HomeMy WebLinkAboutBolsa Chica Land Use Plan and Linear Regional Park - Califor (2) REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AV ION
Date April 26, 1985
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator
Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director , Development Services��
&-&9
Subject: BOLSA CHICA LAND USE PLAN AND LINEAR REGIONAL PARK
BOUNDARY STUDY
pepS , Aveip4e>
Consistent with Council Policy? Yes [ J New Policy or Exceptioneej Qoq*,b AS
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
On April 22, 1985, the City Council adjourned to a study session on
May 6 , to discuss the Bolsa Chica Land Use Plan and Linear Regional
Park Study. Both the plan and the study are scheduled before the
Orange County Planning Commission on April 30 and the Orange County
Board of Supervisors on May 15. It is being proposed by the County
Environmental Management Agency (EMA) staff that the Planning
Commission continue this item until May 7 . EMA staff has been
working deligently with the City staff and interested parties to
obtain input into these documents . The Bolsa Chica Advisory
Committee has also been involved in providing recommendations to the
County at their April 4 and April 25 meetings . Another meeting is
scheduled for May 2 to provide additional input prior to the final
Planning Commission hearing and Board of Supervisors hearing.
The County proposes to resubmit the modified Bolsa Chica Land Use
Plan to the Coastal Commission on May 29. To be eligible for an
administrative check off, it is critical that they meet this
deadline in order to adhere to the six month time constraint for
complying with the Coastal Commission 's modifications. The County
staff has determined that they have substantially complied with the
Commission 's modifications.
RECOMMENDATION:
Review the issues concerning the Bolsa Chica Land Use Plan and the
Linear Park Boundary Study. Adopt the attached resolutions taking a
position on the Bolsa Chica Land Use Plan and the Bolsa Chica Linear
Regional Park Boundary Study.
ANALYSIS:
On June 18, 1984 the City Council adopted a Resolution No. 5391
identifying certain issues of concern regarding the Bolsa Chica Land
Use Plan . On November 29, 1984 , the Coastal Commission denied the
r \ 1 .
Pl o 4/81
r T
Bolsa Chica Land Use Plan with suggested modifications for
approval . The County has been working on making certain
modifications to the Land Use Plan to address concerns of the City,
Coastal Commission, Coastal Conservancy, CARP, the Advisory
Committee and other interested parties . City staff has identified
issues of concern to the City. They consist of the following:
1 . Circulation
a. Connections of Talbert Avenue and Graham Street to the
cross gap connector.
b. The alignment of Warner Avenue to maintain access for the
Warner Avenue Fire Station.
C. The precise location, width and alignment of the cross gap
connector .
d. The alignment of the TI?intersection at the cross gap
connector and the Pacific Coast Highway connector in order
to encourage through traffic off of Bolsa Chica onto the
Pacific Coast Highway reroute.
e. Penetration of through traffic into existing city arterial
systems.
f. Existing local street system to be accommodated by
providing for similar adjoining land uses and for adequate
neighborhood circulation.
2. Service Delivery
a . Planned circulation for the area needs to maintain access
for the Warner Avenue Fire Station or provide for an
alternate site if such access is not feasible or desirable .
b. Consideration should be given to service of the proposed
development with water supply and sanitation facilities in
order to minimize costs and ongoing maintenance
requirements.
C. Due regard for cost-benefit ratios is fundamental to this
development.
3. Ocean Access
There are three primary concerns regarding the proposed ocean
access which need to be addressed. They are : safety,
preservation of the beach, and ongoing maintenance costs.
Stronger language needs to be incorporated into the Land Use
Plan to provide the necessary safeguards in order to assure
that there will be no detrimental impact on the City ' s beach.
RCA - April 26, 1985 -2- ( 2343d )
4 . Huntington Harbor Connection
A provision for a navigable Huntington Harbor connection is to
be analyzed for inclusion in the Land Use Plan. The navigable
connection must be the least environmentally damaging channel
feasible.
