp:BG:dta • f i r #Y..t�r4'{ k � { � aS, 1 'e► •i��;�•�� 1 ti ,a ��� �'1�., �jt i$y d CITY OF "Ural-l"r-IrOW BEACII "' aMT04BIA01 1NT�R.p pARTMlrNT COMMUNICATION To Charles 14. Thompson Clty Administrator From F. 8. Argueilo Subject Request 'for CityChief of Administrative 5ervlees Accommodate LCA haselIV to Grant A Date December 9r 1982 Application FIR 1 83_�9 In re5pon"se to the req#�e`st of the Report has- been Development Coastal'Co . Prepared and submitted re la Service De •�mmlio;) for an LCP p q..!s a of a Financial lm of Land Use Plan pollcianes. hose 1V grant Ctty s aPpilcatlon Pact." Pertinent to the effect to the , The gr®nt funds lve Implementation ivt11 be total $12;000. The oni to` li Y iMedlate fiscal Impact thi meat of these fundspfromY's earnin • . g cap,abl i I ty duringPact 4f s tram• wail not be required to the source noted I the interim- 'action Prnvlde ►natchin n t:he attached - Prior to''relmburse- g funds on �th;$ ..orrespondenCe.. The CI ty, . Project. Chief rguell Of Administrative Servlcns F8A/' AR/cg t } 4 is $ ��V �,�. y�, i' I} t� �f ` •t+�`'�t � ��' �y t��L�,Ya'ty�d�k ���;� ;�+ ( + ` 1 •,�'" ��i ` iF �' •k� V t Y1' L 1 ` �Y' t �h� { k '� 1.4 r e >� •,ti i' + { iy '�rs.r+q , ,t 4` 'l '.,! .i•x` '�Y +r. .'ti 'g" t UWAT �'<iY ' �'�� �F ,f�f"����' �,+j7'tk'i �:`��iytt '��}� ��'F' ` ���' �' �'� �+' �7'Y+��,'��" !�: ,�•� 'f�*'n r,l lr) �' }y�}r�fif ti � d.%t x� �i`tjl� �1.JS!'¢ 1 � l .r�}�� �t,�3 L" •ti�E•.4z„ y.a.� tt. I' � 1 t_�;�t• ���� e} 4F, '•j r#�;.3 `f4 � `+ '�.1:�l�t. �(`4'a ��r#+.. �' +45��,d� .+ i �.,i.x� # 4 ti ,l�'� �`tq:��t t �;�'}` 4',j� r !#lr' +� `j�� � :* ,�?4�,j t �?` t�t�r �j Y;� t +i,"�i �!ti'� A �Fs {t'7 ,J �;�EEllsi' t $\(, i��1t1( •!� �'7 i�t,+yti�•.ti ° �rS'.S t #,. { t ' , '-. ztt" .• SI V �..'+�:il�F,r :� ,�, t�. +� 'ti•,,i,}';,� �._ ♦♦'-i. ;ts..!1J .,�'„ }* .,� • �j��,+a.i, `} •'� t �=tt�'i � ��' + 1jjy,, �' ''}}}�b �- y '�, t�. ^'f� R!9� f���"T 'i'��.y'� F , �.. � •�C'i�.{ �. �i.�P jt?t1't���•. i �R� ; L �. -�r s�yt�, ' t .,4, .� rr 1 ' 'F`',!.�Rlti zri� :��i�r.'i il trG"•ifiG4t+r�.��,zu't``i�'.@�,��6•�Ytt"T$}.tt� �1�4� �;Zi,x"�i:•n��� :'i�, CiTY OF HUNTiNGTON BEACH FINANCIAL IMPACT REPORT Project Name Authorization of UP Phase_e IV Grant Ap llcati°n Description Requesr�d funding for this_pro ect. ---- 1 . DIRECT PROJECT COSTS 1.1. One-Time Costs an. urns. Flac Total Cost {. Acquisition Construction Iles, t; ui mcnt Other 12 000 • 1,000 T • 1,2 :'Recurring Annual Costs*. Addittona Ma ter s. & utside Pa roll Personnel 5u lies Services Revnnues Total Cast 10 Replacement/Renewal Costs N/A 2. INDIRECT COSTS Loss of City's earning caRabi11ty during the interim prior to reimbursement of these funds -from th California Coastal Commission. , i W. ,� r t 1 '�� `�" � aY .Sq� ,1�.{�r ��� •�' ,\!�9 �,39 a a���!f +�� ��5 "t t � r *j `\ i y .� fi'• mot` ( .t M�� �'^� 'i { �` ` ` �i ' �51i i'.t ,� " ,ti,' jr ♦u� ,C' � �lgt•;�"y�j ,� � `'� is"\ ���+y'y'y �S''�.� 4 ..ly •Mvi (f t ,i.�,� � t,, •( t az�..ay` �t 'l • S 1� j � ',""•yI ��.f J \ k�•��{ ;S '`71�{� ` �VS•�•� .•!'Ia u'a�l.. �� ti•�i j1 y•:� .� "4 i ���4,lll""" lt::� .•1'��� �� ,41f 3° +(t� ��w.'i'J �y. \ �'{d,Y,�s.'�' ya a0'r•• ,�� ' 7 ai .,}� �•�y ,g � j a�pr �,ir:.(\ � 'y� 'a' '��'y `:t �,a 4 !1��vt�t�,.i � r� '° :F�"`���1 y �\, �1��114 j.,, ;`+ � �,�'.�y,[5 i�,r5 �`;Y:�[��iR �fii i• Y�! !�' \ ''"j�Ey„��, a�l�� ��1 ,{,��;�` � �"�1{��'.i'S.1 �1(�����'�j.) ._ ti iv` t 11: " t,44t"rr `SFr UC• y .� 6ti� • a � �k, C r ti �i:^' •, $a:, .`� ��y{y►+ •1,. , ;5 (zIV 71 1 ; `�ttfif �:;•!.'_ . 4' nr- Yt `.lac,y. ; `.'.j eY, }�}� �`'y Zt+ C \ "fix�l;a r,d �c��.,l,�y�, ttd�+s ''t�� ?4ti'�, � �' ``►`R,! }, "�,�" ��! t� ' �' '++�,��. �'pR'�. ��`����� � �, � Financial Impact Report Page 2 3, NON-DOLLAR COSTS y, BENEFITS TO BE DERIVED'FROM THE PROJECT staff is currently develo ing As enunciated by the requesting department, City. and implementing ordinances for the Land' Use Plan .as part of the Phase 11i , k ram. Phase 1V is the next logical step in the project and will encc*npass wor program.9 the development of permitting forms, checklists, and procedures necessary to successfully' irlplement Land -Use Plan policies.- - PROJECT USAGE t . wily i b, EXPENDITURE TIMING Subse vent to Cit Council a roval and award of the grant. COST OF NOT IMPLEMENTING THE PROJECT ncture, or the department could Either 'the project would be curtailed at this Ju ..�-- y absorb an casts associated with the project within its current operating budget. f t •t. E1 i r .,+,:+}�..�,}^ ryr $Jyt L1x'( + �'s yt+`y` - '•y '��YJ's; , �(,,,1 1 *�. t Rt'hk� I �. #�� �o� .! �� t'77"� `�}(�r �q�- '4 � 5" , .��. . �'.7Mt , +�'��� .� l� wq.•r � �_. 'y:'+l��i�r` 4�±ah ��� �i. '� . t• ��t5'�.' �' 1 h i �� f \�i` S '[� y�} ..�n�i �, f `�fa^�,*S tcj �` �_(t y,'�}t's' (j+�,,_•�,� _'S' 1 1 �'A.1f� �•,i� t1'l � qi. 1� � �<'x�xi��.•1'1 � ..� lltt}t,F� iF,+ AAA t 111111 4� R� {1+��. '� `} i C p < +1 '•,S� t. QC T4 � AA.. •, � '� �rrlt��,tr. �e k4"a't��i ����UVVf ,�y'}'� t? f`d' a'.CC `E' 1(,,t� + T'.i'-t•1+f +��1�!; �t,....� ,y;�S`�`� � �r � .,+zl'A{ r Qt: �•1 14r,• t"I c r } ;; 1"+ ;+nK 1 E. Ts i (j+kQ,f i• r t rq t �{1 +f !K �A� c.`^jr .�i yy r 111: ;t� j ��ii �- •` A.i ,�+ ;i ti&)' +'� yA]� a .�•k i +n .t i'+ I&'iri��} pj ; t Ca L.::� { c LLL 1;, i� "fit' � tr :i' "" e•�. t .+ fl' � +� }�;5 i3fk•u117�� 3a+1aVl,la wrtL7.. ,+� � � 1'".tttJ;_(';' a�: � '+ `f;x1�1 'S'�'I'���� t t T + L r 1 t,�,;� ti e^Tf'+x' �{ •ti�l IF � i �i f t+ ,�+ ,y(,.e .}pJ.�T1 q Q#"+ht�}S." � `*►t + fit;g '•+�s }�, I", ���v j,�,'t,.� .ri L �, u `L �� •i,*r4+� I t �� If fC���tr�� �"t'�y}f'+` 1•�'i' : .tis ( 'r{1'•'y �.;a � �t 11 � ;1 t};t.�t;4. '�a aim�,+^i t R ,� :fi `,^� . ''� 1, ."�. r ( rt �i•w` -X C.. .�. w:. } 'St"I '} :�I. . I 3k;��r�J..s'��y.t.p�y �tl,,R�� a�` 1��y '�M►t4r� i + �"'1,�"��y�y.iti"t�,'� .,�.�ttl,,�•`'1.��'�{�i., t';�•.�2t t�t ' 4 tiA3.2� Tt V t4��`�,t4� 1t,�t�, �.�". T"e/ ;,r{ Xf i}"} >�C,..• ` xXA``��" ��y",+: 1 �1 .!,fi+ fig' � S.4Ft,'•�i+ SIT 16t, 'SF 7 , •�1�1'i�' � 5 i1t .+t' �'�, i � 1 y; �.y.� � l- t� �i+ � k�)"• t 1 't+ 'j+<`i�tl:! 4'1• t ��, �� 44 J'i��?l..;t� l .� �;�►�f� 'ri. l� 4 'T.�i +3 yr lttaatiJfj'+„y\J'{ l+ tt Fly a t �.�. \>'t '�, �, 1��. ft� �.,�+'ir t�i�•�.£�� {Y}'�• ��! K♦ ��t_Ipy �+ t4 tJlt+r iAtf Y4 ,1 ri ;1h ,is4 tt y (`� y� T,,,,x......., � f'st^sk�" '�"(�ry�,R e1�1�+ $. tt;.. t�• t r. '� .e•• -�..k•.�?� °xa '''�t.��'•�' "•T"', 'Tt „[s, t lEt77, t `. ,?r,tt 't l '�� 7tir 'St'Ir.t g1r } 'kx��t T'a.,. '" �F �: ', i,+,,a` P•� •t�'�'.;i{'\4. � kr r:° F1 *"'St} �+x. .t i , t, ..r.,.rr�y.+- -t i• s t: yi" �s kl ti 4 ,.+t}�k f►} \ • *1�y(r A �E'+7 t 4 Fat y is} titi+yt a �Gf1� .c tt� y t t l t !+ + ` \t �t '• v.} 4 +,i'•1: 14 ! tt -�. }t,l;��3 �� + �' -l..is n S.`:� � .t L1'' �,Y(� +y't "1 �. .\'tJ '1„ ( zR,yy J 4..� '§-•:�'.�:�.. p/, �, •;zt 1�y:�. k!t + ..� 'i�. {+� \� "2z 1-wi.:a l4kt o�i r� aF+ to ..w •'l f.. .•� -r".4,R.-� \? ."1•.d tBL ��I�i•.{ � '>i it -C*'.• +�1,. [r' 11 r^,rt�r...'fats,.:j .+,%+ �1T.M .t� �.�( ,,l `!etrii ..�, .Y . ,� + �-,tt. �".t`(.'l�`A+' •�t,+,�� JI -'rt' r}x i,' ?f; 'i�q�k .��r ;i'!E....'c °i.��t a��„tt�t•.2: N.!,, t{, y, + :YS,rx ni'i ..a4Fis t�tE,iCt`�; ,f�i.. lt.r, r+r � ,r.. It .1 ��.`S''3�A) /. -'•7i.•i�Y.t.x S �. F:.x �{ ' Y+'_'11 ..�. � '�;•.�,�.t ��-<.$ + 4, i.�•? t i f 1 1+:t ' t .'� lr � _1 } '`a +a: •17't�r�x 3+.,} ; +. tyrd: ,t� tt... .,.Y..t 0.�nY.♦�xlk'+ '����':.._�.i,,, xt.+ 4y. M , .+'4+.\+�` (�oY,y r.,t,.+,...xi�,i 'T .� v''it f) ft`��xt 1'���,.l..fi�� � [ �. ��t4}�}...n t:}, �'\f'�,r �'' #t5', c1 t'`.t;• ^)�,,�;4:rc r. �:f.;:�` s�, ,?% �' i�s: f.1�. "aw ��: a�,f +. �C,�+ +rT.,a . !`� :t .t�tt'I .a`'t.,t, lift} �� `,Ut+ t;.?.�dri r ::+},.��'{;{'i "tlm+ t.x�,;.. `.t4.. .{ :.''t��,�\ +'r+ f<�', r ,t. qq �,r'�S`,ri i r, .,1+ +gt,L:,.;,�.,{, �tk�� ;y �t� zt+r t„ ,,��C�•t',tt +, {,' ,�:..t, z. t },+k ��� aj't+c,•Y, ''Fx,''S• ,ti. FS'i� }^.;. �. rt..'.t'r. {� ,.,i•#,l t�{,.;"fit.X x"+r'•„fi L Y���++ t ..,.� 1 ,I";'y�tfi.: �t�' \ �:Q.t �� yyi', �t.l e #. ''�, ^t41's t,A �L"".�.c : ''i"� ty'�: , .i /'ti•!.`T'.iti+,•:i� �\�.�; lt: �a ,, +:�Rl� t�'Jc„ ,�J, � :,+� s �..� pp s,. ''it%�� +.#.:1'1i" :t�` t'1� r.+p ,,e1r.. :�� �.- ash„ Y ..#, �"a_rr'g "a ....}. ..;:r t Ct. i' t �,%t,t„ '}t,.,.t a 4+w'!•-+i;.. • P ;t"t„ i sl+, �.i +.;".yt�k+ t\'< t 4S.> 1. �ka ;.l �.,.��t { ff!y }: R ," T < t•a �, rtyxt}r #:f .. .0 . 'y {� ++�1e,> •:a{r ri yll ���" ' s of 1�i�• lh+ .l.i t ,b• }��� 1 a.� � s ,.+,. c.,u r - �. tC'�41.a. .aA i!} J, `+ `'T "F! t 41� Sf�;a X � 'n34,•t i s> +.i l I�,+n'ti !Z.! �1T'-{'-",R,#:11t �RY't.4'fu. t4..l,:+i t.+';, .S 7��t-_ 'i •��;'�4s(_ � 1 7— a CITY OF MUNTINGT1(VG` ON BEACH CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION TO Alicia Wentworth, City Clerk FROM Councilman Jack Kelly BUBJECT Amendment to LCP Regarding DATj January 20, 1981 Balsa Chica City Statement for Inclusion in LCP - concerning the Balsa Chica Though .the. area known as the B01sa,Chica is not located in the .ji-xisdiction of the City of Huntington Beach, at this time,..;the City 'considers it imperative to contribute meaningful influence on the resolve of the area's future uses. 1. The •City urges all appropriate State and Federal agencies to accelerate efforts to positively define only specific acreage in the -Bolsa Chica which :in fact can be scientifically justified as environmentally sensitive habitat. In addition,-the City `requests and urges these agencies to provide' precise recommenda- tions as to the economic feasibility of rehabilitation of such ' designated ecologically 'sensitive areas. { 1 When .these State ar.'d Federal responsibilities are properly presented 'and accep.:ed, the -City will totally support' the pre-• � t servation of such designated environmentally sensitive tibitat . areas. . 2.,-,' 'Res idu' al acreage 'in the' Balsa Chica which is not included 'in State ,'and'Fede' ral dasignation;_of environmentally' sensitive, ti habitat.,areas will be supported by the City for full. development # of';compatible land uses. Further, it is the City's intentions that..such uses w311 not be burdened with unrealistic or excessive set backs and other restrictive ordinances and codes intended + s to arbitrarily force sanctions against compatible land use development. } 3. It is further intended by the City to instruct and direct staff to organize and structure a format by which the City can open, as soon as possible, negotiations and discussions with the property owner of record of the subject Balsa Chica land and the County of orange for the purpose of achieving annexation of' the Balsa Chica into the City or Huntington Beach. a ! l9s Ord br Z � • ��8Naa0l/l�rynrl '1 r� . t i PREtiff �' � .!'1� :. f 1 '� .��.' � �� to , , � f �ti• .,�, �t r� ����(� t �. i.• sR � •: � � i' p' S�al�.�.t � ��{ �: {�i fit, �, '"i �,� �� �1 : i�� �f��. ����f '� .^. �.�. •"'t� .• � r�,. , >1 � ..,� c";' �, ti,.�� Y Z'I�� .t '}� i,..� }�.i+ •, '�S '^�r't, " � "f..S},��:P• �4�1�, ��^r �� , t�t� ���' � ' � � Ri.� ��F� { !f\t25e�� � t•. �11597'C;(}' �=1� �� •±A� �' y� WW�t �,,���+�� t �GX�' •q'���` �, fxK'l 1 iy xy�.t1f ?tt•y�^ }� ,1(e!� ` / f ,• f! F� 1. t , +. ;•F + t . .' .�51 V �.��•� Y t�!• �` � � {,#,r���,kt 'S, Z� 'A� 5 :9�.t� , � ..� 5. , ter,,.� rl t� �'}e"[ i� � •ii�'yI�y����ja,��j}ttj�t�i 'r��� � "'�.1•}�fk�.�j,r�.. t� S' V,'"Sti a�f1. 'Y' y� •.. l! A..� a r i. yl,. [+' :. 11,J•,�' rtf"' �'� , _ , C'a �'51� 't St{,.SKy � Y({, .1;�:��� �•ij ''•{;;.•'1V�A.t't ,Zl, �'}i c.,y'1• ft1 t (' ^K {.. ,2/3 rt p V!f'tl f) ♦1y� a .�CµF`,f •' e�f) �''+'+`+'i�1�R5` i'1+' tT !"C� I! �Y,�Lf•7 �+" k eCrj/.;�1' t14 '�y "� f;�;r?! AG :^S}� is �r;S,F� p i r�t •1�it5 �+� Atr ��i�,»4 ( s' �t'�' �f '�• ,,` �``,�..,- t 1 1 � u` �6 }Y'. Ile `�i ,a"';S ^?"�+ �4C ''�;:i 1� '`'r .1+ 'k ='�•Yl�'1 .!f, ���• �1', `kt..'I.. n Yi` ''1 �•na '1y, ,j��,�%1'x�`�! ' , �� .f t,�{( S�,l. .«ti •3"ill�; , `' C...� �''C� {" a°y�..` � �' �!.�" � ���5 1, i. tjj p4.t, r•. r (y p1 yy �u ,' y ,�'{ , 1 t� 5�'�{ ,,ii i.. +t�'+. � �f�`1;�'S� `�i.:.�.i �j,t�Ri�x'.{!;(}�,�tti�}. '�.��{f�r��,jj��I•+��r�1:r� !/ •�t��..'"�1 •,`}i t�'y@-.i S:;�A�f. •�A ,��,1L f''�jy�{?('4Y� `,1.1_r � r .� i.. {��t�i'� lr��,';ff �'Y 1� �,°t��t1 15�t ii!r���,1Y�` LL•'-'����{ l,�r•SiG''f,>��} ��."p�^.} �l��f'f �`a��t. �'ii' '�" � ! t'°"r1 '>t+, \'��• l���,'}:•: ! ,t t + t'r,t ��t �'�d�;b',�.t .�.,,'�{�k�,,s �� tp1�r.� t.t �#�� tt,l Y7r�;[ ik �'`1� 'fig '�'a '� "fl �,',� .Y� �C`�'•Ir ` kF ,�• ,� f.��.c�,••{� �� ,y�`" !! �1.:;1, yt ,ti { G�. rrf�. .r,�„', � �ti► �,,`� �� ,`t •.{ +r j�, �1Y!� S �' •j��1}��r�,� •.f'� ,��{ 5. 1 1.��.. :,r, �'l`.. t 5tt' 'y''��,�� t'",:��+�`((�' tit, :?'jtt rt� ,tp2°'4 ';;t Ml, ! ��� rf �'�` �' t'1., „�,t :,�: ,l• Y r 1 ''•F� � t• �, 4 ,! r 1 � 1 'F � � ' ,S� .r�(•' ,,,It! ,� �� `r� V y .�q3 1 ���� '�, �i .;�.» � '�i?'1�'�i• .,� ��{:�t'{ .t �+y, +5��}� Y�� . •� ; ��{' ' �' �� iKii � i�}'�. . 1�IY! } �' '��4'+4,�'i�yy`}�! �� �t? ��.�����;,, x�.,r}i'�,'i7�t �JR��� { r�yYl� , �• ��• � � `� t ,1 �{, , }! �, �� �� ti. , � •,s��a. t!7��[[[ ti{ii•,�� ��ii� �„� }t, ��a %'l't�t�t�`' !�� �`r�'4,t�"ti'�°�2` t' k �" r � icy '��' 1 � {t:� �` ,fv�}��;�� :,>5,, r � ��i��,5.yaµ��,j �F.t9,.e ! k Lr n" �•r��, 1 � •� '�L '� #r ��� �' �` ft?4' "�'�)y��L �'�FS`1$ '�€+�ku�'tl�l�'1+�1 �^ e n ^f• i-f:� .r r SEt` ;!"i 5^,_,}' +iYC'1 'i*.y.�..t':;... 'r•��•ttr w;-r4•:ak!_.'� '''i 'Y'.°'' ii''3.t""Si�'S`!T';�r1,f,' � ,�`tt'S "<.}; +, q..1�•�Cy '}'��"'ti....:� Yl .'{itfC ,'1 f'F,'-7•r?'1_I �.'.f"j;{ X�vs S X.. yT.1. `� F�-'.Mp{�..'t Y,, jyrF i L �«'1.'^1 '�i, :'•jl'9 e'er ��. \ •Y.1f 4 P Wit, t ., �5� •� t.,¢rp�^.'' � •�» i 'f7111� :^••.,7 '�Yi"•t'Vi. t{ •1 ,�,! •r4 ' ., ,{.�.:.��:{.,� ,.y � a,t(,'-+ ,'!� :E ,rWit.. '.tr!'P{! �t� !!•• �'`�i '�,1 !}}� tr,.}��'�- t . ,,�';t! t"s, t r !. ti t�;. ,,,�..5 �f .:� �^ } .t.,�R4- .t• .�.. . Yl.i� .'�_ „!! �.,t,t tt 's�C ! ,�l{r,�en•:j ,Y?, 'i, i•,�• '� , .. Y t � 6n.{�;i r, 5!•. ,l .4 , 1:4 1 .•y ! � � ;•. Yrl.{} ;tt3�:r'. iEy t, 4 �'.� �, f i ;'L "1'' .yt. t 4 �r� tt�4,.: t } s .,t; }`�.l {.,F `:=yt} ,r;,,! i y ,`i '; 1' t2,i rjf f l.,. i tt;� t1vi't q,if /f: tx ! •�a, t >l�,i .z ri ��eli'•fe { r''.i'� ! ;5)f _ `'S ,-r?'13��,.'�,'`a:t. .5" ,t;, y�.-,. �.3 .. `�. '�('�;li x.apt �r `t.t':��:•- 5•,«1' ! .1 ' fphYY:�Y( -l•�` �'';1�,5 6; If. 'IJ,1. '`�„ '`�`Yay{1f 'l 'IY;Y� ,' ( T_ S' t�l� 4tF.}{s .1,. �S,�t} •'Y','a?' 41. 6..1�' }t. {`f.7 f` 'r •t�trX,. ...i , F. "X. t�l ..l�h{ ;,{f`:ti lr+!! '• ft e;•:'+.1 �,"� 1�t., .i,:�.i.t�``{ "�elr` ��l.s 1'�',e'yi�:�1 :•, J/;1,.'i6., ,fy„ .f.Y: .r 6Y 33 •ty�[ 1 1�f l . �� t Sek t�' •a .R.ls It. t 1,(3 t �.e. .xi l ' �;e'`;, , 1� ,- '�"T a... 5 i.:>.v u�.':t { i�w3`x 4 •4 o G t }{ ei a..y4t{1 i�X...n aid',}w, r"...r�f'`^11 i.�• ,�, .� r. .",..; ti. •�' `rt,) 'ti�a� �� !a .3 { � '' f� :I'' .'� f f).SS,L f1"..,{ �.. �.:•. 1 �ra•"•'fil•Y�r:•Y •, _ S; !., rr .t T R.�,•„ t ,,; �! } � •iY 4;1•�''.6�1 �'+�, 7.� r, ai+ ;i r+` t• + Bpi 'l=' t}, ,jt ,,Y%h }{,',t���.ti � I,�ti1, ,".�,x � r { f! s�,r. •��t•1ft9 -i�?„k i� x•'� ti`'t t rL l9/.1 i•. .+d.St:t�.�ySY F4'�}'':`f � f•!$f�"r�Y' fit- Y�^yyqq+y'1)�,L: 1'i�� :f{� i�`t•.`t!i [c'� ,? Nam. ;'i}}' j)i� ` � ,.J`, t 'R•� rY d! ,x �,: :� ^.�. 1. i':3! e' r't., Y..i=,'{�, a�' �F � { "� ,rS'�'' ,f• l� ��, � tJt;� ;,>' � 4 ; '� I��. f Y-•ta.1 r '':L�'f'' :� .i .1 `, .��,� � 5 rlr1 '�; :,if, i f q,r, "}F.F � ? } t x 'tY��• •L i ,��. Lh F; F ?'s=+r r' ffi t 'y, ^`,;1\i� if 4i%r}l t..�l'�.� 1, :tT .t.�t r ..V ,�� 5,� y L:, �� tti sy1 t, ..}`;k..7 4"� 1 } `�Ai:'K k� .t�i,a t �+• �t.�z{tyy; �,�•'feet ltt.� jfr y 1+,, � "1 },r,�,t T t%. �' til�r`(�`/!j]'1 (C�•�c\jt4llt�pll�P.`a,.�tt\\f Iti il3:�y �, � i,}Ytt� �� rt � ref;' f , ,l�:rlt ji„+.,�`L. �..' ti ��z�.t,�r;'S1� ?.t,� .''ta74, S)f'(J,�•/�, .81.,'tY,{",�/4rY.I..�g1�'M1ti tlC�rr.1W�i..':Y�}a�'1. i^�ti±���t�.l.}!`'ii.��[.[]'47 f:F4,itiil�t-� 1°, ,"1� �'f;.�4` t�'�. f .• .!Y t� IN CI Ty OF HUHTINGTON 13EACH -� INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION f ottvu•++ur+rluu i From Gail Hutton "Irvr)l To Councilman Don MacAllister From Attorney ' Subject General Plan Coastal Element lium Date January 19, 1981 Draft - suggested Rev At your requc-kst herewith are my comments an the Draft Coa,:,tjl Plan: .Item 16J - Preservation of the Pacific Electric Rir;ht of i'here^ 1.4 developrent on both rides of the naraoWSstrip which W . i0. [`he rit;Ht:-ot'-way from Garfield Street south to Clay ,1 ° - +::t then t.1savet'ler Lhc: 1{(rtttit�z'ton ijench Company ranch proper t, nt,, + +�f thr� ran house and cuts t;hrourh the hill t.o cross Xarkt + .�[� 1 {c in development on two-thirds of the strict on each sictl' to PCiI . i t i s cliff ivtr] t to aec, how thin t nconG�tlncdiI si.ngleould be a track fv. rot-1.1dor. When it was usable The trtri.p would hive to be purchased at fair mat'ket value (tn[ti(1 t, li transportation corridor. city cannot require c , (!iitiorl by the owners. 1 t: is unclear what kind of ti'rAnepar'tation corridor a narrow thil; would make. much far the tlr,tetical Commenter. From a leff:i1 standpoint. , ttid '. ' nd bc� tiarlte 1n mind that the city can lit cannpla`entileinronaf;r.ci 'l ,•1t+ '+ rot, any kind or eventuality. Thus , it can p �t�°,1 , aer �oiectioll „t, i at.ir�rl r.or•ridor on the plan as a police, desire) m , 1 i tilr,tit risk. 11o4 OWitr, when it restricts development mn t1 :;+' WI )+•t,°t Y Thc. c.lirrent st.st t•t' f1 C tree+' law }�tnn there ur•ises :ttr t h:it' point a duty either to curulcmn is t+• { ["� ,•iri1if t•nken or to l+rm+`vr, the rentriGtion. r a limited tiha ti,`� (tl' t.tlt• lr, t;hili the C:tlirf-vote+ Supreme Ccul t t3t �f�r•t owner to i:,rtt.ti r,r: ii writ. `I'h(r United Strtl;r n 5uiirr,'i+r Cc�[[rt. , tit ,raver, I Y t,i,t. so ruled + t.},if: time. Thu3 , the nuc�st.lolt Is. ()r�c'lt a t;hr ,+Ink is In thr' i� t:,nnlnt*, blight•. or intcrferenro c,SO.. vIdic:ulOuS 1'(±:;Lri et.i nn nn nror�(�rty t t'►nyt:; th(� dev t I , It seems to me. Item 11.2. 1 - tlIgt[ Contralti The r. l t:•y hap a comprehell.0ve s itnl �+�►`clip:'tic'"+,r it, �t.hr.f�c(�HstHl city h ir'h7it+auldrorm toil. !1 nnecial :ri fn c►r ciitlanc.c. f y, nvr va v to be tinneces savy. Wit —L `C , G�- .t tt, _ �5 .. �' , 'ti A \ � ii� `J F � � `1� `�it.4���i� t ' AS� •t y, ,`+. �T�,�yq 5 ;: •� 5 i� .ttr t�1t '� ! !Y'}'± � '� v►�� t 43� ,r +, �' �,f��`Y �..��?�+r � ��,��, ��� t,1��'.� •y f�. �+� �5 _5Yi�[:�r�' ;i� }, +�' 4` -�6'. 5 Y Y .�h f'- .���. •;'S+'4. +��t� �t- 'S��htz a '� �' Ds �t ,°�� �+ i • + �� { S'�i��t ; �,,,777"..+ '� .t�" ,��(� .4 �ti�,.�•� '!� `+,`i`�t �'` t 4�t •r ''!��1�;� •\v �; !. ,rx5-t+��]'!.g�•,. ,`Its' '+. C_1}p� .}V`5•.,.,j,• j,{7I � it .a ,1b '� ^} �"t.['[' ���?• V.{ �•_ * ,± . i� .�3 qy` .t2 3,,�j} 1µ�!/� J• y�' � 3 j •♦.� '♦ ,i f ..�'! •�� �. '�•,l qyr+(y�y`�` •♦r,1i �l,w.lat�' . w,t" �" 'atili,RV.Sii {• Artpy� tyI yt,r •4 .1 '9"rl'+:t� .��}[r�L { s\ `* y' jtl: s s ,,llf t k S L Y,, ] •�, :1\I -� S + �. '+ 1 •[, rYl"•+'ti. '4 a.. 1 yt,r�;� 5, ' its. '•! °��+ +�, ;s. tc?i. ':�1� .. Yt, " ,?,` ,�s t< ` ` trr ( #13 , +t: ., �, t �,�,, {^+�.�. ,� c i ;f.+{,+ �C♦ t , :�f' Z { � t. �.,,r ±� �y±r�, � �,i, �!'s �.l [,• f,f1 ,()t r �,+Y t +r j3t ti �;�f Yr,t lv arc}fp.!.k,. a: •1t , � ..,'t'W. +E{' b Ca' ,�"�•,{t•�,� �3.•. •T+: r1 yl1t ' •I' t t ����:� 5 "{{+ 'r a 1 �;�� •�`:,' ( !+ ��• +��Y�'�'��,'''1rl !i � {•4� t ���1� 1iN�. �ti t 't �kt 1t•�, ,''SY";Y1 y � 4.' +�t� •�tfl f 5t. }•t4�•1�C yM�f•i ft j t }j�s+ �����• rStit"f $ jt ;,���4 +Y '7*' � V•e{ tt',:.+.1 r. �' 'R�i t+ t'1. � � �+�1}}•r f. � qq! ��� L �:3i XnY '�� TFF��t�2 � ;� �1 i. r• � ,+�, �'tfr.� r d,:+' i'�4 .t 5. �� ;�.,�!.4 t;t�. :�, .� .k'i. J 7,;\��"p '�� t ('t 1,� '�. .} #;.,! t {{(( a1i'... iS l'rt E„Mz4 1 t 'l�,!'r� ,�X i'x+i F}t`�? ` .. •yty' i ��� "1.t t ,,� # rr sJ °.�+,. ..A] 4 -y. t -t 1 �.f 5� .. >{ ,. t, �.l� to•s�, �' Q.; Ti X `� E Y.,1 �ty„ 1,+:�\��t � � �{ ,,�; � � ,'� •'¢ •a.,, ����� Q�� ��,.htYf,� .r�"t� f L�. "�` � +L � t at,�\1y ;1� 7 9. •i"�1��y, �±r•�,,, .t .:5� r t.. �.��1 7t'�t,*y�55 It�t.�:�1 t� 1 l s� {.w�. i:t t �r T"�,' 't r )t!,vl { is $" irri •1ri �+ ti.��zi``'�. '�' tit � •� ;�����+- #t� �3' t\�.�f�"�i�;k);ta�' � ��('!��i ���?�* F'��`�� „�li�f;';�,.� {,t`� •° ,;.�i�p,� � WWI �� i.'� t'. •+•�1� � �• .�^t r•+ t,1 4 y��� r`A ti ,{� ;�. i` r}Y �fi' °1� y , � •( , �•. Te`y�. �� +tit \ �,�� kr S,. V;.Y � j, '"� { �-. ..•'1 1�•���! �, ��4,1i �. r `a� fT � ty ,S 'j':S.•1 .t. ,��'.t�it �k�}1t�� �'�����+y�� l� ��{� °� �`r''�,i� ia�l"��2`4• ,;C"3 �'yY`5'w�4k[n'����"r' ,'�'. { a'�. \ �'�• ' �•� t f 5'+�yp r V` �tt�` 5y �S +,,,]�'•��� ��. � •� n�•,tSZL�. �, ��r '`A' �sj,�tS ��• VVV;ri'� R ,,t ° 'F �++ �i qwmmmvWX C'y,�'�`.11'�l►'.a'.`l"'4 t.9 � iL+W +��°D['++�.Yifl".����".'+r �. .r�..SR•.rX['f 1* t 1 �,,.e• z114111�af � ,•.,,v++•Y..-�,ti+��-vt t"'f°".`ar'S'i��1.t r 5 5, 1 1fi S �r. t#7 , + i1L?1F✓1`.laSH+.+rt:'n"r „ts 4a.'*y,M^1t17( I1'iY,?'>yu'}iF {,"t ywi .f i.yi yr t'tr. 'E i t, at» 'rrRr.^tr.t.'r"?'•I` :`t= r°a i.4{s �;.#r 1 .f •1 j':r4'T•�•' r7, 5 t +r.i•t(,i;t1.'V + -\; + L W1 1 4t F+ t [; °• 1 y+ ' k •, �, T5(, y is a i��'''.+, r'1,rA '_ j,"�Q.4 �# �s •S t* } t "jj ";w c rt�•'+ trf �. �++. �(1r1\ ��r T. •:z4 .1 y-A, •1•�''�' 4F.'i55 s'i1•- A. .t� .,. ..i 1 .;`,4 I•l{�' 7 t 1 .-{ �f. .jt Y .:�*' w]:'` Y-• ,.r';t .r + ± `1+i :i' -" i.�tt{•. .t Y ,r t. •:.1rt y;tl w'S5•+s,.,, � r f, .i ..fi ts, r }l4} ii� [� r4 � 1�: xiL :1�r<l�yi'`lt •{i'{ 'ts �'t !' '` r``+.It,° .'TS y♦y i:+,'';ti�k F.is':.'t��ji� rtt r..),\rt L` + .i x.�;>q f. �'t" ,�: ;.k,` i1 'ti� � '.��!• f 1,1t�.�,i, i t F +<�•' .( •�t �'s t r, 'y +l 5•i! -i � r15t .1 �_�111't�:i{i ril .5• `�tM1-�F[.r .,� y \ i'r'.3r�.1.,� ! �. � f>�'� 't i'� .Y ?�'`��� 1 p k�t•'�i,�� .�, +: �+4�r'( �.'�+s1t• 's•,C `t ±�, ft t 1�'rr'•. :s[+1• Y'� �`.;S!..1 � ;�`1':'• 1 �i' S:� t ' .��,¢f•iF.-: t+. .,`.tt ° � �' ''�� � ��(.�• 'Rv :[� :17'.7i f. t ,.r 41. `�i• +[.,,-�; �'1 i ,s. ,o.1.f °,r .t.,z .t: R{'tr� ��+.t,e [ 5. ti1.,.+ :F't •t- ?. y'•`� j -��i. •+"a .s' ur.�J, (lr) r`1.1 A`. 1� f'� 'Y,,F �,t�y4•.,'.f tY°, .. �(' f t ',;�..•.1,r+ �. "' -t 1 i+ },!+` .�� �„ .."v�'r d�V. .�1 rf+. .i4+1 ` 'i).'� �,}t'• y. .� �t..r ti! �,��•' �"�• ?j•', '..1f�� t t� 5 .ttf Ir�i:.t��.:r�,�:'�+,.'l �i;t�.���r -t?'jx+�+'4' �54•t, 1 � .,t..i5.' ( 1. tt .t. r t Sy'1 '; 4 r ;4..+. t F 4 + �` a- 'f'. ./Sa`. +. yl-- -,. •l. ti�;•gh E-5 ,� 1't 'r �.'s '3 }••..,t,� �:4 c ial ift�+ `tytt,'t r't},s •,.i� .��t...i �•,'�.t ,:t� �, �!' rt l 4 ! +t :\,if4.•4r• 11+.� ;t�`4i �`.i 1. -1� 54.`. (k'�" �i �t..iS H l;, � r.: 4 a1 4, 'Ef 1•:r�: 5 ,'�5,.,ti. :+.t ,fit,'t<Ltt Y+• ��.,s(�, :1 ,y��,ts' t'.t..r: i',F ° it ('� t, �, + ttf^�r 'l�'• t�, , .4t� .+' rA �k"i� "r�r`�r t. +t� ,r: '•�' ix+..'� ,�"[.5�44 f1 r.'X +Pt �,;.�'��;fj� �",� ;:ti,l t ,. �1 +r ���' it+ ++�'Zr aV��2�.�s�?"`i yt'. :'_ :5:i+:,t..�rtt ..i...l _ °*' ��.,?�!�' t3:��+'_''a�5t.t.t".i �}.. �>[`) 1��``_����Yiy...i.,�+z+F{ft..:ti �:�� ��i�,3'.� ?�+.35� r,. t:t��``,,Ct tt[b t1;`.tt,tl�t i >F.• •+tx .r ,. trcilman MacAllister F'ROt'i : City Attarne�/ Memo to coo Coastal, Element Draft RATE: January19, 1901 Re: tiJanot'al ' Page 2 item 4 .2.2 - Coastal Bluff Areas The set back appear toithxthesreRuirementr that t . bluffrrain The lowlands' are• wide and to comply cannot be seen would be an developmente be back far enough so they rinusual requirement, one which is both arbitrary and capricious. Item b.l.i - Wetland The designation of the area between s nh��serBoulevard surroundinR�athedCulf Street 0il across from the former city animalthe Company storage tanks as a bird 2aast"fresh/brackish`watern marsh,, nation of that area on figure �• The be diCCicult to support factually . Figure 6.2 it misleading. verbage on page ,67 which describes the areas reads like a brochure y property on Beach and PCH (adjacent describing a nature trail. The cit Huningtoech Inn) is to the, Driftwood Mobile }come Park the twotareasnareaindistinguishable. for commercial use. In actuality h A, wetlands designation removes all veonarbitraryc use fanci capricioustand gives This type of planned use is and damaging of property. If rise to inverse condemnation, blighting e bit truly wants to designate the property as wetlands it ultiinately the Y . ,,ill pay fair market value for it. Attached are proposed amendments to the Coastal Plan which" reflect the nt�.� , above comments- .i. r ty r,AIL HUTTON city A ttornoy Attachment (;iI:WSA:bb cc: Ben Arguello, Actin, City Administrator MetnbersaointiheeC� ypGounci�rvices Director t { t i t •a t y Z .(' `j��,, +i• l..v" 'rt�,�}� `4�''��"':a Z 1` }�11� �'t" � � + � r� ..0 S •F ��µ 4 �i; 4 �1.r�S.1�, `x., �,` �`}� { is .,� •Y'. � C �S t!1 l� 4 i. �:.5 �t,�':,� �h' : .OrFF ti�C � 1���� � F�� ,ti:�, �i�' � 1 r. ,{ y � +,� ,�,�y,� �4' Yi + k+t•�, �� Y� ;;��;�.��5k .�'t�` M.,`�+t ;���i $ j�'t r 4�4�_ : ���' .q y i `}i���il.e>� r •��} 'fit. � � r ti r'i• � ��� '� ��yy F + r4i if' + jt1+ r t1���7 `+ �+�,♦'j]\�5, `f,ti{ E77 f �r)S�}{"y{C(y{C�t .!'}y 5�� �.� {.�, c � tS. � i �` �' � 5� �t 4� "� 4,+� o rI•� I�� '1�1 � `1,6�YLk rt t S'�'11d'r'�� �� }'Y• .4 �`' �,� �� t �� T'4.+7�. .r• C• 4� �V.. ti �. " A�,jl{ti` } ►, ry,!} 5. F � 1: ;hi. �.} a+ '. ,�.. r"} iy4 '� j �#' �.' '� +���". �� ,� + t C�.�s.. ,s fS�` t,t} 1!."A 1 !. ` 7,` �11 t r, +'f• '1 . w.2G.',� z.5 .�.."ti•,t i'f y.{ , �� �` •'4: }� � �l&Pndlll>•++L���1�� •y�+ `)"!�:{ �`' !��S ��:F+��t•� �J��� r `�, t t S• x��! x'� t'[ 'q �.1 id+"`�'y(� . rsy r+. rx`t•Sl �{�, 1 t{fit' tj� �.. � ��1 � � w��ry -} 5,.1 �2!, �ft.� �{ r"-�i�' •,� i'"•fX +ir.4. , t t�r ` � .•i �y �F.� S `•ti?•��:� � �� .w.;lf,� ��� �C� v rtrx, t ,rr�iM�<:. ' �. S� !' IFS w fJ�C t.,pp7F '4Fl "+A}�i ��' �#� ���StC'�t ti� r ky+� r1Lla a ,� ►�Y �' l � 1t � It 9 R r 4. Sit t ,1.j� tfki S 0 y�. 1 x y • �� tt" r��{` c1 `\�Y 14v t AC (�,t'�t�yw'�//Y�'��}�i�"'y�'Sl + s:��h�F .� A[,*SC���. ti tct• i�t �� � !, ��G + t. 1 .a �'. Skv\i•iS�J§,�EyI Y' � 1 1' {Sift1F(�lyk� itwF.)o-� +1� C "ut Y � (! t 1t .ti,}i� k1 t� ��♦♦♦,��. 7 1��Is11� (`y+�,"!t� t +YjjFr4rj", � �. � r• t. �;iS. ?t� �^,+tat tr: •4 �j]y� �t R Y.�,`J t� ,e ??4{;'j1yy� .t([,L�`7 1�j 1� A ?'^'\:Y :yaHyie, ., ,1' ;, .'Xn t1it7j�}1j•Cf�y\ '/� ,t t�! .5 //ll�.``��'P y� a..t r 1 1. ,5t:- �,i. �(e• "i1 C' -'�'7� i's.. ,t'!"�i�y r�� -h't,S+,'1"�(� �#:�(t��`}/i• F�,�}.lyV A t2(.i��'��, �n. � 'C� �•�F ?.'•r�{ 'r'. 'F ! ��' t 4 4, !��{3, ! y.r� �t} `n� ;+��lj\�•. �,,���,1���� 4,� ,}�-�x`•4 +4ia�t,` t' S { + tr��!�. 1'�' '"stf. �;H.4t .:{ �i t�• t�' .kC 'vx3.�'� .'� J>��ly}�t1!�} ��%� "��`�yw�"i' k�� �. " �'. � i' }r_ � A. '•�+1� Y �� ,� , `�:A'. `5.` t:Stt���''}�y?•:y���1;:ki, }' ) •°".C"•t rtk! ."LLS1� 1SY .51�'i l 1.� _�Y l .,,'t> -� + •j �� 1�1�+� f � t VFY; /' II rI,Lk T� j .45 ,' 51M1�3 `t ' �' ty J;,<1Ft' ,$�,,1 + •"�',1�• a����'�;'fC,� S'y�Y+� .'ni4' t" 7 4 S`t y T Z `k. rl f �7{ J'9 19 ri'.T,',{. k 4• rt. lt(. ,!{ `1'5,�. -%-- ly e I `` C ,i ,. it i f�� l � f5 �;�t�ky�' � �t •�,5� i.� � ��+ t. wl.. � .. t+:�f .� 'C.ii3 t� �� . '�!+ tom• �` t ` f' 4 *$i • s L'14'».•'"' ..� r^^'x"t^'S'R rF�'"rT—'.t,..0 Cr:~r"i"��'t'R� 1 P l Y y. +• fl1 5, t t + t} ;i �. r1,77T"n ( t� r t.',e t}St-� .r -'t� '(�>i(,J-) t { C��1 t' F.ti �f h.�{Y "� .. .q +_,t .1:°Sv t F,.• t s .,`� "+ 7„""."A....,-w,•••-1 ft•'{„St kT^i`�{'"C'..��. ri''�yp�+y�`}. �ti,.i.� , i.:'sr t f� ��� L.l �i-j�1S 't (•xi iq 1 i4 a....+.t ,.t. �ir`r. .+; S f ,?t ++l�F j'x: `{"l.:S�"5.t r} {yi,i .."i. CjjS.,'F' ��l ,':til�+t}�i S- yie:' .}�{`l:f' itt F ,t,. Ct,ti "sr {: l :1.�- flr t� ft��. 'r'• F r.t«',�f' :�i ,F. .i�1+.S .� .1;• lt ,h'-�+ttr� jk.�'..Sr: ;t..•t +1:"ysYl •S','tW`f>t 'i 5{.lry.[ �`` t t It i;. S C i,.>, . �e tt1 .its , ..Cx":F1., 5 �G: } ,.'+;t {;'f141 .y e.,,'."r ?rc ,•t�.. } ,rc 1 ,.x .c �t, {� '� {. S t x.W < t LF.• x...r 0. i; ..;r ttt..r;<a rr 4 ".i � .t. `.1 t"`t.t. 7.•t, 11t.t�l = '" Si. ? w, s: �"%•t {-}.�r,t tie} ,! ti- „e 'r. :," �,f, F,:.r.x�. f ;t,. .Et t, 1( •.f i r •1 r i, ( • t4,. i 5 '`. ltt .'t. t } t* Y: `}L ii .53 Yy f t �.'' 'l, t •. r }}. t.a te .". ��.tJ +{` i 5 t ir.j � ,t• {`} .F et �s'S«i�� Z.� �4tf ;' ,} S }t! }".y,hitt„- �1,.l,��i:) � ;+ 9�.:lt^� ISS .1#. t" ltttf,! t { �. .t3 •f ''<., .:ti� .t,. .f.`:F f• ;, )•�t .p��f�. .......f{:;ie:L4 t�'F'i t,}'a/��.$.:'i .. ,. t�t^�t�'> .t 11.+.`.t L YJ{.,-.'.�"..te.4✓... .. i:' :._t�"f::4a`�'}`.t e..t r f. .. 'COUIXILMAN DOI] MacAITER ASSISTED BY CITY ATTrJEY CAIL tiU'PTO�I OS t' SuFt,ested modifications to Draft Local Coastal Plan Page 47 - At Wetlands, delete paragraphs 1 to 4 and insert: "The area east of Beach and south of Newland has teen described by several agencies as a potentially sensitive environment. No formal actions have been taken by these groups . The city will 50 develop a specific plan for this area. When the property : :•., , develops, portions of the area may be restored, provided that it is economically feasible to do so. The land use designation shall be Visitor aerving Commercial." (tC c-b(g41# ctw► r't� sQ . 'ray. '—' Page 47 - At Multi-story Development in TDownt�ow�iP 'Area,�aWaew 7ar rapt) 11: "If lot consolidation is encouraged with the bonus of higher structures each plan will be reviewed to allow for adequate open space and set backs ." `Page 41 .- Warner Avenue to the Huntington Beach Mesa Bluffs (Strike all reference to Bolsa Chica on Pages 41 and 42 as directed. ) aqe 45_ - Section 4.2.2, Visual. Resources Areas , Coastal Bluff Area, dellete paragraph 6 in its entirety. s age 153 •» Lines 13 and 14, exclusion from exception of P.E. right-of- wa . Question to pose to Mr. Palin: "Why is the Pacific Electric right-of-way excluded from the access requirements at Lines 13 and 14 , page 153? It appears to single out a particular piece of property for different treatment?" Delete Lines 13 and 14 unless the staff and planning; commission have a rational basis for treating one property differently from any other. LEGAL COM14ENT: It is constitutionally suspect to discriminate among property ownwrs or exclude a particular piece of property from all other property, absent a rationale basis. (14th Amendment of thb U.S. Consti- tution, Equal Protection Clause) Pa 155 - 6f - Delete all of 6f and insert: "Utilize existing city sign ordinance regulations for the oastal zone for on-premise signs." i FRk rk';�,�" ;� ?��"� s• ,, �' � �:, �;' ',�"� �,, t' +� tit. r ,��, �, y ► � 1 ;!#k +; *tom * t t, t ..��: . ,, v �.,�,r5 1 op 'X� 1`t i 4•t`t ' �' "$ t � 'IY t .a Y C t. •♦ l � w r;. �N'.���.; ", S �1 ti �� ^�gF.���(/�.� "� •�l.., t. r•;) '�,' Y x. � .. ,x '�� �.•�, i{y "�.�; � �!.'[f i¢' . A3�. `�4,j. �' ,� • ,i � ti,• g� t{1 :t y • t�.I•t4'� �_ ,+7t' 1 +�, ,!' „;"! `•'�' 1' YYY a+' :t� 'T. � kA�� , , d •.Lr: `�. Sli�l�`• --+'"!�'_"Ko"'rT"f i: •'.,' T"?y'�Fz+';�•r•' : 7 ',7LT71 4ry....•,+� i'(! + .Its ,,*• .+.{r ( is tyr„'.a jti�1';'t t•.?1', .1 4 "t "i.11 ;a. lit'�,'•� _5� ")) i • il 'E i tf7Y yr 7:t 1 t r .� £ rt.t. ,i )j i.,t+: ,1 11 i•� "" L 5 ..,� rll .t + �t It F r 1� .: t' j' 1 .1 ',, t _ .'f i ..-+ t2 � s�r•J♦ 1) ,� ;Sr 4.•_ 1 .� Y•. "x5;r. f t �.7. c, t �t.^l� r �S t :.� A'r_t t ,- i EIS-3� �, .{ y # EeI,yF l: ,rl,l 1., i 1).-01 .. z .. ,l t �«T,.l 5•' {t-t ttjt ,� 1 t 1 tfi 2. 4:1t �''7 y. e z i�{''. !) t..(� r ,trl e�},,,, •�': , '(r,t ,r jx ;r►T 1 � r i y rl,r+� �� � .TtS . ,, 1 . � + 'tft,` t,r c 't'4 la : ) 4.f �. t r,p. �/_- , s. �1. 1 :�! ( ' , tts �.r rf�.r�,$ '} t r,../r. " ry � 1 •, zi 'tt + �. v4. . .��t• It r ,3lt��`,t,ttl. ',ljTt-"i��Y"fit�y .j. lfi�".• l x0 tail'�{ 1 '}, i +.A ? :Y)�,{ .'{�1..1 ._�tt�. '`f_i,3;11`, #.r,t•c. i�s.4•,.-e�l i• c,)f� r.•i�zl I.:ht�y/t.1.'_c .t.(•� t+. i.arl'I Lt..t. 1-_t .....".'.i• 14,.. •.� ill. - _ CITY OF: 11UHTINGTON BEACH • INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION rKwrrlr:ur+n r,r rr To Honorable Mayor Ruth Bailey and From Gail Hutton Members of the City Council City Attorney Subject Communications from Robert Moore Date January 19, 1981 Mills Land and Water Company Attached hereto copies of a communication received from Robert London Moore, Jr. , of the Mills Land & 'Rater Company and letters he has supplied for transmittal to you from the following entities: 1) Letter from Caltrans ' Deputy Chief Counsel indicating that the City of Iuntington Beach was offered the wetlands property and exhibited no interest in acquiring the property and that Caltrans is not prepared to undertake the responsibility of administering the property in perpetuity for wetlands. 2) Fetter from Michael L. Fischer, California Coastal Commission Executive -Director, indicating; that the coastal roMmission has made no preliminary determination of wetlands in any other areas of the city except the preliminary that the Bolsa Chica was a wetland for LCP planning purposes. 3) Letter from County ' of Orange.Environmental Management Agenev r Indicating permit required and the inherent flood risk in ally r use of the Huntington Beach flood control channel as a means to restore the historic tidal marsh. 4) Editorials from the Register dated December 21, 1980 and January 7, 1981. These documents are transmitted for your consideration at the request of Robert Moore, Mills Land & Water Company. • COMMENTS: i i Please refer to memo to Councilman MacAllister, dated January 19, 19810 regarding Item 6.1.1 -- Wetlands. It seems apparent that undertaking a clr:lgil,ition of wetlands for the area between I304FIch Boulevard and Howland Strect In the light of communications from Caltrans , County of Orange Environmental Management Agency and the Calit'orrnia Coastal Commission i would be factually difficult to support and mij;ht well lead to t'111nF, of 7 a writ of mandate in the State court after the State Coastal Commission ! has approved the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Plan and the city h:ia adopted It.. In the event an action were bisouglit in Pederal court, the city'n designation of wetlands i'or this arcs might well lead to damages in inverse condemnation. Such a wetlands designation would leave the j Pronerty owner no economic use under the current guidelinv5 . U I I, HUTTON City Attorney Attachmentn h rc• znmer �J r •t' 1 � Pal in , 1)r�v. Serv. send f3r�n Araur,ll•n City Admin. � .f. •S`j"'/.1r'.F.t. •t_ -r..t '1`'lC 1T•w.. PIN ij.t ''ty ' •' r"ti e � �a �1 iyi;• 4"�[Jj� ' � �' � ;•� �,rub,{ �1 '•�, `1 j1 t i � R♦ f""AAthyl7tt`iiy' � � ' 00 ,t 6,fi'i•d.a}`} ✓ter ,y ` . �i+a afi � •:'ti r +t''1"l i}ly �, 1ti,t n 4N ; ;dyy,C � 'y/y � � `. 9,�� 4�`r1. 1 1.',� EN '1�''• -.tti •,{• .Y;t,/ 'T` :rlr^I.� r . �•r� �•'.y � :�' 4 '� Flt Si': � �(�" , Pig t t 1`, 1�F� �► ,�.� �'+r�' � t4� •�,� �( �+� }� � f ti rA � � �i 3a. '�ni �T��r���:+. ' 4 � � T ''i ��1 11•�, '� ''„ 1� ` F". ��,^"�� "fir >. t � ��� �c,ti{,��'y�,a •�` �r ��� ` ' � y p �i �ta`�4A`,�y' � T" y t i, rjTp�t� ��e't• ,�^ `>v� i ' r,�?�'' •�• ;,sv. •'� t i` 1 i LW r :'E�'it �I ► Ix" 'l ,4I�141t`; /;. 31I 'i� �? t•1 .•li .,4 {.t f , ie } tl.•' , p R !.; r,�rr 't',V .. } 1.. ,f�' i ��(t ., •i,�'�t r- •y to _ F C t t3 w ti 4 �,T y '�1 L .l��� i' t+' 4. (1, j 3S{}� t ' rr: •(ijh ik��t�.\� (t`iL,t y F:i�',i p'��'tt}!�}r s�`gy��i IFr�.y a.. ii 1Y LT,le 1. <w`_: 7�� �,�� }� r t.t lla�'„{{t 5'! yy�'.' i>) �F 1 4,�' 1.��� , Y:.,} f}'..-.!'',Sft ,4. �`• � t z'1 �i r i " t t i 9 rl�.> iaz 1 1 ; t� j� x r. i�.ss , j "��! .♦ , + {���i Y4�•., t,.,r aI'� t�t � .ay7.`, , l� 4k s r i j t€.,Tu t i t i t''. *t, t 'i•.� it �'7.1.�'i r i l '1 fi'.f t, i.� 1 h 1 -p ,tY i•. t � 1 ..3t k '`t ,t_ 11t:'3,=y t h t l, '�'� � ,� � : 1�'1•s�t..ir ,t � ,„ �/l� ..1� ll,� 1..i "1- opt 1% !(. -. , . a } �'•' +nlA 1. ,'!., 'ti• 4i"'��,.! ,1'� r`f,e, �� A" .5y.�+(• '�� } .+. t � s '.�,1•. `av- 1 t� ((lt'. 7 '.,4: t. �} '•.t. t ( .Y {1 ,t` :yl i,t{., � -1,;#:1, ��i.{,r1P?i 1 ,`j::+,' :i ri ti=rY 'f.'.4' + yl,.. 4a ;:(><,.cr"1•t•. "i{ ,`�a.}l ,r�'f.t s.+ .J�t ;!. � ,.�.d $�3 f'iL `7 , t.t} �.:t.� •+ ;=,�,t.JE � t; '.. �`�Cl; *'il(. ` {'1>.�l t ,� 'y'r.. �,: zr'�a,s #i, �1,�.. ,s ;� . -� .•.�. "�'��,,.�a,}-_{t •._i°. .'1�•i d``,S:i}:,1..\!:l.. ...1"g s`:?�r° 3 t. 1 1{ .. .. _ti:a,.1�.d:f:-.t.. .1,. ...t..•:t.. }_. ._4-a, ><�..:i 1!t-.r.a+. .. ..'�.. `.','�.4.t.,, . r •T.SYc.?.'r. Suite n^,! Subvay Terminal" Building Kober; London !Moore, dr. .07 w ou th Hill Stre e t Lois Angeles, California 90013 (213) 620-9404 243-7186 January 16, 1981 Gail Hutton, Esq, Huntington Beach City Attorney City ball - Fourth .Floor 2000 Main Street HAND DELIVERED Huntington Beach, California Rea Mills Land A Water Company State of California. (Caltrans) Properties - Beach'Blvd/Coast Highway Huntington Beach Dear Mrs. Hutton: This will denote our telephone conversation yesterday relating to , the City's coastal land use element of the LCP and the "wetlandn" i designation which has been suggested for the -properties owned by Mills Land & Water Company and the State of California at Beach i Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway. As I mentioned in . our conversation► Mills attorneys haveprovided US with a co � py of the January 6, 1981 letter from the Legal Division of the Department of Transportation indicating that the State is not willing to hold and maintain the surplus Caltrans. parcel at this location as a "wetlands" preserve. . i In accord with your request, I am sending along herewith a copy of the aforesaid letter, which I trust you may be able 'to review With members of the Huntington Beach City Council before the final vote is taken on the coastal land use element of the LCP. 1 I am also enclosing a copy of the December 12, 1980 letter from the Orange County Environmental Management Agency on the permit { required and inherent flood risk in any use of the Huntington reach flood control channel as .8 means to restore the historic tidal marsh. In addition, please find enclosed copy of. the December 5, 1980 letter from the office of Coastal Commission Executive Director Michael L. Fischer addressed to Huntington Beach Planning Director James Palin, in which it is made clear that the City may'•proceed to adopt land uses in the hest interests of the City in its LCP. This letter, contrary to Mr; Palin 's advice to the Planni C � lion and City Council, clearly states that the Coastal Commissions has 'mode no preliminary "wetlands" designation for the Mills and Caltrans parcels in question. 'I I 't�,. �� Ott?,. �,♦ .' r! .,r hK i � ,� .