After the Coastal Commission approves the County's Land Use Plan
there will be a unique interim step which was devised for the Bolsa
Chica Land Use Plan. This step is referred to as the Land Use Plan
Confirmation Report. It will be after the completion and approval
of this interim step that the Bolsa Chica Land Use Plan will be
deemed certified by the Coastal Commission. After the certification
the Implementation Action Program will be developed. This will
include zoning regulations and ordinances, a Feature Plan with
detail and subarea plans. The Program will also delineate the
scoping process for coordinating multiple levels of government
involvement, program environmental impact documents, and eliciting
public participation. It will be at the Confirmation Report step
and the Implementation Action Program where a number of the issues
mentioned above will be resolved. However, it is important at this
time that the City go on record delineating its concerns.
In conjunction with the modified Bolsa Chica Land Use Plan, the
County is also submitting to the County Planning Commission and
Board of Supervisors the Bolsa Chica Linear Regional Park Boundary
Study. The study includes properties both within the County 's
jurisdiction under the Local Coastal Program area and within the
City of Huntington Beach. It identifies the established boundary
within the County 's LCP area and the preferred boundary on the
upland Huntington Mesa within the City's jurisdication.
The proposed Linear Park will consist of 132 acres owned by Signal
Corporation, Bolsa Corporation, Huntington Beach Company and the
City of Huntington Beach. It would serve to link Central Park to
the beach by a series of bike, pedestrian and equestrian trails .
Vista points will be provided along with other passive activities.
There are certain constraints within the proposed boundaries,
including petroleum producing facilities, natural gas processing
plant, topographic features and the requirement by the Coastal
Commission for environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) . The
development of ESHA' s would serve, in part, as mitigation measures
for development of the Bolsa Chica.
The County has been coordinating with the City in establishing the
proposed boundary and a program for land acquisition options in the
study. City staff has had an opportunity to comment on the draft
document and to have these comments incorporated into this study.
There are still a few issues that the City needs to take a position
on:
RCA - April 26 , 1985 -3- (2343d )
1 . That the County actively pursue acquisition of property within
the park boundary. To date the City, through park dedications,
has acquired 23. 7 acres. The County presently has $2 million
allocated for acquisition and development . They have held in
abeyance acquisition activity until such time as the Coastal
Commission took action on the Land Use Plan.
2 . Assurance needs to be made that the $2 million allocated for
park acquisition and development be preserved for such
activities and not reallocated for other purposes.
3 . It is not to be assumed that all of the acquisition of park
land within the City will be through dedications. It may be
necessary to purchase some of the property.
4 . The amount of park acreage allocated to environmentally
sensitive areas (ESHA) and the design of the ESHA's shall not
inhibit the development and use of a functional linear park .
These passive areas should be designed in such a manner as to
be an asset to the park system. ESHA designation shall only be
assigned to areas within the County 's jurisdiction. Any area
within the City of Huntington Beach that might be considered
for an ESHA should be purchased by the County.
The attached resolution identifies the City's concerns regarding the
Bolsa Chica Linear Regional Park Boundary Study.
FUNDING SOURCE:
None needed.
ALTERNATIVES:
Do not adopt the resolutions for the Bolsa Chica Land Use Plan and
Bolsa Chica Linear Regional Park Boundary Study. The City thus
would have no official position on the Land Use Plan resubmittal and
the linear park study.
ATTACHMENTS:
1 . Resolutions
2. LUP map
3. Linear Park Boundary Map
4. Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program (available in City Clerk 's
office)
5. Bolsa Chica Linear Regional Park Boundary Study (available in
City Clerk ' s office)
JWP:FW: kla
RCA - April 26, 1985 -4- ( 2343d )
:� � _✓_ _-__ _ yr � ',_ �� o, �.-.
•
a a�•- �-- j `�� .-.ram�:_ I,
H
J I r 0
NEAR TERM ACQUISITION
LONG TERM ACQUISITION _
MAY
PROPOSED_ --�
BOUNDARY _ -
�� I
\ J
figure
J ! 8
I
J
RESOLUTION NO. 5515
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUESTING THE ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO CONSIDER SPECIFIC ISSUES
RELATING TO THE BOLSA CHICA LINEAR PARK BOUNDARY
STUDY
WHEREAS, a significant portion of the Bolsa Chica Linear
Regional Park is located in the city of Huntington Beach; and
By means of park dedication, the city has acquired
23. 7 acres within the proposed park boundary; and
The City of Huntington Beach, in a spirit of cooperation,
has been working with the County of Orange to address issues of
concern to the city regarding the Bolsa Chica Linear Park
Boundary Study; and
The linear park will link Huntington Central Park with the
Bolsa Chica,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Huntington Beach that it hereby requests the Board of
Supervisors of the County of Orange to consider the following
points relative to Bolsa Chica Linear Park Boundary Study:
1. That the County of Orange has allocated $2 million for
acquisition and development which is being held pending action
on the Bolsa Chica Land Use Plan by the California Coastal
Commission. The city has acquired 23. 7 acres through park
dedication, and recommends that the county actively pursue
acquisition of real property within the park boundary.
2. That the City of Huntington Beach is assured that the
County of Orange has irrevocably allotted $2 million for
acquisition and development of Bolsa Chica Linear Regional Park.
3. That the City of Huntington Beach may not be able to
acquire all of the parkland by dedication. In some instances
1.
outright purchase will be required. Therefore, funding sources
must be preserved.
4. That particular attention be directed to the amount of
park acreage to be designated and designed as environmentally
sensitive areas (ESHA) so that such areas will not inhibit
development and use of the linear park. It is recommended that
such passive areas be located solely within the county' s juris-
diction and designed as an asset to the park system, and that
any parkland within the city' s boundary which might be desig-
nated as an environmentally sensitive area be purchased by the
County of Orange.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th
day of May 1985.
O
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk City Attorney
/4�
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED:
City A nfttr46r irector of Developmen
Services
3472/0549L
RCS:ahb
5/2/85
2.
Res4to. 5515
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City
Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of
members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven;
that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative
vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council
at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day
of May , 1985 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen:
Kelly. MacAllister. Mandic. Bailey. Finley. Green
NOES: Councilmen:
None
ABSENT: Councilmen:
None
NOT VOTING: Thomas
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk
of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach, California
RESOLUTION NO. 5516
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUESTING THE ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO CONSIDER SPECIFIC ISSUES
RELATING TO THE COUNTY' S BOLSA CHICA LAND USE
PLAN
WHEREAS, the Bolsa Chica is surrounded by the city of
Huntington Beach and within such city 's sphere of influence; and
The ultimate land use in the Bolsa Chica is of great con-
cern to Huntington Beach. The City of Huntington Beach , in the
spirit of cooperation , has been working with the County of
Orange , the lead agency for the unincorporated area of the
Bolsa Chica , and other interested parties to search for solu-
tions to problem areas; and
Such cooperative planning efforts for the Bolsa Chica
should be continued until issues of concern of all parties have
been resolved,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Huntington Beach that it respectfully requests the
Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange to consider the
following issues with respect to the Bolsa Chica Land Use Plan:
1 . Circulation
(a ) The cross-gap connector shall allow for tie-in of
Springdale Street, Graham Street , and Talbert Avenue .
(b ) The cross-gap connector shall be a secondary
arterial (preferably eighty ( 80) feet wide ) while allowing for
a landscaped median .
(c ) The circulation pattern shall be designed to
encourage southbound traffic to utilize Warner Avenue en route
to Pacific Coast Highway.
1 .
(d ) Sufficient distance (a minimum of 750 to 900
feet ) shall be provided between the cross-gap connector and
existing residential properties in order to complete the local
street system through the use of cul-de-sacs and , in addition ,
to allow for proper development of low-density residential
properties which would be compatible with existing development
bordering the cross-gap connector .