�i'{, �a.,.. .4i.t.t p �,�1� � ,t���p,l�y� a 1� �'$,t � �i i rY: �A,tl+ C �9 �t'4 t1'as 1tia 't;4�1 r • f' '' i L `' + �•rs �;� > �9F •�, l k�� Y � 1 f j��ktr .� !• .�i�• j!•lt�li� t � t i>ii1iA �R 5 `y ► tS,t '' �.' r 1 ''(` 1{t .�t`, + f � j, t Sr,+ 1.1 !i, i ,. , d 3>: s.r 1tyyn +t �i'�,'�<>;p `i rh �j' �r � itjf t� � .�•�'t:, yix ti :��' '1 ..,��i,•a':tt>k!,• t ; r� �� .t�� �"� {r t��*t. t�.i� :�y `�'��i'S tb i E�•_�"5 �' �q 'i' « Ft� r Fa t .�,7�t� ;lti.7 ! tl't�,'�gt,i �.i {.1�� 1�f- tj.� ''�{Y � t M."P�/r 1 {•! t�, �q r Nit {.� c�s*' i�t: ry� *► it '�t'r��}Sf�. 4 :� ` ,^. ti titi` rti .. tr 7 "NIT ;.r-1S1;.1,� �� { vi�'tt., N r� £.�,t,^7 L�t«�'' .t r �,� 1 r. f,•i.� .r1 �` i ;t". d .t �d![g .'7tt ,t, t: 'r + ,,:''^+2.; +� r'4GYc .•.Y ,�; t. j¢�yyASa {�rtkt•�t � V `�,4;!tii51:j," .�` •` ��'tlf F'. ,?f�: ` T. '°7� t� fit}, �' •-'�,fti'i � trl,T» tr }L�i t i 'ty� r ' .+1 1 - :S'l� �.. 1 � ti 'ty./�y�y" 1 7 'u �,� Y,T]tf� v.slS�i;'. I' 4 t• t�{ •�>;,- 1 ti ;rt y};��} i:� "� "j,i' }6C; 1� ,i'}, �j;+j".tt]�,jr •: t J y. f ji' ilkgtvit, 'T;r �t, �4`:I.1t��1� b+�3+ 1+ •�tY Zy YT+t4'1� .r •r4ir :il: r t , !i i'� ,1 it i t -a t*^'!�•�7;�4't 'i.1 .•. 7 i '' °V t� tf' , f �}d•v 1 ..;` r... .+ r ,r I. .} �,' Y •� t,,, f S :E�t , � J�r. §§i,`�M r.t rt,�• t=t l�}+ J }-_ �,.. •,}� :1 !� t, {.4 t tre + S }'Y•«� �i .1T' t 'r r t .� � � X ..� ., �, t 4'af•� w .t sl Y 't t i , t. : t ♦[ y t tj. i \ �.. 1 t 1 \il" -1 liS ! ! 4f ••t s ,n f ,t 1 1 S t l�C�,:,t; et ei ( jF .e 4 ri'•l,t + �'1^' 7t' t `` i 71' .!'f� ,. i �.at�tlls ,'{ - 1 ;r ..;„!Fr .G- t., .tl!" + �� t !t\ t, 1t 1• ` 1�, .S.+rt. 'ikf z!� �.� � �F'- t tZrl ,�'_ }i ..`� ��u.. ` 7 1*�♦ t{�' 't,r ,.v tvt,ti., tr -,t t i-, x ,t :, 't r r .+ , IS. t t 1 t 71 t ^.,1� ++.atl '.:%`I:}{tyt�� k^.'� 1. 1? tr t. iC !? �'t� 47,�} + t,`F i,, .�'..��r t . Fit, 11��t' t `,t.,�^'� ` �.:..',r,,,, t,l• .fa ri'�:��tr �'Et x tr•.} t. x }.X) +l t YY f 1 i t t �( i ,� .i !�' t e��',t,�A'Jli�e`' •��"Q` Y. T at t- ] m:.• `i y: J# #t + `:�„i'y {.� s.ltF 5 ` ;r. i•;#„ `r ''±,� `�' Z!c rS„`,1 `( ,1t� ,ir.�.; i,yS'�rt, y�1i.rFS. ;S.'�'�+x1.y lr+K'C��++�t''=y?�'j'�+lyYp�Ydlt+,..,1�,�^+ti::��rt..1 jk.1.i. ,;>: ,t � '+.r.: Y ' 'k. .,l jj z ... t a � 7 �4 s t, '! l,. �'i.� ,,�r'�•, •�` .�{} t - >i. .. 11i'it o.,rlir. ..J'�i\e••S.i..:2a..'•a.tlrr:..r�r,..r.:l,+t1.:+�tL.4!•'�,��.-.•�`i�i�:S"�`�.'tr'if•�i.F!3�.:1�{kk't'i.� .1i"1 1 Gail Hutton, Esq• Attorney i l,untiington E1a8h Ci•Fage two January lb, `� { es the City of. Huntington reach tc� to the land uses under considera- Mr. rischer' s letter n relating LCF, and to proceed 1 review allhenceaa a1 elementiof• the City' tion for r in making designation(s} appropriate for "in the usual manner araels. the Mills and Caltrans p Cit is .not required Clearlyjed in view of this, it appears certainthat estaff members of Fish . to adopt the land uses aavoseveralyyears ago. & Game in their mapping have any questions or desire oPPor�unitytion, If you should hone me at your please feel free to telephone r Since a S'r • �� ` R SEAT LONDON MOOREr • plHsay 'Encls. Ils Land cc: Directors# Mi van, E y� Water Co. Roger H. i;. Dean Sti;,lwagon r Esq• Caltrans Legal Division ; F . i t t 1 ' � M i t 5 4 t �Y, �3 ,� 'k � � 1 t• � ,w y� w t � , •� 1, 1 ,y, '5,,� ,h'�}�; ,.���� ,,fit r � $, �., �'. r:�. g �+•� .r�# � � +,; .�.1 YII.. � � nnL"G�-.i_. •1;{ tSl'S r�.}l���r�+1�l �SI � s>" 4 t f3� f�J ,�tt tl'rl 1 ,SL )P#ay1 � r#n�� 4���,i i t� art �4)t i t t..����>4•�( �. ���.1�� sr; k r #4 t iti � �}_ + i .r•'i'�t +, �� �` 4. L e��'• t i t;' i'#1 F• # .. � 1f t. R �y;ft � i 1. l �:?.t"xa �J . �•r "t tt z f �z�5 .3a Vt.df. 1� i� 1 itj.� { .. �cf�f # b yy,,4t + ".1 }t"" �at t��. J� i .;}-:,j ,,•if�' �{,,> ll C "�t #t '{t11� � 1�4r.. 1 � 1y !; ,, it T•:" #�Jx�• t ti+ ti y .+.', ss,,t �?'-.�`�' J-t'v ij "�ti�}.}lt'l4L t 3 '.3 k.! w ��r.t'... .r�r3-fi,%+2. . L"+�\4 �: �l. Y �t 1""- � / - t� �;� 'ti .�F i '� +`t-. ' 9 4 r• f :+ ire- l :`ly t t l ti 1`L } t f x.w .:' 4 5 kf�y. -e. ++ .S�"•, 5�y ) tl"., �` � t' � L !. ff "�,1 t � j t ))� t ti y ,t y ". t4.;?qy .,,R•j),, y# � � ri�. Y•,id#'.x. +,t...�� } �r'� i V �, f > l(" ,#� T' zt -�. � #. *�j��tis :'��{t�"{+L-yi "1, r'�.����" ftj'-`:;.t "i.:�# 1� -a;'1'�✓"" v.11?fiLt'.�fr9.��Y.,...a..r,.4 �! t"..�i1#+4�,.��t y.�,. :ti�1t�.ti�:,l+..�/y-, =.:^'ik�,__`Lay�i#r•`���t"�.�.'t�L�l:iit$\ .r.t,_ trS}t��S..'4'.'.�`�+;1'As "2\11:if>'z.3',.,.".too.„..1. w S/AII Of 01110I1IIA---CUSINISS AND I1ANara„ :ON AGINCT MAUND G. ftAWN 19., f'0161me MARMINI Of 11AMSIOA1A11014 '.GAL DIVISION =1 �10 SOUIII VIINO S11II1, SUITE 510 10% AWIt(i,CAttj0%j4jA M11 lnli'racvu (III) A204 1' January 6, 1981 'Thorpe, Sullivan, Workman, Thorpe 6 O'Sullivan Fourth Floor 000 Wilshire Boulevard Lou Angeles, California 90017 Attention: . Rogor M. Sullivan, Esq. Re: 14ills Land 6 water Co. v. State, at Ora Co SCC No. 25-97-43 Public Hearings- Coastal Element, Dear Mr. Sullivan: Concerning the council meeting of danunry 51 1981 -,, which the Coastal Element- of 'the City's General Plan wan to be voted upon, it appeared in the study session prior to ..41c public hearing that the Council was either uninformed had given 1Ittle weight to several facts which wossld appear be important in its final consideration of this plan. Pirst: The purpose of 'our transaction is to further the: State Legislature's mandate that real propeyrty in excess. of this; 'department's needs should be disposed of and restored i to local jurisdieticn and tax rolls as Bonn as possible. A (Streets & !Highways Code .Section 118-6) Secondly: That in •disposing of excess; property de:pied to have "notableenvironmental value," th }. property must "firrt ' be offered for sale. or exchange to public: agencies operating parks and recraiitional areas . . ." including: "(a) To 'any park or recreation department of any city within which the land may, be situated; j "(b) To any park or recreation departmert of the • county within which the land is; situatezd= " (c) To ,any regional park authority hating juris- diction within the area in which the land is situateds "(d,` To the- State: Resources Agency sit any agency f ' which mdy succeed to its powers.d I { i . •'1�v'.: r . . •, .a�..r•r•Ha� w.+l"1!`..v�t(.l,.x.+j..�y.«�.....��..y. .• ., .. .. ._. .. .... A . r a 4� r ���`l t{• y` �" r •tl . ININ 00 Mv i � �� 4S� , ri l';(M��'} '�,i MI � .yp��. ► � 'y .�Y� �!14 J� �U+ �y � rt + ,`:1�{1 y,��i�� �1�'1r), '4t'�. a, � L• ,{i,`�' �, } i t "`l�; ' ' � •� ,i t .4, i1' e1, '' r Thorpe, Sullivan, Workman, Thorpe & O'Sullivan --2-- Attention: r.oger M. Sullivan, Esq. As you know, prior to entering into. the purchase and sale ,agreement with your. client, this department fully ''coniplied . with"the above legislative mandate. 110 public.' agengy, includinq the City of; Iluntington Beach, has exhibited any real - interest in acquiring. this property ' to preserve •as "wetl-ands" or for any other purpose. This lrick',of .interest appears, to be. inconsistent with the proposed "wetlands" designation. In addition; I :am aware of no provision under which ahis 'department. is, prepared, to undertake the responsibility. of administering' Wp property in perpetuity for "wetlands." Finally,, it is; not clear 'to what extent, the City: has considered Actual. uses being madet or. Mills Land -prop er.ty and . St' to sx6e' i property-,-fronting Pacific Coast Highway up. tv and including the corner at Beach Coulevard. Those uses r. appear to .be completely incompatible with' a "wetlands" design tion. I am •'so'r;:y that we were unable to present these' thoughts to che. Councillast evening. , Dut, .I .do hope that the Council members have been made aware of those facts by you or Mr. }; Moore. . Please keep us advised in this matter. Very truly yours, ,. Joseph A. Montoya •i Deput .•Ch of Counsel f .. If. Dean Stillwagon Attorney " 11DSsac .� ,�. :r •�V i�..w....1"•R.�r...y►�}/ny.►s1•...�.�.►ry�.•+ae_•r+b v./7• . ..,,. .. . .. _ ..... t. ,.,...�. ..,: fI1?.Y:34:'.sawT.o..ww.�--- �...._..•.........w........__.- .__ .. ._. _-.......-_.......,...:i.rc�s.�c:..:.:s+w,w+• �.._.,..._.�.......�...+—..�—+ s ' • ti 1,1.11V•ul r.,1drr11141. trlln►►till Ci 1!►rry r.nr of•. 1 t,a,lr.rnut�rtriti.:1�.nnu►u•,t►r,rl [,;I I I• wAsi1 S111•0,411►lbjeu S.irl 1 r.aKi'•ra,C,114011U.1 941 U', Oecember 5, 1980 14r:- James Pal is, - 'Director of. P.lanning City 6f,11unti66t1cin (leach OC(91 t/r~°r7 0epartmclif.�of Development Services 2000 .1ti in Street P.O: Box. 190 .Nuntin •ton @each,•CA 92648 � •w ',' C:_�sr, For. Pal in: " Recent corresponder"cN' froin.the,11IIIs Land ,and Water Company his . ndica Ild.a .need 'for'.:clarifi6tioii regarding the. City's• methodology. for evaluatina a' d s6lectin4 land.;use' designations as":part "of the Local Coastal Pro!iram:. i Trill .summarize my;staffs involvemenit.in the LUP and briefly review our rote as•Coastal Garmmisston } , staff in providing technical support:.in processing Lhis' Locai Coastal Plan, lit the reque'st,:of-the City staff,', the,Comiission 'staff assisted thie'City by,pro- viding.anformation, and .itechrii'cal.as'sistancie and b'y 'coordinatilig mtp'ping of the _°II `res'ources.•areas within :the .City'^; ea .betv;een .beach Blvd, and ,the Santa, Ana River,l4outh. � Coniiissiop staff 'compiled .information fron•CorrmissIon :technical �. sources; (such as the.-Orange County wetland'"storkshops and 'the coasta(;ione boundary hearings),;.and' requested•technical . information from the Deprrtment `of,F-isii.a:.d Game, and,the U.S."`.Fish'and Wildlife Srrvire and the.Army Corps of Cngincors. These agerici_es did;analyze resources in lluntington..Beacli through site.,visits; ; review of "their„files, "etr.., in,'respolise td ,the request.. Tliis infonnation.was transmitted to161-v City in January, of 1980 and provides valuable technical back- ground to help' the City in arriving at the appropriate land use designations. In Harch;af..19B0".the Commission staff also metrwith' a private party" who ,had .re= ryuestee. Information:and.expressed:an interest in this propertyc. At that meeting staff, ei.plained..the .tCP process and encouraged the private party to also provide any additional technical information on the property which would be useful in the LCP p arming "proces-. R6cently, (Noven6er, 17, 1900).as part of .the City.UP,hearings, additional wetfand k information.was provided by Hills Land and Nater -Company consultants. Based on 1 the, dills, land and-Witer.Co many request, the Commission staff is presently re- vieviing' this new information in. light of the previous. Oepart►nent of Fish and Game report and has requested similar review from the Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife'.Service and the Army Corps. We also have requested the +_ t Department 'of fish and Game to determine if .the area is considered a "degraded ti1'et- land" pursuant to Section 30411 of the Coastal Act. We recievAd this infomation during the Thanksgiving holidays and were not able to comment on it for the'Council meeting of December 1, 1980. We will transmit our comments to you on the Mills :. • •••Nf•.�.•.++�7�Y lr��.'q"7!w-.vr M!r..t.t.w.r•«^'R r•�~�,...,.• _. ..: .. • .-. •-...w•.•�'•^'-`••.�.-•..—�..,.^.�... � .....-..:._,�-�+^—^. ` c ,!ir. James Pill Its Director of Planning City. of ifuntingtun Beach 12/5/30 Page 2 Land and Water report prior to the Decembar 15, 1980 Council hearing, At �thit:.time, cur participation in the' LCP has' been at our staff level. tie :hope"we have been:of assistance inkproviding lhe requested technical back-up 'f'or the resource,-area all in explaining thr appropriate land uses in such areas if they are designated as wetland 'resources by the City Council-.in the LCP. The Coastal C"fssion wi,llbe reviewing the background informatfon 'and the City's land.use, designations after* the, City adopts the LUP. It will•, also'. ake into account all avall,aGie information �concering all coastal ,issues.'at the .tfine of;LUP subali,ttal. ; The information' from'the Department. of Fish arrd �ar.�. the U.S.:.Fish and Wildiifa•Servire, .'the Arny.Carps. of Engineers, and the Hills' Land and Water Company as,'weII As 'all other infunnation presented as part of. the LCP planning proeiss will be;ful ly .considered at the tine of the Ca►rnission's revleH of the City's adopted LUP. . . ` we.'encourage`'the City to examine all-Anfom.ation before making .its land use. .; ` decfsions,,in..,the. LCP, and to include"any`and all infonna.ticn,with 'the LCP 'sutxnittal to the'.Coeniissfon. It is- our .understanding that after examining4l1 information, the, Cfty. wf11 determf.ne 'appropriate land 'use.decisfons based on the - information presented to it and according to the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. We thOk that Kills. Land and Water Company is,correct in reduestfng this :clari'ff- ' cation because 'of a `controversy relating=to the llolsa. Chfca .nprelfminary determination.".- . In th�a.t-case;' the Commission made a preliminary determination 'that Bolsa ChiCa was a wetland for LCP:p1aniiing 'purposes in order to expedite LCP plinnip'. It has made no such preliminary,determination for any other areas'withi�t the City of fluntinaton Beach, and LCP planning should proceed in the .usual manner. If you have any questions please contact me or Liz Fuchs of ny staff. t Si lys Michael L. -itzilp Executive Director. MLF/am cc: Honorable flayar and Councilmembers Mel-Carpenter, South Coast Regional Commission J ne Catalano,' City of Huntington Beach, �} bert London' Moore, Jr. Directors, 14111s Land and Water Company 1 .•....1.. yI^y I`i•r•Y'.•'t'1Y.�..—.— .....r+r —_._ .. ...._....+....r..++...�.r..�w�.w..Nc....�r.:'r.srwa —.. ...w�.. ti+—wr .Xv4 y.Yp`•�19.J�JLM�wrrn.. aS—. t:. ------ .r..wr.r..�-' ._.-__. - -�...�..._........ws=s':`- .. .�_..._. ._.:_..�.+w-rah.r• ti t� MURRAY STORM ptR�CTQN 0 i �• C.a.NCLSQN t "tit l ASSISTANT QINtCTOn DEVELOPMENT a M CM MAILING A00pE53: r O,11071 40AC SANTA ANA.CA 92102 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY DEVELOPMENT 4w civic cENTEn OI+tVE WEST SANTA ANA.CALIFORNIA I7141 E74.7300 December 11, 1980 FILE D01.10 • nororable' Ruth Dailey, Mayor 'City of Huntington Deach F. 0. Box 3.90 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Meer Gayor Baileys V*.'understand •.that'there .will be a City Council hearing on December 15, 1980 on'thlr subject of wetlands classification. We have been furnished A ccpy of -an'.undated report of the State Department of 'Fish and Game titled "An Assess- went of Wetlands Resources within the City of Huntington Peach between Bcauh 1 .I Roubevard••" the Santa Ma savor." We. have the following com *nts.. - 1. A ptrmit frow the orange County Flood Control District will be, necessary for. the p2ueMent of culverts within OCFCD right-of-way. . it may be ex- I .gacied that the permit will lie conditioned upon protection of the 11truc- uril -integrity of the levee;' and upon applicant furnishing satisfactory evidence that applicant is the rlaner of land to be inundated by the. cul- . vlirtss and upon applicant furnishing an approved engineering report which shows the means by which applic:int prrposes to confine flood watesrs,•wh£ch may escape through the culverts, to applicant's propertyt .and upon appli- cants furnishing satisfactory evidence•rhat applicant has Completed the flood protection works, if any, required by the study. 4 2, The report states thor "flood risk dust be taken into account prior to opening`some of the discussed areas to' tidal flushin4' yet the report . appears to underestimate the seriousness of this problcm. For example, on Page 7 in reference to the area lying between Drookhurst and the Talbert Channel it its stated that "Our enhancement recomr -ndation...would be to simply restore.tidal action by replacing the culverts which werh removed." Further evidence that the State does not fully appreciate this problem was furnished when the State Department of Fish and Game sought to restrain the OCFCD from removing temporary culverts* at this location at the onset of the 1979 storm season. • Vary truly Yours, ,.. H. otorla, Director • JW41 jel cc 1 lm,..t>r.I Frtd Horthly, Reg. Manager, Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game •Helt•in J. Ca:perter, Executive Dir. South Coast Reg. Commission R. Q. Durk, EMh-Central PerAits e D. H:- king, Mh-Operatians } ,./alto .,trl.way Tri-m•anal lit,ilr1iplot Qolxrt LoudonAkcxotc. Jr. 417 .;uutlr Jli:1 :':: rrq boo Anne 1 en, California 90013 6:.f-3404 0043-7186 • December 30, 1980 ,. ; Thomas Tobin, Manager . Tectin;ical Ser ices Division -California Coastal Commission 631 Iloward Street - Fourth F.toor San Francisco, Cal. 94105 Re: Mills Land..& Water Compan," - ?' City of Iluntington Beach LCP �r Dear Mr. Tobin: r We wish to thank you for your thoughtful- and informative letter , of December 12, 1980 •rel&.ting to the Coastal •Commissi•on review of Scott' Soule a Associates' ecological report on' properties in the.. .. J-iclnity of Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway in iluAtington Beach. . In gar letter y� , -you asked that we submit any -additional information as might be. developed on these properties fo_r' review,-oy :your staff. Following . through In this, I enclose a copy, of the December 12, 1980 letter from the .Director of the Orange County Environmental Manage- ment Agency to, Iluntington Beach Mayor Ruth Dailey. on the flood danger inherent in any ure of the Orange County Flood Control channel for "wetlands restoration. ", As you may readily recall, the principal method proposed by the California Department of Fish & Game for restoration of the historic tidal marsh at the aforesaid location would utilize the Huntington Beach flood c:untrol charnel to re-rscablish salt water flushing. Dr. Richard Vogl and Scott Soule had apprised Mills . Land & Eater Company of such a :flooding potential in the Pish & Came proposal, and as you will note, this is ccnfirmed in the December 12th letter . to the Mayor from the MN Director. :he flood risk to residents of the mobile home parks and to other inhabitants of the City's coastal vector due to the perennial accumulation of silt near the mouth of the Santa Ana River was covered in detail in the 6:00 o'clock edition of Channel 4 television news last: evening. Obviously, any permanent opening of culverts through the flood control levee would exacerbate the risk. The most apparent alternative to the Fish & Game proposal is to re-open a di.rebt channel to the ocean. The historic inlet was in the vicinity of Pacific Coast Highway and Newland Street and was Y r'. Thomas 11'091n, Mannijer. Technical Services nivision California Coastal Commission December 30, 1980 - Page tWO spanned by both the Coast 11i�]h�,ay and the "Gnmewell" trestle of the Pacific Electric Railway. one of the first improvements under- taken by the State, after its acquisition of the beach circa 1946 was •to fill the inlet. The (railway followed suit in 1953. There-opcninq of the historic inlet would roauire precise engin- ecring' _studies and cost .analysis. It would also renuire various approvals and permit's from the State Department of Leaches arid- Parks and Caltran4. In aedition,. , it would. be necessary to 'plan for the ' constrection of dLkes and other measures to ensure the protection of thi: Edison plant,- mobile home parks, the Gulf Oil. tank farm, and ' ther .exiQting cievel'opnent in the area. Absent 'the re-introduction of ocean:.water, it is doubtful that: restoration could be accomplished. The re-uIponin9 of a -direct ocean inlet is dis•:ussed at page 33 of the ecological report pt'epared by Scott Soule z Associates. In alosinq .7 woulde.',request your assistance in providing us: with. a copy of the 'Coastal 'Commissi.on .Statewide Interpretive. Guidelines. for. Wetluiids and Other Wet Environmentally Sensitive ;labitat -AreAz. xt was our understanding that 'theta guidelines were to be` released as of D2oember 19, 1960, F Thanking you for your continued interest and assistance, On behalf of Mills -Land. .� Water Company, : -' sine rely; XB. df'ERT LONDON MOOKE,JIt. Property Manhger Encl. cc: Melvin J. Carpenter, Exec. Dir. ' Sout;I. 11oast.,Reg ionaI Commission PraVeen Gupta, 'Planner 'South Coast Pegional Commission June W. • Catalano, Senior Planner City or lluntingtnn Beach Murray Storm, Director County of orange Environmental Mgt. Agy. Scott M. Soule .Richard. J. Vogl, Ph.D. Directors, 'flills Land & Water Co. H.• Dean Stillwagon, Esq. Caltrans Legal Department of f:. . «c t. ( i r� 82 The Register Wed., jan. 7, 1981 [3 to revieve tlands, .bh t. .limit decisions J . 0 py Apt S 1 f!::'• bick requirements, no Idah'density pro• •Atrpistet stuff rrrNer ,;. kris waild be physk&lly possible within a •''HUNnNCTON BF.ACt(••-city Coined three-smrr height Urrit. members have 11Sl4 4 fllRyKY3WFTrt• "It's rcorthwtWe to stop and took at the co eider.sorese';L-csil¢�f.b elabi Umll t.Ant1.. economics of this,"said Coeneilman Dan derelirpt6eiiffaliictirg •'wetlt•sdi„•!,- MacAllister. ,_,.�•. 1}br11tllofi!';Irit ,� '-rs irliai.�IFv JAYS tout,ct::aitt-Ja ccllKelly said 't'uesda Vill'riJniey a at per, tw the council': split we to declare mostly undeveloped coital tend south of state Cewtaf Act req�uinsa peal coal- Belch Boulevard to the Sants Ana River .1A e�ertlmnKW formulate fecal could as An envir•onWidaUy aetititire wetlands P4.m to ansntme publk&cow to CatUntals wu a mistake. Such a desit ation pro. to tit the nq�y comWrbdenlXrAW ny futum development in order to lovirosws d.Ua c"Wil was espeet4d to �" nvtfdllte and'pram,life of a . :lrsAWM Its December straw rotes on thetn&rrh. - ------• N. 1�fty's L,R 'by gluten lien!approval to Useaaldtlsirrttlulandvw►�edhyt?i�t ':• ;Vacvmant an Monday nlght but lnste&d t north of Beach 13aulevtrd had not ' nAW As weUan is,Ile said thends to foss considerable tax rave. redo apprvr Id by the c KMU.the LCP he Yaduaufe e�oestAl plc" riy is rut plao not bee 1" ykwed by tye r*OWal Mid ed. aF,a A"i etad tenirrdesk". !1• ' ns*latidownel of the ceastad strip mncU's cor9 vetalal dedsion to dasig rated as weUAr~dt. the Mills Land dWt futwe btJ'.dirg in the'etty"& agbng and Water Co.,vehemently has oppsed �dgwafewn arcs by the muolcipofd pier to six the dercit+liment restriction.(The existing Porles door not e:pe4 to�4 0 issue At the E46M steam—Powered gcr*tstft plant as meting. r. well As mobile home perks on the land , 2.70e all-story.Utnft was s•ammptoatils. *void not bs &(fW,4 by t1ty n'eUw4s s •briwm a"itk t of downtahrts sent tYsf• derhiofn.) . .-- - - •S+':.Manta,who sought a thna@Awy Unik,and f Kelly alga taw Use touncll sho"nid recon _ •r scene rpioa n e waAted skkr its rr ram ailAlon to the cowily to •; Ilaiits od buildtrg t:zlihta:"� aimpiy��pprrootect the natural mute of,the _... .�._..... t �.; •Horc+dror,the city planning stadf 1dpwov- Bola Ch x lay ands. (The Dotes Chirs, _. . ;41111eout W tha casncU to rape the Uu eF Although surtvundril by the-city of Hint. ._... $&err belght Urnit Impooed an Commercial lnstn Beach, b An uniac+orooratad am .R+tf resldAntisl structures ilordering subject to county J'wMction,l •Pacific Coast Highway earth of downtown Agreeing with the main trndovwmr of the _ .__. •. 'te Cown"04 Strw.Residents tiring just 80a Chica. he said that economic and ;idlaM from Itseltk Cast 111R)rsey trade• recrrANond uses also should be con. •twsrtially hive Mwdtd the cxnsutsction of sidered in sore pars of the IZO-scre I •'t+iil bei)dtrya bettatn theirlsoms and the Area. ,-•r;,,,_�,,,f Y—X ni nFi`f 6 mission :s ita order to enemaSe the conaelkatior Y-indWed to hold public hearings on the 4 .of ko!n Ow area for larger dtrelcpm"t local ca utsl plan for the Balsa Chics later ' pm*U,the council in Decendw voted to this month and in February. •&lbw high•donsity • y oc corn spite the December straw votes ur1 i "---' damlalam projects Pletsiware con- &Krecmonl on the dors�nlowsl area height l • ;: •slnd limit,"the controrental:trues are still uu +f Vw p1&ri aRrui'vied lion:!! fcr Tot oils � ••�.�'iMi• is .w...... 1�+S.i::«�I,i'i�...ir.w: ..,�.`:_ , r.r,w.,r.,,r ilk••ref`.'!FrT.!'�T�"r".►.^•`./►,q�r•+? ...___......-...^_...r...-_,-_.___.. . ..............--.-...`.. _ ♦ 1 f' Gam,The Register Sun., Dec. 21 1980 Huntington Beach misses the boat yor years,the coastal stretcher of Hunt- out for the best Interests of those who Ington,•Beach have been underde-. want to ej ioy their city in the future. In veloped relative to the big city that has this case, if they intend to hit up the groin up inland of them.This past week. developers for traffic-mitigation costs the the city council acted In only a small way way other growth-prone areas are do:ng, to open up these lands to the.posslbllities they may be doing; no one.a favor with that await them. and in fact appe&eid to their six-story limit.The millions it takes foreclose many of those opportunities. for transit :mprnvements don't come The occasion was a series of tentative irom'.storefront boutiques. and low-rise on'whot Is called a Local Coastal garden units, you know., ��; v, n,;svhichtlfe council is preparing for Of course.the coastal commisslon'may .rstbrrslrslon -to the.cos +al commission. yet veto even a A*story.asllowance.and It Ame the plan runic Pat gamut,ilia locked surely will mandate all sorts of social ' elite.taw: .�j. •�.. ° .i�_ engtncerin,� to bring low-income.persons 1 dirt critkal 4.3 Vote" the touncl chose a Into the area. so we.,can't: tie sure just xstary►:belgftl Umik.for the o wntowrs what the effect of the council's comprom• tnmerDW sector end used.the.:'wct- lw will be. We have to believe that the claseipcatkm to downzonel In cf- chance for downtown Huntington Beach f . set. propzrty, near eha Edison Co. to reach its c�Itlm;ste potential has bc�.i; - ener'ating plwa that enjoys prime ocean lost: i access:in Ix^Kemes,a majority cowls:• .Clearly, the decision to condemn'pro» _ �,,fhg eaf 'Ruth`:Dalley. Ruth Flntey.'Snb perty'along Pacific Coast Highway south a "Wic and-John Thomas lmpomd their of Bench lbulevard as "wetlands" is' a 1 -A' *11 on the future course of land wte. it aveaty.This land was Indeed once tidsitOw than letthe consumer preferences flits, but its Wet to thr ocear. has long the maikeonce decide the matter. beencut off;and except for the F,diso.�2,' vm Ux limlted.high•rise allowance •plant kWsome mobile homes the area Is downto as lucky to get thr6uih.A . jail a bunch of weeds.That's the way It's SnIflaant political faction in'the town likely to stay now:-•"wetlands"deiigna- that the area remain vigage-like, ' lions mean property is not for man's use. , gh the rW estate market appars to Curiously,a parcel acrm Bench from the l�L us that the rnnney is not there to "wPtL&9ds." similar In virtually eve'sy prove the preitent rundown conditions respect. hi derrmr,' by the couneit•ap• With (list e�orrt of building limitation. ` proved plan to be suitable for cotruaer. •, ) fit'We don't know what sort of impact Vie'-"clal-recreational development. It hap -,;i �etx story cutoff will have. It is possible pens to be owned by the city. that land values and other factors would When the•:rogrear of Orange County!s esot rKwmally load to tattler construction, chnrled a half century from now. obser- Wgiven the nature of the city and the' fact vers are likely to wonder why.v..st acres y fi� downtown enjoys no convenient free• of secminrly choice coastal land north- srccesr. WA would prefer,bowever.to wewt of Newport Beach exists in a sort of comsrwroe take. its cositw'-*t,4 he7- tirm�e warp. isolated from the thrivingtee pu:,taks 1tlgM..nt'hW bast use,as communities n►�ound It. We hope nt leastours UkA to,eny.Council members, one of the Huntingto-i Bench Four is ' ! ,the tul*Mt preshlre Riot I '*that ' around then to supply trfe scholars some ' tm,tl«1mom rarely disposed- to to look ttar.r. •:s. '' ....,.! , .. ...sari.:..�.i.»1..•,..+...,.....,�.vw.-� .• ........... �.,...rr..,._._ ..i..:. +.„Y.ynp.vc, .+.� ...�.-._...... - �:......✓........ .. �..... ... _r. _... ._ .......�... ... .7'.r..a art-....n...- .. .�.._. ....-_-.....�.��.�-.. t ��r ��tk •�l.�Gcr• Ob DGY ell, VVE • •, X 14I4 NlfT GAlIVEr AVENUE • 91790 • ARIA COOE S13 • t!t 6671 6Q���/ ���ii , [ January 14, 1981 111rtj•��!^-.TCN E•' CH pLANNING DEPT- ' Mola Development Corporation 417 Main, Street ,AN 1981 Huntington Beach, California 92648 t P. o. BOX 1 V 92648 Dear Mr. Mola: HunUneon[3: h. CA On December 16; 19_bO,. the Huntington Beach Planning Commission approved Conflitional .Use Permit No. 79-23, Tentative Tract No. 10853 and Env.ironMental' Impact Report No. 80-5. At that meeting, T. testified on the adequacs,. of the BIR and requested health certifications-,for the transportation and disposal of the materials to be removed from the �Nola ,site. 7`he City.,of :Huntington-,Beach has:, the legal- authority to. determine the adequacy'ief the EIR. The California Department,;of Health Services is responsible for. the above -mentioned cOrtification. It is ,request�cl that the_'State. Department of Health, Services. provide the''City.. of- A�. .. Best Covina with certifications .than the removed materials will-,not present'any health risk to the residents of West Covina during thee. transport and disposal of this material at the B.K.K. Sanitary Land- fill. These certifications must be received prior to any .disposal at Q.K.K. The landfill operator is ' awa•re of the titYls concerns and agrees with this position. :. The operator will .not permit, the disposal of this #' waste until th(f City receives these certifications. If you .have ,any questions, please c:ontac:: me at (213)• 962-8631, �. t extension 2011 or at the above address. i. i Yours truly, Mic:hadl L. Miller Development Services Director MLM:ls y cc: City Manager / V James W. Palin, Director of Development Services j P. O• Box 190 Huntingtoo Beach, CA 92648 Miller Chambers .Toe Johnson } California Dept. of Health Services B.K.K. Corporation ! ' _1449 W.. Temple St. , Am. 222 2550 -- 237th St. t, Los Angeles, CA 90012 Torrance, CA 90505 �.C:.`t.k'a wlf.. _ .. xT....�._...—_._ ___.. .`•.-s4'a.a ,. l A'.++1."A...-..... _.........+....�.....��.-..—. ....��.. a.�.:.+...w..,...--- ...-._......._.....' ._.. ...-_.........._tea (aomai CRANE AND TRUCKING'COMPANY, INC. / 11661 STEWART STREET • HUHT(NGTCN !EACH.CAL(FGRMA 92Mt • 211/591•7/17 �a�sst~uH ` January 194 19t31 I City of Huntington Beach Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ATTM: Berl-Arguello City Lletdc Tonight the ordinance on a son@ change on our propertj, twill be discussed. The tone change states Lots and d 10 and it shou)A show Lotto 8 and 90 lie are requesting .that the itess be deferrod'and To- advortieed to.alrawvd the ordinance from Lots 9 and 10 to Lots , 8 sued 9 and ,sat foie February 20- 1981 meeting for zone atwtse t and introduction of ordinance at the'sanm time'. Yours truly, John A. Thomas ;AT f caar 4 G*V/ ?g7* ��..._:r:'L'T�'d'�=-�...�"""'.""_..r..--.�.—.... ..w.._�ar.:...... :.s.,w.w.... ...... __._.........arw..- ._......_.......--......r....vw w..+..--•-- �... ....r.........�.r+.w.rw� JIATE Of CAUFORN1A-11fE 12MURCES AGUICY EOMUNG G. IROWN JR.. Cmeto r DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION r o. Box 2300 UCXAMEWO 93811 (916) 322-7533 1 December 15, 1980 !'t'" :':^TC:V EZACH PLANNING DEPT. Mr. Mike' Adams . DEC 2 21990 Department of. Development Services City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Oux 190 P.O. Box 190 Huntington Reach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 near Mr. Adams: Meeting.-- Review Huntington State Beach Redevelo� Plan #16602 .r This �is,.ta conflii our +understandings reached in_the December. 4, 1980 meeting in your office.between City of Huntington Beach staff and State Department of Parks and Recreation staff. Attended-from`City: ; Mike Adams, Mai Bowman, Carol ' Inge., Vincent Moorhouse, and Bill Waddell; from State: Tom Miller. and George Uong:.:..The meeting was •~ intended to resolve the City's concerns relating to the State proposed . redevelopment plan. The issues had been`categoried into three groups for 1' resolution, as stated in Mr. Cahill 's January 17, 1979 letter to Mr. Belsito. The-following issues were resolved from the meeting (please refer to Mr. Cahill 's letter): GROUP I. (Issues Agreed Upon) Resolution: No changes (as stated in Mr. Cahill 's letter). GROUP II. (Issues That Need Further Discussions) Issue 1: Move the comfort stations back into the sand. Resolution: Prefer locatfons as shown or. plan, but comfort stations may be moved out.- Into the sand if that would improve traffic circulation. Y Issue 2(A): ' Provide turnaround areas in the state beach 1 ar a enough for buses autodrop-offs.- and bus route coanect ons. Resolution: Bus turnarounds at the state beach entrances are unnecessary, as indicated by OCTD in past meetings. Issue 2(8): Move the southbound _PCH drop-offs across from the parking, lots. Resolution: Prefer locations as shown on plan. *.�'.frZ.:-tiLt::.:.-c7:r...�-.......-+.+�..r.�w.c�•�: a..�-.:..:....,.,..`.r-ay ... .......a..r_a•...r�....:.....r,�r.w...�,.rm�....-.......�..........-�._. ...._..-..�..�..--ti.-.._.�._ - ...-...�5�. ?dos ! Mr. Mike Adams ; December IS, 1980 Page 2 Issue 3(A): Present.plans call for widening of PCH to six lanes plus two p nglanes. Resolution: The Department supports the PCH widening project; the Department's plan shows design flexibility to accommodate future PCH improvements. Issue 9: Provide drains a of the '+ arkin areas by_,gradInu toward the ocean or y a storm drain system. Resolution: The.Department will review construction plans with CALTRANS to decide drainage system. Issue 10(A): Provide connections of'the'beach bike trail with the Santa Ana River ra a bridge uwar ewport Beach. .�.. Resolution: No trails will be constructed by the Department outside of the =� State-owned property. Issue 10(B): 'It would.be a ro elate for the. 1an`to. deli° note the future bige,trail connections at the Santa Ana River. Resolution: CALTRANS will do the locating and designing of the bike trail bridge: Issue 11: Plan and} rnvide a variable`messai a sign`.s star+ or 'a'radio • ►ttoniat on service to Inform users of traffic a par con HM)ns. Resolution: This issue -is unrelated to the 'developrnent proposal. It is an operational problem which can be resolved with CALTRAt1S later. # Issue 18(E): Oesi ,nate 'the wetland 062erty o2eosite the state beach within { the protection zone of the state beach. Resolution: This issue should not be tied to the beach redevelopment proposal. . MP 111. (Issues Where the Department Does Not Agree With the City) Issue 3(8): Provide for iiiiiied,parkin" el an '.'the seaward lane of PCH or ! ' a m pre Barking-.area n e s a e `B' e"acn to provide - our service for short-term or transient visitors. i Resolution: The Department supports metered parking along the seaward lane of PCH. 1 . I • -r. Mike Adams December 15, 1980 Page 3 i3 1t Issue 12: Provide aummer season-RY cam 'inj with hooku s at either Bolsa �Fii ca State B—LEF-Tiunti ngton•State Beach, or both Neaches. Resolution: RY`hookups for individual campsit.vs will not be provided at the state beaches;.however, some camping will be allowed. A trailer sanitary station is proposed at the downcoast c4id of Huntingtor State Beach to serve RV campers. Issue 16: TheTit re uests-the.De artment to`reconsider them as con ractor o era or or�te beaches W15iniFe zorporate m is of the clfj. Resolution: This issue is unrelated to the development proposal.- It is an operational problem which can be resolved with the City later. After the above three groups of issues were resolved, two additional concerns were discussed; M •. ;,._ .,Vi . . 1. whosshould 'shoulder the cost'of curb sr!and ,sidewalks along the ocean side of the FCH tr ,ery CAL RAFTS starts fW w en "B project? City claws_ require adjacent property own Fr. to`.pay for curbs and .sidewalks when.,the;property, is 'developed; the Department �annot;:justify ,building facilities":outside its boundary,.. Despite'- this cenfli:ct;;and"because the PCH widening`project::ls still uncertain and the Department's plan does . show.design flexibility to accommodate-additional traffic lanes, we.agreed ! that the Department's beach redevelopmelit"project should'go ahead and not be:tied to the PCH widening protect. Thus, the sidewalk end curb A ssue will be resolved later i'ian the PCH widening project is more decisive. 2. Guidelines for state beach landscape proposal. j �. The,City "is concerned about the quality of design, material, and maintenance of the state beach landscape proposal; UP policy (p..152) requires the proposed landscape plan be ;reviewed and approved. by the City. The Deptrtment .isInot sure to what extent-the landscape development should meet City's eip' ectations. It is agreed upon that the design, material, and maintenance of the state beach landscape should be :I compatible with the adjacent- City beach landscape and that the landscape development should be a high priority item in the redevelopment project. In conclusion, after re-examining all the issues and resolutions, we agreed 1 that the Department's Proposed Redevelopment Plan #16602 conforms to the LCP policy and that we should proceed with the development. �..+•.t-+.-.• �1:. UI.!.. ...._..... ..-. ..«.....+nn.•s:r+'.........:¢� ,.,.....:s. '_.... .«. -,.,..r.a:xa....v....,,.«........, ..�._..__....___.»..»._�._- _�._. �. ' M ' r Mr. Mike Adaras December 15, 1980 P&)e 4 I Thank you for your thoughts and suggestions you contributed in the meeting. j Please let me know if any point in the letter needs further consideration. Sincerely, . j I George W. Dong Associate Landscape Architect ij D-6303D I r • I r i s� ' I • 1 f . �,r�.�..,,•�.�7�"r^^...�-- ----�-�.w...n..�.►�x�r'-?t;.r..r..u.n,-r.x.r�w..w___-._.-�w..�........ ..».....__....._._...