(e) The Pacific Coast Highway "mini reroute " shall
provide for adequate , satisfactory access for the city 's Warner
Street Fire Station. The City of Huntington Beach shall have
no financial obligation for any Pacific Coast Highway reroute .
(f) Through traffic shall be routed to prevent impact
on existing city arterial systems .
2. Service Delivery
(a ) Planned circulation for the area shall maintain
access for Warner Avenue Fire Station or provide an alternative
site if the present access is not feasible or desirable.
(b) A water supply service and sanitation facilities
for the proposed Bolsa Chica development shall be considered so
that costs and ongoing maintenance requirements can be reduced
to an absolute minimum.
(c ) Due regard for cost-benefit ratios is fundamental
to this development .
3 . Ocean Entrance
(a ) The city supports the Coastal Commission 's
suggested modifications for the ocean entrance , as adopted on
November 17 , 1984; or other language which is equally or more
protective against beach erosion if agreed upon by the
California Coastal Commission , the County of Orange , and the
City of Huntington Beach .
(b ) Any ocean cut of the Bolsa Chica State Beach
shall be done only after comprehensive physical modeling by the
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers to determine the impact on the
sandy beach. The city would favor such ocean cut only if the
designs indicate little or no effect on the sandy beach and
other coastal resources . Ways and means to finance any
required sand replenishment program shall be provided. The
City of Huntington Beach shall not be obligated to bear any
part of the cost for the ocean cut, sand replenishment, or
channel maintenance .
2.
4. Huntington Harbour Connection
The city supports the creation of a navigable
connection between Huntington Harbour and the Bolsa Chica
Marina as an alternative boating outlet . Such alternative
outlet is supported because Anaheim Bay is owned and used by
the United States Naval Weapons Station , resulting in possible
limitations on the use thereof. The general fund of the City
of Huntington Beach shall not be used to finance such navigable
connection .
5 . Wetlands
(a ) The City of Huntington Beach favors wetlands
restoration and open-space development to the fullest extent
possible. Special attention shall be directed toward the
extreme northeastern tip of the Bolsa Chica inasmuch as this
area may create nuisances for existing residential development
stemming from odors ,,' insects , etc .
(b ) All wetlands restoration shall be within the
bounds of the project area .
6 . Seismic Safety
Extreme concern shall be given to seismic conditions .
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of
May , 1985 .
_V• � p
Ma yor
ATTEST : APPROVED AS TO ORM:
J.
City Clerk i y AtZRO
y
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: IN IT IATED AND D:
A. zvv Ao�
City Admator rector of velopment
Services
RCS: ahb
3471/0548L
5/2/85; 5/7/85
3.
Resoo. 5516
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) as:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City
Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of
members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven;
that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative
vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council
at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day
of —May , 1965 , by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen:
Kelly, MacAllister, Mandic. Bailey, Finley, Green
NOES: Councilmen:
None
ABSENT: Councilmen:
None
NOT VOTING: Thomas
• � arc%!
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk
of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach, California
I
w �
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION w w w
HUNTINGTON BEACH
TO • ALL CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM MAYOR RUTH S. BAILEY
SUBJECT Bolsa Chica Citizens Advisory Committee DATE February 7, 1985
Orange County has established a Citizens Advisory Committee, a Landowners
Committee, and a Te�Aical Advisory Committee on the Bolsa Chica. Three
members of the Huntington Beach City Council will serve on the Citizens
Advisory Committee.
I respectfully request Council approval of the following recommendations:
1. Appoint Councilmembers Finley, Green and Mandic to serve on the
Citizens Advisory Committee.
2. Authorize the City Administrator to appoint the appropriate
staff members to serve on the Technical Advisory Committee and
the Landowners Committee.