__ •_____. . /)l,k"e ill uJl o`r i REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION I Submitted,by James W. Palin Department Development: Services Dare Prqatred January 14 , 1A,.Ll Onkup Material Attached E] Yes No SubjWt COASTAL ACCESS GRANTS City Administrator's Com is ieRCVED By CITY COUNCIL 4)S rERRED 13Y CITY COUNCIL Approve as recommended.f 19MI r iTr (�. Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis,Funding Source,Altarnative Actions: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The State Coastal Conservancy has notified communities as to the- avail- ability of funding for coastal access grants. Staff .has developed an access implementation plan for the undeveloped portion of Balsa Chica State Beach (from the pier north to Goldenwest Street) in conjunction with'' the approved bike and pedestrian trail. Thin plan includes new beach accessways at 14th and 17th Streets from the bluff tops to the sand and accessways at 9th, llthj and Goldenwest Streets from the service road to the sand. State Dept. of Parks & Recreation will be responsible for the maintenance of these accessways if constructed. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the adoption of a resolution authorizing the City Administrator .to submit an application to thin State Coastal Conservancy for funding to construct new beac accessways at 14th and 17th Streets from the bluff tops to the sand end accessways at 9th, llth, and Goldenwest Streets from t:;e service road. to the sand. (See Attachment 1.) ANALYSIS; Since the early 1960'e, the City of Huntington Beach has been concerned with the development of the two and one-half mile stretch of beach north of the city pier. This area was acquired by the State in the late 160's and has become an undeveloped portion of Balsa Chica State Beach. The aQquisition of this area did not include mineral rights or all surface rights. Therefore, oil operations have ccntinued. The State did retain access rights through the area to the beach; however, only one stairway, now in disrepair, exists. The State Department of Parks and Recreation has not and will not propose general development A6/ no we i i I I Page 2 plans for �this section of Bolsa Chica State Beach until oil produc- tion has been abandoned, which may be several years away. However, the recreation de:aand for beach use exists now and potential fund-- ing is presently available. Therefore, staff has developed an access implementation plan for this area as part of the Coastal Energy Impact Program planning grant, which was approved by Council in June. of 1980. This plan is designed around the bike and pedeatrian trail al- ready adopted and approved by Council and the Coastal Commission. In addition to the bike trail, new accessways are proposed at 14th and 17th Streets with improvements to the existing access points at 9th, llth, and Goldenwest Streets. Facilities at these accessways. may include stairs, ramps, bike racks, handrails, benches, look-out areas, litter cans, and identification signs. Finally, landscaping, irriga- tion, lighting, and railings will be placed on the bluff top. _ .his grant application is for the development of an access ramp at 17th St. and an access staircase at loth St., both from the bluff taps to the sand, and accessways at 9th, 11th, and Goldenwesh Streets from the service road- to the sand. A schematic design and cost proposal has been developed for this project (Attachments r and II) . After construction of these improvements, the State Dept. of Parks & Recreation wiz, be respon- sible for their maintenance-_ _ The overall effect of the entire access plan will be the creation of ' �. a bluff top park with bike and pedestrian trail and beach access areas. The access plan has been developed with the assistance of the State Department of Parks and Recreation, Chevron USA, Inc., Aminoil USA, Inc. , and in conjunction with the City Departments of Public Works and Community Services. Major cooperation is necessary on the part. of t:he.oil companies and the State in order to implement all elements of. the plan, especially the burial of oil and utility lines which run through the area: The State will be responsible for maintainin9 . the area once developed. To date, both the oil companies and the State have expressed a willingness to work with the City in the plan imple- mentat.i.^i. It ie anticipated that total implementation of this plan will is►.q: two to three ears; a phased implementation schedule seem Y P P s to be tf.e most practical for the City. The oil operations will continue in this area for some time into the f»r u o rc however, through h 1 , t r g well abandonment and unit consolidation the of oil production and recreational uses can be miti- gato.i 4 th proper regulations. The design and donstruction of access facilities can also be executed to achieve this compatibility and aid in the alleviation of the adverse Effects and impacts these two uses may Jmpose on each other. Respectfully submitted, ames W. Pa lin, erector epartment of Development Services JWP:MA.df 77 LIST OF ASSURANCES The applicant hereby assures and certifies that it will canply viith I' Conservancy regulations, policies, guidelines and requirements as they relate to the acceptance and use of Conservancy funds for this project. Also, the applicant gives assurance and certifies with respect to the grant that: 1. It possesses legal authority to apply for the grant, aild to finance and construct the propasad facilities; that, where appropriate, a resolution, motfnn or similar action has been duly adopted or passed as an official act of the applicant's governing body, authorizing the filing of the application, including all understandings and assurances contained therein, and directing and authorfzing the person identified as the offical representative of the appplicant to act in conneztion with the application and to provide such additional information as may be required. 2. It will have sufficient funds available to meet its nvin share of the cost for projects. Sufficient funds will be available when the project is completed to assure the effective operation and maintenance of the facility for the purposes constructed 3. It will give the Conservancy, through any authorized , representative, access to and the right to examine all records, books, papers, or documents related to the grant. 4. It will cause work on the project to be coinenced vrithin a resonable" time after receipt of notification from the Conservancy that funds have been approved and that the project will be prosecuted to completion with resonable diligence. t 5. It will not dispose of or encumber its title or other interests in the site and facilities except as permitted by the Conservancy. G. It will, where appropriate, comply with the requirements of the State Braittrwaite Act (Chapter 1574, Statutes of 1971 and related statutes), WOO provides for fa'fr and equitable treatment of displaced persons. 1. It will where appropriate, comply with the m(uirements of the California Environinentxl duality Act. 9. It will comply vrith all requirarm--nts Imposed by the Conservancy concerning special previsions of lair, and program requirements. EXHIBIT "A" �i.�1.:�=.C"...:.:;3"t .w..a.n�.•-..«..�.—.....�....�,..`-..�...wa..,4.a... ,.. n.....�... .w.::s..n.................,., .+..............rr.+-..+►w.-...-� .._.-...-... .. ..._.._...--.-,..�� •_• '---+nw i. ` City of lluntington Bead1 r January 29,1981 f f i STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY " COASTAL ACCESS GRANT APPLICATION I • Y - i.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Huntington reach Is pplying for funds to construct a series of ralativnly low-coat ncceosways (stairwaya and ramps) along a ene-mile section ; of Bolso Chico State Beach. The, area of concern is a heavily-used stretch of the State Beach between 9th Street rod Goldenweat Street In Huntington -Beach. The beach is completely open to the public; however, a steep bluff and tall retaining wall separate the sand tram the public road (Pacific Coast HighwAy) above. 1:Sce enclosed pha.ogrophs.) Them► is only one"stnlrwav down the bluff and the retaining wall along this section of the hanch. This stairway Is In serious disrepnir and.is not aligned with any of the signals, crosswalks or Nis turnarounds .which will be installed as hart of the overall s♦ecess plan c idl,cusied more fully below). Generally, people must scramble down ateop and .� slippery pnthways worn along they bluff faces rind than jump down the vertical ; wall (a leap of about four to six feet) to the annd. At public henrings for the Clty"s Local Coastal Man, several citizens lestificsi thnt they cannot use thn broach because of the Inck of safe access. We Also have documentatirn. of persons'having been injured trying to rench the beach. There Are other Access prnblerns besides the bluff wid wall. Two nil cnrrilsnales nperate A nurnsrr of oil weiln along the, bnnt:r-,. f4mirrruis pipolines, many of a. ' thrrn urvimd, ern expn.-nid nlona the bluff line. Thus, not only must the pietllic c;iimh down steep bluffs, but they must also climb over pipelines and between oil facilit:r:s. . i. �fig4iT3�1.�.1.:1=I.M.�I�i<1'.iVYaw�.J•�...�r.r.«rww.w+.w..+4H•.•...r.w« ..... v. y .• v. ...WwY ..1..'Ma.. a.v.1•...ew..rw..wa......��...... .. _� ...a.++••ITa.sA'i Jw'.i.'.uw•«...n.r...a+.•... Consequently, the City has developed n comprehrnsivr. nrcess plan for this nren designed to 1")rove all thesn pral)Ir.:ns W11 invnlvinq hoth the peehlic nrid ti private sectors. The Conservancy Grant is nn imprOnnt nnrt of this overall plan, which is discussed more fully later In this applicntion. : 1 i Greeter-Ilan-Locallmpartance - ! The situation at Balsa Chico ©each would hardly he tnlernhle even in n remote aril little used ales, tit this Is a very heavily used bench located within the largest metropolitan area in the State. The California Department of Parks estimated that almost 2 million people visited Balsa Chico State Reach in 1978. A study by the Caunty of Orange indicated that nbnut 75 percent of the visitors to this teach are from outside the county. Clearly then, this bench } serves a significant rxrmbor of the public and it certainly has greater-than local importance. Access improvements here will benefit a large number of people and these benefits will not he only local In scope. • Relationship to the LCP The City Council recently approved u Coastal Elemrrit which eonstituten the Loon Use Plan (LUP) for Huntirigton pecch. The LUP contains the fol!uw!ng policies which explicitly addreuaus the City's desire to improve the access problems in this part of solsa Chico Beach: "Promote safe pedestrian access to the beach fr•?m the (bland side of Pacific Coast Highway." "Initintn cooperative planning efforts with Via State Pork and Recrention Department and affected private parties =1 pursue funding to develop n pedestrian access program from Pacific Coast Highway to the beach In the area .from 9tli Street north to the southern edge of the Bolas Chico State I Beach parking lot." 1 1 The importance of improving access rind visual res<iurces of this part of the bench - .Ailcli nuts throw l► the heat of the City's eonstal zone - was also n recurring concern of the Citizen Advisory Committees. ' f The Coastal Commission recognized the s,iecial iminnrtrence ai this awn when l; awarded the City a Coastal Energy Impact Progrnm chant last May. One of ; ' the tntics in tits grant wns for the City to initinta the development of Improvement strategins Involving State Parrs rend the cil rtomprinlas specifically for this stretch of Balsa Danes Brach between Goldenwast Street and 9th Street. As n result of this grant :end the concern of the CAC and City Council. the City, with the cooperation of State Parka wid the nil c:ompnnies, lees put torlether n c:omprehensive access improvement pinn which has been approved In ; corrept by all of the pnrtles. Ilia accessways th7t tim. City hopes to constreict ? t:nrotagh the Conservancy grant nre just one part (vnry important one) of thh nvrrall plan. } 4� Cornprrhansive Access/Improvement Plan The cnnservnncy grant will fie nn irnportnnt link in tlw+ ieriilernentration of n comprehensive plan in which many pnrties will participate. The principal elementn of the nve:all project are cumrnarized below: ESTIMATED FUnJDING ITEMS COST SOURCES COMMENTS 1. Installation of traffic $ 225,000 Cal Trans Funding approved; imple- signals uiong PCH at mentation to begin this 9th, 14th, 17th Streets spring. (a 3igm7l alreatfy exists at Gokfenwcst only). Z. A bluff top bicycle/pedestrian $ 300,000 S6021 Funding approved= con- truil connecting the existing ©Ike Trail struction expected this paths south of the pier and north Funds summer, of the Bolen Chica Bench parking lot. 3. Covering exposed pipeline&. up to Aminoil Concept npprovsali funding $11500,000 U.S.A. & schedule.perding Chevron further study U.S.A. 4. L.Wergrounding utility lines. 5. p1mon-aut schedule for wells Variable Oil Concept approval. on the beach which can be Companies removed. 6. New Inndrt.•aping and screening Variable Oil Concept appmv-3ll City Is controls on oil opetntions Companies currently de eloing whWi cannot be relocated. ordinance language. 7. t_andsceping of Muff top areas. s 241000 130:o Trail Urbin forestr y grant Funds, applicatinns due next Urhnn month;bike trail funds Forestry approved, g nints; r;vIn organizations J 0. New matomatic gates at sarvice 7 7 pending further study. 1 rand to minimize disruption of bicycle and pedestrian traffic. 9. Installation of bike rocks. f 5,000 1111ce Trail Funding approved. FurA ;0. Indallation of litter cams, 1 5,000 51.-It" Litter rans already • benches and access signs. PorkH obtained. ! hinklet; f:n•nstni � Cnnimisgion ' and Waste. Nklmt. Board grants s 11. Toilets. $ 100500 State Parks Racquested In 1981 budget. r CONSERVANCY GRANT I rEMS a 12. Accessways at 9th, ltth, MIN $ 71,400 Costal Conservanry Grant. 17th and Goldenwust Street3 (see other sections of this f application). 13. Bus turnarounds at Goldenwest, $ 31000 CnnstoI 17th and 14th Streets to Cnnservancy faacilltrate public transit access. Grant ; 14. Handicapped parking spaces at $ 300 Coastal 14th and 17th Streets;handicapped Conservaoty persons drop-off and pick-up areas Gr.qt atraoldonwect, 14th and 17th Streets. TOTAL >f2,150,000 The total affoct of this plop will be to turn an ugly bluff area whicli lacks access to the beach into a bluff top (park which accommodates pedestrian, hlcycln and public transit and provides safe access to the sand, even for the handicapped. CCC ParticIeation rind Cost Effoctivenesr Thr. City believes the access ways will he very coat effective for a r�!-nbar of remmns. First, - the City will design the ncces3wEys 'to cake maximum j advantage of California Ctaliservation Corks lobar. A representastive from tine CCC has reviewed the project concept and has Imnpected the project site. ilia miponso was very enthusiastic and lxr Inrlicate►1 that ti+is Is the kind of project the CCC would like very much to undertake. Further, thn tentative desitln calls for ease of cmirratn Hari gnlva+nized steal as thn prbx:Ihal materials in the ramps and ataairways. Thus, Ilia longevity of the Itryarnvementsslaouldbe suhstnrtiaal. Annther measure of cost-affectivenest Is the ernount of urn a new acce:.sway will afford. . Over d million people viilted benches In thin City In 1970, ahoxat 2 million of which went to Oolsa ChIca Beach. The, County has eutimtnd that 1 bench use has Increased ahaat 26 percent per yaar nine then. Clenrly, demand for bench-related recreation Is vary high In this area and these :access improvements -.iIll be very heavily used. ` Y; A f Innovative Aspects The City considers this nn inxtovativis projeeL for two rva!:niis. First, there has i been coordination among a Inrg(! inimbrr of different furvJing sources to ' develop a comprehensive project.. the a Nis bean significant nificant cooperation from the private sector which cnny lend to substantial participation not contingent art- a future permit npplication. This Is an excellent example of how coastal resources can be enhnnced by a cooperative project between the private and public sectors apart from the strict reg'ilatory/permit procedure - a procedure which is griierally contingent on Lila f Initiation of a new development, rather than addressed to existing problams in existing developments. l . SuminarY Thus, for all the following reasons, the City believes this project should be funded: 1) the urgent need for access in a heavily-user), urban beach area, Z) the greater-than-local benefits of the project, 3) its Importance to the i Implementation of the LCP, 4) its role in a comprehensive access/improvement plan, 5) its cost-effectiveness In teems of time of completion, longevity of facilities, and.number of users, G) involvement of the CCC,..and 7) its Innovative aspects in terms of the number. of participants and fund;ng sources, and in terms of the participation of the private sector apart from the perniit conditioning process. The remainder of Cite application Includes the following sections: j A brief daucription of the proposal to be funded by Liza Conservancy grent. A narrative discussing the history, purpose and scope of the project. 1 ;x A proposed budget. A proposed schedule. Tire following attachments are also Included: Location Map Project Site Man Environmental Clearance Report ; 1. a1 - Request for Council Action, City Adininistrator'a Letter" - Con stal Permit for r3ikeway Project Letter..of "Agreement in Concept" from State Parks and Recreation Chevron, USA Aminoil, USA • !J " The Resolution is on Lite City Council's agenda for their next meeting which is ?. February 16, 1901. See attachment AG for snore inforniatiun. '1. :1 Z.dJ DUCRIPTICN OF PROJECT I3110130541- file nrressways will ron^irt primarily of conr.rd_•t.r,; hajOrnils nn lihi!f nrens and run ntaira nrvi ramps will bn galvnnimi) stccl pipe; Me concrete will bu textured with a raugh veneer to discourage graffiti. Street: Improvainents to path from PCH to the sand ; 1. Fland rails. 2. Sidewalks adjacent to crosswalk on Pacific Coast Hlgliway. 3. Installation of bollards to prevent vehicular access. ' r Cost $1,900. �l i JIM) Street; Now accessway (ramp) from service rand to sand. 1. Hand and guard rail along hike/ edestrian path. P 2. Accecs ramp from service road to beach (approximately G foot i differential). �. J. l.dxtdipg pad at bottom of access radnp to servo*as handicap area and bike rack area. f Cost: $4,600. 14th Street: New acccssway (stairway) (ruin bluff lop to Brand; , i• 1. Hand and guard rails along bluff edge near staircase head. ` 2. Stnirwny from bluff to service road (opproxidnately 20 fdxjt till frrrntinl). Thn stairway will hp, appi-nxidnntely 12 'act Wide, witld railir.1 rx: buth aides arid the rnidbllc nndi a lad,d'►ng halfway down. 3. Pointed crosswalk on service ruar). , 4. Stairway , frorn service rand to rrand (approxitnately G foot E differentiol). 5. Bollards to prevent vehicles from the ncr_ess area. f�f Cant: f; ..�.w� •w.�w1•y..,.•tt.1�'iY.v.�.w...w.....�.�..e.....�..4.w..«rTt.i.Yt..+M'.d'S.'.t!"-.•.J•M.rw..+�i.r�..M.........w+�++�..+....�rr.�wwrrr+r..r -.. `2. 1 I70h Streie."�NOw "Censswny (rnmir) frnrn hlr:ff^ to van:I; 1• Harr! and guard rails along, bluff eikje nw:rr rury) huari. 7. Romp frnin hhrff irrp !n rwrvirn rnaa (nlrtrrnxiinntrly ?ti fu(It differential) drsirineri in stnnrhnl. of i1:1te f3cpartmvnt of ftehnhilltntinn far hnrulir.:>f:nrd nerr.% rrnrin will be a percent, feet to a "switch-back" layout. level Platforms every 30 feet 3. Pointed crosswalk on service road. 4• Rnrnir frorn service road to sorKil'appruximntely 6 foot differential) at 0 percent grate. S. Unding of 0050 of rarnl:,i for handicapped wren and bike racks. Cost: $37,000. Goidonweat Street: Now acceasway (ranip) frarn service road to sand. , 1• Access ramp from servlco road to .t:rruf "(:tpproxirnately 4 foot differential). Cast: $1,750. t ' F .t. 13113 ttimnrwjnd and hnnciicapped drop-off rind ,pickup area at t4th and Goldenwast Streota. , 17th i r- �' Cost: $39 JO0. Qrnwinrjs nrxf Erar3ineeriny. (l0 perccnt) .; ftrrat.: �ri�llltl t..: In icy. (lp j�c:rnrrrt) Cast: tirr,7nr� -OTAL. COST: $7/r,700 3.0 PROJECT 1JARRA,WE Elrief History Since. the early 19601s, the City of I-#n►tingtnn !lone)► itns been concerned with time development of the 2.5 mile stretch of beach nr►rlh of the city pies. . In 1974, this area was acquirer) by the State and her.anrs an undeveloped portion of Bolas C hica State Ocach. The Stotts inherited all existing facilities and operations: the acquisition dirt not Include rnincrnl riflhts or all surface rights. Therefore, oil operntionts have contirw:erl. The. State, did retain accam rights through the oil operations to the br ach; however, these arcessways huvn not been developed. The Stnte Depnrimnnt of furies nn d Recreation has stated that general development plans will not he prnposcri fnr tills section of f3oisn C hira State Bench until oil prndurtinn has [mein alinr►dnned, which may bn several years away. in the meantime, recreation demand for beach access exists now. Therefore, staff has deve'Wed rn across irnIiiementatlon plan for this area as part of the Coastal En;o-gy impact Program. , Project Pulses improvermnts to this auction of Balsa Chica Stata nearh have been nnticipnte!l for a number of years. Ow of the policien in the. City'4 recently adopted Constal Element directs the City to ': . . initiate rnope'ristive'planning effo;is with.tho State Paris and Recreation Department and iffectetl private parties and pursue funding to develop a pedestrian nceers portin, m frnm Pacific Coast Highway to the beach in the sires from Ninth Street north to the southern edge of the Balsa Chico State Beach parking lot." in order to do ti:IN a nutnhar of agonclo.-t and intr!rnsts rrwtnt he. involved (State Parks► anti Recreation, Coastal Commissina, Cnitrans, two nil enm;►anins and the My); it has been extremely difficult to devalop n pl-txsnsal whicfr satisfintt all "concerns. The City has finally obtained on agreement in concept frnm all parties anti developed are in,plementntinn plan in which all will participate through Lite various stages of development. This strotch of'bend► has nlways been extremely pnpulnr with both local residents and visitors to the area. The area Is used in the early moming hours by surfers and joggers, at noon- by the fun,, crowd, In--thn afternnnn by sunbrtthera hod bicyclists, and at dirk by strollers and sightseers. However, acrosr, to the beach can he extr► rntsly hazardntts. Presrnily, the stairway nt Milt Street, now in cfarepair, Is the only develnstcd ncresr. point. Other ways to the beech are down tKi twenty-foot Isluff fs►ce Lind over the, ail cor►7panles' service road and retaining wall. A number of individuals have been inj+sred attempting to CIO tljis. As statr:d in the Coastal Act, "ronststl land dr..irit:trted for rncrentinnal uo2 must he adeti11n1n to meet presertt and futerrn drstnnrwl." Prnnx.;-!t tin 1•fttntingtnn Beach recrentitrn sites han hrrn inr.rrnninri, anntfily Pilch year. Estimated total 19110 nitrnrlanre fnr all fteacl►ns in ;•ktnti+wilon nanrh wnr, vvrr eirifit million.. [)each ntirutfunce itns base Itu:reaninri Ity 7.6 percent a year.'./ts 1. pmsarre an thnr.c recreation areas I.-rreases, ariditinrtnl Irt;trovements will he nrcesRa:, to nccommodatr, these needs. Access Improvements to this section of beach will, in part, Implement that objective. • . • t. I ` S I Project Scope Al[hotrgh neccssways are Ilia major thrust of this riplilication proposal (see 3rctirrn 2.0), they nre only a portion of the total improvements the t-ity is proposing for Via project area. Tire overall effect of Me entire access plan will be tile, creation of a bluff top,park with a bike arxl pedestrian trail as well I as beach access areas. The plan has been developed with thu ass►stnnC" of the State Department of Parks ontl riccreation, Chevron USA,, Inc., Arninoil 1l5A, Inc. aril in conjunction with the City Departments of Ueveloprnent Services, Puglia [Yorks and Community Services. The plan calls for significant prrticiprrtion by titer oil companies -and ti►e State In order to implement nil elements. The oil companies will be resFunsibia for the hurial aril removal of pipelines and utility [Inca which run through the area, and Ilia Stale Department of Parks and Recreation will ba responsible for maintaining the area once developed. The pvcrall development proposal rails for Ilia construction of a pedestrion/bicycle pathway from Ilia City I-ier north :clung the bluff top to connect with the existing path on Bolan Chica State !leach. Development of thl3 section t4ill Complete tlx: path which stretches from Warner Avenue to the Santa Ana River. The pedestrian/bicycle path project has already been I approved by the Coastal Commission and funding has been secured frorn ©range County. Another element of thtf aver all project is the installation of now traffic zigmals, furwling by Cat Trans rt the Intersections of 91.I1, !Alit, nod 1?th Streets altxtq tiro Pacific Coast Highway. Coltrons' presunt ti►ne stmedule calls for the Installation to begin this spring. Proposed accessways to tlhe beacla will be ndjacent to these uaew traffic signals, complying with State Parks and Recreation policy which encourages boach access only at controlled intersections. 'turnout, drop-off, pick-up arid [►nndicnp parking areas are also prnposed adjacent to the Intersections of Pacific Coast 1-iighway and 14th, 17th and Goldvnwcst Streets. This will provida easier access to n greater number of Individuals. Atklltionai Improve►nantz propased for this area inrlude the [ngtallatio„ of an Irrigntloo system and lantiscaping the bluff top area. This landscaping will Inchide grass fro►n the curb edge of the I'3a,Illc Coast liltjawny to the bika path along the entire length. Various varieties of ice plant will be used to strablilizo tho bluff erlge and help beautify the presently cruded area. in addition to love ground cover plant materials, trees will be clustered nround the intesections adjacent to the occess site at 14th and 17th St.-cote. ilia trees will nerve as a victual barrier for vehicles aptarooching Pacific mast Hlyltwny froin these streak rind also as a visunl barrier for traffic Monti the bike path. The trees will n1so ntlr! ta_ the srcnic quality of tits entire; nrr.1. T xt key to successfal Iruudsenping In this arse is in tho initial sail prcpnn;atinn prior to planting anti in the contlnned maintenance. Plant materials will lrs,. selected for this area vrhildt lmve a proven durability for coastal clirnatr:s anti are relatively easy to maintain. .�..+.�.w...�-......... ... .._�.�_.+..w wzw+.+a.w.rww..r......_..... .... . .... ..�-....u.... r-... . �.5u-.M:...:l..s.w .w....r+.�.�.......... .rr......�.«..w�n.�.�... »....._....... .. An applicatinn for partial furxllaq of the landsenisinq will br,. submitted to this California EX-partment of Fornstry, Which administers the urban forestry program. New street lighting iv also proposed in the area t,rtwrf;n Goldenwast and 9th Streets on the beach side of ilia Pacific Caaat Highway. The fixture daaign will match that which Is already In existence between 9th Street and Beach 'Boulevard except that the new lights will have a A al arm in order to Illuminate both the street and the path. State Parks and Recreation is .installing new lights In Balsa Chick State Beach from the southem portion of the parking lot to Gnidenwest Street which will enhance that section of the bike path. Funding is yet to be Identified for the lighting project south of ICI. Golderiwest Street. Litter cans, benches and access signs will Also be incorporated Into this project. The litter cans have, already been purchased with State litter grant funds, administered by the State Solid Waste Manngernent Board. The City has located thaw now receptacles throughout the Downtown area and nd"fitional onee are tin order. Access signs, available from the Constal Commission, may I be located adjacent to certain access points, pending authorization fr om the State Qepartrnont of Parke and Recreation. ., In additlon to tha organizations. already mentinned, ths. California Coriservatinn ('.ores has been contacted about providing come, of the labor on these projects. A praliminary project review nnil sits: inspection has been E performed by the Carps and their Initial renrtion was quite positive. The engineering on the access ways will be done with City staff env the projects will be designed to take full advantage of the Corpu labor. All accessways will be designed In' conformance with the adopted coast.ril access standards and recorrrmenditlan- This project will become a (ma jar link in the overall effort to provide public access to the nine mites of beach in public ownership. it is anticipated that total implementation of this plan will take two to three years; a phased Implementation schedile seems to I)e the most practical for the City. The access sites, however, will be constructed In the first year. l 4.0 ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS I. 97H STREET IMPROVEMENT; Mntorials Uhnr Total HandvaUs 1675 $025 $1150t1 Sidewalk $300 ccc $ 300 Bollards $100 ccc $ 1G0 TOTAL $1,075 $025 $10900 ?. 11th Street Accessway Hmd ra l l s M 420 700 Ramp 3,000 400 + CCC 39400 Landkr3 500 CCC 500 TOTAL $3,6e0 $020 $4,600 3., lhth Street Accessway Handrail 0FX) I,20A 2,gOR Uppar Stairway 01000 2,l?tlp + (rc Lower Stairway 1r450 300 + CCC li7 U 1Q,250 36300 13,750 4. 1711 Street Accessway (Rnma) Handrs it 900 1,1110 20200. I; Lk)per Ramp 22 AQ(l 9000 + (i:C 31,500 Lower Ramp 2t(100 500 + C.CC 33.300 25,700 11,300 37.,000 AJ 'r .�;� }� L" R' 4' i i YIr• "'{ ^ Yi 1 Y } t��•t , �Y�,y+ 'iNz4gf. � tY� ��` .;R�}r r jf iy �i+ A 3°• 'fir R 1t iq1 y j q' q.� r �„ tt :� aii °P + ` r ^i. .r` 'N�';�+}�, ♦xxx e,� / 1 "� li `n)it��! }'�y�' S i '�Yki�t ([T °!t��j J• .t � •4 t"l,;x.•"y�x'�'i. 4 °'iJ��"} `� t. H�tli°r��y6 F�!}J[�' i kr, ' �t }r • 7', S. ..tt � ',r`.t��� c.t:�>t{• �l.�t,a }',� { •!��! Py'� s_� ,/ii�.�i'.�'.t�•��pJ.�Di.4.j, �'�� 4 °?�,� c: �'iX,1 rS.; •�,h�, .i ; 6 �!`�i�• t, ?i {•^�1 r �, 3} � `( j.P';..�. r.1- ,°i .t +�, } } ) f i•'R +1,,.�, r,.y t t.1, r r p .S r tr•+'• !•to 14 t fr} ', �'i s; } r ! '�] t.t�i{ � :y'':Y�'�:�7�1v".�•;`Yr��e�C11 �'��!y �� '�1�A'c n;'.., �•�nr+R t1� }��. ) 1�'j ,. ,.° 1�! ,il:'�'i5i e,1�k � '���)r4;� /' ,Y` �t ,,.i; j'Et. r�CR., r694'v'T',�"li'R'.°IV t )��.R ,rd.� �i{ t•'n!t, ..�,�••�,1. C;R ..H ... •}, � I �` ttff(['�,� t�.trg> >', t'•� ��tY t 1`°v ('i-' t i',�� {1 �.; �1:) I.. 1.rF' r '•�� :` f.; "!. i'•' 1"i' t ^ "��� `,t' t r.�''• }i . :1x f'} 7 l t. t R i 1 °� :i ;t,� �. F•.r r' i ) 't 1• ft. tv►;5 ��•+�'�`f tti� 0.y}!�i,i��c„�.t t'�`�^q� t; � ���t,����f��;,3.�`i.'.� '`��r""143'5f�lt"i � -# � '''!�'� r•���`ut 'i y�,f �^r x�• � ,�.y. ��:��; 1:t.�1}r R �. k RS 9 0�. t4: 1 1,;t }p• t•.C.I:F t`k " 2 �• a �"} i�'•€�r.>.,t.,tf: •,�'��!?4�# } tt a:i:"itJ ;r�s7 lS�:•�� r''�S�} •S�rY� }Y��f,�.(� R.r•,1 @.�'. .}t. tt�,i �, x •��5.'i:.•-...� ,,.�.i ((��.,., , �,i,+,tp :;�!,�:R•�.•''� :�...t�t.r:..A. .:f.z° q�3'•',tS�,!�'li-' !"rr�{ .a.1�K,,�''}� � t'dT�"'(. �� �1 ,ryt1 .t �{�.�f !T 3�,,��o' },ti:..!''•*til'�'�•i I}•�t4.,•r�r ::'�;.�.:i�°rll�t *. .�_`>s �14.l��}1;nr tit:r•R;�t: x, lti..I�3F �. } t 2 ,'}"i t.V i f.'`... j!*x�• } t �� i�'r`. � �!�' {, � i'',1���• ��'1�tt } i 'i� F►'it.Y ;Y�1`•t + +:+ ��Sy.,, '� {'7criy ,sSrt�t�R'7�rrfLa ` i;,l •i .)'f\twt: rf,:�':\�. rt if b$+.,# t,ffi,�'4 d �i}I,S n i ,, y /1r vi x+.: •)) Sf ° t fir ti C °t ► ;�i 1 ,l Ni rf, t:l it;lai b�nft .f,'l. S r1 ''�� V Iiti4L+t,-,- � 't•y-L�i�rfl:rwY. "�t t�1 1 �i�i e �r. i ( .C,��" �,V; f '',,tt t „� f�,., i � ti • s,x�c�t�t.k�? tr, xt5,;.� r...i�::�;twAi .�` .s..' r�,a>sf►�.._„ �y. .are � Ic�,.��.:,. ' 4.9;` 3 5. Goldenviest Street Acces-sway L Ramp 1,550 ZOO + CC:C: 1.75U x 3 TOTAL 4750 .6. ©us turn-arounds and handicapped persons' pick-up and chap-aft areas at PCH and 14th, 17th and Goldenufcil Streets. 3,300 CCC 3,300 TOTAL 3,3D0 GRAND TOTAL - 9th Street 10900 - filth Street 4,600 li - 14tt, Street 13,750 j - 17th Street 37,000 Gol anwest 10750 - Bury turnaruunds and handicapped areas 3,300 SUf3 YOTAL $62 300 Drawings, Engineering (10 percent) 6,2w Contingency (10 percent) , _6 200 TOTAL $740700 • i r 1 • —r 1) r , t • t t.`M'.w,,..r..a—• .��....+,.... r.a..-Vlvy♦YT M,••t .1,+-raver. .�...".........�.. ......-......,.•••^a...,n'r./11.Ma.w„ ♦w.r,y X,yaM terra:�+��a._-.—..._... �........_..�...� w..-n .:t I 4 a' n i ry�4 IM I j i%l YX UP LIM,iy-,rd kS & jh fA,, L 0 SCHEDULE Itc-11 MIS Grant approval • 2/oi 2. Engineering and design 3101 3. Construction of romps, stair, 4/81 and related improvements at gtllt 5/01 or 6101• 6181 or 7/81 11th, 14til and Coldenwast Streets 4. ACCU33 ramp at 17th - out to bid - bid approved 5/01 construction 6181 10/01 ------------- Start-lip. (late depends an CCC availability; Corps personnel would be available In May or June. representni.Ives Indicated } '{ _ \`p "Mri D- Ll"'[*-'-*- ,[, LED E I C--:-I AIC ca -� [_A 0 DC�1 E-D cr CDD�DDDD g EO L J D D1E]L:-] F-01- E--1, E D 0 rGD D�c�D7L=�D�� GDE-30DD[3 �• I I D rD 1 7-D E.-J `CDDD 0 - ul PD 4'���• 1 ;�y. r , `Ki `"7� ;'3' r•':" :4v t �"• + R%t � ^,t'f.T 1• . t l 3 � �, � i} r � � 1' �i1�•"'r t �' d 4 i •i i t`, i ,�jr.1 yr } �Z►, 3�r' u 5. �1%ro � . . r4 'I'44� � � v,,f .F,: ,�ly; i. 11�f y4..�,j `y�i'}'. i� ��•a fit;:�v j' ,t ,.}.T a ��a"t` "j. gi �7 S4t ft.�(y) il5t�fi,E� ,a:h ld�t31 1 e�, (f�,�,�} !},��, �t�',r j�y)',•R�yt. )�{�j��"Y .!I�i .�'F 9 p'Wt� 1 +1� -J� �.r� i� ;f *� {tt t?"!{i� i r•�,j;� rh.t' Y, r},.i•r�'iij +i't�t�, �,�.�'ti �wC +i6.��5� .� ,,+}[ t r'hi'`'1` Y++..7;h�lr.��'•, y,+ 4• {4 ;,Y �t S{Si,{`t � �'' ' ��`y'j'0.Y`yi {� L j T• �„ •, � t{ t��ga' *r `,i 'c, t.7�L�+u.1'1+YZ. .�' `'.Y , ' t� p.n'k '!, ..1t'''; �� •'.j ±p '�� !. 1":t 1,�+� }?r+.� x1. a` by`.. i�T f �'f �• +l�}F= F.� `2i�.. �, �',,� , �'"t'}� �44T s���1�'�,YS'�•� t �i� "��,�i�q����. ' Y��;�,�f`�'*�tlg�,',�,i� .�'�� ����{� `}�. ,t�� �' �*�'}+4 '\ "!�S' ���'ra� .1 r� �,�.�" �'��. ,�r� Z{' '•,L'� .j'� ? ``y,';;ar� '�?,�'.,y'` ;y� .l' f'k�*Si�•�r.r�, r�. t1''Y`. T'����•y�:{.� •� �!��`� �.?�a�.!�. •k � �a J (`p'1' yT'y��j {}', ;( `�i]` ` r'; L 7j; (�ff[ J' tt 7• t �(y^`/ �, �, 9# ,� ! T..r 1 Y r• �r .i�q�i' .]y �7•�� 1'•MI " `1'y�7{y{�• ,/ i. j� iYi k ''ts :. F i{(]J � �3�' , ]S��?����� i i 7 df ic.p '�'� °�: ,.��' „ 17���1���A'�yp�;d '•�� �f..jj}I}S, 1, / ���'�'L, � 't; 1 a�.,, .li���`r 'r�l^ � ,i r; j��jif•l:IG�.!`t'�fi SSS�4441 '��{ � ?�i f t i,1`1,��` �f� R>t �.���a �F�{�`rr{4�r�'t f9�t�1.a t�.�f 4s. {j��z,�J �jS� 1�� �,� �r *��"a�,�t�f `•' '� -.(t e 1 �;'•�;� ,� �� ►, :7�41 � q , 'f ''� '_I{ 1 Y-t b 7 � ',F;t ,'�^"' ;"4 '1 • rr ii 1J �•' !Y7 iF . ��f}i � �i h`,�� � �•' �� .. ys�`,It ���'���•r�� �•��,a '.��,s. a �r ,�.•�'' � �� • IR 7 l Xw II � Zia Pig MIA t» 'l;{� �r ,y. iv W AM M 2 lid t Y 'r 'M a y. MI .TJJn. fg;;1;I M-1 ,+.s. .�1 i' {1 t ��,}�r� �y. i.Kt+tf "y t{. �� `�: '� ;��" } .,l ,�rrr� � { •.���-�,�+'+r��t�,r��,t .., S' } �4 >��;;'���'`�'�'�'o }t�i��t ,�ti�s MU t SAL) Alaw O)IM 3 1MHaT4uNrAu CLEAPAME NOTICE OF EXENIMON T'02 File ]PROJECT,APPLICATION,OR PERMIT NOt FROJECI-TITLE/BESCRIMON/LOCA71ONs A-=essways in tWeVeiCped Portion Of Boisa Ctdca State Beach between 9th and Goldenwest Streets in conjunction with PROJECT 51PONSORt bike trai.1 cmd reDited iWrovemenLs. Grant appliect for by City of Ifuntingtm Beach Funding source if; the California Coautml Conservancy. EXEMMUN IDENTIMATIONs 0 cA e.ttgodad F.Unp*u Ongoing 1'1'*Tl SM.15070 Se UM ElzewqmKy Aditity not Verisad s holtd SM 11471 (1) (s). Ste.15037 M 0 HniartW holeet 01het(Explain) &C.15073 11w ptr&tl(onle)is a;cwr pan danathtr project for*Mch an EIR has prnioudy beta ptputd;the ofww pu)tci and EtK ucts approved• and these were no culataaW chw:gta Propmtd In the P1100 to lnrdrt new esirkonawnta!impacto not eo%Akvd In Uv orWW MIL (Sec.16%7) EYSIAW FIR NWkbtr; Date Approved: Ft"ant to the CAMFORNIA ENVIAOXIMMAL QUAMT ACT OF 1970 and vrorwans of the IMMYGTON HEACM 01LUMANCE CODE,which j4ovit;e that an activity 14 exemill from r"Viro"ments)clidgaijon VhtM it can be dttttsWned with tfildaly 11ml the artIvily 'xJ1 ml ban 4 Avdrvirkt eftert on the tnviftnmmt.the UA%ity re(trenod ha On Is 11strefon rmird EXEMM011 STATU3 with the ionewing staltzaeni of findkw: -kV'k% VJ(45 Ow 9,Y.,ersej T-low 4o &doV-h;-\ +-4 cot T..*, It, let C C C 5 e,1.4-4, S 40 .11-e co- 1744- 0 J 4\-i and 11de of Picson CcTV(*i Request Vitta i r , •i t•i °r 3 • :1 !f t (�(� t� s l"!c i { '1., �� #� t,�K+•'� � +�'y'y�:r,��' fl+lcl� �•"{�e .4?'� �4 ' i. t . h .l�l,"a(�,�y(�grcE�,�� •►�'+y yrt�A` ',� `;i 'tij/y �,��.4 M� �',Y�{�x{�;'if� 7 4 f '� '1+i, ,t;S�'_., CCttt�'"�Etr���1`y�?` SS T :1f4�+c ,�f. 1, �Q ya+ ��;," .�,!`9 �• ��'`L+�'i •,�t"t :f�t t �• '� 1� j� �.r ,h"t� i�;;' p.�{ptj��, �� ,r ,f: iy � � � � ,+5�,i '{ �!( + d� k � ��F•9��.+ / ��+f, � ` 7 .{.} .it ,�. �A F ` �'' ". 7 i�,!t yi!jSt: 14�+;- ,if; dti; '�'��4��'tr..��kS�'T �'! ..� �"i��,t;)•r,+ !`�•�f'� ��`�;�yy'! �1 1�. •� ' •-,►,�1((F;� �i•' ;�f °� ,1� �, � �`.t � �� t�,� � t r T�S F �}tr,�{� .��Y. i {�"`.�t• '! '� � �''r't ...0 ?°�1 � �fLP .�7y �' P Ilil}S, a 3'S., ` Y` � }(}� �j7• �� . ii JII�I �`• . � ;� * � •`' !)d.5,,,� Tali ��,� i•`.:�/ v. tFL4 l�. '�i� :t4„ 5�+�•:3,7'S•. )"�'•t �jt ',�% •"f' � i f {�� Y�!f'1.1 �1t�2�£.yl; S (t��} fe�7,+ �SF �,� .�+� fy,'t. t,t f`'r � ►f {rJ�/`,j �4 �(£ ` ,} +�t�j t��t. fY.t�� :tk4�. .�' i a +.t t : t ;. ' . :'_��,��s,�1.y 1n�.'�,'�j} �� 1�j'i7 li -��,Z b ,�� pr �'i;. �. � s?.. 1��(�• \y3iri} fi' •'r`�fu.. a �" �}'� Z j.� {� �'; yy*tri} yi .R'"� f4�t:�'', 'i°SI ��4 r 1� �� �+k •� ¢A i�"}�A L ;� +p S Y .� � t ti "�' 7.� �� e• � �r �^�:, ��,�'y�`� � F '�S!i � }.t, ��.{�r' tfd •r,� "f1I-,.�� I Jy, ,,t�, .�µ�!,eY�,tfSfFlj 1� ..e �llf t f.<I{{��pi+� r a7.}t; ; $_�.• ?ri<Sf y;�a !•�; ,�,'e � ,}��41�11 c•t ! ..'�•�,,�fti. 1 ��t� 1 13ytif+a+�4��a.. f1 1`s tii;t. p I���yt„,3�;;1S.1 r s-.!it+.fR}'f�' ,!.'•�''PH:!`,t)by.�.tT+(+.>tJ•.I. .�4`�y:�y}°',•�{'}�'1i1"`a+•d.»�j,SA�:jy;y�Pt,M+��t•f l�i'�i'�1t5'sJV'-�`,`ti���t`t_yt+S�,4";��^'1�{`F�•.�{t'!*,'•i(°r�c'•;Si sy,�i!.(`�.'+,'yj�;''3't-t^4�i,dii;'2'ti!!+,'(,.���,�;tr�`i,}��t.� .t4j-',�Ar:l►ty�](�j;L^Y.!��.f<3L7,5(�,-,!;i�(•.N,'.,.if{ri..Y. k �4 IL Ii r„,{p +{Aj :'•f,•.yy,}'i,t.�,�.�Y{), �,CT�f� ,/•' Z�Z5Y;' }�,1,(r`JLLL"""'��,Y•_x, -1. •t, r` ,M j{t14 j'Z 3t��f ybi+#!,t.(, �.,Y�v,.:j ,p?l,,�:fi tt•a i, J4�,�k 1�(y�}+5,� ;�)+1 ,{I ,. „�, .h 1'f �I; ?!` r�•�y`!��' 1.i t � •�T� :� .'�}Sy!, � � �4 1•� '1 �: y Ii�• '; It,riw tt i{tT�t ?d ,�l�' 'Si.t'� :{4z .{'E Jt:t��� i'`•s •Y�!flt1 :Y `',�l r `tr 7�i�1• ! .�{'�''{� .jl t � ��'�d .�' ;�y�p.� q •t t�rt.'i �w t§�) •�' �f� +�^ +�i. n•� q, t,� +.. , „ .?�c � .,, ff4A '� :�xc�' '�';•. ,'t `r�tr.'t7y. ��+ .f' ,� ,� �� }gp,, +�'�l *jlt ttV�•;, 5, ��.,,' k t�`tm'" o} 11 N1'1'11(�L� I.lrl' ItS OF "AGIu:U•1124 u c 1 a ,A-.1 [ t[souac[s �G11+cr' �,.,�• sEr1r p d 1' -IN (.CxVL'lS1'1'' „.._ 10MUNn G. a;;%V l 14, Gow"O► DEPARVAENT OF PARKS AND RtCREATION 0 to;7740 SACRAM[1110 JJ$11 W'r_ (916) 445-2350 (. JAN 2 3 1951 P. a 110x 1�u llur�lin�dn$Cacti,G��326413 Mr. James N. Palin, Director ' Department of Development Services City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 Huntington death, CA 92640 Dear lir. Palin: Concept Plan -- Pedestrian Access Paths and Bicycle Path From Goldenwest Street to the Pier Part of Dolsa Chita State Beach The State Department or Parks and Recreation s upports your project. This Department has reviewed the subject plan proposed by,the City of 'This Beach. Pedestrian access paths and bicycle paths are appropriate facilities for state beach development. The proposed nligiment and locations for the paths are entirely acceptable. •e a m d, Jr. Direct .; I-69400 2. i, i • .1 r"k, na ki HAS 1 ...... . - .. 55 I I � W . .Pq 1 . 1 NN� 0't ANevitin ChevronU.SA. hic. P,U.BOX GUU, L.)Maim,0% 90631 Phuiie(213) 694-7604 JAIJ I January 15, 19UI R 0 0 1300, CA.92QU f-I Plan IMiric Coast 11kilr4ay Sapient IlLuiLlpfton Bcadj, (_,jilifor'llia City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street: flwitij>jton beadi, CA 92648 WentirAi: Mr. Ja-nz W. Paliji, DirecLar aepartn=t of Wveloptant. Services is Dear Mr. Paun: Pla un&-rstand that City wisher, to make inireditite il.1dia-ition, under various local, state and federal progrvs, for m. istructjoij rLvyjing to implement its Kister Plan or Dikeways, Pacific Col!,t 11191",ly segnent, Insofar EM our concept approval. of tilis WjinomL or this Plm MY be helpful in this reUard, (bevroti O.S.A. Inc. hej-pjyj ex- presses its approval in ecticept. As your office is well inmare, Clievron has c-xupjc.%1 tare so-ca I I ed "NE, lease," as oil cuid gas lessee, for miy years., 1111n ccxjc-lit drawing of the MI bike trail furnIshad LLq slx)ws that not curly the lux]scaping vurroulv3ing the trail, but: also the prolxw'od accessways to UY3 bead) sand will, impact our qxrations tbarcon. Fran our starul- i-cint, the principal 1)roblans to Le resolved are- .0 r3tir cost of b1tL-y- im, relocatiW c-M/or rLmioving production iu)d electrical transmission I hies, as required by the existing plarL91 rukl, 2) Our tuWarstaA. tible corn.-arn L1tat# 511cmild the close proximity of the trai I to rAir q)eratjons caitributo to a trail user's J1lj!-ry, l)oj.Cjltjajjy 111ific jl.jV)ij1tV Could 01--ic-ei"MAY bQ1,111 US. Given Mesa conecl-lis, Cilevl' on in Ckvinusly ill 11,0 Ix)sidut at Lids tim 1.0 give full. 111.)ruval La CiLy for Ulf-- Lrajlls Jbirv-diate 0"d carWate construction. But be ffiaL ar, it nkiy, on the 13sis Of that long-stlivylijig cy-oWratjoij bet .n City all(, (Ijavroll, we . are curtain that there aril all odier issues rLxjardijKj the trails IVVle- Wiltaticxi can be quickly awl SlitisfacLarily resolved. vk, nt0ill, Ulorc- r0l-e, W1511 W Milress air a14)roval in cxxicelit of Lile cxj.stj' ixi 101 bike trail injAcirentaLlon p1cuis. tfully nut"ALtal, V. L. Byers VIA:ab -W woi�C, -WO P F1 1j3IVRY, er., RARIN N7 ,!N11!W X, r 'VIM U AIS1111 It USA, Inc, On!'.fleet..1,11it4 200 f .00,11 • 1 fimliestilm)Ill ach,Cishininia 92C AMINOIL USA January 26 , 1981 I-Jr. Jamus W. Palin, Diiector City t f Huntington Beech Departmentof Development Services 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Mr. Palin: Several discussions trove been field with you and your. 'staff concerning the proposed construction of a bikeway along the west bluffs from Approximately llth Street rind connecting to the Bolva Chica State Beach Pnrk. In order to facilitate the city,S funding under local, state and. federal con- struction un ing rograms for the propose bi ke ke trail, Aminotl USA, Inc. Flas been requested to approve iii concept the lans an presented. In this regard, Aminoil USA, Inc. heregy expresses its approval in concept with the reservations as outlined below. The latidscapin and the propos2d accessways to the beach will impact our welt' sites and facilities with the following problems yet . to be resolved: 1. The costs to remove or relocate existing liffieliiies. electrical tronsmisaiort lines and other facilities not compatible with the proposed plans. 2. Potential liability due to the close proximity to Aminoil's operations. AmItioil nain approves in concept of Lhe Pacific Coast flighway bike trnH Anna and pledges to work with the city to satisfac- torily revolve within ecotiomic rind physicnt limitations those issues regarding the trail' s implementation. Sincerely, Roy C. NeCly(tictidn , Stipervisor Etivirotimetit-11 Conservation Western Region RCH/nc �9t�� 0/1r E ;F`�^7`'�•� { rJ♦ 4 '�` z e ! ���� � y� "�t �` ` �y Q i � �t w ��: J.'�,.Lr1, ,, �, � f rx,t ��' v�i�k.j t � f � i!' �� r�C{7} i ��;1 •��.y .� P� s,t� 4 �11 titi:a�j 4[t � ,. �Wy��4 k` !. + •t+ j {. ,k'st.��1� f �` tl�.. + ! �' `7. L ��`Yt Cxt 'r y• Y .�t S';it.. , , + S'+ y� � 4' ��Y1` N \ � � � . ,"Y• a. ���r .� •�. .� •r, +T'. ;,t".� i��...� E� ,,!. tt ��� y� � - �4, � k f.. � [ R5 'i1j�i � .� 1.t 1�i r t ��,6��� �.'t •�v''4 �+� i r� ,� �� ilr �7+:�i.��'�" + A�',3; ��'t �• �i�'{4 ','t} �� 1. rg+IN : `t'.�( ��a �N��uayti�t 3�k } '�"��t{;���p��, �"�•� ��`k��;� Y-�+"�`C� �(��°l�.� �j� � t s�j��' , ea., y s � J rlk� }t f� t i. ZJy � '§4t '�Y � �� i t�'iq t a�i frl �yta•v�i �d i ti x'\' +�i�; dk� . . /jjt`q` , 'F � tJ�� ?w��� A t!��}li ;#f�.� t�ik a'C ;Vy ,� !a�,t+I ti v�'4r � +�'i;P� �ay.�l:?1 �• � ,� �y'������ • +1�� �':f ''i. ��''4' �}i1'��' A ' +� + tpj{l; {{JJ,,fr Y� '`�ff�J „�` �Y. • ,� }" t+YfS� r. r 3 �,_, �,r S � .Yr.1lNilk ,i�, S REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION James W. Palin Department Development Services Submitted by — — Date Prepared May 23 , 19 80 Backup Material Attachad Yes No Subject 3RANT APPLICATION TO COAST AL CONSERVANCY TO E3 IND-FISHERMEN'S ACCE553dA1' City Administrator's Comments 00 Approve as Recommended Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions: Statement of Issue: Development of public accessways to coastal waterways and other resources Is an Implementation of local coastal planning policies and objectives. The California Coastal Conservancy offers the ` opportunity to uss state funding to provide facilities which the City may not otherwise be able to provide. Recommendations Approve an application for state funding In the amount of. $23,482 for the development of a fishermen's eccessway and establish a policy.favoring such funding for projects serving.the greater public. Approve the required Assurances attached. Do not approve the Installation of the Bite Improvements until the Public Use Agreement Is finalized. 'Anal sic: .' The project site was Identified as a potential area for Increased public access and recreation during the Local Coastal Program planning effort. Public Input via the LCP-Citizen Advisory Committee ranked this site as having high priority for development because of Its location. See location map, Figure A. i The site is ©pp'mximately one acre of undeveloped land which slopes to the edge of the Harbor Channel, just north of the Warner Avenue bridge. Directly .across the water Is the City public i boat ramp and fire facility. Little vegetation is evident on the parcel at present and the area Is generally unattractive and barren. However, the picturesque vistas. surrounding the site are marine-oriented and considered as an area coastal resource. The total parcel. one-half of which is r submerged, Is owned by the Huntington H+icbcur Corporation, developer of Huntington Harbour j according to the County ownership listing. However, there Is some question as to actual ownership and a tltle research is being conducted by the corporation. � Figure B Is a concept drawing of the Improvements proposed which Include access from Warner ` Avenue, parking for 20 cars, benches, trees and walkways. The benches are to be the concrete type, not easily vandalized. Trees and plants will be low maintenance, salt tolerant varieties; and an Irrigation system Is to be installed with the grant funds for ease of maintenance. The project development costs are listed In Figure C. { E The agent for Huntington Harbour Corporation has Indicated conceptual agreement to allowing public use .of the property. A formal Agreement can be effected when the Title Report Is pi9r3hWed. This is expected within the next few weeks. / Ya�4� ..ir. 'tier. •.•a . . i�. - •;r_ , . -. .i .` �. u. . ,.- .� . t`.• +.. .Y.,. ... . �• .(lat.+.:*_ t fit, yl e+ ..::�Si• r t �{ t'lr�` +r t at�;' ��, �T�{*•�� 1"�pT'1 k`"�'� i aFJ7° Vs 11Z1'. ^1 j. 1 fi.f. Y=Its ?r �{ RWq} 'C` � t� , .� �. 1�� � ,t, �ti���1��� �;� ','����SifT i} � .� {,' L�.. �� �r'�Y ,�'���f �''4 �M 4 �: L• #t( � � �• •,y'��t• `��.�.;�. �; �l j i• r�1�' 4� R;1 '� � ���}Y,� �{{,,tt,'�.�{�,t ����C�� ;' y♦-.�'Yf 41" 5 1 � � ` kC�� '.•ts�@�, •� 'Cr' �`l�ily 1T,(� {�tr 1a' f: ���t..1.s}, ��•�5�a�.iylq'{ ,� ' 1 r t�.'r} � �� rt��}.f•ry� } ({�, � �y�j.',f�{ l.•y.� ���y �1� ' +.��(��� �5"' ,�. �(}ijf.� t ;��'1,�7 �3 ` � � �y.3'� .�5 Y 4 f�'�� ' •.Mil. �; ,/�{1 i .} )':, t-i. fit ,1 s,,,'�.r(•t��t f{y�1jt��r' � ,9 t ,J1' x.r�{ � Q�j '•�Fl 1 r(tii •� r71M ..4�t.� i ./ r�ytr ���. . � •���� s3��,ir�� ���'�} �'� ����` .�S{.��r ?'i•f i ` �t- ��: {'." 7711L F. .zz '' .'�;;. ;� �$ i ( r (( � ,f• �4c� C E r ,�•� tr�r .+ f , 3�j{ � �tr�� k'( �•,1��. � �t' f`'r +�{ � �1 4•'���� :t: �' �� j ':i Y,yi•• :)� 4 t t'), .�. t`{.5 �, r l s �.''•V�>` r'S r�. i 1 ��(e1 ' •y- ..t,� `A"�'�]. \ ( i� Y� y Pr�l..� �L�t Q� ( 'Sr'l i •.tpgr ti r �. '� '1 1 ». r{4 • � `� ��-'yr{ +t+ 'Y' +` ,.,,n y�., .its �. N i 4. •{F �•.� ti N .r, ,S 4 ; Page Two Request for CIty Council Action May 23, 1980 GRANT APPLICATION TO COASTAL CONSERVANCY TO FUND FISHERMEN'S ACCESSWAY I The approved Initial Request to Proceed or, Grant Application, which summarizes the project is attached, Figures D-1 and D-2. During the dovelopment of the application, the cos�i-�g was further refined to a request of $Z3,482. Preparatory costs Indicated on the Initial Request are not part of the grant application as the tasks are revised and will require only agreement-formulating techniquas, already an ordinary course of City business. For 3n a`cessway project to qualify for funding by the Coastal Conservancy, it must carMly witil certain basic and project specific criteria. Some of these compliance factors are: L PUBLIC SERVED- The City coastal area and the site serve greater than local needs. 2. COASTAL ACT - Coastal Act policies related to and Implemented by this project are P.R. Code Section 30210, 30211, 30213, 30220, 30222 and 30223. 3. TIMING - The project is expected to be implemented from September to November, 1980. The funding Is expected after August 8. Also, the current Warner Avenue Bridge replacement project, which may affect the site, should be'completed in September. 4. MANAGEMENT - The City has the management capabilities, as Indicated by similar projects accomplished, to carry out the provisions of the project to completion. m to S. ACCESS - The project will maintain existing itia i age avnd nilabl�farpitional safer ubUc viewing or accessthe water in an area where few opl.ortu the water. 6. NEED - Though identified as a high priority site, it is doubtful whether the City would `. be able to effect those improvements without Conservancy Involvement. 7. MODEL The project se as a model for other projects because of (a) choice of : serves . 1pndscape material specific to salt-ridden soil, (b) combination of funding arrangements and,(c) unique public agency/private developer agreement. 8. CITY MATCH - To match the State funding:to be granted for the facilities the City will provide: planning and legal resources to,obtain•the Public Use Agreement, supervision of certain landscaping jobs to be completed with California Conservation Corps labor i and management of the grant. These are estimated to be worth about $2,280. This application Is being made to the California Coastal Conservancy under Its Accessways Funding. Program. A representative of the Conservancy has indicated that it. will'coordinate tr additional funding from the Wildlife Conservation Board with these accensways funds because of a ; fishing toe. This application can serve as a model for the City In funding tha management.and development of ,other coastal resources. In additon to accessway project funding, Conservancy resources tc aid local urban restoration or natural area enhancement,;may also be applicable in the future. The approval of this application can establish the policy that the City Inteiuis to (' utilize State funding to develop local coastal resources which serve all Californians. nr+.ynr+^•nr.Y•.'+.......-+.,.T\MN•...rwr+...:rwx..a.v...tJ4wi.:,...r.uMaHn..+........ ........._......._....,w•w..r.. .u+. ."...+,.cr�'.•'. .J.r.wa:. u..aw"...t+^+•+...�. 1 �. r l 1iat` R '� Y.,+t�4 4`�� ,o :r< ��tf, . t'�` '�.e`�, •t ��'r.�`�i ,Y 'b t..1 F, '�tit f�`�''� � �.,Y' t, t'r�, !����'' e� t£� ,��,. r.'��:S�;t��`�, { fkt".j 8 .5 ti ,.1' 4k , ,, t . Y t'l �� ,, i ti'�t. 7 y. ,.• .. ' •Y t1 �'}+t" '� � �� e<:_>t?t"� ,t�1�r���...��t � ji y��, �'t �1,+kFd t,. ;j�,:t. /+�,> '..� !�': � � j r,�f,��r�r.�„h #1 "ti'�,,• ► � i P7 qM. 7� , i;�' 'ail ;:, ';;f ;n'�rf +(ff„ k?' x +.,�' ' t` t! 9 .�`' `►1 •. ,• 1t.k: t•�';�r1�1�{:t•'l t�`1/;c7,.1 ''�t' t ?`t �ti� tx ,1%:. '4. � �t °� � � 1,� �'` i✓ R Y �y , 4�s1 �. a ti � l��f ��`..,� u'y�f•��e ip i;�t �1� ��1�" y �'�t{ � ��� � f' _ ��;({ t r �` k,� '' #� it t.}�'1t• �, �.+ �7;fy, t �. .s;:,�'� yE� i i•. +{v �t!. t . ��t �•t� �f 'trzy`� � tr�� � '�S 1 J.L , ,r r 5� "S t_. i• .p.it ��d r ,Y "� ti t � `. � 4 :"r ��;yi .�St. Y � k t�" r• � R }�'r tit^' � '}{'�,j,�::� '� t• 't��t�S !•,t� �+ , tfYY��t��t�,�•�� ° r :'•�tT '�� 't,hSy' '2�Kii•`'r�����ti, j'' _ `�h ti �„!Y! �' �'a! 'G)', ���t' •�' Yii�f�'.�"'"�'!'s' Y'�}`"'` ��la t� •',Sf' �1��`��i ^{''�,��.4'-?•:�'r'���� „�t��t h"1` :ti�}5 •�tr!'�,�;L1, � 1r•� r+ t� S�,{•S{�i, ,�{ s; '���i1�r. ��„ t y �'rf f`t+�4.tl ��T jS' '�S..aw� +ro'; r�t�4 ��.1�a.��.t't�S..t;u ',' � ?,Jy tt !i"•�d�lil�il� � +• •��,¢�y�f""•j� �1r'4r' + Page Three May 23, 1980 Request for City Council Action ' GRANT APPLICATION TO COASTAL CONSERVANCY TO +i FUND FISHERMEN'S ACCESSWAY , ce with the California Environmental QuaUty Act n declCEGAared �► Environmental In complies ted for the project and an exemption declared far the funding Information Form Is be!ng comple application. es " EWveral dtng: 23 482 in funding to be coordinated from onAu 58 ust rc 8,�1 Stl nse by the epplicnkion requests , California Coastal Conservancy. Grants wilt be mods by the Corvancy .. • to favor State f.widing• Alternatives: e licatian �vititiout establishing a policy 1. Approve the project funding PP 2. Do not approve the apPlicgtion. Re ectftilly submitted, , s . P tin, Director Davelopment Services JWP MLN:dp rfi r , • t • 't ifi JTt7N�Ze.'xas�...rrnvn«"^ .t, ,: Sy frf;5 w, S jyt. ii , 1 • ' c t t + rR it t. 1 �p 'Mty' u{ '''�. 'ftt ,�'� ��' '�' ,� r �i�w ,> �;� °�' �, P'• '.�'�;4 y, �1 '•s ���."• �,�'' .��+��';i t >!, ,�� 1• P ��a� °�.�' tJia`�-1 FA �,� /. {. ., �,' t. Y'`3Ti�},.{7, � ;��:ti#��'.{ `r;rf1'L� � � �' ,� �},. y �s`'�:�� . �r����`•-� ��1 � �+' �� ',i'�j�}.jf���,`t,;�}' tr. f,��'� , ,�,i � .i � ',t Itt"}' t"'Y+: (3} °. ( �,a`4'' 1 • . } � t� t �'r .t:'J` iY.� ti�µ t'`j, '1•!'6 1���i I `'�i'�� t:�+ j b�i � � '• ;�<.. �� � �'.�"t�'' J^ �,ti�..� �: ` '� :fir� ° + , "t �,I�• +i �.Y,! ��.. �:. ��',� � tt.� �l � o. i '� }7, '�Z'jflh+���* '� �It $�,�C F '��'}' ?+ �' ' '�, ! ', w �Y #j �.4i7��i} + tw� �s fir. q '•�� (¢{[�' 4' � r ..�,i 4tJ,1 �.�' '�. Y [1`T.G�Y1�,i�� F� f ti`r,���}'t�� �tjfi f� � \ 1 { ,�}.;p...�t� „'�T 1f i •.�{�?'{y�L,y;��, "� � pjyjgp �.", o. G � �,w{f�,r�c=' ''i�., ,,' "" j���:r .�,r*1`��X yY .y{-. +.. ,�,y y��.� gam•"�."' '+R Y S�� C�+w�yr �{j, i, Pfy1 � ti 1{`{ }>i .,� Ysy •r �,1 ..�I � .�iF 5�4 t ` !���' .',,�rZ 1,4, �.�. ftl�tk�r 4� r 1 M � ,i� '•�i'. la�T•`•�+.;ijr •a�"ii{¢� K;#.+��r } ;��11�i1,3�'�F�':� �#�' 'T'1, �5�'G�tliy t�� .>i'S r ,{ +� 1�f j� r �Y�..�•' '!1 �'�y+�! h ;� �(' r•/'l�.�' t•;. .1�,.:��. � .t ;1;y ,tT� � i�, tis•,. , �`�1 y C -,�'y, �. �3 �fi �l� W � 1, M. �•; i � +4 �# {i .t 1f •} i�ry.k , {�rs 1 °�''''..-tYlp a. ! , ,d x r' t t 2. ,, ,r '� ,. 1"1�tt� G' .� �• ".t c�t ,t sc. t ,.}F r�-., . b �`t�� ;t�Y ri a' 1 r �., ,��_ ' � r; c ��.x Et t � I.1S( t+l' A:y:fUlt/l1dCI.S the applicant hrrcrhy assurf!" and cer•Li f it s that it wi I I romply with Conservancy requlatiells, pot iries, fjlrrdl;I it os and requirements as tile!/ rrlate Lo the accc .Lorin.- and use of Conservancy funds for this projer:t. Also, Lite applirant gives assurance and certifies with respect to the grant tha t: 1. It possesses legal authority to apply for the grant. and to finance and construct Lire pr•oposerl facilities; that, w6re appropriate, a resolution, notion or similar action has been duly adopted or passed as an official act of the applicant's governing Wily, authorizing the filing of vin al►pucatiorl, incll+ding all understandings and assurances contained Ltrernin, and directing and authorizing the person identified as the official , repr^sentative of the ripplicalrt to act in connection with the application and OW provide such additional information as may be r•equi red. 2. It will have snPficlent funds available to met its coin share of .the cost 'far projects. Sufficient funds will he available wbPn the project is compleLecl to assure Lire effective operation and wainLennce of the facility for Lite purposes constructed. 3. It will give Lite -Conservancy, through any authorized representative, access to and the right to examine all record, hooks, papers, or documents related to Lite grant. 4. It will cause work on the project to he cciiwlenced within a re+aso».rible t:ilrr, after "receipt.of notification from the Consc,rvanry that funds have beell ral'r roved and that the project will he prosecuted to completion W!th 'reasonable diligence. S. It will licit dispose of or encumber its title or otter interests ill the site and facilities except as permitted by Lite Conservancy. G. It will , where appropriate, comply with tile requirelrrents of the State's Braithwaite Act (Chapter 1574, Statutes of 1971 and related statutes), which provides for fair and equitable treatment of displaced persons. 7. It will t•ilivre appropriate, comply with Lite requirements of the California Ernvironmental quality Act. B. It Will comply with all. requirements imposed by tilt' Conservancy concerning,, special provisions of law, and program recluirements. i PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council at its regular meeting on June 2► 1980. Mayor O ATT•ST City Clerk / 1,`j,( Y t t �} c[y c t))� .1uet `t S,tt8}.rf mt•(r ,•r Yq�; 1 4 ; •� } 4'}y y%+ F fAJit�• 4, s ,1 ifRd�Y,• ,t Y ,�t• '��•{� Y iL x4 r,�.,* ,5 �. "� �., j;�"t yil'' I, •i 3 `p t � £ ,y. t} 4'�lp l `' �,•� k� { Sl1C 7' :q •t� . }7 +� �,�' .`t+t FP 1! ff r ylr3•�.,n C?i� Y .4 ��y��'?,:{�. Y�ti�� fax\(S �'!� !��'"� 2�����; L )'Y�ri,'ii".�: ��'j�Fir �� t•} .�, '�.�}�,. y'Fi� ,Y�a• 1't! t�� kM�'! T���} ,t+�� t�,,��3�n (�,"��t,•kf,�� �i yj :� ? `� hJ •t1. �r� 1'd;S.L`•s S . �}. w .� Gty,"T ; ,h. � � �� . •!:�t �� t<4ilz.x _�,,�, 1 {t.4� �gtit y fi��.}"!�� 4. `�tY ,; i}3�4� •t}�y.Yi}.,�n 3� .ka i.J 'cF �. :,� h �, y"lt,J� ,�''l� `3s' tr s ,} tt�t..j!$S t�� �;,Z•3' i:��,i�%�•t'.;�}!I� }� { +•{ r' �L >j �+ ;f t:' �. � {�. .� ,� •�,���'�� ;�� � rµ y"�r4 •�i �i��j'!�{,Vr�tt��'t'� ]�•� �r;4 '+i• ..�-�� •'.�� t : `j}lt�t. � iti~ 4 �LY ,Yk ''� �1.. i{ .3 + � ((),b,��1+; I;'��1•,` 'e{�4.'!�V�, .�j7�yf � � n ���!_j i+"�� Kr f •t� wl� _j{j �y'� t( ,� ttw� '7.J•�,R �rA��• ,�t� t��.".rk,��yy+��, tk.i•�r� r� � }fs �.,7•' {;)t� tl' ZI.'. �;�`,�ft�r {�'�,��a"P� «,i ,S{{i' iy, .3 i�.Ct:}f`�,y' .3�'A��1Y�.����1. /.'}y �S r •ll� 1 �i�� ,+ �'..6 � " i♦{g�{y }�}.t i 4 �`.nCyry� { • { �Siiil,�iy, i L4.ytt,Y` `t� Y. . All yt 4{ , 4A 1' �,t .• _ 7 .li` S• 7 2 j�}',.�j ry t ) � �• �i J � ...y T i �j �J ry 4 HIM + fpf� ( `I J lY. t ) 0[ I 1 { 4 f(' �t ■ [ 1 %�`I l •( t•%!4 'fiY 'n` �.J .q ..y�• 7V✓ Yt YT,�.� "'r 1 +t T`t T A J '1.r{yA• y', ,1 TH`}i�+' r 1 �11T ky a"y "i S;� { 1ry +f.,i ; •.r � ` C'"i•�i. i�:X�1.1.,� �'S' `'.. �' .j��' ''"t S t .h ,Y Y.1 �i 5• T! .>t'�':• :,p i EDINGER AV QU tp•ccR 1 r� -,• 1 .. r-R i .� c, :'. CF E > . { c , .,/ `( t r(•'/ ``+ .,,Y.,'7. i+ r•..rl lr��.. .Y \�,i+� •� (Y:•att f�•tl 1 04 41 ( r J' CFRDOMAIN& am 2 CFR 1 z •� :` ;� � — CFR .. .A CfrP i.- .� � • r•► � r i � . } ; r .yy.4 �,',, ,•o ` CFR# - CF.R �� •• ' • Y •YY y ��` � r . �'� � `•,/` --� ''--- � CFR ` :" 1 ` ✓�j 1 r CF-(1 rtaY.trtr a• 1 �� ► WARNER ---- � . 5irry L©cgTIM cipre - A W I w. J , 65 . rn cn 'l to yo 11 �\ 'V k r %O G e IAAIC •o V 'V .• 04 uj . r 41 4 r Q L ~ x N Ul 4� ; t d V h a x 1 N !p ova � w sc£prfir LAVe ; ♦• �'• w ib ro ' c O N W 1. Rnm» 7 Cl « t m , ..� 1c) �','.}{ .`, ,.� j�\tit�ItJ. til �1+ ;,G .�" k ...�rt•' ,4 •�i�� ft /,± � , } � r f J tk 4 '[ 71 °( .p '.'� �t yy11� r +'�S �1•rft �,�j ''• k�''t� � "tS ,� '+fV { Z„ q�',}+, `�� M1 }" jt.• +. � � �.5� Si{�Yf�`�},�:{a�� =[ f;I' ����• � "�� ��t`rf � `��+ �'t��`iy�"�'t��� } �r��'1�r �1 g,, ;� �4'' �'����l}i�'�� �'! f'Yf'b1 "1 4 ��� •t girt i .l�,b. �jr��� � �Sr���j�r��+1��yl �I• r, t't 7��'.�+ y\ t)s Y � �I�t y..�.tt�/ 4If'lYt.��, /I:i t. �3 i�: i �. 7r`I '�5•""�� � 4- � ���t'}i�� il� {i4`, ��',«4 '�l`f,.'rt�il t ;t1�j4 �a� " iY <��;� �+3 �•!�t.fll i��..! �r •tF :�[ � � •r f`y �`{� �y t•. t�)T 11 j �} .���. � ).: t" ` `.'� st �' jr'wj-q t '� '<�ii+t'�'"'•" 1 Y �' #:iS ,r'��`Y�'"7I `.r ,�• �: ,Il.q.,• �(}�!?� ' k7' M�.4(y[ert"h lr' ';+r'� , 1,' q • s •ly, �,� �� . �Ij�! � g 4 1 � ,.� ��� �'�r�'�q \ri. Cyr.j r.>i• �� � i 1 }t'�.��ift �,r4 jjl� r��; ,.;;���,'� :��:ffC4�f(jt���°ap�t,� •�r �4t(Ct ,(��,�`;J � �♦t, �� .���,,, �. ,.,� ;'�Y���^��;1 1 �' v.�" •� � .? � i M1 '� �.'�`".. �,��r. 14 }?� 51�`�i �''' C t ..^}' .�f, , ��•1., f,� i,� ��p�]�r:�,.ii �4� ���� J}�i � �1� ''�, P'��� ��. k� y�'ll �.;��";Y�S � 'ki' � }►'{�'� ' f. �;,�(�, !. 1 .k�'"''lfir � r� .4.' .1r°��ttl'� i'"'y1"t�i� 1� ;� ''� �' '1� �}�, � YA 1 4�. '`� i���'� '► � � '�.f��'�"fi'�y k ,7 i'' � �� ��� �y��i�• r �� 1�ti�t����i �,1: '1 i), � �� F �,��f�. �'�+. �4 i• . !!°�k t'lit ��f�i' xt � J'• �� r � V �1 �Y 1,~�. r '4 `' 'y ' r �''� �ti •. p C t +t�"� �• ;Z raj "x" `i + (r7E�' CN't + y. f '+• 'l':11 ,. { ��,�`1� T �.}•j,Yf Y .,n� 7�, i � ��{ 5ik � {{•• .�,�, �, .}'` to �l �, ti•�i� .•#" `�jjVj � yE {. '� 'A t'S1mg r�, ,'1 r(�t.'�� � . �, r. �d�5 � �F�''iF'�.n t�i4i'7+• .i,��1�� 't. y ,� �(i-1.1�;LrF {i;{ � ih"'�'�.d 4 tif�!��d+ Tip�• f ��� f� S' '� 'S !•S`rr �} '�►y q� J1 tF` r=�. S [,� ��f �.i1 n j ' y •'},i " .,.t` (`'r�,'�''� lE�� j. i' � .��?�y,�,# ' ' P9� �'.�" �..(F.� 11 .•�t�., "�)}�'c a Y.1 nx 1 •. d, ;J:!i��i-�.:41�.�` to ,.�S t4{ �� •o3�,4ti {�tl y1!. { ��r Lt '�fF '•{)i''�Sy�'+l7T�`�.ji�., 'i�'�i.'��f�'1"°Y•l,,f[�r't�t�Z (j q t, M ' `MIR�T4�� i�Q1'64r �YlAvlhe� � :k Measure Potnf \\ 0 Low Vele4miioti C� n ' I L1 sfin Tt=f 6llz�� 5775 Dina (� / 1 Fire Sta on / AvevntA e Fi cj L� re B Conco-p+ M,L.N, a- s-eo H B- C- C C -O •t e i f C ,•-�• t-8-CC06 Project Costs Planning, Management Supervision $2,ZB0.00 Facilities: Curb cut, drive entrance $ 500.00 Parking lot 3" A.C. 45' x 300' = 13,500 square feet $40/ton x 243 tors 9,71L.U0 Walkway 2" A.C. 3001..x 4' = 1,200 square feet $40/ton x 14.34 tons 574.00 marking lot striping 15D.00 Cement Benches 7 ea. LO .1000 lb. 7 x $220 ea. + $175 (crane fee) 1,715.00 Trash Cans with lids & chains, tie-downs 3 ea. @ $25 75.00 Park sign - wood do concrete 200.00 No Left Turn sign, hardware and Installation 40.f10 TOTAL FACILITIES $12,982.00 Landsca�inc�: Trees Shrubs Groundcover 5uil test ($100) Soil (No Cost - Import from excess of other projects) Irrigation system Total Landscaping materials $10,000.08 Labor: Paving lot d: walk (included in cost of facility) Striping (included In cost of facility) Installation of benches (included in cranc coat) Trash can securing (Included in cost of facility) I Sign Installation (included In cost of signs) Soil spreading potential CCC labor $200.00 Tree & shrub planting potential CCC labor 300.00 Install Irrigation system (included in cost of landscaping) TOTAL 1.,7ST Or PROJECT $25,762.00 Figure C j t INITIAL ItBt,)111:-q1'TO PROCETID GRANT APPLICATION LIGATION TO: Granite Coordinator FROM: J i m ?ed i n / mar`, Lg i -, IUo t 6 y •un'n.: N-a5 - gb r , 17tc k t ka m g&d S er,utttz5 Deparl men U"Office wislirs to proceed with air application for a Federal/Stale grant and aulimils llte following ittformilinn for review by llto Grants Coordinator. lnformaPou to be submilled should include Ilse followirtb when aeailablet 1. Proposed title of ltrogrom or projt•e 1. 2. ilrief summary of program or project to he financed. 3. Proposed Federal/Slate programs) to be utilized for financin;. 4. islintatm tonal cost of prograru or project ($), first year,and each subsetlucnt year. .' 5. Donated Federal/`hate gram sh re($), first year,and each suh,cyuent year. 6. Lzliotalcd City share (5), firtcl year,all([ each Eubsequcnt year.General Fund" Other Fainds? 7. What is your esawate of ow cast for yunr department to preli a and submit its application for this grant (iucauling number of man-ltuurs,cost per Itour,and total cost)? U. NoUld Altiq gr;tnt application involve other Gly deparlincnts? lla►•e you discussed this proposal with thetn7 1vluvt►►►•ould you expect to file.1pplicalim; for;;raid,assuming favorable review by the Grants Coortlmalor and approval by the City G►uncil? I Apprtr►at ��(� �t e. Denial I I Grants Coo►dtrwtar � ' isle City Administrator P►o 2reo �i vt•p.•�t(�. IGTOPA BEACH CITY OF HUNTUN INTER-DEPART MENT COMMUNICATION ►rwtu�ct�n4ai TO Jeri Chenelle From Mary Lynn Norby Grants Coordinator Advance Planning/LCP Subject REQUEST TO PROCEED ON GRANT Date April 25, 1980 APPLICATION The Development Services Department, Planning Division, wishes to pro- ceed with an application for a federal/state grant and submits the following information for review by the Grants Coordinator : Project Title: Development of fishermen's accessway. Project Summary: A low activity viewpoint and fishing accessway near the public boat ramp in the Harbor Channel with small parking lot, benches and some land- scaping. Funding Program: California Coastal Conservancy Access Funding. Conservancy is to coordinate additional f�.,nding through the Wildlife Conservation Board and labor through the California Conservation Corps. Total Cost: $27,902 f Total. Grant: Requesting $27,902 City Share: Some supervision of California Conservation Corps labor may be needed. I Cost to prepare Application: 2 weeks @ $8.99/hour = $711.20. Additional funding is being requested from the Conservancy for some preparatory tasks amounting to $3,080. Other City D-apartments: This proposal was developed jointly by Community Services, Public Works and Planning, and respec- tive roles understood. Final Application: The final application needs to be filed by June 1, 1980. Approval [ X ] Denial Gr its cord nator r� Data City Ac�inist:.ratrx MAI:jb ��quva•U�s� f�t j • � T 1LI J 0. CITY OF HUNTING TON,ON, BEACH P.O. BOX 190 DEPARW.Ef T OF DEVELOPMENT SERViCFg CALiFORNIA 92648 IIUILDIND DIVISION(714)G3 W41 pLANNIrJCd DIVISION(714)53'SMI Xru /,,s. Honorcble Mayor and City Council Attention: Mr. Arguello, City Administrator (, M: James W. Polin, Director, Development Services 7E: January 12, 1980 SUBJECT. CONSOLIDATION INCENTIVES AND HEIGHT LIMITS IN TOWNEOT TALC` The following analysis is intended to clarify the issues relating to the Coastal Element land use da.19nation for the area of the coaital Tone between Goldenwest and Sixth Streets. The Interaction of density and height specifications and their implications for t;rl:.ourogemer.I of lot consolidation is discussed. It should be noted, however, that this . anelysis is preliminary to a comprehensive zoning study which must be carried out-prior to establishing a specific plan for the area. It is intended as a reference for Council discussion of height limitations rather thdn a detailed analysis of potential density in the area. At its December i5, 1980 meeting regarding the Coastal Element, the Council discussed consolidation incentives for the area from Goidenwest to Sixth Street, between Walnut and Pacific Coast Highway. The Council determined that medium density residential Is appropriate for small parcels in th's area, but that If a developer were to consolidate these parcels, he should be allowed to build at high density. This "density bonus"would act as an incentive to consolidate the long, narrow parcels typical of this area and, through better ure of available space, would provide for better design and more amenities in th6 project. The Council also imposed a three-story height limit on this area. Ncrmaliy, three stories would have provided enough height flexibility to allan for a wrrkable incentive program. < However, the Coastal Element, in line with the Coastal Commisslon's Housing Guidelines, also has a policy which requires 20 percent of residential projects of greater than 19 units to be affordable to low and moderate Income persons. This kind of"(nclusioncry" policy acts as a disincentive against projects of 20 or more units. Thus f the 04 would be encouraging consolidation by permitting more units in a project while at the some time discouraging larger projects because of the inclusionary requirements. To sane extent, the inclusionary requirement would "cancel"the density bonus, partially a nullifying the consolidation Incentive. 4 Table I. illustrates this effect for a typical half black fronting P.C.H. in this part of the City. The table shows: 1) the number of 'bonus" units that would be available at increasing densities, 2) the number of affordable units required by the:, inclusionary policy, and 3) the number of "net"bonus units the developer would ea n as a result of his consolidating an entire half block (that is, the total consolidation menus milris the inclusionery requirement). 4 �t a ae-9 s The chart assumes that an unconsolidated half block would consist of five por.-mis, each � with 50 feat of frontage along P.C.H. Such 50-foot wide by 160-foat Iona sites are 1 typical of th- ownership patterns In this area. On each of these 50-foot wide sites, a 4-plex would be permitted under P.2, medium density, zoning (15 dwelling units/acre maximum). Thus, u total of 20 units could be developed on the entire half-block by the owners of these unconsolidated sites. There would be no inclusionary requirement because the 70 units would not 5e built as a single project. The chart compares this to what would be permitted under high density* if a half block were consolidated. For example, if 20 dwelling units/acre were ollmved, the developer could Build 3.3 total units. (Each of these half blocks is about 1.65 gross acres total.**) ! At first appearance, he would have been given 13 "bonus" units for !laving consolidated the half block. However, his project is greater than 29 units, and thus the Inclusionary requirement applies. Twenty percent of 33 units is 6.6-- ":hus six units crust be Cwailable ! to low and moderate income persons. Deducting these from the apparent bonus(6 from 13) leaves a real bonus of seven units. At 25 units/acre, the real bonus is 13 units; at 30 units/acre, it is 20; at 35 units/acre, it l is 26. In developing a consolidation incentive ordinance, the staff analysis would attempt ' to determine how Jorge the bonus must be to realistically effect consolidation. The . three-story height limit affects the Cit)?s options in choosing the size of the bonus in the following way. If one assumes that the average size of the units is 1,000 square feet, and that no more than 35 percent of the tote( lot area should be covered by buildings, theta 25 units/acre is the approximate maximum density that can be built within three! stories***.' Of course, smaller units could be built and/or mor,3 surface area could be covered, thus allowing more units on the site and some flexibility. However, coverage greater than 35 percent greatly reduces setbacks and other open space cm--nttios, cnd; can result in."box-like" development. Alsn, while some units may be smaller then 1,000 square feet, this is a realistic and reasonable average size for beach-front property. * "High density" refers to any residential land use designation which allows more than 15 units/acre. '+* The half-blocks south of I Ith Street have different sizes and configurations than these; thus, the calculations would be somewhat different for the area between'6th and IIth. *** 41 total units,approximately 14 units/story. 14 units X 1,003 square feet/unit = 14,000 square feet for the truilding "footprint". Net acreage Is about 40,000 square feet for the half block. i Itt,0001140,000 : 35% coverage. I i . j TABLE I. Density Bonuses for Lot Consolidoiian far Hclf-blocks Facing P.C.H. between 6th and Goldenwestl Zoning/ Total Total Inclusionary "net" Lot densities units density requirement actur , Coverage2 bonus densi r f t bonus R2 Med Density 15 d.u./acre max. 203 0 0 0 High Densities 16 d.u./acre 26 6 5 1 72% 17 d.u./acre 28 A 5 3 25% 18 d.u./acre 29 9 5 4 25% 19 d.u./acre 31 11 6 5 27% 20 d.u./ocre 33 13 6 ..7 27% 21 d.u.lacre 34 14 6 S 30% 22 day./"acre 30 16 7 9 30% 23 d.u./acre 37 17 7 10 32% 24 d.u./acre 39 19 7 12 32% 25 d.u.;acre 41 2! .8 13 35% 30 d.u./ocre 49 29 9 7.0 .42% 35 d.u.Ja:re 57 37 11 26 47 1 Not all blocks are identicul in this area; these figures are for a typical half block north of Ilth Street. 2 assumes average of 1,0.70 square feet/acre and 3-story height limit. 3 assumes 4-plexes on five unconsolidated parcels. - i I ' f r • i i A furtfxr consideration in developing a consolidation incentive ordinancx: is providing increasing Bonuses for additional consolidations. In a comprehensive incentive program, developers would receive increasingly greater bourses fir consolidating increasingly forger site:n. Consider the fallowing example of an Incentive program: A. Unconsolidated half block.- 4 4 4 4 4 total 20 units 12 units/acre This Is the expected configuration if the block is unconsolidated and built to medium density. 2. Incentive for I00-foot consolidation: t.Ma'T f t � I l I I so total 26 units 16 unitsjo�cre c , ,j } A a C Here the developer would get three extra units, if he consolidated two 50-foot wide p(rceis f (A or 8 In the diagram). This represents a bonus of 37.5 percent 01 instead of 8)over the unconsolidated case ff 1. f-- 3. Incentive for 150 foot consolldatiwn f ti—EQQ`-- -v-•---wISQ'---s ` I I 18, total 29 units I8 units/ccre C If the denleloper already has two 50-foot parcels consolidated(B above), hs wcwId gain three additional units by consolidating the next 50-fact` lot(B and C cc�mbined) for a total f 18 units. The 18 units represent a bonus of 50 percent over the unconsolidated case #1. 4. Half block consolidation. --------�250'-- --w----a i 4; 8 r 33 1 total 41 units 25 unitsfacre A a C If the developer were to ccnwIldate the entire half black, (A, 8 and C combined) he would get a bonus of 21 units, eight of which would be inclusionary, for ,a r,}et fatal of 13. This represents a bonus of 65 percent over the unconsolidated case#1. Note that tFe maximurn denisty,bcus practical under the three-story height limit has been reached(25 unitslocre). - i f >J f • 'wr•Hi^xiSllvM.M..w-.....«............ �._ ...._ .. .-..w r.w+.M..w.............••.«....+..- ... ................a. . G.. ... 1.t.i1711... ••....f-4 i+r"i'A fY:.1.tf'Nw........ .� f S n a S. Full block consolidation The three-story limit precludes a further density bonus for full block consolidation (Walnut to PCH). The only option for further bonuses in this case is for the City to vacate alleys and include them in the buildable area. This may be an effective incentive because it not only adds a few bcnus units(3 to 4), but also allows the developer more flexibility regarding bvilding configuration. However, the developer will probably Incur additional costs from this arrangement because utility and sewer lines in the alleys would need.to be realigned. Without a detailed study, it is unclear whether or not there is a significant incentive for full block.crnsolidation.* After considering the fact that the kind of incentive plan outlined above would probably not,promote significant consolidation beyond a half-block, staff analyzed the implications of using greater densities beyond 2.5 units/acre as bonuses for larger consolidations. For example, a density of 30 units/acre might 1,3 permitted if a developer cc tsolidated three-quarters of a block; (see the diagrorn below). Ho cculd then build 70 units total, 14 of which would be used to meet the inclusionary requirement, leaving a net of 56 units. On an unconsolidated three-quarters of a block, 26 units could be built under R2, medium density,zoning.