RSB:bb
APPROVED I3Y CITT' CCUt;'CI.,
cc: .Charles W. Thompson
Attachment
CITY CLERIC
i
(714) 834-5394
i
o LJ
n
-o
q<<roa�
RONALD L. TIPPETS
PLANNER
COMMUNITY PLANNING SECTION
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY
12 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA
PROJECT PUNNING ROOM 268
DIVISION SANTA ANA.CA 92702-4048
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF ORANGE
MEMORANDUM FEB 619EU
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEh:n?H
DATE: r,Ja-nua:ry,,A .; ;19$57
TO: Honorable Board Members
FROM: Supervisor Harriett M. Wieder, Second District
SUBJECT: Agenda Item #56 - January 29, 1985 - Bolsa Chica Local Coastal .
Program and Related Planning Activity
I recommend approval of the EMA staff recommendations with the
exception of Recommendation #5. I propose to amend Recommendation #5 to
read as follow:
Establish a Citizens Advisory Committee and a Technical Advisory
Committee on the Bolsa Chica. The Citizens Advisory Committee shall
include:
three (3) members of Huntington Beach City Council
six (6) residents of Huntington Harbour
three (3) members of Amigos de Bolsa Chica
two (2) members of the Sunset Beach Community Association
three (3) representatives of Citizens Against Rerouting Pacific
Coast Highway (CARP)
The Technical -Advisory Committee shall i-ncl-ude representatives of the
tollowing groups:
City of Huntington Beach California Department of Fish
State Lands Commission and Game
California Department of Parks E.P.A.
and Recreation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Marine Fisheries Corps of Engineers
Service United States,,Navy
Chevron Philips/Aminoil
Private Consultants
The attached diagram shows the organizational structure of the
Committee and. :indicates the relationships of the Citizens Advisory Committee
and the Technical Advisory Committee to the County and the -landowners. The
existing landowners include Signal Landmark, Fieldstone/W.R. Grace, Metro-
politan Water District (MWD) , Donald Godell , State Lands Commission, the
Ocean View School Di-st.ri,ct, and the City of Huntington Beach.
The major issues to be addressed during this planning phase are
wetlands , the ocean entrance/marina, transportation and circulation, the
Huntington Harbour connection, and 'the linear park.
�i
Honorable Board Members
January 29, 1985
Page 2
I believe the configuration I am recommending will maximize the
technical and community input to the ongoing planning process.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Approve staff Recommendations #1, 2, 3, 4, 6.
2. Amend Recommendation #5 to establish a Community Advisory Committee
and a Technical Advisory Committee on Bolsa Chica as described in
this memo.
Respectfully submitted,
W
HARRIETT M. WIEDER
Supervisor, Second District
cc: Clerk of the Board
County Counsel
CAO
Bob Fisher, EMA
Attachment
I
r
Y
w DRAFT PROPOSED
BOLSA CHICA COUNTY ADVISORY GROUPS
ORGANIZATION AND PARTICIPANTS
1/29/85
COUNTY
ZI
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE LANDOWNERS
3 Huntington Beach City Council •Signal Landmark
6 Huntington Harbour Residents •Fieldstone/W R Grace
3 CARP Representatives •Oceanview School District
2 Sunset Beach Community Assoc. •Metropolitan Water District
3 Amigos de Bolsa Chica •Donald Goodell
•State Lands Commission
* —*City of Huntington Beach
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
j� •City of Huntington Beach
•State Dept. Fish/Game
•U S Environmental Protection Agency
•US Fish & Wildlife Service
•National Marine Fisheries Service
•State Lands Commission
•U S Navy
•State Dept of racks & Recreation
•US. Corps. of Engineers
•Chevron Oil Co
•Philips/Aminoii
•Private Consultants
RESOLUTION NO. 5454
<
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON
BEACH ADOPTING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FOR THE BOLSA CHICA LAND USE PLAN
WHEREAS, it has taken many years study to prepare a General
Land Use Plan for the Bolsa Chica; and
Numerous parties, both public and private, have made
contributions to said plan; and
The city staff has diligently studied all alternatives so
as to best serve the long term interests of the citizens of
this area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
Bolsa Chica Avenue shall be extended to Garfield Avenue at
the minimum width necessary to safely and efficiently handle
traffic, preferably 80 feet, and shall be designed to encourage
M1 southbound traffic to utilize Warner Avenue enroute to Pacific
Coast Highway. The extension of Bolsa Chica Avenue shall
connect with a new connecting street to Pacific Coast Highway
and such connecting street shall, in turn, be connected to
Warner Avenue. In a similar manner, Garfield Avenue shall have
a connecting street via an extension of Edwards and 38th Street
with Pacific Coast Highway. The extension of Bolsa Chica
Street to Garfield Avenue shall allow the tie-in of Springdale,
Talbert, and Graham.