** Thus, the: 56 net units allowed under the 30 units/acre density would include a bonus of about I IS percent above the, unconsolidated situation. W In V t f Consolidating three-quarters ( } - i of a black L i i PCk * Staff analyzed the possibiliiy of using the maximum density (25 units/acre) as the bonus for full-block consolidation (rather than for half-black consolidation) cnd thm dev-toping an Incremental incentive plan for smaller consolidations. Such a program would offer the following incentives: full block consolidation 65% half-block 50% three: 50-foot parcels 33% two 50-foot parcels 25% i This kind of program appears to be much less feasible than the example outline,,: In'th€ text because there are Insufficient bonuses to provide realistic Incentives for consolidation (especially for the smaller Increments). Note that under this plan, Me developer wauid have to consolidate approximately twice as many parcels to receive ari equivalent bonus as in the half-block incremental plcn discussed In the text above. Note that because the parcels are smaller on the half-blocks between the alley and Walnut Street, fewer units would be permitted on these half-blocks than on those l fronting P.C.H. under R2, medium density, zoning. Thus, only Z; units could be built on l } an unconsolidated three-quarters of a block and 32 units on an unconsolld;a►ed full-block. �i i - 1 Under a three-story height limit, however, approximately 40 percent of the net area would be covered by the building if develops:d at 30 units/acre. This exceeds the maximum lot r^ coverage recommended for this area. Under a four-story height limit, lot coverage would be only 30 percent at this same density. Continuing along these lines, consider now a density bonus of 35 units/acre for a full-block consolidation. A developer would be permitted to build i06 units, 21 of %vh. +1 would be us&1 to meet the inclusionary requirements, leaving a net of 85 unit:.. On an unconsolidated full-block, 32 wits could be developed under R2, medium density, zoning. Thus, the net of 85 units includes a bonus of approximately 165 percent over the unconsolidated situation. Under a three-story height limit, however, approximately 45 percent of the net area wobiki be covered by buildings if developed at 35 units/ocre, far in excess of the recommended maximum lot coverage. If buildings could be developed to four-stories, however, lot'coveroge would only be approximately SS percent at this some density. These were the kind of considerations that prompted staff to question the. feasibility of an incremental consolidation plan which also encouraged full-block consolidation under a three-story height limit. The three-story limit effectively constrains the available density bonus and the potentiol for full-block consolidations, although an incremental consolidation plan is conceivable up to a half-block within these constraints. Another consideration is lot coverage. At 25 d.udocre approximately 35 percent of the site would probably be covered by buildings. This is the maximum coverage that should be permitted since more extensive coverage leads to closely packed "box-like" development with little design variation or oven space areas. Open space is especially Important or,the half block facing P.C.H. beccuse large setbacks will be necessary to allow vis►)al amenities and noise attenuotion buffer areas. Some buffer strategies may he precluded if greater thei 35 percent of the sites are used for the buildings. This does not mern that a comprehensive consolidation incentive plan up to a h-31f-block and effective buffers are impossible under a three-story limit. However, without height j flexibility, they are more difficult io develop and certain options will likely be constrained (i.e., smaller setbacks and buffers, leading to a propensity toward "box-like" &Yclopment, infeasibility of a full-block incremental consolidation pion), CONCLUSION: A specific plan which provides for consolidation Incentives, inclusionary housing requr'ements, and a ihree-story height limit appears to be feasible. Incremental consolidation up to a full-block, and maximum design and open space amenities may be better encoureged by allowing up to four stories under specified circumstances. In either case, the specific plan requirements would be designed to maximize the area's relationship to the bec+ch and the Townlot area behind it. a i F M I t. .`r CITV OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ! ) INTER-DEP,`RTMENT COMMUNICATION hL1M%CTOV SIA01 To James W. Patin Front Raymond C. ^Icar Director of Development Services Fire Chief Subject HUNTINGTON HARBOUR ZONING AND Date January 13i, 1981 LCP This department has concern about the allowable building density in the north-wpstern portion of Huntington+ Harbour. This area has the Weakest fire protection in the cor=unity and building densities should be kept at the lowest level possible. The service level in the proposed zone change area at the north-western tip of Huntington Harbour, has over ten (10) rainutes response time with all elcbments of the fire protection system In place. One fire company out of position, due to another emergency, inspection or trairTing. assignment, could Increase this response time. There is also a correlation between the number of peopie in the area and building densities Kith the frequency of emergency cells and the �+ magnitude of the mire probiem. # RECO13 ENDATION: The Fire Department requests that all zoning In the north-Mst portion of Huntington Harbour requiring fire protection service off Edinger be kept at the lowest lev:+l possible. { �• . RCP:sh ! i cc: Frank B. Arguello Chief Kelly J BU1CPH PWINING DEPT. JAN 1419$1 P. 0. 13ox 150 j �iuntlt on Bw-h,CA 91148 { I t� J - t �'�i1��=y�t:.1^..♦ iI:'t,:..... a-...,. .. ._..�._.-.« .+.r.... ..s.a....t .. . .. ., ..w. .. ,.... .l•..1.:. ... ... .......yr..—............. >was.r..-�.w...-._ ._. ..,,r, x . 4 , -f4e1Z0 +. � CITY OF HunflnC- DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES • P. 0. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 9264a 1714) 536-5271 TO: Honorable Mayo.: and City Council r f ATTN: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator FROM: Edward D. Selich DATE: April 25, 1977 SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR FUNDING OF LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM: INITIAL PHASE As you know, the Coastal Act requires the City to prepare a Local Coastal Program (LC?) to implement State policies within the coastal zone. Regulations regarding the development of our Local Coastal Program have now been adopted and our work can begin. As specified by Coastal Commission regulation, the first step in the LCP process is the de- ti velopment of a total work program. This work program must include: 1.. an identification of coastal planning issues 2. an evaluation of existing plans and information 3, an outline of tasks to address coastal issues and implement: Coastal Act policies 4. procedures for intergovernmental and citizen participation 5. estimated budget and processing schedule Before work can begin on the actual ICP, this detailed work program must be officially approved by the Regional Commiswion. We estimate that development of the work program will require approximately two months and will be submitted to the Regional Commission in August. A limited amount of funds is available through the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) in conjunction with the Coastal Commission to com- plete tine work program. Attached for your review and approval is our application for $ 4,128 from OPR to develop a required work program: This grant request will not cover total Expenses for the project which we estimate at about $5300. because funding is limited and larger cities will be disadvantaged by the selection process, we are applying for a / lesser amount. It is possible, however, that no reimbursement at all will be g#:anted. In that event, a portion of the work - to be determined by the Coastal Commission - may be fundable under SB 90 at some time -in the future should sufficient funds be allocated. T•'tyr.r,.+r.-....,... .:ti.. :'1`r x.:.v...�.--._ ... ..........I....:w .e... ..., ... .. ,• , ., ... sr!. y ".f. wl{•.L al.. .. • ..t t ... , +l`..w.i.T,t').e.... •t�y,+~Z� 1rYktt _ .. i r' ' '•11 Page Two Upon approval of the work program sometime prior to November, additional funds may be available to the City for actual preparation of the LCP. This funding suffers the same limitations as that for the work program although more money is available. Additionally, certain aspects of the LCP may be deemed by the Coastal Commission and OPR to be non-fundable if they can be defined as part of a normal goverr:nertal operation. These exclusions will not be identified, though, until approval of the Work Program. It is likely, therefore, that the City will be re- quired to bear a portion of the cost of LCP preparation despit-u financial assistance from the state. RECOMIENDATION: Adopt Resolution yyS"? authorizing application for a $4,128 grant for preparation of a Tfork Program as a required first step in the develop- ment of a mandatory Local Coastal Program. Respectfully submitted, Edward D. selich Director EDs:MF:ja l : cc! t•, , i I - f 1 . i fld4 CITY OF HunTinGTOn BEA ( H �;;oW 31 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL. RESOURCES .,. • P.0. BOX 190.HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (7141 53&5271 1 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council i FROM: Planning Department t r 1 DATE: March 22, 1977 ATTri: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator SUBJECT: DRAFT INTERPRETIVE GUIDELINES - CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT OF 1976 On Monday, March 2L, 1977, the South Coast Regional Commission held one of several public hearings on the proposed Coastal Act interpretive guidelines. The guidelines are designed to assist local governments and others in determining how the policies of the Act are to be applied in the Coastal Zone prior to certification of a local coastal program and rust- be adopted by the State Commission by May 1, 1977. Staff analyzed the guidelines and submitted the attached letter to the Regional Commission, accompanied by a brief verbal presentation, on �-%March 21, 1977. Also attached for the council's perusal are pertinent excerpts of the interpretive guidelines. The ccncerns stated primarily relate to those sections of the guidelines addressing Huntington Beach proper. Cases,# point were made justifying a reason to allow exceptions to the guidelin-eR for Huntington Beach In regard to parking. Other major points of concern were assessed and replacement wording to the guidelines was offerred for the Commission's consideration. ' SUGGESTED ACTION: �.. If the Council agrees with the points of concern raised by the Planning � pepartment, it is suggested that the City Administrator forward an official communication on behalf of the City to the Coastal Commission restating the concerns discussed, Respectfully su m tied, i dardw D. PSelWich Director EDS:DE:df s ?� Attachments cc: Planning Commission ' t t r ' 0 ( I T Y, OR FAMMIG TO n BEAU 11 _ DEPARIWIENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES • P. O. I= wo, IIUNfiNGTON UFACII,CALIFOnNIA 92C✓rd (714) 53G•54"11 March 10, 1977 II' � Honorable Chairman and Members of the South Coast Regional Commission 666 E. Ocean Avenue Suite 3107 P.O. Box 1450 , Long Beach, California 90801 Attn: M. J. Carpenter, Executive Director 1te: Comments and Suggestions on Draft Interprretive Guidelines Dear fir . Chairman and Commissioners: The following discussion represents the Planning Staff's viewpoints I in regard to the draft interpretive guidelines currently undergoing public hearings at the Regional Commission level. This communication will be augmented by a brief presentation at your March 21, 1977 meeting to summarize what we feel are the salient issues of concern. � 1. Page A3. Point 4 - Low and Moderate Cost Housing - Redevelopment i Projects: we would suggest that sub--point 1, dealing with the , percentage of housing which should be provided in low and moderate income levels Le more closely aligned with provisions of California Redevelopment Law as has been appropriately reflected in sub-point 2. i Section 33334.2 of the California Redevelopment. Law provides that ". . .not less than 20 percent of all taxes whicl. are allocated to the agency. . .shall be used for the purpose of increasing and im- proving the community supply of housing for persons and families -:)f low and moderate income. . . ." As it is written, sub-,point 1 would limit flexibility the Redevelopment Law provides to reasonably accommodate low and moderate income housing based upon economics. For this reason, and in order, to avoid com- plicating the already complex procedure of redevelopment, we urge modification of sub-point 1 to reflect consistency with the Redevelop- ment Law. 2. Page A6. Point 6 -- Residential Parking Guidelines for L.A. and Orange ' Counties: It is our contention that the Ci.ty's parking ratios in j .effect at- this time (bachelor., single, one-bedroom units - ol.e parking space per unit, two-bedrooin units one and one half parking spaces j per unit, three or more: bedrooms - two parking spaces per unit, and one half parking' space per, unit for guests, are rr.ore than adequate to reasonably accommodate the needs of residents and their guests. j a I, t I South Coast Regional /L„t`lmission Page Two + T';` -•..,; i These regulations have long standing and were based upon numerous parking reed studies. Admittedly, however, on-site parking is utilized more so in larger apartment complexes whereas smaller developments (usually the type built in the beach area) tend to use on-street parking as it is equally as convenient as on-site parking. We surmize that parking required by the Coastal Commission at a 2-1 ratio would not create additional parking for beach• access. The customary use of on-street pari. :.ng near the dwellings is evidently preferred by residents dnd is causing the problem, not the number of spaces available. This fact, coupled with the fact that our multiple unit zoning is in close proximity to large parking lots for beach access merits con- sideration for reducing the parking ratios to the City's standards. We would therefore request an exception clause under sub-point 6b be created to reflect acceptance of the City's parking ratios for multiple family residential. Suggested wording: Exceptions - Huntington Beach. In Huntington Beach residential parking shall be provided at the following ratios: Bachelor, Single, One-bedroom units - One parking space per unit Two-bedroom units - One and one--half parking spaces per unit Three or more bedrooms - Two parking spaces per unit �. One half parking space per unit for guests 3. Page F16, Huntington Beach - Central, Point 1: We feel the guidelines proposing a height limit of 25 feet, is too restrictive. It is under-'- stood that the vernacular wording of the guidelines are permissive and not mandatory, however, we feel that in application, the 25 ft. . height limit would become the rule., Currently, 'our conunercial zones provide for height limits of up to Sp feet excepting the C3 zone which has no height limit. The height limit of our most restrictive residential zone is 35 feet. In view of the imminent Redevelopment Plan we &re suggesting that a 35 foot height limit be impcsed ,until the Redevelopment or Revitali- zation Plan is agreed upon, at which time the height limits therein can also be addressed. For these reasons, we feel the interpretive guidelines should be revised to a specified building height of 35 feet. An overall statement of intent would also be advisable in order to give the developer and the City an understanding as to how the vertical theme of the Coastal Zone is envisioned. 4. Page F15, Huntington Beach -- Central Point 2: In regard to un-site Parking spaces for residential development: . The points of issue we reiterated in regards to page A.6, point 6 similarly address this issue and we would therefore offer the same suggestions: • S. Pages F16-F17, Huntington Beach - Central Point 3: Concerning the redevelopment area: Inasmuch as the City's Redevelopment Plans are undergoing formulation within the Coastal Boundary, it is -)ur desire to broaden the interpretive guidelines in relation to this subject. �--'We believe the wording offered below will be suitable for use as in- �terpretive guidelines without injury to the intent and purpose expounded t r` � � �,�, + nr it r` � �t�t� t� •� � � ` � + t as M I�S, . ��.�h'' 1� .�• ':r" y�,fit. A!� ' r Y+, '1 rYa• e +�a {,tl�1t ,ti.�} �;tE'� 1' '�Y'�H } r � r N� Mr- IM Ma ��� � • '''4ti�'�r` }' �3 �'`���!t �� '. `�t'�'�i ��}j,f"YI��•��,�`�� •f�.� �� �+��, fit q: .� G'� '� t' ��'+ ., ` r.'• t ^•�f ' � �� ?{ � � '4��''� �t�'.3 re t+ W :t, C 'n +�7 tt: tr.taL7 .'�i�t T C71 -�4•[r 4. •.C✓t.'.t9C it 1�..�' ^f ti _, 'Y •+;tli f}a� ti.t• +f.,'.�Y't t� '.t�i �e t�"t- } L y{k i •.I o }y' :, r�r ,t: t H V t "lip yr f } ij i\ .,� l•"v (., �t :,t �:tp r,hyr :�' V. y t tt f ;lt 1J:"F � _ fj., t }" tY } .'� t 1•+ r;1 'x a ,, �Z4+f�t•;�" , -�pr y•:r';t t�.+r i y� lt"t.� :;�'}•ld�it � e• �'' t ., y � �:r:er� 'i•�.t}-� � ' tyfy., '`Y� a�j^�r;.t.�>,s�::t.;�.•4.� '.t4Y. - i },"!�`,X.:�'.r t 4� :�«r -I tx r e� tti t•,{`:!•^ ."}.., e• ;f +e � �G E3 F.t. tra ^�'y7' w Srd SI f -�' i k tt y^:+' i 3-e.r. ��+ tt. r b; r^�'sht its, j i J { ! .{.•...f t.^ ! �t 3 y:4t. �.4T,! :fittiif� .�-1: •� •°;" iv`O �. ' ' ,'.1�: t- N:l;; y� +'. :,�` -•,ti.�c C.. �.1.>.�tt }. It ,+ }t S'��j y..}'r:i��s S'.t,'!�aA, �l-{�4�`i Y {+.�t, ,t�t'SJT, 3: �; .�.1.•:�,1•":.^rl.. I �;� �•;�s i -: " h; ,��� �.Y' aM��,S.;F ' {� �'1•...a:tt+.+� 1.•t S, i. },.`fit, t ,+1.. � . ..}t .(:}. •,ti, t, ..4., ,!' ti �a, r,ra . ;J"4'_TC 1}'�."..) �..r '��. 1 'i s... %1�.::(i'j rp"1r f� }, e.Y a /..L1rL 'e:1� :y�1 .t�1 NtjJt-}w r1 f.r tr 1 t f 1 4 . .,{. t•. ..E \ �I �z. ti�.r;wr .F, Sa t¢ w,,?t,:; r t.y .1; ��t ,t 1 \.r 41.r',tiy\k :. i•. t�'r t ,`t. ,! r9 �r: i., ' 'i°•» }' Xi'�1"�� 7��x^T';';°s 'aa} Gf. ! t; �.. t s' }'. i, 4,y, a y3.�, r� •, 2,' . "+•i '� c t•£ ...{t.t. .t.tl c .,t ,,v" k, '4'" 4. \` ', y ! r, c r LFr t ..,�. :1 3 , 'Y'.. { t ryry t `j tt ,.1,' :1 �": `�• ' ,�ta�� �,'t7 t y i r { + �� 4rf" ,�y ;r�iLi,* y V. 3;7i ,;., y}^ G 9` x p<';�.11�. 1.^�.:+4' , y [ l :•�+rt . y •1�F.e« .r��, w.. l .,r �} {" .1 r.+Y•�';�*}� • r4 •�t3 'l. .{ r '5 11.. i )1N�i� , k,1'a r,!'�,1 � xrUaY'Li.t.�•'4: �.;• 1, '�', � 1 jr;:l� '• � ..? j}�.14+4 5 � yy •�v!t .`1. + f. i iy F. y . .� ;;7 4 t. 14 ,SVI\ r ;�1# }F3� *t"l , �a. yt,�r' t ! 1 r .tttl rt }• i tt. ( Y t .y 4 5 i;� .G lr{ t ,t t i :v:, }�.I t y z"t�• ?• 1 [�{4y t t� -•y'� •G, �` .'� , r♦ , ,�a t: x. . f, W.,t.t�,c�+t�. 'W3y1F. •1 .�. � �;,` 1 r:` l_ s \Y,� ��.J''�r tMl�r:'L l �•a 1' �,�` �� ^.5 r r!`�r t�t L� f �� .' '1 �t4 v 7�..ky 4`��7 .. Y�3.r +. � i.. fi !.. t 6. -"4 �'� t rt" � 1. 1! � "^ •i t. .J v t ��,, Gi'�� ri�ti'. r - a�t� ,� y...t nt','S1f�, • . r�'7� ,ta �� t- ► �'' �tMY�v. .;� qi�.t'�d�'�t�`r s;V� r�..�, :�'l,,,,., .,ii},E:_ .�\�.es,.s .� � :,. outh Coast Regional Cummission Page Three by the Coastal Commission in the existing draft regulations. ( a. Maximize public utilization by preservation and restoration of pier point area. b. Areas just south of pier area and inland should genenatty have recreational use priority over residential. Possible expansion of motel/hotel accommodations should be-iow-rise compliment adjacent Land uhe6. Lake Street Corridor should be kept for transportation and extension to Lake Park. G. Page F17. Subpoint 5, Guideline C: It is our contention that the land just Inland of Pacific Coast Highway from Beach Boulevard to Magnolia Street does not justify pt:otection for restoration to a wetland state. Mention of this is made in view of the fact that the area is partially developed and therefore, lacks potential in terms of access through the properties. I,t conclusion, I hope that the remarks we have made in regard to the interpretive guidelines are received favorably as a refinement to that docttment. Your time and attention toward this matter will be appreciated. Sincer ly, Edward D. Selich Director of Planning and Environmental Resources EDS:DE:gc II P ' • rl ! �..f+��• ...r • .� ...ra.r ... ..a.....a...e..aww......,.•w.. .♦ .. . + �. .,f. ..\. �...r .3:. . ..f r........rv.....a...r.+t..•.r•aw•a.. sr i..wa♦.w N.a..rUrsrw.arwwrt/ t • � a.5+ in��;�7,,� Ns }1 Y,�..� I+ 1 '.y t { t+ , A ���t�• � �t A t, 1 � `' j it F �+ ' .j Y+ � � '�1' f+ �;Z.-""' �' '!',r•+'"."?!!Rf c�tr rT!tt"" * o ri:� s t :�a „k� � F.4't "eTT j[F. *t 7rr+r F M F -t. .Hi 'a) ��"ti�.�?'r,t� �a„t tt •;v +"r•.s -,.rh} �l r.,'F iy6��, .f3a, ��r b z•,7 ,y'i.'tKl/,.P. .:7:,Z.y {'+t, �t7,;-.. t. x•.:f v'•„t .• RIFii i '*"i �S�yf -7i 7'(�j ,�,�. :`. .( ,«�r.m ,t"f , �f gg .�.�?\^y1r S .t>}� t!i .l. �•ff��1\;� i 4�s4y {,.. � •15+.� �'•A'. " .1, f { {r .i's,t.: -.yi:. �� 1{ '` 1, '�'.k .4 +y'; ! r1 ,1 .e J �lli / P�.�r,i,v,... ,� �.;�:Yt� �'"� „qt�Ali Y• +fe ` 4 .4ff' <. �t�.e. b��' ?• n:it w;,�. a,t� s 1 d.;..� k' k;. „t,} a�• x Il 1 .,r t ti .3• �,.� ,S�;x ;�,. .�� ���d t �i��zr ,�.�. .�.';�,. tf le���a��rr� �t,. � i r 1• +� s.,"�..��rlrtr(i.R, �� :,,i`° ';'�3 .�!.k s'y�.��tk. )))".t� .t..4,�?`3:f �. .ti--�Ci "t'C��,{ �� �".i:�'' � '�� i�'�ir�'A,� }.r r.,. '� .� •,3�,t�,�T7•+ +.. � (�...h a �. ��� t r• ';�' ..l+a!ttt+..tla� ..(. r '' ij, �,' ��t., t'.3^tit\. 11..'i } ,. �4t'• �5is+ 1�,^g " `'yy(( �' �� •tf•j " 'i'; , ty: ��.�•. a,�ti t�i���?ktV�.�gi�l�i'1 rt54'r. ,tii. ^{.'t..7 4r,♦ � �a.1.fNf -�5��. a1• �. ,�3r .�..F �. Gsi �i }t. ,�1�.�1�r4�;�iM{3�7 ri•� t.'+� Y ���iypk � �r �M�. 7 �r'! p,�yS�.�'�1 .� ."'• r"�^ r� f'F..3'�' ♦♦' �}r'�s.'.yy t- I,'��t.:�,a �'� r�``yy�i� �,. ,i t•3..� f(.7t �..:�f::4�71 ��r�,�.}._f.+'r:.,�.t Lt'L.) .ti ta,R.,r:��.a,� .3".`."� �k'.1 Y; a }(( .'7 Y ^jF hR- �� ..5: � 42X�� `'.`<.w it r� {•• �[ } 1'Y -t '�� 1 S � '1 � A � ;;, ;�� 9L t, hk �l'�,,a. .•fry. .�.. ,�.t ,,�� ..y{1.iA.�1" a.��'�k, -,+vr+ ,.�7 w"t 1 �o .1. �:;,€r.)�Yl,ry l„�x-1yn, C � ..t.,,, 7t� .t�3..'��,'�L ��?��.��,a X��' ��,�:�:a ��• .t.Y'}.��„r: +,•�' S.�{�+� .��.�55(_ 4•� {t.�,���� .`s`�:h.�a7:}) ;t ,� f,4 1;.7�<- 'r,11}..E�..r� {!'��:i1� t>,:�• �. '�,S,f'e.6: �"'ail f.'!„�� ,31° '(Y-t�,..jrw .1.V��,,.t.i. ,�,�,� ,�.r,a a>} •,+ti'�.4 .�7a1e�,r .� .�i 2.T y�;:. r.{ tii} }, ,x� t• t:,. �.s•t5¢:�'�. ,s� �.� i �! t. q�� �S 4i � 1' � Y} 1 U� t �t�..r r h �; } "Ft.'" 1 A �.Y�"���,.,xs ,�, � ..t,»..l f+, Iv � ���5 .ny, r�,.ht���Y.ttL.� t: a'�`i*.`L.l�� 1!}r�•' t� ��+aa�'1 �.��,g �"•�.'�� f!s+�'�tit+} ''f t\t •.1 itP`C.. ,'� i5 � ' �� , 1 v „ t � ", .."�.y i h�1 { "�+1� �h�r xZti 13},.. .ea �c�i e,�, t .,:.�,�'-' {..d, d;. � t +Y�f ;����'a;.� rl�,at..tP .pr, "{-.L�1 `�•iti x rt .�{u, I r.7f. x, 4 �` .is � � ' ,tiY' 7 .'{, ! � yy'� �:�� t .y� s r+._ ,rPx�'. t.Y.l ,ti.t.. � •v :'� � ) 1 ,.� g rl t 1 +l3 �., ! 1'.. , � .a .h:'t; ei• � _;�yp b � � � p.� }; }� �i`.� ":C�f r .�q;x j#`` 5�d , �;}� .� {Y} �,#r .l��.i•�.t�$'i��a��."• �"�r4t i 4�!. �{��i�. ��i�4r�5 `+P� , � t� jj� y.�} `'� i.�.l�a��� �. t..r`. i.E,:3 ,w+ ,fi' 't' zG: Ct \, {,�:"•',f 'rkt' ik J ?> h �c t � rE L? !° s? !!fit C.� CY Lt Jt {h rA� e� � 4, A•r`1!.'k''ii, �s tatpd when necessary ra. .er than demolished • should bo .ehabili To the extent that public or � + available, p ensive units. for rcplacemAnt by more xP new lo:t an moderate -- cost private funds ara available to build sherd be required so a condition maw housing of this type housing- Thi3 hvu3in8r such existing homes occupied by the of approving the demOliti on of any to single�-far.lay not aQ ly, hoNevcr, . requirement should edi.ate f and ly• `rith the owner or the owner's ants and Cc,}�d.ssiarlo should cork closely 3 , The local B full Conrnu1ity Development to in�surhatt�ay State Department of Housing, and ro ram. in advantage is taken of any Federal or State housing F B f t;o the tbo future become available• clement has been adapted acc� apraent 4, �fhether a local housing and cow.munity gu#.del, issued.by the Depa.rtUnt of Housingta appruYal of am should be determined b;� that Department prior. local coastal prograMe rovide housing for persons of low and moderate 5. Rental units that p �ums only if (a) tenants are first incoma should be converted to concianin proposed conversion . (b) gent given at leP.st qo days notice °ion to purchaze units, (c the buildasg i ven the first opt safety codes, etc., and meets tenants arc ¢ ding codes, meets current standards in t`� ec:ents, and (d) other units are avail.atilF: le, the i current Off-street parkin rc , in the same general coastal area at crxpz-'''able rents (f�� ari has months rec-ding tie conversion)- rental vacancy rate in the caahea6 zone oi'p he local � - remained above 3 percent for , �„ Inw- � fledcrate--Cast 11ou5inr±: ltederelotment F'ro acts. act within the coatital zone that i.nclude3 a housing y redevelopment prod should be for pe�Cs��ns and l' a� less than 20 percent of the housing tLe component, no W funnies of low- and roderate income. �rittiin the coastal zone- that displaces low- and /tt�r rcdevcloPment project ermitted unless at least' an 2. u:t{tts ,hould not, be p moderate-income huuo�� laccment un:.th ;urc provided w3.t,hinthr�are� �,vne. equivalcnt number of rep be within the project, �� The replacement. units need clot nccessarily , ' : , 5� StLchts pug lie of Access• rpvides that it 3 s a basic 'Section 30001.5 of the 1976 Coastalc recreationrl OF not t the goal of the state to "••. c"ajdr'3"e P the sea where acquAred through +...ct a,,;;d Section 30z11 provides that «Deg.elopment shP17. not coastal zone uy]3,:'s right of access to the use of interfere with the p 3.ncludin8, but not li .Liited to, use or legislative authori=tion, dry sand and rocky coast a' beaches to the first line of terrestrial ` Vegetation. ts, thereore, should be protectet wherever' public prescriptive righ f to exist, and where a proposed they exist, Nncre such rights are thought he cormissians should, Mitossible the development could interfere 1d.th them• f protect the p General's officer seek to p ' Assistance of the Att,orrn y ro riatc. Until the :,uc:tion is resolved• "If rightr, by whatever mcan3 appropriate to , versely erect those public rights* ant should not be P h recordation of the right, or it'may deveblic Suct, i rC:;vI-vLd through Suctc rights can be P requested • t iblc to site and desiGn a devclormcntGec�cral'lo"�toffice sttiould bet pees 'uh`rc n �10�rinL4, the At.tornrY such as litigation rights- Pl ' I on to invcsLI gate and advisucc "Ic comn blico stlould-be�tckcn.what act an3 r to quiet title in th I A 3 - . .. r,r . F t 4si �t t }I°-^7i'�'jk.C;9fC7[f 14f;iq �'t i, b w !. ➢F. 'y �f , 1 d �i �:.+,,4 §.�D• i+t� .aria-k �� f`�»x r 'St ; � i �4i St ;tip4ia 7t- a"3"t r 1'.t. $d a' - .}i... §t r x ♦ ,fit ! eix';�a �'t...,. �,t t.it�,:' 's•.. , .."t d L'� ', 1 C•1tttt 7;;T 1.. ' i'.v'; , ��.' } r• ,�. � � �. a •<, 'C t,+ .tt- Vy"1, t`, t} z. f it .4 tX4i. � �i,.t µ, ."iiLl1)`ta(t�.' •k.{',y 4.,•„ f'...Mk, .�, �� XY! i q t'.a a��,`��.'�'�'; r`+t,3i � ..� J�Y1i,[.'•it lY i `'}i. t Y{. ',u`� ;i�5 r 7��...;i t ,l .y�. . 'st + l[ �« t . y,,,�r : "I . •A 1, t.{ p F+. i F ➢t� .u;i �t + 't. ;.i . S{ t4 }[ k. r $ r r; e�,t,of*.+aht 4� i�';:'►�";�„i•'r J.,t '91. � n Y,..i,4 41�t }�`� :� ti.r"kl. '>i.& �,�rt:•P.,t�` ;$'16a �.,hm fi i.v�..,.�#'f'. .k� , X` ttti'' �K" .x`A P.,;.. �: 1 4.Y� ..�i� {:` `;�t �.. 1 t r flow 6'� . ! :,''�ti t►„ "�• f,� T �lFu i� 1 . �,I "ta,t. ..t�C!�.:_ ,. t {9,;; ,.tx'� {. SttT� ^r'�l.,..:ixE,,'{r� �';Y°? 's4's` �.. }}i�', �,. Y[• �Lt'''��yy:�. •?�,+; ri L;:'!.#';f, -..t. �..a{.{�S')<; }i�S.�}.. t{1..1•.e t`�XCe:\� , �.. 4 t1`}1�' i 1. „ "l. ♦ l t '��y} yt(!�- .'iS•a. a� i+�, � �'� y' r'/y"-j. � .,px, 1,` �..t ,>�.4�1:,,``� L; ki ..ti�`��`���,S' lih�� ?r ii�" �t�ie,1, "t ,''� , It ;•f �a., tt'' (C..,YS"}1x > � �.t"t:'-:[Z'1d•. � 'C33 �,,,�.,�T -i:.,. ',jf X is}� , �.+ t { r is"r +hL. '. a ♦f ��`� .r1,'+&�E t ��u '� �,4' +, ��t ' E� C �`• =4;7 ,�.;i5� at1 C:'a T�, Y l' #?ytr,'+; 'Yectij t'Y; y }.` wi ` 1".i14}� S �sr.}�L •i.` t;4t"S D Frtll9c IVIS )(here used in the specific guidelines above the following definitions of terms should apply: 1. Vertical Acces4: A recorded dedication or easement granting to the public the privilege and right to pass and repass over dedicator's real property from a public road to the mean high tide line. 2. Lateral Access. A recorded dedication or easement granting to the public the right to pats and repass over dedicator's real property generally parallel to, and up to 25 feet inland from, the mean high tide line, but in no case allowing the public the right, to.pass nearer than five feet to arq • living unit on the property. . 3,. Carvon Setback. An adequate setback, generally no less than 10 feet in highJ,y; developed urban areas, from the crest of. the slope of a 'car7on, Where exiting structures are already built closer than this to the carWon rim, new structures shall not encroach on the - ne of primary canyon vegetation. � 4 � k. Striru,Ltne Method of Prerenting Beat Encroachment, In a -developed urea uhare new constructio:1 is generally infillingt no part: of a proposrd.new ; structure, includinr; decks, shall be built farther onto a beachfra_nt than a line drawn between the most seaward portions of the adjoining structures, Enclosed laving space in the new unit should not extend farther seaward than a second line drawn between the most seaward portions of the enclosed living space of the adjoining structures. _ $. For Los Angeles and Orange Counties: 1. and 1.1 Criteria for Small. , Lots in Urban Areas. On lots with an area of less than 4,000 square feet in ri urban areas of Lo: oUlgeles and Orange Counties, the, gross strucm ral areas of a residential building shall ordinarily not exceed 1.;5 or 1.1 times the buildable area of the lot. Gross structural area includes the total, square footage of all structuresy including enclosed or open parY.ing garages or carports,,. i.s measured from the outsides of wails- to the outsides of opposite walls, and includes mezzanines and stair:icll.s but not' open patios7 decks or atriums. The buildable area of a lot means the total square footage of the parcel less the area of f any required setbacks. '• 6. For Loss Anacles and Orange Counties: Residential Parkio Guideline: r S aces Unit Studio—bachelor units l:l � One bedroom units 2:1 Tuv bedroom units (or more) 2:1 Multiple units guest pariti.ng 1 space per 7 units $xccptiona I 1. In llehport Beach when one unit of a duplex is under SDO sq. ft. and is one bedroom, three parking r+paces niay be allowed. In•dcsignated areas where coMestion effects beach access, two spaces per unit (rcgardlw, ni of size) cho. ld be provid;•sl. Aiditional guest parking may be required whcre appropriate, For requirements for other uses, see Appetriix. ,...f. _�.__. ._..._ _.._.... _ A I b. + ! t t� �� ill •�' '�! � �' #}` � ,' .3,�. �t1t�.C3, !!!@@@y(y(y( .y .C. !! dd ` y y. ��;• 1. �'W• 37ti �., [• ry 1 � tl,�• :+ * `1 •� ' �r+'3� i •�,..w' :�Y7ti�µ�,�..ft:l�i�i��-a ti�}.. �S •I1 rr �' F �. r� •�`r' i Tl'1�rt 1� � �t a .t�7�'pJ '� �� � �,��� �. �,j• �t 'xr!i��f� � �i r � `� tx �+ �.�. '�'�'cam, t,�yj 1 x w li • 3 K l s, tr,..��,�,, .111 '1?'(�!'(/i•��,j`1 t�,t�•,/o,�'"►'.!;MY. "j�`.' ''�•�� _ \ -L .��,} fSli�? 't• � ,�it' iy�" � Y�U"4�); f�,•t�'i�l�.7 b�*•�i'L1�a'SE� d lx'1•+ •F' � r' t,{+�„ t�Ji't, ,�+, ri; '{x�� � �}' C''��i «� '{� 6`t�� �e•r ''�'Fi�: •'�, %�' �` i�r+ • j`+t��;;'y�'�,pt �!'' �"�� "�',,� i e!''c, t' , •�' ;t'i�ti ��'?.'i1��`ti ,�:• -t� 't,,.•,,,`� •'� �`� �•'� RION !St_ ._.n„ ,n i.e % (, it x�:4L�i:` ..r •. � �• b. •Gn lots 41,000 :q• ft. or smaller, development should be consistent %ith the 1.5 criteria. c. Density for multi-family development should not exceed 24 du/nc. 2. Strip commercial development on Facific Coast Highway should b© dis- couraged and replaced by cluster development. 3. Tnswc that new devclapmcnt is compatible with the existing character of the community. 14. Encourage hotels? motels, and other visitor-serving accommodations on pacific Coast Highway. 5, Decau-: of the parking corfli.ct in the Pabific Electric right-of-Way area, between residential users and beach users, a•parking control plan should be implemented prior to intensification of residential development. 6. st-- Do n rC Huntinrt, on,,Harbour. Recreational and visitor--serving facilities (parks, tour KTZ s, etc.) should have priority over residential on the remaining undeveloped land. 7� Holsa M v And Folss. Chica Marsh. Insurt• that development in the Bay or on surrounding land; dons not sign�.fxcantly harm the ecological preserves. In restorable wetlands, give priority to restoration over residential or a buffer Circa and lost intensity recreation on marina development. Providein the poriphery, including upland :uopart facilities and trait linkages be the central city park corridor, to increase use of the publicly-•owned beach. Prevent snlLwater intrusion in ground-dater aquifers. 8, H.ntin ton Ranch Oil Fields. Rcoove oil--related structures as the r petroleum is depleted and replace with recreation and visitor-serving accomno- dations. Open Snnce. Protect bluffs and provide Asta points, i•ncor-• g. D1uCf ti •nd � 1 porated into public opensondes when feasible. Provide additional public open space in residential t , jKjNTj.j;Gjnrr r-r-ACH-CMPAL 1. Protect the capacity of Pacific Coast Highway for tourist/recreational-use. '! On the first block inland of Coast Highway, development to meet tourintf ! recreational heeds should be encouraged. Lot consolidation should be oow strip commercial nly. New bccaune structureseshould�notgbenindexce:ssofp25 fee will t in height and should only. lac 4 provide adequbte parking. , + 2. Residential development should provide two on-site parking spaces for � -each unit and not exceed 25 Scat in height. 3. Redevelopment 7.one. 4 _ t1� r. • I.g } 4 !a j ' i ,},ice Y� � ,h,'A `t / �1 :_♦ TS� '' t� d �`� + ✓�i� t"��`" ����+� + {ti tli`��',�1� `5 + +xf� �` ti����� 'i yt�;�itY,�` � � ��41 ,� � �"fry � ` ' ����J� r. `'� +ij 4J i r {' t t �)�!_ E`t +{ e .d � - E • 'E• + t;kt , t F+1P r� ,tit t� ".�* t�,J �'S„',,�y. JA' � ,�?1Y•4 i t,,., ;�"3'li + "a�'Y,� " ��i�, YS � a!r �; ,�. `* '�' ti a# �;� '!'�`v4 i��� ""�aw'.�{ i �] ."41,i�,xt y .,�►, #S.l v� .t s . •i., ^ i .+^, 't4 y.t t y"3 1. '!!:'�w 9' { ,I .'4j ���, x.{�''�tir Y,�.r `+t �s� �+,,.. .?,S;,ti�,'d;.• ,�: ri�5 ,i•��'�'��� ,�.���; 8„tS's'i�, 4 ..M, " �v������'' Y �,k +.' � M U"�' � �kr4#. � +r�j, y! ,90 es. T. y { � ,` ,y Jt}.I:Y:, + �;C,. �Skr14 fy$RjYr! �r +A '�� '}.�.74:L +d i' t 4't• R g� 7PRI �+; ,1��{.!J':'t::� ,�t + xY.��I :'9���4��'.'., � "�Y,�•� '� � � )�` � «7`r� !' { �1.x't� �S, . yt��i�{ •�k 6 �+��� :�/ ����)''t, ";iIE.�Y � �r:ti ���"'j ' f� �iji;' 't {��'•,, r'l�,f ,'� ,.�. My ro Y r � r4(`j'.4•``{({(.1!•, y 7.t4 5 t.,�f�}t.�i 3 7" .t� s'�,�1d 1 � � )'1�.x4�._i�•Sh d}.'ft� +;lt:���'.5... .Q�t,.k�fj Y. t a, g,-1Xj -,r=e public utilization by preservation grid restoration of pier E point area. - b. Areas ,lust south of pier area and inland should have recreational use .1'0� ' priority over residential. Por;sible expansion of motel/hote acco.nodations should be low-rise. Like Street" Corridor should be kept for transportation and "extenzion to Lake Park. 4. iiuntington Reach Apartments on the beach adjacent to the pier should not be'convcrted to condominium use; during its lifetine it should remain as a rental structure: or be converted to hostelry use. f r 5. South of the.pier along Coast Highway, encouragmnent should be given to tourist-recreational development, inland support facilities. to service the beach (such as parking areas) and habitnt restoration. i a. Land between Lake Street and Beach Blvd, is suitable 'for extension of motel/hotel use. - ; b. Beach Blvd. is a major arterial; there ii ample undeveloped acreage in f this vicinity .for a regional transportation node. ` k c. Lana swat inland of Pacific Coast Highway from. Beach Blvd, to i the Santa Ana River should be protected and restored fox- its wetland value. d. The 13.3-acre parcel at Brookhur:t Blvd. and the. Talbert Channel should be preserved as an inland support facility to service the beach.as well as the county's mountains--to-the-shore trail system. su;Tn Wren itxv nr.'A RIV'r� COMInOR A 50 --acre fresh and saltwater marsh, bluff, anc archaeological site and Should be preserved ,for its multiple use as a regional park combining wetland restora- . tian, :general recreation and beach support, and archaeological preservation. '- Purina developmer_`• w6uld not be compatible with this use. Protect 3.east tern j' nesting sites. Continue coastal trail in the flood channel to ,the beach and connect to the Santa Ana Greenbelt Corridors; consider passible location Tor hostel. NEWPORT DFACH 1. Because public access to the beach, bayfront, and other recreation areas is severely limited by the service capacity of Coast Eiighway and the connecting arterials, priority should be Given to projects that meet public needs of recreation and resource protection, t n. Where appropriate, parcels near the beach or the bayfront should be: developed only for grater-dependent or recreational uses, b. In the Lido Village, Lido Peninsula, Cannca-y Villager and McFadden Square area of the Peninsula, new dcvclop,�ne:it should be allowed only if ade- quate parking and transportation are provided. c, Thte few renaming, inaldn properties that are within a reasonable dis- tance or adjacent to the coazit should be used for recreation-support facilities, , ' Z. To protect the natural habitat values of Upper Newport bay, fresh-water drt-iinlge :y:tc �o into i!. should be rtmrintained. Iietr development on blu�''fs should b,., sawich a min.i.mm-ts of GO feet. Develormncnt should not be allowed to encroach into or adversely affect the Upper Liar Preserve, 1 r t+ :+' �'f . y a • n' � t• i f ,+ Y �+,�, �4i= �l� S'��, .�' i7y>j�, i t�I "7 6 ��t 4 ,Ly;f " S ,�i lit ' L'{ R ♦ry,1� .R � :Yi ;.?ice � ,�� d�, +$3 !c;]=S� y.4G.''e, �sLR� ei� , R �.YL � F- �. � 1 lti , A �� �1 y4 .�.�11` .�, ��K .i• '�i i{ .� �,�k� � 1 SS"t .