Sufficient distance shall be provided (a minimum of 800
feet) between the Bolsa Chica Street extension and existing
residential properties in order to complete the local street
systems through cul-de-sacs and, in addition, to allow for
proper development of low density residential properties which
would border the Bolsa Chica Street extension and be compatible
with existing development . All street construction shall be
` performed under standard City of Huntington Beach development
requirements, as depicted in Exhibit A.
Any reroute of Pacific Coast Highway shall be limited to
the "mini reroute" and shall provide for adequate and
satisfactory access for the city' s Warner Street Fire ,Station.
The City of Huntington Beach shall have no financial obligation
for any Pacific Coast Highway reroute.
A navigable connection between Huntington Harbour and the
Bolsa Chica Marina is favored to allow for needed improvement
of water quality in Huntington Harbour and as an alternate
boating outlet. This alternate outlet is needed due to
possible limitations on the use of Anaheim Bay, which is
primarily for the U.S. Navy Weapons Station. The City of
Huntington Beach shall not have any significant financial
obligations through general funds for such navigable connection.
Any ocean cut of the Bolsa Chica State Beach should be done
only after comprehensive modeling to determine the impacts on
the sandy beach. Only under designs which predict no or
minimal effects does the city favor such ocean cut. Ways and
means should be required also to provide for the financing of
any required sand replenishment program. The City of
Huntington Beach shall have no financial obligation for any
ocean cut or channel maintenance.
All land uses within the Bolsa Chica shall be compatible
with existing development and appropriate transitions of zones
shall be provided adjacent to all existing zones. Due regard
shall be given to topographic features and seismic conditions
as well as for utility services.
The City of Huntington Beach favors optimizing wetlands
restoration and open-space development, but expresses concern
with regard to the viability of some of the wetlands area shown
in the extreme northeastern tip of the Bolsa Chica. Special
attention should be directed toward this area so as not to
create nuisances for existing residential development as the
result of odors, insects, etc. All wetlands restoration shall
"'o"' be within the bounds of the project area.
l Y�
2.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on
the 15th day of October 1984.
be /0 j
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk City Attorney
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INI TED .AND APPROVED:
--Cify-Administratoe Director of Public Works
I
3 .
f
J
GPM
• ,.
BSI C Clf- "FR�L Vq LT LA ND
TIAL
Cor Pam. MaRINa �
ppv,-Af H I&i-itl y
RfOLESA CHICA
u•
EXHIBIT A
• �. No. 5454
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) se:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City
Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of
members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven;
that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative
vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council
at a regular meeting thereof held on the 15th day
of October , 19 84 , by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen:
Pattinson, MacAllister, Kelly, Finley, Bailey, Mandic
NOES: Councilmen:
None
ABSENT: Councilmen:
Thomas
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk
of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach, California
r
J• CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
i CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION,
�xx�nr+ciou a� -
TO- Connie Brockway, City Clerk ,
N•w
FROM: Dave Sullivan, City Council Member
DATE: May 27, 1998
SUBJECT "H" Item—June 1, 1998 City Council Meeting _
Bolsa Chica Mesa
� m
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
For many years, the bluff overlooking the Bolsa Chica Wetlands has been known as the
Bolsa Chica Mesa. Recently, the landowner has decided to call the Bolsa Chica Mesa the
Warner Mesa for rather obvious political reasons.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The official position of the city of Huntington Beach is to continue to refer to the Bolsa
Chica Mesa as the Bolsa Chica Mesa.