�a 1, V• ��'�. 0; � �i'S)r i , .�i, �. �,t ?y ,y .V, "�vA1} ,j� :�,�' +' f �, �, ` � �'f +y 4•tfi M r•`r�t' '� ���'.,�� '�.�:. .�'�. ni y+t1�}•�• ��,'w•' :`��_�� Y �t�. .��t,� ,'���r a { . it • � f � 5��. �, h t �. �� };; �• l��� t'K �r �,� •���1 �t� Yy ,fit .� fit' •� �•. .� `�"it 't �'a' ,5A"• ,4 f � , i�tF 3 �• ��� `".} �p{AIj]i °`S�!+����a1�L' � a',��zyk��n ��j�'{��t�S, .,, `�7 +{ �i � {. -,l ._�' 1yr,;;�� w,,�,� 'r gfY y�. ,ti4r��+`"�S�A �:�'� �� {��``�'•= F,4 f .� �� j','krr,, 1.�•"7'.• y �,(L� #_�� { ,'�t i1 + �., ii�,i,.Y 1 L� {, , a. - �L� 1{'" l .T.l�,: .��� Y x(� � yy �t •'� `� �K. - � � fir} `�,��,1,•,t� t�:.. �e��+= �Jy� �'4�y ,� �,�. ► .�'", .5 .� �.� ,t�`�y,`,i,�i i :1•;� s •� "4��,4 � r � „rt*� it\� �C yV i r f ; ^�:�. �{� R't 4t,� -1Lx.t4 •�' at t , . •��,��(,y 1, 77 2,`�t`,4'V"'t�J,'1'� L1�,: ��� •j��t't.' sti »ii'ih � �:4,�• :'1 r�t�� r���`'��1, �` �l�-� .{�`0. 1'r�� � s��'' � Y t nf `it_f . � * 1 � tl *s. ti S 1 "t �r'�'if 4T 1t ^�,it,"5•}`'�} •� 1`t. Y� +, . "5,,. ! +�1. t,' X�e A1L1.NNt } ' =a' '�4V�f � �•Y«'�� s 4 � �� �. .:��� ,,,�'•,'• '�%�.��' tad } 4..f�i'V''' iZ°`�n��t•'����� = T� r" �1�3�°���"°•�q.�,l��., •1 � :�',�,.C�,}. '.� x�. ��'__tit�• }} k' ' K'� „Y -�v� � , Est ?3 ,� _'�+y4 ,r�T. K.,,� K . '�� d1F' +'� �4 }r` 1.' �, '!'�E' i lRi;,MS 1 )� 1 �� �" .xS f"^;�• a'�t�'^��{�'�� tC�s�' ��Ttt� '. � ;�,,7}� wYY�Yti+�y��,(��(1i� �� � k �'1. �' ��i•1 R. r 1't1t ��� ,V'�i: t {�.- tR?'1•.,1' +�` N.4 j1:i �tr.i1 �" isy�k •'1 �` ,,"• E} •' t11 {.�t+�� l ��ypj4L. {Qj :: 11`�c '•L�'s5, Fa '.y< y ��' t .� r. "F t� { =psi t }r1'��' p Ai .�,�t� t�j' �S yl • tli N� �� �* v�a" .�. �.>_f`��., •ia ry+;ly�'�;��'; '1•�� � •i Y t.'�� i° � '�' �Yt ' 1 tY� ,'2� �" dt k��' " + tt{j .�y", ,�1, `k _�)� t ,t�,Z}j• i�{�tk��jj: � ••�r'".?��4}, t ;t. IfyK '.,t��'�• ��.' 't ;'fi"F,3 i �� ^ll�, �Y� �.; 2 �11•l�iEt:'� `1 ����}• S � � rt '�4t"� ",�� � 'ir mot ""�, t�, ,� ,t� ' x `JIY fir��' f(tit1� �r Jkb'1T� IMM ,6 r .'".'•i ;,f... t1^,".`'7 Y to +�9,: tat'f 't .vtt'4 ;+S{fY.:�t'' `�: � * •c f?"�.',s•*'C LS?, 1w. 2ti ,",Jye a�..� i`S �;• tlY"5!t •,•tr Q :,t5 •.� ` ,a. # 1 }� ,i Y!1"r4 \ -1 t f':S; u !r. '�4.�r. ,t1 F, K'`iSA: `�:e• f�y': t L Y '",';", t r��tt .,�r..,,1 , tt. ,sL..tw^, '3 y^,�y �1 ![, (f';; •'k-s.15 t, y,, S Y, 'S] �{ i,rS tar rtjj"�( t 1.` f *1 , ;P "C,�},,� 5�.. a ,,F! S( a� � :ys<•f"',.'�`1., s p S`/ �'�av`t.�.�� tit,"'�, 5 '.3b �,, i, ��.�+t 4�� "'�� .xiY.: :y..�s•�� :�ij o•H�{ +''7•j r'l•h"�a.ti,;r1�.^k"."�T3'*.��'..*`+�,h't ;k�� 1 a:.Y;L�.i'M �f� ,•S�� T� ; �'1f•1 rl »�;}' .r;.tt -.+A�7 h">, .s<��t.,�. i�r. ,� :�,:�+sV.S,.Y'w!1 ,•:Y• !{ �„-3 "°v-S,. ', S ,.�.`�l1,',' •L�`"f r<. ,1 t1 U,d,.Y. P6 �{C } ,k.,i:i., .� �'f �.t t. fF t.. •+., k<<.. {text.:s. �!k`s r,F � Sf�,' Ltt. � �. t ,:J t �'7.M.-:?� .1,::'ir� Jy i si 1, •; .�•!,� .l,t'i`,:.s. '1`n` r�•R t:�t 7• 1k". a,�r ts �i i� '4 t -�. 9, -�, � :?4s A •`t y it ,i ,1.. .'M1 �.: t y ..It�:, ,�e�'t ,t, 1 �� ti .. �. !, '.�4.,t��.-.� .ti�.ti :�F'q*:.SL �'h:.�` '`.;#F�,.+" "��it���•' xlF;tdt it {. � f. q�..�15_�.;= 1�,•e•�.t�•i 7 � is "^4��{.t�1 n-i�,n�.. .* ff•. ';• A , �tD�. .h.! t4.. .a,>,3•�.t,1 �: �R 'kri t�•'��. ...1 3>'t'n, i y� ,• .'� e'k {' •"� ,� y, ,x• ti 1 .f Vr 4;;,.,,R n ) .,y4'��'�;:;ei� aV =#t r t'�iz `y -,�i 9• ,".t,�. �.f� "`i.,..i.•l 4 t3(+1 r �{ Y Z,, � ���4 Y �" 1 p =�.Fitt•. 1� a fK •.Ti• tl.. `k, r d.5.t :.5� ,1:� i.• t .1 t#` •}•t: r � S, .s 11,,�rr� 7! �,:t'�,+F1��� •4•e I..tkl�'�� •i. A�,' ��,' �;',� b}} S}; °L1.r. nc T'�`4tp."fit.� :�+'.r�+1' ��`i5'`x�;��„�,,. i �y, �t. �L i �S1 S ,1.> - t�t.`C�,ST �L �" xr..t •��th�l�,.ti �{. � .�."t.f t �f .ttt! ��„ '�: V"_',r?,�4lrr .�` "."� f 1 t 1�' ! ` rr ;.�} �)a c;{� ��_ �..1"' js.,i'"'T� n�`.t •�t ,"e� t.�", R� L` r� �`Y,�1 Sy.s 11,,E '; � �"4, .'* a�xe1 i..:+1.i Rwt dti, '�+f�q, !�S" t ,.,ra .,�a;, sy. ,�yii ...uzi.. P1r'.\•�.t�t+.` 1. �fF�j'.�• t +.nA, •�: "'`.� �-1t.. waS4� ¢A: t:,' � c � c; .�''�� �" �,,r 3, 11 , 4 u,. `• b�. r {, �C �. {;^ e i.�' q:t Si ,..,. �,;ti ti.it t�`"{;t :S • •s �� 4}'�.;1,=*m,,. sL.t t y� t.. �_}{{• �A 1" tV r ,�� + } k' :� i, :i { +";� 4 s t�'jy��.. �•:L.�• t4 .4.�:i}�, 'l je {Sd}'��1'�!��Kr.+.�T.+.�.,.tire..IY :�1� .'nt.SP��,l p,t�.£ �e,a..�{ {��4 (`�:tL^.�,:�fi^tSs�Y2.'��1.;,3�, ,�f�{it,.1,Y"� J/.F.S�+Y1.�r1tt 1'i.'�.71e` � �''ii 1 P.:R}: ,��9�:� �'i�. y:l�`�: y r•"S�t ,«t',•'$. , �I t..ay�...L.T C '�� C , M. 5.. ,y:a c:S�1 e �;("„1. st�>i•f,,.tj2 L 'R �tT: •.1.,4 ft�} Y. trL:•rir .1r�{' sT� { s5t 1 ��i�s �}_. }, .� {tyf. E. F+1 n� �� 1;,�`S�1 :5��a} � �t '� ;5a r.ter\ � .t„�Z aaF`tr i�,h � .: ��,.x.�', `}''S�.i�t t� `��I�a,'�?{' ���t�` ��t•''� t` '.f i T. �b 1Y � `;ti,�k yt,„<�;�,y�.�t',t }°,1 j�J�. �,y 'SSf++„ �i� •Sy:�����1 's ��Yt1�}� t'�,,` �•� � ",y{e"ty,�+;,�� t . �`t:.rl+�•'!.'6a1:1.�4._� .Fi... t���.?9.C.s�J �t.i 1.i}I'��.�a.kul�s�.VE.`t.i.•it�a •.r'ii:� .��tE�.w;i:� ���i!�'t��'_,14.i =w CITY OF HunTlnGTOn BEACH DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENV((tONME14TAL RESOURCES +�� �•� P. 0. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92W 1714) 536-S271 • e 7e TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council i FROM: Planning Department ATTN: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator .J DATE: November 29, 1976 SUBJECT: Addendum to Summary Report - Coastal Legislation Transmitted '€or the Council's information is an addendum report concern- ing Senate Bill 1277 - The California Coastal Act of 1976 and related bills. The Council originally received a summary report. in regard to this matter at their October 26, 1976 meeting. Subsequently, action upon .the recommendations therein was deferred until additional in- formation could be presented, the essence of which is provided in the addendum. The addendum report contains estimates on the amount of time that it will take to perform certain tasks leading to allowing local agencies the option of exercising maximum local control over development in the Coastal Zone. Briefly, the tasks involve actions by the State and Regional Coastal Commissions to: (1) define in greater detail the Coastal Zone boundary, and (2) grant interim authority to local government to issue coastal permits, and (3) perform certifications of local coastal programs, and (4) grant permit exclusions for qualified areas within the Coastal Zone. Since the Coastal Commission has yet to define criteria for those four tasks the Planning Department will continue to keep abreast of Coastal. Commission activities in these task areas and advise the City Council when City policy decisions are necessary. RECOMMENDATION: No Council action is required at this time. Staff will advise City Council when City policy decisions are necessary. Res tf itted, t 1' E war Se qc Acting Director �• EVS:DE:ja 1 } Attachment: Summary Report on Coastal Legislation Addendum to Summary Report on Coastal Legislation ' 1 t rAp 7� '+ � •y1 .;X �.T�i'"'P .; 'li,'r +,�{n 1 � .=� .y '!+�! r ;i ,5Y' � •y !.'!'a � '/ fig} ! ���..� '.`r�'6 * '"�lll ��• � �, J S � ,f �' Y 1 '` � + �1yS• 1 y�. r. �•f. S r .t i hi t�`�Y`�4,�S " "� } '�'� �.� �, '�' �h {//(� '� , ..�,�,sa!��•tij.'► �ra•' •,�' �"a�•�,j(�}'"ti.� .,,. {, t i,� �t� '�' � '�,� .5t r{}+�t'` ,ppC��• ? '4tiR� f .+i�A r� �� >�r���y �;,f�� t ��S�Vr'` i"� ! `i' � '�.,'� .�Yft� ��:h,� ��t �9{�tfi,'� �4�j>, +�'. i �{, Y fit: 3�. '•'`i � J ,:.t�1 1'1. y 1�} 1 Y �,.. `(}� y� r ft 4 ✓�' � �Y, ��tdl�R i M.'A �A.4�Y��S���t'it � ��t�. r J!Sif.l�•I:+�;+ .� Silt r�•�� �*�g��'�{�''�t�.� ;°.1+. {. � � �•. ,t1,'y.;,y,� , '�j1 r4�i+2� Y�.� i �l�.rl;f � z `• �r. ..ley ! )� �t, �.. � .�:.�� �+�7 .,�r{t •q� 4' i!'r t ,� 1 �� '}r��i*:'77 �(�Yy;���d��� ��# 7:� lay.�}��'€,` �iy'��ryv�•1° - y,.if��� '�, y{L?,t ,v�1� •1j'"}�,�' ,�!'4p�• i' t ��"� �+'�y �� 't,tyfl '�R. !� 7 L� }.���t � t ,���t � 'Y?�.y/t��), t � 1�,�'t�,x+�st i H'di,•q�, 4,� .7.,� tj�"S, ; !��; a Xr `.�S�lr r t All� Cr+ �t��; t '�e"{�••'y��Il��wr+ � �C�k �,• `}y'F Y�{'^��� ��'�ir'E�' i`•ry7r+►dr4.� Y',S�k,p �� t�ytti�'il .�`��1�TfvCLa1 .'��•�{t`tty��N�ti1' 's r `y��t•+ q 'r•' { '•>r� � ,?a� t+��`;r. 4 ,�,� '� � ��.;1C �. f,��. .� x�, 1+5��' a,�y•i �O�;YtiIf::�l.,�,t7f���`�••�,l�;€ f'Y ��� ' �, T��1C '� �+�i"!:iijnt j��, '�! 1�' �i{,l�rl f �e�'1�{ ' r ��y' +V}'p�. yt� • I+ti+h� .�li � a } •1 a �•}+,f��l�(.4 �'! � `*s?�YS'1t i+`'+ V*�Y +�` � i4x� !� F�'�� �!� t� �!4U '�t�• l:' A• � w�''`! 41 MIRHOW INN I l4FY �; .P3+R' Jfg1Sa° '4R+11��' ^t �Z.T<.^ •n..n "_1'�r"' .'rq'S. s§'�}7-y .r.Ti'tR ;."' yss"4i K•„r ^l "P'.t'NI'"q,n•�'t•,;•t`[; 'lTn�t?,1?'}'•.^,? ' 4` 1i.:4 1*. +5\:it`4,Ina.�. tr, '{s .01 r�; f� S� ly t' a �i'Yn ,5' I;t'' 1f' i .. '�` 'f.! �.( ''+�I• Y• r ;���,;..{,.� Y 1,.'p� a�. a� � t .I '}�;� �t..1!:Y:.;��, �x't t{it.7}{�„,♦(. t,• �. 't : 1 j( %oe f *,.rt +'' }!t 'l,^ s4"�.t'�ti iMt"`�"" {'''t 11+i,t r �o.fi l't f �, ..L��,:A ..S•�Si Y� rs'� Ask! ••i' , !•Y.Y�i 'i . tt:'+.�• r 9 a':�1` S � .1..: t �it'£• fti =a s;f.1,��'. {�'1 •�_1 •!i +.t:•1�¢ r ',�'� In, r. � � l Y r•_ x 1 . ` i '�k. f4 i � i � fr 4Y is •.s i 1C1 -Y +S•! i,t Y 4 �� is c r sn � �j + t Y. •! s ^t + da .{taq: �° + �. fYl� i• 1 .{tt' i b.r2.•t4•t t�lT P 1+• i .t t 4 y�:41 a 1 i,!' � � 't l i. k �jst���� ... ,-� t .1: �4f e:''1 Y'�'ts t�v�::# �f 4�.r(3;':ii�S� t f `�`r' ! r,• 4 .t:anti{� '�l taTq"j 't.�t� 1. .� + �t�0 y�1J'�� Sri '�-1'"• 1• %': .s� t �3�; �t. t tij.t.� s.+,7«i�: tnit�lrn 1'y.Ix..fr. :c -� s# iY .� •�rj: "i r t �.: k l0.•; .�•1 �i.P�'r i- C ti �7� �� '�f �..�r, .�T R�r i� 1L•:��.+1tt i .t tt +::� `�. 1si1"-- 'S�'+a ry!q"+`�t.,}';��.'s t!r? -'aA•.�4 '���'qq-_wF.;-a�..1� "•i:>•`.i.Y.' 't :4 a N tl, 3 � :° i. r ;t \t1:+ ;{�'fir? 3Y�°`, i �+�k• "kkk�4. ��r'w1y .1,�f,; !. , Y ..s.,; � ..31 y f •ti ;,Y1{II* 5 �q', {w Z �, �,� rf�4• '� � ` : , ,1f,�6C's,LR.+� t4- 4�� Y � 4 ,<.�e�t•ak k, +� •��(,,:� t `,�17y'Yi��/{y,,,,n.,,. .14; :14: 1+y�,,��e f".�-.; �S� �yY .p I�{�\:�:= i.ay.y� t ,i:.,s � sl��','YfSjf '(`53..1 }4,{, 1 t! +ei t C �s.`. [y .��}l,�i t_.�t1�"' `y�(('� 1fitN 1•t l�j`'t'*Sl,yrr ,-�. • .ta.? ��..a. 4t'�� Y ,i+ 11.�1�,! '� .:b�f b���1,.r1}1`�4..,�! .> ',l;try y};.r Y:;,.Y•r'z ,t�.Aq��., �a lY :}LS+�.,�p'Sn�t f �Y. It i{:.]�rtt T:�2 ,y Crr.4.5c t{'{' U �".t.n�,�l'' .:�.� ,+ ,,4t.�.�� ,;t�i:k`. ';,..� .1,".Z}4T.'i� -ttC f.1.43i:"!�.{-,{').,..;�,i� }�t,,i' ••�� �(r ,t4 3Y ,•t.A..;�.�;ll��'��z�,,S�t 1 �'ae�•1,{, �x't ars}. �, .#l;+'f•, !.. r :. a1r :lhys •� F7 { `' ;'Y �€aif ;'S`it.'r t .,{r 1ti ss! iti.<�7Y4; r.¢s �. ++ {:4 w i a ii �i:��[:s .�i'� Y r.��4 4 � f r ..r� r., � ♦ { y�.t�' a•i.'s'.V "'�� 11:�.t t� �,}}:�*"� ��� t �':`i� "+!+ � !'. �ri �1;:,<�, t.�� �.,�^.ei "^ .�. � �•, .ir.^+�.ls.�r�, * s 1X �t'f � '� S 3 �.._. ,�+5, a '� .' � qq ti,• �i ',a t� »�. i� f_...r,.,�`-tr:'� ]r..].�i.:tliaa.Y"^'+nl ir.. d 'i't_i ` Y 4•. !' i R... .t:i �r\ Y�r1 � .�+Y >h'Y�7 S:&rY�:..r^..Cr9iC..:. ADDENDUM TO SUM!KIARY REPS T ON COASTAL LEGISLATION November, 1976 Depicted below is an estimated projection of time it will take the Coastal Commission to perform certain tasks leading to allowing local l agencies maximum control over development in the Coastal Zone. The time frames indicated are based upon reasonably foreseeable actions by the City and Coastal Commissions regarding these processes. Delays caused by possible rejection of plans, appeals,ppeals, etc. have not been t considered. I. COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY DEFINITION - MARCH 14, 1977. State Commission must prepare a Coastal Zone Map of greater detail within 60 days after its first meeting, Map can be adjusted a •� maximum of 100 ' yards inland to avoid splitting -lots or to conform to readily identifiable natural or manmade ; mission meeting will eatu�-es. First Cam- } be held on or shortly after 1/11/77. 2. OBTAINING AUTHORITY TO ISSUE COASTAL PERMITS -- MI,RCH 21, 1977. State Commission must adopt interim procedures for review of permits, ` appeals, and exemptions by January 30, 1977. Assuming receipt of such guidelines is within a week after adoption, it is anticipated that staff work on City procedures would be ready for approval by Council Resolution on March 7, 1977. The permit authority would become effective on the loth working day after the adoption date of a resolution of intent -- a/21/77. r 3. CERTIFICATION OF LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM -- DECEMBER .18, 1977* Now - 4/1/77 -�' Commence priliminary staff work on local coastal program in corisult:ation with Coastal Commission. 4/1/77 State Ca_mmission Procedures adopts , p dures for LCP Preparation, review, certification and amendment. i 4/1/77 - 5/l/77 Staff prepares final LCP based upotl < preliminary work and Coastal Commission procedures. t a • 4 v{{,+iip►,`�dJ,41`' Sf't\ ` i {t{ 4 � Ljt `, t* �rp 4 t:A. .A •*..r fff((( t•'�'i"-,"S.r.`4l .MI M �� f. "��ff1' y���y t}f kef '1 �}, t�• `Y �� �g'.,�y 1� •��,+] t-�� "t ��+rF� J+ �,1�} i.�����,���,���rj •I'` .11��• � �' ,• l���r�;`•�'' �� ;r•t 4 •f `>� '. ";_�,. x �+ 1 °t'•; � �7���14f,�i7. A)^.,� ' '�t��, t '� �'' \1 1�' i9 '. � + ,�>t iW ,dfr ��l .,' t '�'"•4 �+ { . 4' i Syr '4 �� t •� �� ,�� , r Y, � ��'���`,!' i �'"� ��t" �' �x��,. M �E` a �f e'� � �•�; ��, S `� � ,Ta�'t 6 �� y�} r��'�.,1 \ � � + r•� j.. t 'y, � ?;'rd F� i, �t` � �.WI►'' ;h�j"�i V� ��:a.- ;r` ,�� � 4 4p �,r,' ti:J}c. f• 3 �"� � �4t"1' �• t�. �;/y}y i t�4� �' Rt X,.U,l 'TVtrilit+a �. kRW$ F ` 'S� r 'CAy�'�� en r �"�.� j� i��Q.t" 7 ;• `� ry!,a �; ,� t� � ��,`v' '1,:1 c c 1� �' 'i�.J�`y ' " i�`/. ''ri,�:li'jr`.� fil,•�r r �'� i�'t� Y�r l'i,� �}��� rr .�1 ��yi`�F' i je��`��`pR'L�.+��, �{=i}' �,f�. ��, �y �� ,i �t t x t � f;�'�.h Ge'�•�tf �, Itn ,. ` 1p( }1 .11i1r7111,r �1E L1'0� RfY1t..f � 1# ,r 7,�i�.r i FjJ1• .1: (�•� } ;✓'•• 4rp)y`y t �. l .�� 4 . 1i.`i'• �1'� r4'( ("'+{1 •'�4t. } t � a{#. ,'� ) �d •f.. � •�' t; 1 47� • +• }('{�i + 1r .} ���j'� l '} "1 Ity'' rY Si �t,'�1•�, tJ i.t ,4. ,) r•� j. e t' X •'R7' P; r rt. 4 ; r}t"� +r 11 •;. �A rr �d�• ' v.. r 1 '�. / t n ,. ' _ •1 { �g4 ►�' ,�� ' . ,000 ;t4� t � IIA4f '�VY ' '��+'�'�+ �str � ��+ � �!`�_'-' .1 ��!�s= ,} �t� �}�{1+i,� .� i � ru�. it. '"�;<�.,�, �*. t �u►� .'�;�.�' ; 1'�• t{r.. �� �,� :� z t xtt. g ,�,.S.l`y�, , f,t^ 7'� .41: +<.+{ .i 5..7 ;.. '•' � .� �,$;�. '�,",R: d` •'�� C� ' ��„Y • � f'ylr;,;��• ��.��. r''�a7'!�, Y. s WW1 I4t i 4 • { a�i} +tT. %•t• } ,4��-7y��'i ��,ftiy" i ���t11:� : r �,� ,�`�� � ���:�it���i�,4.� �„'^�.` � ���u• ��' ;�7 '�tc �' :�'� �'•"'a 3y�'tir }''i�.. r,.,�n. �� t;�. 4 ,t°''�y, r� �t +��� s�;:�y'. ;�; .,•,�� ti'� r ��,`• ''fti �t• t 4t�[ t5�{i� ���'�iv k'i � � ��4,� t,� �L �r�S' `.id�'�S. Z`5M 7 t � r��+�}�,��r�l� ;�4 .-..1+�>� �.Y4�ir74\�.t� �1W►J�� \� � , 4 i4�� •��I'�ill�i •a� 1� � �� t', �� �,1 vim r !«,r ac i �� r:,a p �� •i t. r ... ' ;r.. r ,...l,,. tt-.f. r« �..,.Y.�!}""i'd[T tit"';r.':�RYn�r'^•! 'i t•,s,s t�?,"� y i - ,t �, ij�.y.tr�rr -iF `�1� t ,j �f.ff ,� �.'. r xF •.'�Pt J t3 � i•1�1 t t .} r it�y � r a i« tr i � t .'i ..r t. � 1t 1 j i t � t i '} 1� It ,. / S.; S .t .f f• i rt :j t 4 l 4 ': t i'f .� r r fi Ikr4.a M i �`I �4 t t 'i AY ; �1g •4 t i` �} �^ °t�"; 1' R't j •aS } 1 t �� a" i. 9 Rl� 1 4,r°:r t 1+tit..7 ., .�t, aF'f'Cf i �!{� ; , 1 .t�ll.lr .f Stg .•3. 1 i'1�� .`� 1} .11 at '.�S rY, 4 1:�rr 1f t tl47 Tw 4l `.1" i�7 i 1 �; •t rq i- b i 7 ,4 x i`'(a r4.11i 7 ty�. +l :flr• �, � r, .1{ .t `r e r t\" .7 ♦ �rt a+ „'r 7 it f� r,.rrll tt ..tf t 1_ _ ;, °f,l i ,�` F..}S, t1'_.��ftr•�f� � ! tf1�'t.t• ��.}. .�r�' ,R� •,s�' t 1 ,7!, �{,yl.'11 t !"t�} �r j''r l .tr.�'t• 4�'�+, �.ri t4ll:�" i r ti v`af i, a [ Y \ui if�t f.t ! •.r.6�Pa,:+•,a , � 1.4, tc1 i a-al•ry x :l a f +it f if. � � s '-a' t Y - } �.,.� I ` t .�¢} •A1 \t `1• t} `} r{ e� :.q.q•1:� � r+ q3r •t�15...Yr ,F. •k. �'�. t{>t�.' r 1�- 'o-1.4� }'* t"i�. .�t�'r,\� '.a' 1 k :4. ,C•+:' "!.i�tiC�_kyt ij•� t .a�.T7i .e a�t:. l! ',l 1�'i•i � ..r �` 1 l �' f t`�!{�+lr � :jr Orr��- 7 ,! t' y�fi. 4 .y. r.t'ri. :.71 L. ,f-. �t, li .'irf4- `�� Ityf ;t.� y .{ t j S.•. 5.5 ( �. •� t r2 i•f.l i� x _'�.,.f�i, .!}1- rl �t ttr�i. ,•4: � ��+'� .,)� S�-Wr. �7 ) :,, l '��t.�«�1.fi+t�tl`;, of tiit'�,. ,� tr Si "�.� •ti=>`r��1. k3.,.�"�i�'�;�,�t•t1��`1'''J-}�i:,��' •a�:.'V �� i" �,,1;r- t .r,i,1t''t.,�'4 6`T"> ,.7i t t e It� �t � :: r o r� i '�1 1`«. Y. �' '�#. ,"e 1;,•,1�1't','" .' 'iS�t `,t�E.�s .;��1�'�,l�r;'C�.'_,...t° -,tf. •'��f};J�its�+1 .i I� 5/17/77 - 0/17/77 Regional Commission approves proposed LCP and ! submits to State Commission within 10 working 4 days. 8/31/77 - 10/17/77 State Commission approves LCP if no substantial issue raised (questions as to conformity with the policies of the Coastal Act) . Upon approval of the zoning ordinance portion of the LCP the LCP is deemed certified. *The LCP may be prepared fcf separate geographical units within the City's jurisdiction with certain stipulations. Assuming portions of the Solea Chic& will be listed as a "sensitive coastal resource area" by the Coastal Commission and obtaining a certified local : coastal program therein will take more time as provided by law, the fastest way to obtain permanent permit approval authority in those areas of the City having immediate development pressure is to proceed with certification of a portion of the coastal zone jurisdiction at this time. 1 9. PEMIIT EXCLUSIONS -- MARCH 19, 1977 i 1 1/17/77 Council acts to request exclusion from permit process for certain qualified areas (public hearing required) 1/18/77 - 2/18/77 'Regional Commission recommends approval to State Commission. f 4 ,2/19/77 - 3/19/77 State Commission approves exclusions j �4 i 1 ;'�� 't �� �4 4 .`� t� �,Sli�.� �� r�r' c- t��' �ti� 3�,;11� � �;�,t �g7 +y r,�� t'• � ������"'` 7� I �' �?� ;� t� 73 „,�.!' ,,� s,Y. 1.°+ "t'�t i�'��h', , ! � �'"�! 7 ' � a�i � �• ��1 S "��' � '�4`� r�� yt� '; ,t{}Tr.}�t,�t1���}'y4;, y� � i1' { �,.��r'�. ��' K' t± l�f #y ' L44'�ry�}T��`����i�'�� �k•. a t���' lL�, ,, � 1\'I t t •}'�1.�,a+ '1 7},4 �'�.', �-\ ° ,C l�F,�.ty{(AI rw��y t��' �� �t w Y�.', �� pt.%k }. },� � .4'� :..,�� 1.St l�fih,•'�t'• '� '1'4t. 3�- .f �.. P r��, �"..y,�,'k�� , t.. it' ,. •'( .r,. � t � .q •..t� � .� r . t s ��w.tt i�;� � �a ,# <;• � hl'� .} t ;�!Y:r y4,y `.,�,,� °*•� �''a `� , }��. �'ut f' :..�}+ t ��,�_'Y+��;:�j' .,��t:���4yyy'q�'��t��,. #r�-S�y, `�•A'�,t����� .:t4r,;���1t=.�`y,}#j,• t ± {���A •5 t�,4t i�i. 7., , 1;�'. «'t'��� ii!'�,�(. r�. ���`?�.•• ������ ' �'i� •� �`�� Y1�i,,i} y+�- "�F�t, 'Lc t�r� � CISErN �� i�`!'� �.;'���, ���`'► �+1� �;t;{c�`h �y 1� � .}{ t G.�i ' r { Rl, S +? '' t:1 } "'C��y,� + ti• ,�y• � �•� �� �� � •fir 4 ! ? "���.�` ��,;�.; ,� � � ��� "+h�l�'1 �S'�r��,.' i�,.i� • 'i, ��Y{ :'� •�', r ��.'r 4�3. 4� �r��s o ,� ••�•� l�44 �� V yr q } r� tt' r { C � \ q��`},}.' 1.�`�,•�,,;�,�q.,,,1�;�,t e.��{{�§,�t 4+A�x..'! ,��')T}•p���y.,�'�.��4�'�,.t`}'��r�i{i}ti�t''�,��-"1.'i•�1� i�'S.,,+ti`Y:� '.'F'V ��, 4�c;,���i n.t', � id� �•1, " � T t� rk 4► t `E' +�ilk, .Y. 7 i � t i�• '�+r .fA 1 �`{t y t •:1 iyl. # 7 ,� ted .t,V.. Y'` 1!`�':rf �"`� t y �i- r� t4r ,r'}ar,./ 1'1�,, ,g 2 ,1 y• �t+, Y��i.i�1 r '�::�+ � ;. �I�. � j�,�.�ri �f,lYl ►`l.�`,j` �,.. ,.S�•t r f'�ary1 '•i��y'{�{,} i �j� :T u` �����. Y'1f F lS°C"I;� n ,, �Tr t!1' 9' 1 (�t qly 6 �; .y�4. t.�. r,L",it• 1� .I y 7.7 Y r' 7a,+,t�. 1 ,t t�:�� ;4�t '. .p • .A .,�t� it,' r ' 1, t",•.tT �,f• I I •r�,,^y�kb�{'i� .�,'41 i. ty���� �, r�'�:.7�1� ,�� i� ".!-. ""� .� ,�T;� ��x � 1.. �y(`� . ;.1S " `�i `�, � �'�1• f�ii('` � ` �•�,,t r }' •�'��� .t, �}J .f..i' -,S a'r. '��� {� ty+'y � 1 r .jlet� �� }}�1{ } r dt�A �t t 4t 1y}1' Y Sr! Yet{+4 S t `y� } j( '+ ►,f :' t t > 4� �t�r ht �'i a 'tn ;,tl� ;ik"ti• •, � (�� �iAr� �� i { t t •,'�ffrr `i trkt a� �:� ,� '��, t:• � sv � i 'i S '. . :. ..1•�`U6'.6i@S'CYi7tl'.?oYlSlta\ J A'•11Y Y •' '9pC'.L+7'►��1N"Wl'•d'YRy4tl7U �''A9lR'�Iti'lllirr.Rcf �L •'1Pli rFw� ,�1Rit ''7T,7-+.} r' r t! Yti 1 1 't t i t 'r: •. V. ' C l:tte� 1 tF1 r ti ��Y,. ,'Y t #`t 1.i t/ „S •'A� 1 !, cki Z t + , ' ' 1. t�f. •+t i fl 1,i1 1 k ti c 1 i # r t 1i- y1'r•'!I c •. 1 3 � �. �,v ,( � ; tt;r S t ,1 ,1 �! 1 r tt . C `, �yitr 1� •+ ,� c ai i i. r t t;l ttt+. .. �7s t� •'>, tt t� � �:X + � � F i.: t � � ;)'F + .t ", t` i ;i 'ht t 1 }. t a � +}:'1 � i �-2 y' � ,•: tt t . i � Yk i€'+ `. .r ,, ? S'µ `-4,:tfr +, , ` !' SCt '.{r �� ,, F � •� S;t1X ,�, ,,r f� t. its 'y, f, � k�� ► ,+ 4. �Y'�f�ti{�3tt��i1, r f a ,. t,��,4,� .r '�. -sx.1,�{ t"t'tt� � `� �>��'lt tr++.. . 1 {, -.;f Cr � �t.kt�i .� '►��}.3 t. Yt /. tt �tl f 4#r1�+, j r i ,i.:� i" 'lt E��t•(l�� p ;� ),t 1.1 �,�'.r.'1+�7 F} '� '} PLn � i � t, � t• 1.1 1 �5 �tY.t ) 1 f )l 4 1 }. S. .'\ n'C�t• ! 1.�.�1 { 4 �' � , ` ..141tit:�� e�. „ y.F.,.) ri t: .q}it �`t'y'� {' i� ; • C? r� V,� i7`i, J11.�'"•� ° -\X4�.� [ 4�t 't:' 1,i ':�r �`.:� t 4 ', ;a trgjC,O}'{gt.:{ Y�tdf t 4� t 1`5 + r�lri t'. 1 IY'..A t l�y' �- ?�. It r t'+},1 t .} �}t 5�, „'; } �ke 4 t it•�c.��.i;i v}�1�a , t rT ''i. tr ;S1'r.; �� h .1 �. 4{'.[. _►i.r":_1.,9 t+s IV.. 1tle.:>: .�•, J Z�.? ,i f i eist f+ y f i #. f` f S ` ,s .,. ► ... 't`!.., .,T,�'*�' rs.. .;=,ti...c*.t..''� .+.'.lf.F•.��. !tr,a<�}r...�.r.i'::�(i?3q,,.,.�: r�, I'► TO n BE R ( H CITY OF t!i u � T i n � RESOURCES A/ DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL. REST' ,^G'J?" P. a. Box Igo,►iUNTINGTON HEACII. CALIFORNIA 9264ii 'f Honorable Mayor and City Council Administrator ATTN: Floyd G. Belsito, City ` FROM: Planning Department DATE:, October 19, 1976 SUBJECT: SUMMARY REPORT ON COASTAL LEGISLATION Transmitted for your information i� a report summarizing the most Senate astal legislationt signed into law by the Governor major • recent cO enacting the California Coasiwal Act of 197antain additions ' Bill 1277, Bills 2948 and 400 Pr mara.ly legislation. Assembly 00 of the three bills are also and amendments to the Senate Hill. Copies transmitted. Based on the. new leg illation, the Planning Department recommends that r ` the course of action outlined below be followed: the City's Local 1 ` royal from the State Commission to have t 1. Seek app rocessed ahead 'of other programs* Coastal Program p assuming responsibility for the issuance of coastal 2. Pursue permits as early as possible. development p obtaining an en for. xclusion from the State areaprovisions. 3, Pursue obarts of the City under the urban certain p , receiving approval from the State Commission 31o1976i The deadline for rec rocessed early is '{ the City*sdeadline Local Coastal Program P rocessing; a letter dated In order to be considered for early P the City pilot October 19, 1976, was sent to the State Commission by that Huntington Beach be designated as a P mi.nistratur requesting ualifying for early processing. project area, thereby q cil endorse the The Planning Department requests that the City Coun outlined previously, allowing the courseent to mentaitimhe coastalinue o£ action to work towards maximum local control over deve °P zone. Respectfully submitted, EDWARD D. SELICH Acting Dtre for Monica Florian J� Senior Planner Y y l�`; ` �;}L1y l.,+4, [t I �+� ' � ti! �" �. .jr)lA� t � aI w !,S) + ,ti �� r , �• 1iS t, ; a ,�'' � ,i t ly!',ur v ! ."�,�! � •k. � t "'qt� F. �t ( � + '�C � � ��t �,. �,.•� ,�`�R�t 't �' ��• '}k+��' ��'+Y(l.r'�y� °S^ (+ � ��� W `�' '��F •� ��ys, L�'S�f �i�'T i+ ?C t {' '! v i [. � �[ +,.,.'.•1a�j��` � � +�4 Z�,+��tta� ``��'S5 1?�fV� � � �`�►►?� •� 'iii �;`[�j� � � +�y� +t �� ��y t � , yp�it'��t6�,lA.. .�X,j��lE� j ���i�i. ����,'�`[`� '"�� .!i ,�� +�1i' '� �, 'r•^+ �n ,yMt`�1 }• t°!C, •r.194, y�,+; y �ly{ � 11ti e. �Z,"t'•�{f-� `�y��.�� k5��`�'F�' '1fS {� i G ���4� tt� �{�: ,�4.5}� gn/;���1 �r .�r `�'�� ++�:��'*�t,�. '! }i�i,.. .1, '�:�s*{��L�A'y I� L •�yrgf�..}��S,v��'�� �i. '}'ti .��� `�tia�!t�.'��3'�w.�y�[� „kk�yy;�� :���`� `�hCy ,s y�ir, p i . ii r ti } r + �� !t�;��Y �! , '�J�.'rt, ,�Sl['^i.'�' g,a.'F .t7 �+,,.�,1' �• y�r,S:: t�t� � x4 'b�t 1 t. ���}� 'y tr `��[ � �� - 7 F�t'jf,��t,,. t+; � j�t 't' •"!�, � �a�'r .ir{ .•t:,r L � 7 iX 7�'i�1 .7 } �'. "}` `� .(�, x���:y: �A! '�}`�`.`^',.1Ly4, r l��i'.�� ��Rw t 'l Hr' �5. +{ �� �,\��t �, li,,, � •'� � •.y ���� �� �C „N�. �,�=�4���`��;,tit. �ey.��},��'�.{'t�`X� �t •���, ��.1�. 1 .:' Ap�i.� 9 �P,�cs 3�.,. �. �,YC .� �t � 7 t �t+ i .,p, "}4 } � rt4h y 1.4 ���L !•{h � ! ..ta} aYL. r, ` 'YT ! J�l i;il 1 d Al F.� +1 ! �' <,�� �J:'��, Y ���• �'S1�' ,s '� ,i.,K.2�� �.:,� � r° tF Pry :y�,p,`� � .�' ";: 'rttY* K. t ,1� •a rtJ � 3� y,� C1 { ��, [j's'1 �" �(+ fit 1 '� ' •-w 'i P {'7777 �,,,t-+,�.,.,,,�,.T�•"S�+'."'"'� {F. ,'0.tft r�lFlt.+ �' �� -t �!t!� :E�r iw Eii: f �'j t±tt}S ,�'F [ r �ti � ,r Ott 1 i• i +. ,�t a�'".� L c, t'S,.�• :i.`ttr i'a1�x� +'�` �' Tf }r 4 t- `1j• f:•�ti f '`kf t fit- tf 'S� r�l �.t•.� 1� _t '` �.I.��R i t:itl err'°�. ! .f" f" i0. �k��if..�� ,i• �.7y 3t F I � i�'{1t -t♦ Ott',. 7 ••t- t• }.. '• tEf K+ [ iF{ �;, .� t.' *ds4 ` k.s'ti r t }fir.. ,T�tj ,..it r, .tt, i ♦'S ,+}/ {•. ,. ,f t''K +t ; t.t tya .1`;i� l'+ 5 s 1}�..t. lY F t �Y !` . t i r Y-)rrft�+, + .;� !-.,+, t ,� .•t.. -1j' -i. 1, F 't. r �rr':� r S '11. a` _ l lI Jr' S, 7 a ` Tt+•. '•1 , t,t >y �F Z : 1 l:t'• :. �, t lt�..{' •;ik ` ,+i•.3 ittfyt F'!rtt�4...1 l J f :. , t y�. �0. �.. f•r O.x .S v •; S: ,- t.i t t i w.E l t ti (�}', tl r {�,t'C t i ;� At '� ,• !c"¢ ±,�+ .�e' �7 ,� ? ij yE}{. ,ti ,f`;rJ;"+� ;a''Y1,�::�.�y�•w.:':;it�y�:i�.L:�4.�+' x tli !_ ft �1 tt�i ,.Yt •;4 F�t �` i7 t�aF t`i . .:M �t. +t a �t St"R� .Ix-i jF 4 at�t �Z^ ��� }1� f. F 1 ,2�_f.����1�'i (1,K+..;�:�t.�{��.t•.•A,.f1,_t �� s ti }1 a t �r :�{ s,� s.F � •, ,: i ���r s�f" '��'� ,1� t a�. iti [�.;a�a: ! .4._r :rt. tZ�it lt.tart v_ ...,«.`i.1 +}+ rt ,rlt,��•.1. 1. 'y t (rr i,� � .t�t�I.nrt+ii,l' _ t I f+ SUMMARY REPORT ON COASTAL LEGISLATION October, 197( Senate Bill 1277 1. Enacts the California Coastal Act of 1976 which imposes certain statutory deadlines for actions by the California Coastal Com- mission referenced in item #2. The statutory deadlines are as follows: ;s Section Action Deadline 30521 State Commission designates Local 10/31/76 Coastal Programs (LCP) to be pro- cessed ahead of other LCPs. 30311 State Commissioners and Regional 1/2/77 Commissioners appointed/selected. 30304.5 Regional Commission selects repre- 1/11/77 sentatives to the State Commission. 30620 State Commission adopts interim pro- 1/30/77 cedures for review of permits, appeals, exemptions. i 30710 State Commission adopts port maps and 4/1/77 delineates wetlands, estuaries, and recreation areas. 30501 State Commission adopts- procedures 4/1/77 for LCP preparation, review, certi- fication and amendment. 30620b State Commission adopts permanent 5/1/77 procedures for review and appeal of permits and exemption claims. 30338 State Commission adopts regulations 5/l/77 for timing its review of waste treat- ment facilities. 30417b State Commission designates special 6/30/77 treatment areas in logging areas ` within the coastal zone to protect natural and scenic .resources. 30500 Last date for local government to 7/1/77 request State Commission to prepare LCP. 30502 State Commission designates sensitive 9/1/77 coastal resource areas for Legis- lative action. qq �'«� v�1��t .i_ - .'•'A•1'w Hr .�-1 a.a e.....5.c._.'1.., ... .... .. .. .. ♦ . ..l ...r.•,...._.. ..._...... Y r T. .'! + 1 + }!•.yh'� + - f � x*. �t1 1`• fir � i7 ilk �` �� 1 �� ' �;i'"���� � ;• �i;# �{'� '� ,� �'f� ���. i,��r fi '�t Kitt .j�. ,� 411 "�+ '�; T� '•,4`i' (. � �4)� �;1..1�: �a.�',��1''1�;1� ,�' � 1 `;l+� d. 1� 4, ;' �s�'i .ti• Y• i• t'+ 2' 4 ' tt M`�.•��r. k��r'2'' � t. T ..a. . All +� .i�ik 1', i a �, S +�. •�' 1 ��� �t JA 1€��4i � � .3, ; � t i(2 IM .'M �� t �� T+e'�T'+►•4.T_.+,5 n' +€+`S*"!"["�^1 1 } 11 41 � 1'f ��'r� �•f ,t�•A,`'SI,i*t{ i?..',S:L'I. ;�i,. �•,� I�f + (!r +!' y it c t";=y; ,ci :!i ! 1 ji i it ttf 1_ a t t t'} t' 4. 1'.t ! t((. ff ,•r,,;'{S � {• - ii{ + ,ti ff�� � € t I * 5 •t is *t{4 { `;tti 4 � t � �„t. �q� ?1 i`, < 1 '7.'lj'.. S, +1.,�^j r ��� '.�{',1fi' it"14" t'+�,i�;1'+ •';.4:�1 ,.t� n e:! jy�"'fie t �e':'' p+y ,,�f '�j,�i}. ��.5 T >'� f,�'+�{ z ��r. ,`rt{;d /�.bda+�,^';t.t't' a '#. 1 ,tf ',I.�.t, fr."i�+ (,.{.+� ,I,,t t 1' �{ yi� •±• •,1+��,r {fir •'.t r , I h,t F i.. C• 1 -. C',e�' j a �} \,i +�, A{:fil;- �} r R i r, " {...f 1` -� :,, F f,' ,.' }. �t} 7 � •, I +'' +.• l�••».. ,r`,-- rt'•,a iiyt t 'll. i�,i,, tt•' •t �.t �.�.,� � �} It 'S�r '; s} ��'�.1• r i .•t1,t !l2A.{,4 ,1. �, 1 - ,,. (ff�6 {�{t ( i;D.. €•f' ! trr t _t l"[ t. ~r" t7T ,', r �.1i4,�._}(t{{•��1i l�7e'}.'t• . `F�i..,_� .!.k fl, ,F S r�f;, .X7f{.... it.^'t,.+..;_>�.Y�fh+ yl.flQ'yCt�i•v.\\\l,tY t.ir t)l�a€'tf� rtx�,}t'''{?:s'Ti"+.`l.i itl,.tt �tt d4�:i•.,.t tfb rtY ii:. „'r t'tt ?4t:i.7 f y i 4'F �a,,.,i�a`,•i,+�,�..aYr'•,'�tr't.i�}i� .+py..in'���t?1l'c.t.li,:!F�,s'..!!.'.*�tt,'.,..i17�l'a{r7t' 141 !N'.} r { t ,J-.ai �tt� ;•� • at c?r -+.�t F...�:1� .t�, + ( 'r. r.'•r' '+{:y� i i:.ilA �4.t�.i,l' S ;.t{lt i 4t 1F ( �t 1 �t•?k'^ t1 ,+ t 5 i �r'•'t IN it- 7'!' + r r ;.'<K^';- ' {'l t t i E t - �,.••, ! �( ) ( -,� ',1�. �}' a�yif�l c �}. � �C { '�. i. .i- 'tiKy�P f,I'� 3¢i t -t {.11 ',t' :� �fe�,.l.t r. {{ -}$u'll;t(L't/! .! 4�A'f � l` ,Lti ^'�.'T!4' r •�"'Ar +f`!:4 r. iT 6j l.�x t.lt 11[ '�i l,. �1:1{�lA� •7 , t+ `.�3w hhaa tJ 'Se \ � * 1`.{�r ft+2�y '\a,..i� y�l' � < ,y,7' .* k 4 t+ �,t'� ry F i }• }�I- •,171�e�1j; �y'n.�{+.'f€ ••7.s t�i Fe �•.i,l,'1 � S Y t. d}:•,., ��,iE 1,,t�.'.TY\�' l�',�+�4'aF.1, :i;i. tt ? �, ,•� F at�,iy� '"�> � g= eTlf`•t,�;`'k i! �j,t i?:' {;.5��tt+yt �JA�rllpit�: �����•� y'.��'dr1�`t'I;�:.�'�.'`�,�E{{r �t•.t. �,4;,}, 4a .Page Two Section Action Deane 3G413b State Commission presents findings l/l/79 on the siting of energy facilities. 304].0 State Commission and San Francisco 7/1/78 Day Conservation and Development Commission jointly present their recommendations to the Legislature. 30415 ORP makes recommendations regarding 7/1/78 cooperation/coordination between the Commission and other State Agencies. f 30620.6 State Commission adopts post - LCP 8/l/78 certification development control procedures. 30300 Latest possible termination date for 6/30/79 Regional Commissions. 30561 Local governments complete LCps. 1/l/80 30501 State prepared atssion localc LCPs requests 7/l/80 30501 State Commission certifies Commission- '12/l/B0 prepared LCPsr • 2. Establishes, within the State Resources Agency, the California Coastal Commission and, for a designated period, six regional Coastal Commissions. 3. Requires each city or county within the coastal zone to prepare a local coastal program. 4. Terminates each regional corrinission within 30 days after the last required local coastal program within its region has been certified or on June 30, 1979, whichever is earlier. 5. Requires that development within designated areas receive a coastal development permit from the local government (if it has adopted specified procedures) or, if not, from a regional commission, or the state commission. 6. Terminates (with certain exceptions) the permit authority of the state commission or regional commission within the area covered by a certified local coastal program, and delegates this authority to the city or county implementing the local coastal program. i r . w! t� ? AN �R�� `'>. �.` �, �'�$'; '�' �O ► µ 'Iiyq tt!� f ' , j,��i 4j1,c + y . M�'.�i ''h�+��, !•dry.J / �f„`J ., t r�F,.C`3��E � l��,;' r ,i11��. i��`,�� , �`.5� th; jti`�.',7���T�St�� "'�'� "* R ��. y�.' �1' �»}�, '�1 1' �E�jk � +} �l� .r�.'�'si.•J4''�� c'��;�� !tiy; �..ti�DDDr°a; .� 1�� t .'s��f � `�W;�'�?p�rJ'tilRt. +X�L'�}�'�1`�e. ..Y � �,. .�� .� '� .� '{ti;� j�L �,1 1 ti!, ' ''�� a�". j 1(''� P r rp��`r '�� '�y+��y�j;;r1 ifs t7. ;� �t�� ; •1�,�y�+�' i�� i �s�,."j ;1� �'t • ' Y� tt i�uat�t�it 'akk t'.t�t: °:,�.,�� yy ��+• a. ^� �"� E�j 1 �'•� ,INS 'Y ,[�".`i 'S,� w'�\ t ,�, iC�i',`ll �7• KiC?� s 'l> .� r {• .}'f,� tY y�Y4ll�.t :t. 'r,'� �++tit r''• ��P„"'� �+S a�X.`.Y i ti' i� :tS .s .q y' F,�.,.yi,. + ` �n/y{it�``` �7fi Tt.� ��' ,t`t *�y �„! ' R�� �`}} r�r'�� ��#^�l"A �' ��. �� tt`•'Y"y� t xfJZ `. , -R.'A •�� '�1 F}i1{ .'f.:(� ;VY ! ` ' t ``fir t4 'i�' . {Ji: xj'\1., �,A '; a l t 1''� a;(ty •°'-•',1� '";},�gyµ�`�ry�t1;� � t ` i�; } r it�tt tt' l4rt��".t$.tt;lS ► �� .� � �t t�y�, ,p� w. ��S: t��;} t����t�kr �•��� t r7�`•!� �F"� .�5��{'1��Y k 1 J,��,• � ��j�! �.�. � t ','�,'�l;Y �rtiif,° 1i k �'.`f� %lt 5�1�(�i '1' .2 1 1 ,,f h���,�` .r � o., t{e i '{, � �`,-• i i a'S-. :,ti,'.�: SA F"t.; �1 .�'�' '"•�'k' f, C }��� �i � ""� '{� a. �'�,�J{Et�l '• ' y}�y , { Yd g� [y J1y g AiR �y i 4 S `fig`�$ + �t+;, t ;yN.� �4 T. v- t W17� � �_. , V, 1: . ��t j ♦�� !.l 3t.� 1! l {J i �! {4 t t �i. A!,Y �., E• tt i +{ IS. Y^r"!n'[Y"�'�•�" t 4 1 t jS f -t.° { 7 �j 1 7` � ii '. j � �' +•d`) .. tn••.•F'P"'" "Y' 3 a t f- .t + .7' Y t 1 :1. K? , v' i�E .i' l ; .tr L iZl ..t.. .,� .t ,:>, ,;. + .!j 11 +.. �+� •� r ,r� , E f ,t I 4 ,°, 1,rl� ,:�� j �+ �� ] ..�•� 1�4 :.wf;. a ';,1ti ;{,f i ",�•.! } �...'..:i ':1 �, t {%� ,.. tt �� ,1'. + f 1,�:. i a;��:t�f_y°,P t��..'•-�'. ;r! s 1 i�'t �r 't'���}.�AL` +t l t �,. ,,�;a{„ x ( [. ° ., ti + e4T 4-?F,�� l dS ,ti StC'�! .1 n}{ft i i`l.. f�`..t.]�14 'l; ''•�°i.f r r't.�.�l;l „�;.t t,"fii.,5�7..;.3�s 1 t" �{ ytF4t• ,,; ",, ,: 't;t ::Z r ';. , !�tla , L �+( 3;'t.' t ,}1C#;.{{`4 .}`;'^�,-rl`E[ `k�r. j '' �Y. •i\r». `t, ti x- + ,� �%i �4s: , t� i .r r �. i ' 1 tl' } y i ,� > e •., S .t=� i� �:�'�'� : : 3 ! �; r Y .i 'tt �.. i ; ttt4 . 1,�4'• ��' s + S .. . }: { } )�.lk , , J .7 �t! 1,� 3 t:;! t - i `4. •3+ .,t f � , .!1.! �,'"`i.y'.' t +ta :T.t�' .t'. �,''•'�{ 41:• ' t: t 1 �y {}h� +-• ,3 y,:t tZ f,rt lt; �4 ;E } � ti ,�� F� d;..� t4; 1, �.,.t,.,4� '°Y '{ s,st.• (�+�. ��:'.tT.� i `•1 Y'tr +' ��Ri r }. .11. ..f ;3 1� ti { -� R:t„ t "�rf.?;(g :� Y��Y '`••'L lY`b '7 to `.;.'t �+ i i Z� r r . • t �.:_ `r+,' al; i� •'};{. �,, .f �}t it,..gt.•_r �s�,,i..' �.'.. �.lY .•. +' P i�Y'•� +t". ,� ��j .. 1i Page Three Local Coastal Prdgrams 1. General - Each local government lying, in whole or in part, within the coastal zone shall prepare a local coastal program (LCP) . for that portion of the coastal zone within its jurisdiction (30500a) . The precise content 'of each local coastal program shall be deter- mined by the local government (30500c) , and conform to procedures for LCP preparation, review, certification and amendment to be adopted by the State Commission by April 1, 1977 (30501) . A local government may submit an LCP to a regional commission after: (a) it adopts a resolution of -intent to implement the LCP consistent ` . with the act, and (b) the materials called for by the Commission guidelines for LCPs are present. 2. Sensitive Areas - Generally, the LCP shall include a land use plan, zoning ordinance, map and other implementing tools. in .designated "sensitive coastal resource areas," however, review of local.*, ,, implementing .actions beyond zoning is required to protect .public access rights and coastal resources (30502) . The Commission must designate these sensitive resource areas no later than September 1, .1977 and make recommendation to the Legislature for designation by statute. Unless ratified by the Legislature within 2 years (or specifically rejected before that time) , these areas shall no-longer be sensitive resource areas and Commission review shall be limited to land use plans and zoning (30502.5) . t 3. Local Government Options - Local government has several options during ' ' the certification process, including the right until July 1, 1977 to request the Commission to prepare its LCP (30500a) . Three basic i options are available: r I. . (a) Submit LCP all at one time, including the land use plan and its I resource protection policies, the zoning ordinance and map, and ' any other implementing actions. (b) Submit in two phases, with the land• use plan and resource pro- " r tection• poli.cies processed first, followed by the zoning ' ordinance/map and other implementing actions. r (c) Use either of the two preceding approaches, employing separate geographic units within the local jurisdiction that. the Commission finds can be independently analyzed for impacts on coastal resources and access. 4. Certi,. -ration Procedures - Sections 30512 and 30513 outline the cert fic. +: on procedures governing the review of local. land use plans, zon. ,q ordinances/maps, and other implementing actions. These seetio. nrovide the framework for the procedure as required `j by Section 30, for the preparation, review, certification, and amendment of LL, Two points should be emphasized: a. Local land use V. and implementing actions are deemed approved if not acts lmon by the Regional Commission within the prescribed time limit. If the Commission fails to act within the specified time limit.. Wither on appeals of Regional Com- mission actions or when rL ling Regional decisions on local land use plans, the Regional. -fission action is deemed to � be upheld. , •s. i � ,T. � 1,, ."�,.'! 1 y `l y�"r r. � �t+r � r�• „�' y;p� } � y � i��jF� M'?/ •,y F v �� i. •Y'�� •t �.1�M . ',C r{ �..{ { .a�� a` 1ms' '� 1 • •Page Four j b. The standards and pr^zedures governing the review of local land use plans differ from the review standards and key pro- cedures applied to implementing actions. 1. Both the Regional. Commission and Commission review local 17and use plans to estat;lish their consistency with the 5 policies of Chapter 3 of the act. Review of zoning and other implementing action,,; is limited to establishing conformance with the certified land use plan. 2. Local land use plans approved by the Regional Commission i' are automatically forwarded within 10 wor). i.ng days of such approval, to the Commissooi, for ccrti :cation. Im- � . plementing actions, on the other hand, are 2viewed by the Commission only: (a) if the Regional Commission action is at •:aaled within 10 working days, or (b) if the`Commission, by a majority vote os those present, determines within 30 days of the Regt� decisi.on that conformance of the implementing actionL th the certified land use plan raises a substantial isEta, •, . •. 3. A majority vote of the Commission is required durA ng auto- matic review of local land use plans to find th; 1:he Regional Commission- action raises a substantial ue. When the Commission reviews implementing actions ort appeal, however, ih takes only a majority oc those present to, find "no substantial issue," thus refusing to hear an appeall aid upholding- the action of the regional commission. 5. Amendin2 Certified Programs Local amendments to a certified LCP shall not take effect until certified by the Commission (30514a) . . Proposed amendments shall be processed in accordance with Sections 30512 and 30513 of the act, with the exception of amendments designate-1 by the Executive Director of the Commission as being minor in nature according to -procedures established by t►.e Commission (Sectioi, 30514c) . Changes in land use do not quality as minor. t 6. Commission Review of Certified Prams •• The Commission shall, from,. time to t me, but, at least once every five years after certification, , review certified LCPs to determine whether implementation in proceeding in conformance with the policies of the act. Commission recommendations of corrective actions, if deemed necessary, shall he submitted to local .governments and, if no action Is takenc to theLegislature for action (30519.5) . y; Priority Programs •- A limited number of local Coastal Programa may be designateJ. by the Commission prior to October 31, 1.976 to be processed ahead of vther LCPs. There early LCPs would not be subject to the procedures, required by 30501 guiding the preparation and review of LCPs, but rt,!jst be in conformance with the policies of Chapter 3 Ux this act and Serve as a useful model for future review of local coastal prog+ants. ti i t y , f ,t �r,S��• ►..� M r r t D fit. t �• t,,i. 1Ji�.� I,t t• • t{ f t�j <�a ,� * 5 t � � i � ,� � � , ,�,. t �. 1.;f: � 'yr I + ,�{ v 3.7 •ly',(�� YS.,t...2tfi �y'„}�' K ,;a�,�'�t �}t �f..f� "v�a�' t'� ' � ��� f + t "' ` a� f:�'�1 4��-{'.•.n��;ti ��lZ� I '.�_ [ °►f+,t.n& i r Page Five • 8. Sanctions - Irf a local coastal program has not been certified and all implementing devices become effective on or before January It 1981, and the Commission finds that new development would not be .consistent with the policies of this act, it may take either of the following actions: (a) restrict the issuance of local permits, or (b) extend the permit requirements of this act (30518) . Interim Development Controls By The Commission 1. General After January 1, .1977 and before certification of a local coastal program, any development in the coastal zone (with certain exceptions) must obtain a coastal development,`permit from either the local.-goverranent, Regional or ,State Commission. The exceptions are as follows: (a) an energY, facility per Section 25500 of the ►` Resources Code, (b) developm3nt,per..Section 30610 of,"this act as ,. a amended by Ab .2948, and (c) . exceptions per. Section .30608 (as amended _)y AB 2948) for those persons who have .obtained a vested right prior to the effective date of this,. act or who,`have obtained a� permit - t.,. under the 'California Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972. No substantial change .may be made in any such development, however, :r with approval accaXding to this act. -Agricultural practicas or timber harvesting per the forest Practices Act are not defined as t development and do not require coastal permits. ' 2. Permit's = A local government may assume the permit role pr.for, to cert ication (30600b,;refer.to complete, di,."scussion on' the following page entitled Local Governments May. Assume:'Control) . If a local c government does; not assume the regulatory role, coastal development permits shall be issued from the Regional, or State Commission pro- vided that (a) the development conforms to the policies of ,Chapter 3 of this3 .act, and (b) approval would not prejudice the ability of the local government to prepare a local coastal program that is. in conformity with the act (30604a) . Every .coastal. de'velopment permit issued for any development between the nearest public road and the sea or shoreline of any body of water within the coastal zone shall include a specific finding that such development conforms to the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of this act (30604c) . 3. Procedures -- Py January 30, 1977, the Comission must prepare interim . , !, development control procedures. Permanent procedures must be adopted by the Commission by May 1, 1977 (30620) . 4. Hearing Deadlines - Permit and appeal hearings held by the Regional and State Commission shall be "de novo" hearings, and shall be held no earlier than 21 days nor later than 42 days after .the application or appeal is filed (30621) . Action must follow within. 21 days after the conclusion of the hearing. If no action is taken within this time period, the decision being appealed is upheld (30625) . ' A Regional Commission decision is final if no appeal is filed within 10 working days of the action (36622) . - - r Page Six i• 5. Appeals - Dacisiona by a Regional Commission or by a local government may be appealed by the executive director of the Regional Commission, any person, including the applicant, or any two members of the Regional or State Commission. Regarding appeals, the Regional or State Commission will hear an appeal unless it determines that the appeal raises no substantial issue, or that no significant question exists as to conformity with Chapter 3 policies, the certified LCP, or the certified port master plan (whichever is appropriate, 30625b) . Decisions of the Commission* shall guide future actions by local governments and Regional Commissions (30625e) . Alternatives To Interim Commission Cevelopment Control 1. Local Governments May�Assume Control - Prior to certification of a local coastal program,a local government may assume the permit role and issue coastal development permits, (30600b) . • In order to do so, the local government must adopt procedures for , the issuance of coastal development perm:.ts in conformance with the procedures 'adopted by the Co-imnission per. Section 30620. The local government must include the entire area of its jurisdiction within the coastal zone, and notify by resolution the Regional Commission and the Commission (30620.5) . ?ssuance of coastal permits by, local government can• begin..10 workii g".days:-after the local resolution is _adopted. The .local government must notify the Regional Commission. and any person requesting 71 . notification within S working days of any permit it issues. . Within 5 working days of receipt of the 'notification, the executive director of the Regional Commission must post public notice of".Laid local action. Within 15 days of receipt , the executive director must notify the Regional Commission and the Commission (30620.5) . Local decisions are final after the 20th working day following the Regional Commission's receipt of notice of local action unless an appeal is filed within that time (30602a) . Appeals 'of local actions may be filed by the Regional Executive Director, any person, including the applicant, or any 2 members of the Regional or State Commission (30602a) . To approve development during the interim period, local governments must make the same findings required of the Regional and State Commissions: (a) the proposed development conforms to the policies of Chapter 3 of this act, and (b) approval •would not prejudice the ability of the local government to prepare a .local coastal program that is in conformity with the act. Prior to certification, certain types of development require a permit from the Regional or State Commission even after the i local government has assumed the permit role (30601) . They are: (a) development between the sea and the first public road or within 300 ft. of the inland extent of any beach or of the mean high tide line where there is no beach, whichever is greater, (b) development with- in 100 ft. of wetlands, estuaries, streams or 300 ft. of a coastal ' bluff; (c) major public works or major energy projects. Page Seven 2. Urban Exclusions - Upon request of a local government and -after public hearing an urban land area can be excluded by the Commission from the p6rnit provisions of this act (per Section 30610.5 as amended by AA 2948) . Such an exclusion may no': apply to tide and submerged lands, beaches, or the first raw of lots adjacent to the beach or mean high tide line. The.specific boundaries of the urban land area- proposed for exclusion must :be. designated by -the local govermient (30610.5, as amended by AD 2948) . The area to'be excluded. must either be,by January 1, 1977, a', residential area' zoned and developed; at 4. or more du/ac, or a commercial or. indust-rial area zoned and developed for such use. The."Commission mist also-make these findings: (a) permitted devt;lop- ment.:Wi infill: or replace existing development, and will conform to the scale, size, and character of the area; (b) there is no potential for significant adverse effects on coastal access or resources; and (c) more than 50% of the lots are developed to the same general density or intensity of uae. Exclusions granted are ,subject to terms and conditions to assure that no significant change in density, height, or nature of uses will occur. Urban exclusions granted by the Comm:ssion may not be revoked by the Commission, but are subject to judicial review. 3. Other-Exclusions by a 'Z/3's Vote '.-- The Commission may also exclude certain- types of development or areas after public hearing ,arid :by a 2/31s ,vote of its appointed members if it .finds that the exclusion, as conditioned, (a) will .,not result in significant adverse iiioacts on "coastal' access or resources, and (b) will not impair the ability of the local government to prepare a local coastal program (30610 as amended by AB 2948) . Exclusions granted by a 2/3's vote of the Commission may be revoked at any time if the conditions are violates! (30610.5b, as amended by AB 2948) . Development Controls After Certification •.. 1- • Appeals -' After certification of a local coastal program (including port •master plans and public works plans) and after all implementing actions have be^-nrye effective, the review authority for new development within -the coastal. zone is delegated to local governments or port governing bodies. Actions taken by local government or the port governing. body be appealed to the Commission for any. oir the fol- lowing '(30603a as amended by AB' 2948)•: a. developments between the sea and the first public road or within 300 ft. of the -inland extent of any beach or of the mean high tide line where there is no beach, whichever is greater. b. development located on tidelands, submerged lands, public trust lands within 100 ft. of any wetland, estuary, stream, or within 300 ft. of the top of the seaward face of any coastal bluff. �i 3 r� i •` Page Eight c. developments; located in a sensitive coastal resource area. d. developments located in unincorporated areas that are not designated as the principal permitted use under the zoning ordinance or zoning district map. eo major public works or major energy projects. f, regarding. certified port plans, various categories of develop- : ment (as specified in Section 30715) including office and reside_. .fal development, oil production facilities, and waste j water treatment facilities. Any appealable action as listed previously may be appealed to the i Commission by the applicant, an •aggiieved person (except in denials) , or by any 2 members of the Commission. ; 3. Standiird of Review After- certification, the standard of ,review for . any "appea a e action shall be in conformance with the certified local coastal program except in the following instances: a. Grounds for appeal of development as defined in subheading "la" of this section is limited to the issues listed below '(30603h as amended by AB 2948) : 3 . public access 2o view protection 3. incompatibility with established physical scale of the area 4. landfcrm alteration 5. inadequate shoreline erosion or geologic setback requirements. b. The standard of review for development insensitive -coastal resouxce:� areas is limited to conformity with the implementing actions of . the certified local coastal program (30603a, as amended by AB 2948) ,• c. Commission review of major public works or state university or college development projects is limited to consistency with the provisions of Chapter 3 of this act (30605) . d. For development approved by a port governing body-based on a point master plan, the standard of review is limited to consistency with the policies of Chapter 3 (30714) . e. Development located partially within the coastal zone shall be ' required to meet the requirements; of this act for only that portion within the coastal zone (30604d) . 4. Conditions - Any permit issued by local government or action approved on appeal szhall be subject to reasonable terms and conditions to ensure . consistency with the provisions of this act (30607) . 5. Procedures - The CoLunission shall adopt, no later than august 1, 1978, procedures fox appeal (30620.6) . 1�r••�►i jt'a.:.Ll, _.. ..... .�_....�.r..•�.w.�.rt�.+w�r•a..w..?Ci.r++l+✓. .•�.r. r+waw..•wa.r.� ... ..... _ _ I is STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND O. ORCWN JIV Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL TONE CONSERVATION COMMISSION 1340 MARKET STREET, 2nd FLOOR AAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 ;. � rIiONE► (41� 3S7.10D1 October 28, 1976 Mr. Floyd G. Beleita City Administrator NU1/ 1 1976 City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 CRY"OF.ifutiTIpGTGN 6CIICt1 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE Dear Mr. Belsito: Thank you for your interest in having the City of Huntington Eeach become a pilot.project„area under 'the terms of the California Coastal Act of 1976.' : On October 20, the Coastal .Commission examined 56atl .on 30521 ,enabling the, desig- ation:of priority programs and concluded that no communities, in- n ` ► "``' cludin' even`tho current pilot program participantek should be designated under the'.terms of.'that Section. However, the Commissioa recommended to the new Comaliosion (that will coni'e into effect in January, 1977) that all current participants be given priority in the echeduling of local coastal program processing by the new Commission. Under terms. of Section 30501 (b), the Commission must draw up,a achedule for the processing of local coastal programs by every_3uri5diction ' al:ong'.the California Coast. . Because of the very tight time schedules for thn comnlbtion of all local 'coastal programs,.we expect .the new Commission to welcome the early scheduling of any community that will wish to move quickly in order to reduce the possibilities of a log jam at the end of the plan y preparation period. • , {, Tl a Coastal Commissioli staff will be meeting with every local f government in the corning months to discuss tha amount of work that must be done•;and a reasonable time schedule for completing it. It is at that time that we will be able to'discuss mare precise time schedules with you.- In the meantime, the State and Regional Commission staffs will continue to work I '* with you as much as possible to help assure that work being. done by the City f.• now will be in accord with the policies of the California Coastal Act of 1976 as much as possible when it is finally submitted to the Commiasion for certi- r ; fic:ati.on. Agar, thank you for your interest and participation. We look forward to working with you. } Ve truly yours, JOSENI E. BODOVITZ Executive Director JEB:aw cc: Mel Carpenter _N r �:.-FS:i rr':...'.+='Y:znnw .......tvu-...ex.w�.+::"..i7a.ey'T:......-:J>.c:r+.++...•-..+........-..^^.�._...�._.._......-_.__..�.�_�.......—. _ __ ... ___ ® ( ITY OF HUnTInGTOn BEA ( H A-4 & DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES �:�t • P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92G,16 1714) 536.5271 TO: . Honorable Mayor and City Council M ATTN: Floyd G. Helsi;:u, City Administrator FROM: Planning Department DATE: October 26, 1976 BE: ADDENDUM TO SUMMARY REPORT ON COASTAL LEGISLATXON (AGENDA ITEM M-6) On October 19, 1976, I attended .,the League, of Cities Conference on the new, coastal legislation. At that meeting it was indicated that' a.'work shop would be held on November 5, 1976, in Newport Beach,. to discuss.. in detail the implementation of the Hill and its impact on coastal com- munities. The .diacussions at.-the League Conference raised some further questions in my mind, as to the ramifications of implementing the Coastal Bill particularly in assuming the permit issuing authority. Thus, I request that .the. Council continue this item .until the November 15, •• 1976, meeting at which time I should have more details on the mechanics of implementing the new coastal legislation. r Rasp tft'ily submitted, 4 4-d-ward . Sea" ch Acting Director EDS:ja '4 Y1111 i ,xt t {� 1 1 .t !:i•� 7t�'.;K1'' �!^+-'=C: •t`- 1j." rw= .ter;.7�i.xli�� �iu:._ �.'.e t CITY OF HunTinGTon BEACH DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ;'.�' �`.:.r_ • P. O, BOX 190, NUNTlNGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536•5271 TOr Honourable Mayor and City Council s, AT'IN: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator FROM: Planning Department 1{ DATE: October 19, 1976 ' SUBJECT: SUMMARY REPORT ON COASTAL LEGISLATION Transmitted for your. information is -a-,.report'',sumimari zing the most. recent. coastal legislation;, signed into, law by_,the Governor. z Senate " Bill:.1277, enacting the California Coastal <Act of,1976,." is the major legislation. Assembly Bills 2948 and 400 pr mar ly contain additions and amendments to the Senate Bill. Copies of the three bills are also r transmitted. r :r Based on the new legislation, the Planning Department recommends that the course of action outlined below be followed: 1. Beek approval from 'the State Commission to have the City's Local Coastal Proqram proces:.ed ahead of other programs. 2. Pursue assuming responsibility for. the issuance of coastal i development permits as early as possible. t, 3. Pursue obtaining an exclusion from the State Commission for certain parts of the City under the "urban azaa" provisions. The deadline for. re' ceiving approval from the State Com,nission' to. have the. City's Local Coastal Program processed;early, is October. 31, 1976. In order to be considered for early processing, a letter dated October 19, 1976, was sent to the State Commission by the City Ad- ministrator requesting that Huntington Beach be designated as a pilot project area, thereby qualifying for early processing. The Planning Department requests that the City Council endorse the course of action outlined previously, allowing the Deparrtment to continue to work towards maximum local control over development in the coastal zone. Respectfully submitted, EDWARD D. SELICH Acting Dire for Monica Florian � . Senior Planner .� �ryrx�,y,t?�,�' `'i. _�.....�,..w,• ._. _. .�- : :�'Y':?.ti.t<:'...rin: ate. 'f-�•....,.. ,;:i' ',t.•'.'.%ri f•S:.Fi few.ti'?.y. k SUMMARY REPORT ON COASTAL LEGISLATION October, 1976 Sanate Bill 1277 I. Enacts the California Coastal Act of 1976 which imposes certain statutory deadlines for actions by the California Coastal Com- mission referenced in item $2. The statutory deadlines are as follows: Section Action Deadline 30521 State Commission designat:r-es Local .10/31/76 Coastal Programs (LCP) to be pro- cessed ahead of other LCPs. 30311 State Commissioners and Regional 1/2/77 Commissioners appointed/selected. 30304.5 Regional Commission. selects reppre- 1/11/77 sentat;ives to the State Commission. E 30620 State.Commission' adopts interim pro- 1/30/77 cedures for review of permits, appeals, exemptions. 30710 State Commission adopt's. poi t maps and 4/1/77 delineates wetlands, estuaries, and recreation areas. 30501 State Commission adopts procedures 4/1/77 for LCP preparation, review, certi- fication and amendment. . 30620b State Commission .adopts permanent 5/1/77 procedures fo'r review and appeal of permits and exemption claims. 30338 State Commission adopts regulations 5/1/77 for timing its review:-of waste treat- ment facilities. 30417b State Commission designates special 6/30/77 treatment areas. in logging areas within the coastal zone to protect natural and scenic resources. 30500 Last date for local government to 7/l/77 request State Commission to prepare LCP. 30502 State Commission designates sensitive 9/1/77 coastal resource areas for Legis- lative action. C7'reT^±!n'*Tr".M y�ti.�.--Kyr..++ -tea.n:s^<..::... :.^ .i7'�. ..._ ......�-: :... .'J•.. ...«:4. y ..-N.::r'.»J:.-_-'sa,�L'•"3.C.,':.:..I-i.•:.:.t.:;`.".:.+`•fit.+�c.+r.+r.ti.+i: 1 ' Page Two Section Action Deadline 30413b state Commission presents findings l/l/713 on the siting of energy facilities. 30410 State Commission and San Francisco 7/1/78 Hay Conservation and Development Commission jointly present their recommendations to the Legislature. 30415 OPR makes recommendations regarding 7/1/78 cooperation/coordination between the Commission and other State Agencies. 30620.6 State Commission adopts post -• LCP 8/1/78 certification development control procedures. 30300 Latest pvssibie termination date for 6/30/79 Regional Commissions. 30501 Local governments complete LCPs. 1/1/80 30501 State .Commission completes LCPs' 7/l/80 prepared at local request. 30501 State Commission certifies Commission- -12/1/80 prepared LCP3. 2: r.stablishes, within the. State Resources agency, the California Coastal 'Com�mi.ssloA, and; for a designated period, six regional Coastal C6'Amissions. 3. Requires each city or county within the coastal zone to prepare a local coastal program. 4. Terminates each.-regional corunission within 30 days afterthe last required local coastal.. program within its region has been certified a or on June 30, 1974, whichever is earlier. ti 5. Requires that development within designated areas receive a coastal development permit from the local government (if it has adopted .� specified procedures) or, if not, from a regional commission, or the state cozen;ssion. ..exce . tions 6. Terminates (with certain `, the P Permit authority, of the s state commission, or regional commission within the area covered by a certified local coastal program, and delegates this authority to the city or county implementing the local coastal program. 3 •-.{.. �t.�� -W*'aM.Ai',i" .-` t.f A/K:Y1.t.I�y4.:{.::1.j,,.... . ..... .r..l..s....w . w.i. .. ..I .... �.\1:::'..-.43.A I.MfF.✓u'wC.YffsWY{'wP'l.Y..:H..+i►'9JSr.1wi4 Jk"Z:tii[1i]UI}Mflrl/j� • Page Three Local'Coastal Programs I. General- - Each local government lying, in whole .or. in part.- within ' the coastal zone. shall prepare. a local coastal program (LCP),..for that portion of the coastal, zone within its jurisdiction (30500a) . The precise content of. each local coastal program .ahall be deter- mined,'by.�,tfie..local government (30500c) , and conform to:;procedures for LCP preparation, review, certification and amendment to be adopted by. the State Commission by April 1, 1977 (30501) A local government may. submit an LCP to a regional commission after: (a): it adopts a resolution of ' intent to implement the LCP consistent with the act, and (b) the materials called for by the Commission ` guidelines for LCPs are present. fx6.'4f.�'""•:1` Yri d 2. Sensitive4;Areas - .-Generally, the 1CP, shall...include a land use plan, zoning,ordinance,--map, and other:,i.mplementing 'tools. _4n designated "i6h'sitive{,,coastal`resqurce areas," howeter, review,'of. local- implementingi;action,s" beydnd zoning is. required to`,protect, public access rights and coastal resources (30502) .. ,. The Commission. must designate these r�ensitive resource areas no later; than '.September 4 'f197T.'and make recommendation to the..Legislature. for d'esignati.on by statute. Unless. •ratified by the Legislature wi.thin' 2 yearn .(or specifically rejected before: that time) ,. these. areas shall no longer, be sensitive resource areas and-Commission review shall be limited to land ,J.uspye.. plans and zoning (30502.5) . zt 3. Local. Government 0 t3.ons - Local government has several options during the certiflcat on process, including the right until July 1, 1977 to' t request the Commission to prepare its LCP (30500a) . Three basic ' options are available: (a) Submit" LCP a. .l at: one time, including the land use plan and its j resource protection policies, the zoning ordinance and map, and any other 'implementing actions. (b). submit in ,two phases, with the land use. plan and resource pro- tection policies. processed first, followed by the zoning t ordinance/map and other implementing actions. (c) Use„ either of the two preceding approaches,. employing separable geographic units within the local jurisdiction that the . . Commission finds can be independently analyzed for impacts on coastal resources and access. 4. Certification ,Procedures - Sections 30512 and 30513 outline the certification procedures governing the review of ,local land use plans, zoning ordinances/maps, and other implementing actions. These sections provide the- framework for the procedure ail required by Section 30501 for the preparation, review, certification, and amendment of LCPs. Two points should be emphasized: . a. Local Iancu use plans and implementing actions are deemed approved if not acted upon by the Regional Commission within. the prescribed time limits. If the Commission fails to act within the specified time limits, either on appeals of Regional Com- mission actions or when reviewing Regional decisions on local land use plans, the Regional Commission achion is deemed to be upheld. +�'+!�77'!:7^""".'"� . tY�....—,w.i,......« rr..r..:+4,...... t:, .,. ..:...'....... -.,.. ...;.1...,.-...3.r.il..::L..... s.,_s.>w.....r.w....,...•>........srx r is :{:rr..•ti'' .. Page Four b. Tha standards and ,procedures governing the review of local land use plans differ from the review standards and key pro- cedures applied to implementing actions. I. Both the Regional Commais6ioin and Commission review .local land 'use plans to establish their consistency with the t. policies of Chapter 3 of the act., . Review of zoning and other implementing actions is limited to establishing conformance with the certified land use plan. 2. Local- l'afid use plans approved, by the Regional Commission are automatically forwarded within 10 working days of such approval, to the Commission -for certification. Im- plementing actions, on the other hand, are reviewed by the Commission only: (a) If the Regional Commission"action is Appealed within 10 working days, or s (b) if, the.'Commission, by a' majority vote.,of those present, determines, within 30 days:of. the Region's decision that conformance..of the implementing actions with the certified .: land use plan raises a substantial issue. , 3. A'majorit�y':vote. of' the Commission is required during auto- �` matic`review :of;,local` land 'use plans to;: find'. that•.the Regional Commission action raises a..substdntiil,.issue. ; t. When the Commission reviews implementbig' actions "on appeal, however •.it. ,takes only a ntajority.'of those• preai`ent to find "no .substantial,.issue,". thus refusing to Bear "an appeal and upholding the action of the regional commission. 5. Amen din Certified Programs - Local amendments ..to a`certified LCP s all not take a ect unt certified.by the Commission (30514a) Prcposed amenditients :shall be processedin accordance with Sections. w 30512' and 30513 of ,the act, with tb,-, -.exception of amendments designated by.'ihe Executive Director of the Commission as' being minor in nature according to"procedures established by the Commission (Section=i 30519c) . Changes in land use do not qualify as minor. 6. Commi.ssion. Review of Certified Programs - The Commission shallr from << time to time, but at least once every five years-after certification,'. review certified LCPs to determine whether implementation is-"proceeding in conformance with the policies of the act. Commission reco,,-mnendations . of corrective actions, if deemed necessary, shall be submitted to local governments and, if do action is taken, to the Legislature for ac*ion (30519.5) . 7.- ,Priorit Programs - A limited number of Local Coastal Programs may be esi nated by the Commission prior to October 31, 1976 to be processed ahead of other LCPs. These early LCPs would not be subject to the procedures required by 30501 guiding the preparation and review of LCPs, but must be in conformance with the policies of Chapter 3 of this act and serve as a useful model for future review of local coastal programs. �w "r.+^�'T"'-r*w-,.r^••«.• _..�t::,. ....Kr.:{-...�_.... .. - _.. __ :. - - _y,._ --.... -:. - - - •..,..-.._.,mac. ...�,.-,. Page Five 8. SIanctions - If a local coastal program has not been certified and all i.mplementing 'devi.ces become effective on or before January 1, 1981, and the Commission finds that new development would not be consistent with the policies of this act, it may take either of the following actions: (a) restrict the issuance of local permits, or (b) extend the permit requirements of this act (30518) . Interim Development Controls By The Commission 1. Generale-. After January 1, . 1977 and before certification of: ' .local coasta� program, any. development in the coasta?• zone (with certain exceptions) must obtain a..coastal development,, permit from either the.loaal .governmeiitI Regional or State Commission. The exceptions are„ as,yfollows: (a), an energy facility. per Section: 25500 of the Resources Code, (b) development per..5ecti6n 30610 of;. this, act as- amended by;:Ab.2948,:, and (6) . exceptions .per Section 30608 (as,l,,,amended by AB 2948) foir those persons who have obtained. a vested right prior to the; effective date: of this act or who have obtained a permit under',the::California Coastal. Zone Conservation Act of' lV72. 'No substantial change may be made in any' such development, however, without approval according to this act• Agricultural..practices or timbe'r'.harvesting per the Forest Practices Act are not defined as `development and do not require coastal permits. 2. Permits 77: A local;.government"ittay as the perm t. role,'prior cart. cation .(30600b; ;refer,:.to cgmplete;,discus6ion on the .fallowing page;,entitled Local Governments r1aAssutne Control) : If a local" government does not-,:assume. .the. regulatory role coastal development permits shall be issued from the Regional or State`Commission pro- vided that (a). the development conforms to, the policies of Chapter 3 of. this act, .and (b) approval. would nut prejudice the ability of, ,. the local. go:erament to prepare a local coastal program that is ,-inconformity with. the act (30604a) . Every coastal development,'permit issued for any development between the nearest, 'publi.c road'`and the sea or shoraline of any body of water within the coastal zone shall include a specific finding that such development conforms to the public'access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of this act (30604c) . 3. Procedures - By January 30, 1977, the Commission must prepare interim i development control procedures. Permanent procedures must be adopted- by the Commission by May 1, 1977 (30620) . 4. Hearing Deadlines - Permit and appeal hearings held by the Regional and state Commission sr-ill be "de novo" hearings, and. shall be held no earlier than 21 da,a nor later than 42 days after the application or appeal is filed (30621) . Action must follow within 21 days after the conclusion of the hearing. If, no action is Taken within this time period, the decision being appealed is upheld (30625) . A Regional Commission decision is final if no appeal is filed within G 10 working days of the action (30622) . t • Page Six S. Appeals - Decinions by a Regional Commission or by a local government may be appealed by: the executive director oi .the Regional Commission, any person, including the applicant, or any two members of the Regional or. State Commission. Regarding appeals, 'the Regional or State Commission will hear an appeal unless it determines that the appeal raises no substantial issue, or..that no significant questionexists as to conformity with Chapter 3 pol.:cies, the certifi,d LCP, or the certified port master plan (whichever is appropriate, 30625b) . recisions of the Commission shall g,aide future :,ctioris by local governments and Regional Commissions (30625c) . Altesnatives` To Interim Commission Development Control 1. Local'.Gcverniiiznts Mc Assume Cantro2 -..Prior to certification of.,a local:;,coastal program,a local government may aseiune','the Permit role- and issue "coastal, development pexr►its,-.(30600b) . In order .to,.do; so, the"Jocal government'roust adopt 'procedures fczn, the, issuarice:of coastal development permits in conformance with the,proce' durex adopted by the Commission per Section 30620.. .,The' local government must include the entire area of its jurisdiction within the coastal rone,.. and notify,by resolution the Regional Commission and the Commission (30620.5) . Issuance:of ,coastal .permits bye local. government can begin ZO,'. t workin-q days` after:.the„local, re'solution`r is- adopted. The ,1©cal government must notify' the: P.egional, Commission and any: person requesting' notification within 5 working days of .any: permit,r it Sssue's. Tfithin,'5, working days of rem eipt of the. notification, the executive director, of the Regional. Coirmie3ion must post public notice of ,said local action. Within 15 days of rec;aipt , the 'executive director: must notify the Regional Commission and the Commission (30620.5) . I Local,decisions..,-i a filial after the 20th working day,, following tha Regional Commission's receipt of .notice .of local action urileas an appeal is filed•within that time (30502a) . Appeals of local. actions may be filed by the Regional Executive Director, any person, 'including the applicant, or any 2 members of the Regional or State' Commission (30602a) . To approve development during the interim period,, local governments must make the same findings required of the .Regional and State Commissions: (a� the proposed development conforms to the poliaes3 of. Chapter 3 of this act, and (b) .approval would not prejudice the ability of the local government to prepare a local coa3tal program that is in conformity with the act. _ , Prior to certification, certain types, of?development require a permit from the Regional or State Commission even after the local government has assumed the permit :•nlc .(33601) . They are: (a) development between the sea and the first public road or within 300 ft. of the inland extent .of any beach or of -the mean high tide.-line where there is no beach, whichever is greater; (b) development with- in 100 ft. of, wetlands, estuaries, streams or 300 ft. of a coastal bluff; (c) major public works or major energy projects. li, j page Seven nt and after Z. Urban Exclusions Upon request of a local excludedeby. the Commission ,. pu is hear in an urban land area can be from the pat provisions of this act (per 5ection130o0tldesand amended by AB 2948) .chescllorntexclusion ec irs nrow of lotsto the submerged lands, bed r beach or mean high tide line. The specific boundaries of the urban land area proposes forame exdlbvion must be designated by the local governmen AB 294'1) . The ,area to be excluded must eitho� maf C eAulacby aror�a l9.7� a residential area_ zoned and developed at 4 i:omuercial or industrial area zoned and developed for such +ise- The +mzninsaion must a.1so make these findings: (z) pexsstitted develop- ment, .�111 infill .or replace existingl developthe ment, atd willre s~no£Orm to the scale, size, and" character of potential for signifOrenadv50eoffthetlats as on �esdevelop?d s r to the rssources, and (c) m sa;ae general density or intensity of use. ' E:tcl.usions granted are subject to terns and cond!.tions to aseure ~ � that no significant change in d,-nsity, height, or nature of uses' • +'' will occur. y .. Urban exclusions granted by the Cammisson imay 1)Oi: be revoked :h the Commission, but are subject to judicial review.. Clther Exclusions b a. 2 3's Vote - The Coti;.•�ission may also exclude r. certain types, of. development or areas "after pub7.`ic hearing and by, 't ,t a 2/3':s vote of its appoi'r►ted members if it finds that, the exclLsion, at+, condi.tioned,. (a) will,.!iot result in aiynifican`t, ads►erne impacts ontcoss£al access or.resouzGes, and (b) will not .•impair the ability of the, loeal govc-rnment to prepare a local coastal grogram (30610 as ame:ided by AB 2948) r, �tclu;sions granted by a. 2/31s vote of .the Commission maybe revoked :. at any, time if tLe conditions are violated (30610.5b, as amendel by AB 2-)48) .t. f; uevelotiment Contr6Is After. Cextif .cation Ap�P I programsl- After certification of a .local coastal' (including . ' r port master plans.-and public works; plans) and .after all implementing actions ,have became effective,, ,tide review au4hority. for new dev�loptnept} within the.-coastal zone is delegated to, local._g�+vernments� oX por govezning.•bod- Actions taken by local government or the port_ _.. `.; governing body may he apgealed to. th. Commission fcr any of the fol- lo�iing--(30603a as amended by AB 2946) a. developments between the sea and the first -public road or within 300 ft. of the inland extent of any beach or of the mean high tide `line where there is no beach, wi,Schever is greater. t. b. development located on tidelands, submerged lands, public trust lands within' 100 ft. of any wetland, estuary, stream, or ciithin 300 ft. of the top of the seaward face of any coastal bluff.04 .. F :s�r�,T ..:t. «. _.. ..�.t.... Page Eight c. developments located in a sensitive coastal resource area. d. developments located in unincorporated areas that are not designated as the principal permitted use under the zoning ordinance or zoning district map- e. major public works or major energy projects. f. regarding certified port plans, various categories of develop-- me:1t (as specified in Section 30715) ineluding .office and residential development, oil production facilities, and waste water treatment facilities• p;;y appealable action as listed previously may ersone ap(except in do the denials) , Commission by the applicant, an aggrxe P or by any 2 members of the Commission. 3. Standard of Review •- After• certificationnce standard certified local any sppes able r. action shall be i , conforma coastal program except in the following instances: a. Grounds for appeal of development as defined in subheading "la" of this section is limited to the issues listed below (30603b as ' amended by AB 2948) : 1. public access .i 2. view protection 3. incompatibility with established physical scale of the area 4. landform alteration 5. inadequate shoreline erosion or geologic setback requirements. + b. The standard of r,view for development in sensitive coastal resource areas is limited to conformity with the implementing actions of the certified local coastal program (30603a, as amended by AB 2948) . n• c. Commission review of major public works or state university or college development projects is limited # --onsi.stency with the provisions of Chapter 3 of this act. (306L d. For development approved by a port governing body based on a port . master plan, the standard of. review is limited to consistency with the policies of Chapter 3 (30714) . e. Development located partially within the coastaI zone shall be required -to meet the requirements of thi s act for only that portion within the coastal zone (30604d) . 4. Conditions - Any pezmit issued by local government or action approved on appeal shall be subject to reasonable terms and conditions to ensure consistency with the provisions of this act (30607) . S. procedures - The Commission shall adopt, no later than August 1, 1978, ` procedures fcr appeal (30620.6) . r . s� j CITY OF HunTIf1GT n BEACH P.O. BOX 190, 6LIFORNiA 92648 Sad` NQ .� •; PLANNING DEPT. (714) 536-5271 TO:, Honorable Mayor and City Council •V FFAM: Planning Department p �� 1'F DATE: April "13, 1976 ATTN: David D. Rowlands, City Administrator RE: Recommended Coastal Properties for Public Acquisition In accordance with the policies of the Coastal Plan, the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission,'has developed a list of. recommended coastal properties for public acquisition. Priorities ;6 for public acquisition of coastal land and water areas have been n assigned as follows: ,t Priori!; Groin I -, Sites with substantial habitat or public •_;. recreational values that will be irreversibly committed to z non-public uses if not acquired within the next few yearn. f: Priority Group II - Recreational sites that serve urban populations, and env onmental .resource areas that need protection or restoration. Priorit,r Group III - Sites of the same general type as the first {; two categories but of lower priority. ` S Priority"°Grout- Sites not now proposed for acquisition but sug- lk, gested for appropriate action by Federal agencies or the 'proposed ' Coastal Conservancy. (The Coastal Conservancy would be empowered to use such acquisition techniques as purchase and leaseback which are not presently, available to existing Sttte agencien.) Four sites recomme de n d, for acquisition by the Coastal 'Commission 4 are .:..thin thr: Huntington m nt n ton Beach sphere of influence. g n rise e P e sits , are` Oil 'in Priority Grou _ 1- and are listed on the following p _ _. g.Page. _ Site location ;s indicated on the ma a666 -an �iri ttie 13st of sites proposed fo`r acquii ion. p --- -p Y 9 Thi,, Coastal Commission recommends that Priority Groups I and II =0i.,1, the basis for the public purchase of coastal properties. The coastal Commission further recommends that no sites in Priority 'a Group III -be purchased until sites in Groups I' and II have been : = committed for purchase or until the public value of these sites is. fully"protected. Actual costs for acquisition of the properties in Priority Groups I, II, and III are expected to fall between $180 and $200 million. i eon 1 ' Page 2 Funds to implement this program of coastal purchases are to be prov;.ded through a bond issue submitted to. the voters in the November, 1976 general election.. The Coastal Commission also proposes that other available funds be utilized to acquire the properties, including but not limited to the following: I. Offshore 'Oil Leasing - increase the percentage of revenues ME offshore oil leasing that is 'made available to the counties for purchase of parklands. xi 2. Federal Land- and Water Conservation Funds - allocate all. Federal Land and Water. Conservation funds available to the State to coastal purchases for 3-5 years. 3. Other`5ources - increase the funds available from other sources such as the Bagley Conservation Fund, the Environ- mental. Protection Program, and the General Fund. No action by the City Council is requested. This transmittal is for the Counci?'s information only. Rgst. A ly submi e , 1 . Harlow Director, Planning and Environmental Resources RAH:EJ:ja 4. ti r �1 , �.T+f.s+•.«.... ..�'.\i,,.'L' a..,...'.f-.. ^..n:t-.._�.[;T«':::...'.:::.•.V�M�•::^s,wr...n............c.......n.... ....-....,...+.....��.w....r...«.. —+.•...............w t1.tir...+.—..r.+,—..._.. =VI ^r t ' COASTAL, PROPERTIES RECONMENDED r. FOR PUBLIC ACQUISITION WITHIN THE '# HUNTXNGTON BEACH SPHERE OF INFLUENCE r tf Preliminary* Additional Site Acres Major Cost Funding State Fund- y Ob active Estimate, source iV2 Reggired ReCr'e.'.i:fan & eri S c3C8 a l• Talbert Channel 13.5 Provide beach support Pert $1,1000,000 Voad issue $1,000,003 HabitaLt.t protection and Restorah_ion 1. t3clsa Chico (not ; including mineral 560 Protect & restore wet- $4,500,000 Bond issue $4,500,000 rights) lands & scenic open BF�cp. Proposal in- cludes ecological pre- serve & buffer plus Park area overlooking beach 2- Cal-Wang art ro P P Y, 38 Flatlands restoration ,000 Bond issue , $1,OU0,000 Huntington Beach $1,000 & protection. pro- vide valuable oPen space in an urban area. _ 3• Huntington Beach 46 Wetlands restoration channel S1r000,000 Bond f issue protections possible $1,000,000 education center i ,i * Generally based on market values as estimated by County Assessor t Ole r7 &MA t NOW DUN If AigAAU "talaw � I CO, 01tal Propam erties REff f Recommended For Acciuisition hunt ngtan beach Planning de' artmen't CITY OF Wnnnaon BEACii R.O. BOX 190. CALIFORNIA 92649 � f •�.. PLANNING DEPT. (714) 536-5271 I'D Honorable Mayor and City Council *J ATTN: Floyd G. Belsito, Acting City Administrator a("' FROM: Planning Department DATE: May 11, 1976 SUBJECT: COASTAL PLAN REVIEW 1.0 BACKGROUND As required by Proposi(te 20 the_197Z Coastal .Initiative, the*.CaliformiaCt►astal Plan was:submi in*December 1975 to the'.State Lcsislatu`rp for adoption. The plan, which evolved from the efforts.of- s:x Regional and one State Commission working over two years, is designed to protect the coast as a natural resource and use the coast to meet human needs. The.,City,. through,the Planning Staff,-,has closely followed the,development ,f ofementsoas we111an as su plyingg�nfarmationland and sharingr dews wfthhthe separate stal el Staff and Commissioners. 2.0 REVIEW OF POLICIES . pan is .of course-. the policy.recommendations it- The heart.of the Coastal. Plan , contains �for;use.and.protection of�.the'Cilifornia Coast:. .Many of these, policies are in harmony with the stated goals and.policies of the City.. 5om,.while ` admirable at' face value, -could be unworkable or realistically lmpossible,to �. implement. Many could impose severe hardships on the City. 2.1• COMPLEMENTARY POLICIES Little argument can be raised about the'main concern'of ihe'Coastal' Plan; Y namely, protection-of coastal resources... When this concept is translated into actual, policy, however, serious disputes can be generated. . Despite,• this tendenry, many recommendations of the plan are in concert with City's adopted goals and policies. 1. provide public access to the coastline 2. conserve energy 2. provide public t:oansit 4. restrict development in hazardous areas 5. protect wildlife b. . protect water quality .7•t,.•rYr r++ .L ....+a...w+-. ._.....a..... t ...... ..... .w .!; ..... ... -�..... . .. G .. ....-r .. 4,,.. 4•.�.'14:�4:f ,�"••v6` :.,;A; �. t Page Z 7. protect the shoreline from erosion S. promote clean air 9. minimize the impact of development on bluffs 10. ban off-site advertising 11. guarantee public use of beaches 12. provide housing for low and moderate income fi-A lies ,3. provide bike trails 14. maximize scenic values On this,general -level, little conflict is apparent between the Coa*ital 'Plan and thi City's objectives. On the other hand, many of the Alan's recommendations could gave a direct - and in, some instances negative - impact on activity within the City. 2.2 IMPACTS OF THE COASTAL PLAN ON HUNTINGTON BEACH The following paragraphs paint out some-of the more significant impacts that imple- mentation of Coastal Plan policies could have in Huntington Beach. 1 . Possible Impacts on Development ` The-Coastal Plan would certainly affect: coastal development. Virif6us.segments of the Plan would require design review:of all public end private development; `energy' conserva.tion considerations incorporated in-pr6ject .design;'ccmpliance with Coastal Commission parking standards; and construction of low=and moderate income housing; for.`example'. Recreational uses would be judged more'd61rable :,than other urban uses. Non-ocean oriented;commercial'. and industrial uses would be phased out over"time: .'Offsite advertising would be forbi-Men, and parcels that have been in agricultural use any time during the past ten years (such as the City's northern industrial area) could be precluded from develepment. Agriculture desig- nations wo►ild be binding for ten year periods. While the City is already implementing some of these policies through its Design Review and Environmental Review.Eoards, others could be contrary to the social and economic interests of the comnunity. 2. Possible Impacts on the Bolsa Chica Current plans for restoration of port;ops of the Bo?sa Chica Mould certainly be compatible with the Coastal Plan. However, as it s;a nds now, the City's 'Options for use of the remaining Bolsa Chica would be severely limited. The plan .requires that potential for restoration of wetland areas must be considered before any alteration occurs and all restorable areas must be restored. Areas adjacent to wetlands mast be kept compatible - recreation or other open space uses, for example. . •r-S�*S.(itii.:i. : .'.5.: . :ii -.r ... ...........- ... _1: ..a...-�.... .. .....�...w....w ,,.... _ .. .�_�_.-.... ..... .....w.............v+......r�......�.-�.....r,.-..�...'.'.... Page 3 3, Possible Impacts on Oil Production f tpct the coastal In an effort to'prol environment, the Coastal Plan would strictly roduction regulate (and discourage) expansion of restrict additional drilling and proms teiconsolidationuofioilies operationsuld 4, Possible Impacts on Downtown/Townlot Areas The Coastal Plan would discourageansginrthe Downtown eRedevelopmentaaslnacontra- thusly, restrict development opts at diction, the recommendations of the Coy Plan the same time ally developed high densities - contrary to existing Y P areas in an effort to protect the Bolsa be n imafrom urbanization. Resubdivision ateor acquisition of small lots might also 5. Possible Impacts on Circulation and Transportation Several policies in the Coastal Plan will have consequences on the Cit's incerna circulation system• The plej will protect railroad right ofstre-WaY ro limit expansion of airports, restrict expansion of existing streets and highways; p and prohibit parking on Pacific Coast Highway. 6. Possible Impacts on Hazard Areas (If bath Several policies would'preveent or restrict develmuch opment the in hacouldebeajudged a flood and geologic hazards are hazard area). At the same time, however, construction of flood control works along the Santa Ana River might be prohibited by'Coastal Plan policies designed to protect the natural replenishment of beach sand. 7. Possible Impacts on .Parks and Recreation ilia or rm hasis of the Coastal plan is provision of additional rinrefac�litteslities A 3 p . in the Coastal Zone. The plan requires coastal bike trails, camping and -low�cos.t facilities. It also identifies the south of the Santa Ana River for a regional park. It ,i ,a agent from the above examples that while many of the provisions theCityCintoal Plansaould complement existing City activities, many others might actions it deems unnecessary or undesirable. 3,0 THE COASTAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS The responsibility for implementing the Coastal Plan dpe PlanlandocalMunicipalnCode Toward that end, the City will be required.to bring its General into conformance with the Coastal Plan policies and develop implementation plans con- sisting of: A. Programs similar to existing policies and plans i, community development program I �f es 2. recreation support program for inland faciliti i •I Page 4 i 3. a scenic resources program similar to the Scenic Highways Element 4. man-made resources program which would include existing Antiquities Ordinance 5. hazards prograia to avoid risk and public cost in seismic hazard (especially northern Bolsa Chica and Huntington Harbour; similar to Seismic-Safety Element) and flood hazard areas (much of the City; similar to FIA requirements) 6. low and moderate income housing program similar to the Housing Assistance Plan 7.. Minerals and soils program B. New programs or pr,.jrams contrary to existing polcies and plans 1, streams, estuaries, and wetlands program to restrict development and to restore such areas as the Bolsa Chica and the marshlands at Pacific Coast Highway and the Santa Ana River 2. agricultural resources program to identify, evaluate, and preserve agricultural areas such as the Lusk Industrial Park and the Bolsa Chica Mesa 3, water and/or wastewater service system program for conservation, reclamation and land use determination 4. energy Facilities and conservation program 5. transportation system program 6. national interest facilities program The City might also be requiv ed by Coastal Com. ission directive..to l) develop specific plans for sensitive coastal resource areas , such as. the`Bolsa Chica;. 2) require acquisition and consolidation of.. small subdivided but undeveloped .lots such'as the Townlot Area;. 3) require amortization and removal of signs and non-conforming uses; ' and 4) expand .the amount'of public participation in the planning process. . . Until these documents are approved by Regional and State Coastal Commissions, the 'current Permit review process will continue except that =the new Plan policies will be'-considered. . , After. certification of its local programs, the City will be required to develop and r Implement a coastal permit; process. The Regional Commission will cease to function at this time, and the State Commission will become an appeals board for city actions. 4.0 SUMFSARY OF REFERENCES TO HUNTINGTON BEACH 1 5pecific 'reference to the City is made in two sections of the Plan. . As part of the South Coast Region (p. 244), the City is expected to. address three key. planning. issues: a) meeting vast recreational demands, b) protecting and restoring marine resources and water quality.and c) energy conservation. More specifically, as part of Subregion 9: North Orange County (pp. 252-253; 400-401) the City is required to comply with the following proposals: A. Proposals ccnsistent with existing policies and plans !" 1. new commercial recreation facilities in Huntington Harbour and downtown ' t. f . .. .. ......-..,•..h .-...�,.+..w1.0 J.4-t 4YA}y.ti't�VNt',1p 4MwWww rwr.-.... .._. .__ -•ter _-� - - _. Page 5 2. upland support facilities acid trail linkages in the central park corridor to increase use of public beaches � I 3. upland parking areas 4. protection of the bluffs and provision of vista points 5. opportunities for low and moderate income families PP . 6, removal of oil-related structures as resource is depleted 7. .redevelopment of strip cocmiercial along Pacific Coast Highway 8. monitor water quality and boating capacity in Huntington Harbour B. liew proposals or proposals inconsistent with existing policies and plans 1. establ.iIsh a buffer area and low intensity parks around Bolsa Chica 2. full restoration of the Bolsa Chica 3. mandatory preservation of agriculture 4. possible denial of 'Edison expansion proposM 5. prevent confticting development of Bolsa Chica 6. prohibit additional parking lots on the beach i. prohibit street parking on the Oceanside of Pacific Coast Highway 8. convert Huntington Pacific to low-cost housing.or overnight ladging 9. restore wetlands at Pacific Coast Highway and the Santa ulna River 10. evaluate, preserve, and protect agricultural uses 11. transfer of development rights between the Bolsa Chica and the Townlots i 5.0 ACQUISITION PROPOSALS In accordance with the.polices of" the Coastal Plan, the California Coastal Zone Con- i t of recommended coastal properties nervation Commission has developed,a 1s for public � acquisition. Four. sites recomrended for acquisition by the Coastal Commission ; are within the Huntington Beach sphere of. influence. These sites are all in Priority Group 'l - Sites with substantial habitat or public recreational :values that will be irreversibly cormitted to non-public uses if not acquired within .the next few years. ti Site-location is indicated on the map accompanying the list of sites proposed for_ j ' acquisition. These sites are listed on figure 5-1 and illustrated in the accompanying map.:.� T�re ,Cc�astal Ccim�ission.recommends.that Priority Groups: I_(like those in Huntington 9eachj and I1 form.the basis.for .the public purchase of coastal properties. Actual" casts.for acquisition of the properties in Priority Groups I, II, and III ?:-e expected to fall be- tween $160 and $200 million. ,'` •.,fir+w " ya�- +:.;..�n"i ;7rr...w�.......�.........�.v.n.....+..u..tie.-s.�,�.:.ya_._.>. ,. ..a..:w...eu au—«....�.---._..................r-...«-,..�., ..«_�.....�..�..__..«-.---..--J.... __"."'�+q.i 1-•. 1:�• I 4 COASTAL PROPERTIES RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLIC ACQUISITION WITHIN THE HUNTINGTON PEACH SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Preliminary* Additional Major Cost Funding State Fund- .. . ' �. V to Name Acres Objective Estimate Source ing Required Recreation & Uup Space t 1. Talbert Channel 13.5 Provide beach support $1,000,000 Mond issue $1,000,000 tacili.Aes t , Habitat Protection and Restoration a 1. Bolsa Chica [not 560 Protect & restore wet- $4,500,000 Bond issue $4,500,000 including mineral lauds scenic open rights) space. Proposal in- eludes ecological pre- serve 6 buffer plus park area overlooking , t beach 2. Cal-Tian.. property, 30 Wetlands irestoration $1,000,000 Band issue $1,000,000 ' Huntington Beach 6 protection. Pro- � [ " vide valuable open space its an urban area 3. Huntington Beach. 46 wetlands restoration $1,000#000 Bond issue $1,000,000' channel & protection; possible education center '•_G6nerallj based on market values as estimated by County Assesror . T .rlr•1ww _- — —r r��rn� �• \ ....r.}• wodabti up ►s, Coastal Properties Recommended For AcquisItion ( ' hunttn ton reach planning department,*.' ' y:..i:p.. .a.,...--........rw,..........�...... ..tee n...•..n. .,a...., .c.:�...�-,F'a. ....:t.:.�.:.....: . .:i^.-{'�.�.ia._.:_..-.,, _ _ 7, } f Page 8 Funds to implement this progran of coastal purchases are to be provided through a bond issue submitted to the voters in the November, 1976 general election. The Coasf�` Commission also proposes that other available funds be utilized to acquire the properties, including but not limited to the following: 1. Offshore Oil L(:asinn - in the percentage of revenues from offshore oil eas ng tna s WBF available to the counties for purchase of parklands. 2. Federal Land and uater 'Conservation Funds - allocate all Federal Land and Water Conservation funds available to the State to coastal purchases for 3-5 years. j 3. Other Sources - increase the funds available from other sources such as the Bagley Conservation Fund, the Enviroir ental Protection Program, and the General Fund.- The Coastal Plan proposal outlines about 657 acres for. acquisition within 'City boundaries j and ,sphere of.influence. The proposed acquisition .of.*the Balsa Chica area is of { particular concern., The boundary outlined by the Coastal Comisiion involves, riot only the large, unincorporated oil field;- state owned property,.but also sizable portions of the City on which residential' projects have already been pursued. Furthermor' , the proposed.purchase price ($4.5 miillion) is extremely low. Land. values for reasonably developable low density residential property in the City would,;bE about $50,000`per acre. ..If ,this figure is applied to those areas of .the Folsa Chica which are proposed for acquisition, only a smali portion (16 to 20 percent) could be purchased for $4.5 .million. This is true even though the original purchase proposed by the Regional Commission has been reduced to include only those areas where development pressure i f is anticipated. The City has long been concerned with the future of the Botsa Chica, the development`"` } potentials of which area prime source of revenues in future years. The City's Open Space and Conservation Plans have identified the environmental.constraints and oppor ; tunities of the area, and we have been supportive of State Departnent of Fish and Game ii plans for marsh and wetlands restoration and public marina on the area under its control.-, The City has always contended, however, that multiple potentials exist it the Balsa i ! Chica.; Its size, features and topography are such that certain portions of the property could be preserved while other sections could be compatibly developed into an economic- ' ally viable cmmiunity. s The proposed acquisition list also indicates for purchase properties along Pacific Coa`st'Highway at Beach Boulevard and from the Edison Plant tc the Santa Ana River. A small portion of the area has already been approved for development by, the Council and is physically separated from the rest of the area proposed for acquisition. On the remaining acreage, the City has consistently considered recreation-oriented uses and i has recommended 'that the area between Magnolia and the River be planned in conjunction with the State Beach, t. 6.0 'THE COASTAL PLAN AS A PLANNING TOOL The basic assumption of the Coastal.'Plan is cne with which a local Jurisdiction night } not agree: that is, the Coastal Zone belongs first to the general public and only secondarily to the residents of coastal communities like Huntington Beach. .. For the + Plan to be an effective and complimentary part of the City's activities,. tlie decisio i • makers must be willing" to accept this conclusion on whose rights have priorities and ^; the amount of priority they have over all other concerns. Several other factors will influence the effectiveness of this work as a planning tool. ; > First of all, the Plan remains a single-purpose document making environmental concerns I :i ...rr+�...�w�..��._... ...._._.... �... .�........._......�.....�-.....�..._..... ._..�....- .. .....w.......)..- ...... ....... «....�...a:'. .ryri�". 1'7 i'._.r... A.'�nw�+•...T, { Page 9 paramount over all others. As a result, while it may deal thoroughly with the needs of the natural environment, it does not approach planning of the coastal area compre- hensively. The.Coastal. Plan identifies a wide range of possibly desirable goals and policies. Unfortunately,, even though many of the Plan's objectives are long-range and can be accomplished only after several,,short- znd.mid-range policies ate implemented, no attelpt has been made to identify phasing of the Plan. The Coastal Plan, in a sense, can to its disadvantage be considered a "shopping list" of environmental values. It t is doubtful that all objectives can be accomplished simultaneously. In order to co- ordinate the achievement of these objectives by the multitudinous agencies that will be involved, the Plan must identify value priorities to deal with conflicting policies that are destined to develop. A final deficiency,.one that was first raised by the Envirorejental Council, is the fa1lure of- this document to comply with the requirements of the .California Enviroranental quality Act, to prepare an Environmental Impact Report on the Plan. S20 an Envirormental Impact Report would aid the..legislature -in assessing the long-range and indirect impacts o+.`the Plan policies.-and would undoubtedly include a much-needed economic; analysis to quantify all of the benefits as well as the disadvantages of the Plan. To make a rational - and unemotional - decision regarding the Coastal Plan, such information sh uld really be made available. 7.0 RECOMMENDATION: It. is the judgment of the Planning Staff, that the State Coastal Comission's Plan is unrealistic and unjesirable in its present farm . Though this document represents a marked improvement over some previous recommendations, it still, reflects a narrow view of the forces. interacting in the Coastal Zone. , Such a single-psnrpcse approach cannot be acceptable if it is to be enforced in an inflexible manner. If the ,Coastal' Plan could be considered one input to a comprehensive State planning effort it would be more acceptable. There can be no argument that environmental protection of 'coastal resources is a worthy objective, but it cannot be -an exclusive objective. Therefore, the Staff would urge support for the League of Cities recommendation; that is, for,• establishment of a coordinated state - local system of planning in which the Coastal Plan - or the objectives it pursues - is a major elerent. Such an organizational scheme would not only facilitate desirable use of coastal areas but could integrate all types of- planningefforts - transportation, health, air pollution control, etc. - throughout the State. It would help conserve all resources - natural, economic, coiltural , social, physical. It is undoubtedly inevitable, however, that the State Legislature: will adopt some form of the Coastal Pian in the'not-too-distant future. Despite the need for a of approach," therefore, it will be necessary to pur•,ue some less dramatic changes to insure that the adopted plan is at least workAble. Toward that end, the City should urge the Legislature to pursue the following considerations: 1. An identifiable hierarchy of values or prioritization of plan policies to guide the preparation of local implementation plans and assist in conflict - •resolution among inconsistent policies. E2. State financial compensation to.jurisdictiom for l preparation ofplans and neces- sary sary modification of ordinances;for implementation of Coastal Plans in :terms of permit procedures, acquisition and maintenance costs; and for legal costs related to defending the requirements of the Coastal Plan. +6 .r irk+, S1i+'y�{`{j�', KS �va 0!:t'17ti 1c1 + rpm:• t ,h+� �*f. ';,i.��r �M, • �� r :�i` .1� Z.+ �;,t ,+!%f }x��� r � C t# fs S•' =c t!" �1}fit. .�{ 1.; C'[s�I .��j�. zr' d".y, �1 '. .��' ' �Y•L;k' a A� e;, •}rj it ,�•k�i.��.4f.i 4, :•� Sl`f�{`" �t1, .1�'• ���^•4 �t��.` r, tf s, . i�ir t7ys "+• �d.lE. i.ltt. +,... '1J , t�> )}"- s { d ,r ,' tt t, + �F'�1 f .5 .. `�E+�,r �:�( 4 } •}dye Y•ir `�12 i,y., ..•*w!!t( .• t+r.frl•l.f x,t i Y i {.,i:if. ri i� 4; �' �L.�Yi' T +.^r�T •iJfly3 `,f,, + f t '+rk,' ts7;�I !.f� 2k E A r, r. �(f i[(�' �.f[ ?`� , A5� r J. lV q. Yf v',t f"•; �r t; h, t ; t'+Y'T�7=/�t"+'� pry(1L y 7�4 •"i�` l�.^! + •r.�'.� y�'.� /,};'. l4 ; . ; ,/.f. ASr�ytS Y,t, rllyri "�}�J t��5• }}�i. 1\ ILX"Vt�'.'• y aF.• .� / C�. a.b.7Ry _y �ti 1 �.{Y j�if�, 7 1 . •1L� �ii f 1 "yy,4"`}} } �°. }+ yf!' adt•i rt :'}�4'Yt�d�{r. �2 / ,rf'r+f.la n} f` 5d? x• Itt:1� •r�5tr_.+��•t5 �� . y •f Y1r a�.� :13'$�1, ; f�' tt/Y�'r.}i»I�''�(/ �'.�ir-,� �� �1 i �Tyy'� ! �/U� {�{,t "t,i.• r�r r >i ,•t.±+ ��` {'3{�� LT'°�° �:�' �"` . ?'?° Y� '•'4 !. �j� �"' ?{�� �t'r.y 4 •� �r� ": Rj,, :.it.�•:.t.t5r:. %.i...dt?d,1�.C:i1"s+f,i�!` f �' �%f•:�))ti. u:.: rEt*':,� �'>r/}'lt.,i Y• i w i•' �{� 't.•�l�}�t",�,'��;`r,t .1+ " �fi�'!+�t ,�� x ,,, t+�t i�R) '}?.t�y'VrF��'�{.�i � ��. �[' Z eSSrt ,F•� t.•+t�t. i � (� �.� .t'1'« 1ji+ :a�r� ,{.r Ik � �.. {+'•5t1 G.� �r .j ,�:.34^�'�� �.+,� �qt• '� r •�Y ,y11 �., ;.�,�jl, { '. 4 µ+• � 1� y,Ski t 4v{"il)� � F�. f, t�,. •���yy rr,,}}:r11LL••F' 'i{,'+tat f': + �yy v.rt }' '�tr`�r�y tlr••,#'�} ." �H`�e_f;;5+,i 1.,yl +1 f '. s �td.'i 1 �.i .StY a1S: r �'�`':.'11�� .t ;': �� + �S. .a4` iP! '� j +•u�.., Y�� �..�4^i,��f�tt, �'7 A +� 'd�""; +,,,t ,t�.+�.^�,..�, r l Fitt��{. : + 3' ,,,1•�;5<���}�'1, ,l�+�,r � 1^ ;J � �,:�•>3" � 3-i �{kt��.�s. rl��.•�•i.ti ! '�.,�' �a1. av��%+}' rl�'�•f ..� t}S��}. �'�(w 7,.t iF 'tdSs `t. {�' �. ;!L. J r. .q ••t, �. t �icb� dJ tr �" rl6 r. +fi 'r r .'t S�t{�Y+.,� �,; Pa '`t. � � � w-.. gj :t i '' ,`Y ��,•:�:'� .�!.l,. ie• �{,sti+ t �' > �•`� ,5.,.+...},t � '��� �'.��; '<.:u<�. � .,i�!._.•�� a.'�1 �",;,'i��� .ytt t ,:�,. c�i. .�,•+ ;y�, (.� �,S r�q r + {4.v ,t.t• .i Y4 { it r{ Ir'3 •' Ar•,fi` ++� 3'ft.• {� `,f :.�" tr''i+•y} trr�ldil;, ',.wtAi2',•i '1 •j t / T"k SA7l`�.7 ;•,V 7t.�,t 'yr�. r�,. l5:ff'r: 4. _�Aiw a ;lG :ii+ }��rrw 11�( 'Acl! y ,i'S.' � a }: T.w jl IiR• 1 tG'F'� fi"I ii� �� �a h 7k�5'�73 : «. ��•�.f 4 rr�f� � 9!'+ ty<.�i rty�t t ��,'t' �"1'! d`'�t.) rT r � �� 2ls�S�i� ��.�It �!� + f a•A�..�i ,l � � Sa� y �}•t�.��� 4 �+1 1;Wl 3L rrt y *jf }}1"r..r`; rrJ '; :t c tl d # '+1�'. 5 { r4" i';�! s i.. } �tt ¢`t :prF 4t t•P4ftY� b`ti r r Page lq 3. Revision of the composition of the State Coastal Commission to include the heads of all environmental and planning-related State agencies to infuse a broader perspective to plan impleme*itation and to facilitate intragovernmental cooperation. 4. Elimination of special permit procedures because after local plans are modified, norrtial application procedures - including CEQA - will ensure compliance. Or if special permits tru:,t be continued, require then only of "major" developments. 5. Utilization of acquisition funds to consolidate State holdings in Boisa Chica around existing ecological reserve so that restoration of marsh could begin instead of purchasing non--contiguous properties to "tie up" the Aoie area and prevent all development. 6. Deletion of 13.5 acre Talbert Channel property from acquisition list. + Respectfully submitt , Richard A. Harlow Director of Planning and Environmental Resources 1 r, rY i �' ��17••7 ' � �t t ,'' t d�s��''�. �•,y��' ��jt.'S� .�f, F Ott�' .- F •� +��•,�4t, l� � d ~�a � �. r� ?�r� , tt�,��' t j�* ��•1a?t �`L` '►..7 �t :�y 4•t, r!,� ` � L`�t ��;�''S � �1 r 1 , �,• ?�, ,��' ,t� .. i � f� ;�' � �. a K4 �' !� �� � � •� �. �, � ref; •�+� ` ``•���1�'�:��''. ,f\ L;�y1�d�l.�:>� �.)��. Y!� ,����1♦y�.+ f+�'�' j• } �:'� r �t�.'.�et ,,{°1r i+ •t•t , ��{],j rS. � ;ft's{ � � �tt:�,'�/r •�� `[� ��;,3;> �S,j" X ,Iy {�` .t•: ]. 5 �r1� 1.,t $� siT rA..,i�'��• � r.F{� }� .� ;�pl• ( f .�; �( T•1 � F6�r� a� Y � f��r f ��•'li,�•l�_' � � ��(}� �` {yy' �` �4,^� ^!� l•'.�r`�rV, �. �'�+ S/�yt �Iy�� Y .� '',1�74.'Z!: i' v1n,! �Y �.�`"'F'�. � y:a i�>yyr• ��(-}�`[)���'"{��"��v. ' h p a ���7,�'+ J'��,,�"•w .7,y�� '�'• `¢j, ; Y ��St�",�(r }: �}'"• .�5. 1.. j�aS' ' k4�s� :' r<!Y 'J S: 't S'�4.. '�S y ,4.•f l�P x t �,�,_ �' '� f� ti �' ry�t ,,} ;�• a f �.,t �•f'� t'} `(}i \� ,A. } 4 S' V"�#-tt}� ti Gi$•-•','' ";t}f`�e!�'1�;FA i.' ��fu��.'`tx''.� �iy., ��t �� ek "a1�'.. ,.� �.Yi..Y S�C tf �`'+.��t+'t'ir�,�`�'•�"r"� '�5-}�'4:�g r•;, �,t j�r���.i�,�t�•� .t�` }�lr�Y �� , y•,�•�� } S��t�K• ,���5 }-���r � t$. ( ��.t�» �r+i���.�4i] rY, + �t�is �, � �'�1'� �'� 1+r�,�,t .��7t��t��•l.���,�,- tta. '1�ji S•1 •+!. !� ",�.. +, !it , �' I.t� , � k`�f,r "'1 {� . '* 1 ' z,.... ..y .� .r �! i �'f',, °I. hi. * �j 4 ;�J f,* !, �4!Y/ t;^ t• ; �, R �''�'+ i (J�,� !r i ;S, L %sf rrYt�,}S, ,� � '., i r � �• i�S{� ;?�;� i°,�'r r'•����j.,.` 4i1/,'} �,�j, r,�• .��� %,ti!ff aYk�. '�'u• _r �.•`.y S, �d1 ��i�t �t ail{�,�+y��,� `,,,.`.� �.ir.f';) 'a��yr7'f.��;�h �`�� �,i i.y •?��l�x�c� fi i�'��k �� � Z , YoF;1 } r, 11�11 i,rY t .•� ✓.�'a �i. *'[�.�r4 Y,+c�YY•(�J�`� � ' '�• �� � } 'sy����t 1 r.�� ih 'y a .�.��'� 1 �P ,t�}t,t j' . y 31 RECEIVED ��y�f", .��.�.siiiD���i':fti.tir� S �'} ? .• .. l�4 , { }t'- . �! y5 �y�"S, � � '(.r .Y'.�{� l� { )��fj� f!Y'fi '•j�jT� s RESOLUTION NO. _ g73� CITY OF HUNTINGTON"BFACH CITY COUNCIL OFFICE A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH EXPRESSING ITS OPPOSITION TO SENATE HILL 1579, THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL PLAN WHEREAS, Senate bill 1579, if enacted, would prescribe goals, objectives and policies in connection with the management of the coastal resources as well as establish a California Coastal Conservation Commission and six regional commissions as the successor in interest to the Commissions established under the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1912 (Proposition 20) ; and WHEREAS, SS 1579 provides for the preparation of local coastal programs by each city or county lying within the coastal resource management area and would require persons ' wishing to undertake any development within designated areas to obtain a permit from the regional commission until such time as a local coastal program has been certified and be..:)mes effCZ-tive; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach is a coastal community encompassing recreational ocean shoreline, a protected recreational harbor, an estuarine area of recreational and environmental significance, as well as residential, industrial and commercial development; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach has an intense interest in conserving the natural features of these unique coastal resources within the City's boundaries r r for present and future generations by regul&-:i;ing land use and . development along the ocean and harbor shorelines; and WHEREAS, the Califori:ia Coastal Plan, as imulemented by SB 1579 would establish a permanent and costly new layer of .government to control land use and development within the coastal zone; and �4 I " V44 k"N a ,ItRRA, J �g f XKM VTvePRMN Y' F I I I A' i .J�N AK UM � St -�!y6Y `c•z i 31 w ym I%I gnw�uwVK-4Vm,k'QuIl Ink. WHEREAS, the proposed California Coastal Conservation Commission is a non-elected assembly of politically appointed persons who will not be responsive or responsible to the people of the State of California through the electoral process; and TMEREAS, the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission and the six regional commissions have established a record by their past actions which goes far beyond the original intent and purpose of the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act; and WHEREAS, the provisions of SB 1579 would perpetuate this authority to regulate in areas which have traditionally been better left to local control; and WHEREAS, SB 1579 in many respects is a duplication of existing requirements contained in the State's General Plan laws and Subdivision Hap Act in which the conservation of natural resources and the guarantee of public access to the coastal areas as well as the preservation of open space are key elements; and WHEREAS, the existing California Coastal. Zone Conservation Commission and the six regional commissions have demonstrated that the time for processing applications for development is unreasonably long and there is no provision in SB 1579 to eliminate some of the bureaucratic red tape and procedures promulgated by the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act; a.and WHEREAS, it appears that the adoption of SB 1579 will result in net higher real property taxes within t-be coastal resources management area proposed by said bill; and WHEREAS, SB 1579 would create a single purpose governmental entity charged with protecting only a limited public interest without taking into consideration the overall -2- I r t(i�`'r' �!'t' r ♦ lip i'�;• � i,'+',•�y^ w•1i . �,�.��� t ` iy..'T ; e,�`• kiy h fx'Saa �':t,,�H.i`������� Sj.;�7 '�.s• �9���• f ` k���w ;pl.. �Ih.! stt�A������1 � �'[F �r w P i t ri( 1}}: ,�:fi`vty't. `.x`x tF} .i`. i!h�,r�«."�,�":ti;.i'a',+t#f���1�':&;}s�r iE;�?�5.eyc�ts�.r 14 4-*t Y•�4{ �x�rr, t;'.#. s i;t�i r'1s�',5a ct''�'V�4,`�, 1�} }r, F? 4� �l.. A3 ►�� ,�r..f }� S?�1; '�4ti1 �I t �.t>}j�. 9Y} r:bs Z" �,t';T� dIM73 Jt' t �4 �� 3-'t:• .Y{t..Y '!¢�ty�.n� `}'�t y�}a tS� }y p! � }fit;/y .t4�h ti[N� y�'V .,�, ��.4l J � l��- +��. � *�• � 1�i+.orb r �L�}. y#+? c `� "U'l i:(( �, E� �`•i�"i' a �y .t�-' k�' 4�J + "��,.ri�'l �1 �t�i r�i: � ��� �r4` .�#+ "'rF ���}.»�`�K j wig•, �t �t�'`. "�. ':� ,T`+.< '+1 '�t� �jr, '�'t'i•. 1,� i!{�. �...�?� r!i .'�'1ts�c•{��'•sS�" ��R;+-r��'t �� N � ..#- '�'s d h -tN�j �.}� :�� .: .4� � ♦ +��.�v�4J�, b 4g5 { . .a4.:} rw�'1' .� �r e.,.^d. F., Y•=•#.+ i »,� Y�1�t� .� ,�hA` �' i' financial and economic well being of the coastal communities as a whole; and WHEREAS, the attempted waives of the SB 90 reimburse- ment provisions suns unfair in light of the obvious large local costs which will necessarily be imposed upon ghe cities and counties within the coastal zone as a result of the passage of SS 1579; and WHEREAS, the adoption of SB 1579 is the first permanent step to the erosion of local government and the ultimate elimination of local government as a land use and development control agency; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby expresses its extreme opposition to SD 1579 as an improper attempt to usurp the authority and right of local government to plan and control land use and development within its boundaries. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk will cause i this resolution to be circulated to all cities in Orange County. ADOPTED this 22nd day of March , 1976. I Mayor ATTEST: L A- .ity-Cle. C=; �iU . , • DDO/bc c"• 3/22/76 3/23/76 }`i�~I�� r ..mow...........� •. .r,..-+. .. .. •_ _. -. _• .. ... .... , v..1 I .. _ r - ,.