DS.lp
xc: Mayor and City Council
Ray Silver
06
� - �
i
May 28, 1998
Huntington Beach City Council Members
2000 Mein Street
Huntington Beach
Subject:;Renaming of Bolsa Chica Area
Attn: qty Council Members
As residents of Huntington Beach for over thirty years, we want to voice our disapproval
of any hunt that Bolsa Chica Mesa may go through a name change.
The Bo4a Chica Mesa Area is an historical, environmental and archaeological landmark in
Huntington Beach. For anyone to unilaterally think they can come along and change the
name o a place that all the citizens have come to know, is ludicrous.
We urge the Council Members to send a message to the owners of this area, that the
citizens'will not sit idly by and have this landmark renamed.
I
I
Sincerel
�afy
y,
Bill& Jane Wiley
I
I
� c
-0
V 3y�.��
'v1
C4-
I N D
I
I
I
I
I
Page 14 - Council/AgencRgenda - 06/01/98 • (14)
H-6. Submitted By Council/Agency Member Dave Sullivan
A. (City Council) Approve Official Position Regarding Name Of The Bolsa Chica
Mesa (440.60)
Communication from Councilmember Sullivan regarding the following subject: For
many years, the bluff overlooking the Bolsa Chica Wetlands has been known as the
Bolsa Chica Mesa. Recently, the landowner has decided to call the Bolsa Chica
Mesa the Warner Mesa for rather obvious political reasons.
Recommended Action: Motion: That the official position of the City of
Huntington Beach is to continue to refer to the Bolsa Chica Mesa as the Bolsa
Chica Mesa.
[Approved 7-0]
B. (City Council) Approve Formation Of City Council Ad Hoc Subcommittee
Regarding Employee Comparison Study (120.45)
Communication from Councilmember Sullivan regarding the following subject: For
sometime there has been discussion as to whether employee benefits in Huntington
are particularly generous when compared to other cities. The California League of
Cities' total compensation comparisons only includes benefits which cities have in
common. Therefore, the relative position of the city could represent an incomplete
picture.
Recommended Action: Motion: That a City Council Ad Hoc Subcommittee be
formed to work with staff to do a comparison study of actual total compensation
comparing Huntington Beach to five or six representative cities.
[Defer to 6115198 to be placed just following public comments]
H-7. Submitted By Council/Agency Member Dave Garofalo
Council/Agency Adjournment[at 11:45 p.m.]To Monday, June 8, 1998, at
&GO[4:00]p.m., in Room B-8, Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California.
Council/Agency Agendas And Minutes Are Available At No Charge To The Public At The
City Clerk's Office By Mail And Through Paid Subscription. Complete Agenda Packets Are
Available At The Central Library and Library Annexes On Friday Prior To Meetings. Video
Tapes Of Council Meetings Are Available For Checkout At The Central Library At No Charge.
CONNIE BROCKWAY, CITY CLERK
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street- Second Floor
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Internet: http://www.ci.huntington-beach.ca.us
(14)
I
Co
RESOLUTION NO. 5429
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
.� OF HUNTINGTON BEACH OPPOSING THE COASTAL
CONSERVANCY' S PROPOSAL TO REROUTE PACIFIC
COAST HIGHWAY INLAND FROM ITS EXISTING ROUTE
IN THE BOLSA CHICA HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
WHEREAS, the City Council has concerns over the impact of
the Coastal Conservancy' s proposal in the Bolsa Chica Habitat
Conservation Plan to reroute Pacific Coast Highway; and
The impact of rerouting Pacific Coast Highway on
established residential areas is potentially severe and
unwarranted; and
Circulation on existing city streets will be impaired by
penetration of through traffic into the existing arterial
' system; and
Additional access onto Pacific Coast Highway is
undesirable; and
\` The proposed rerouting of Pacific Coast Highway may affect
4 the city and county approved plans for the Linear Park; and
The City Council has received many protests from residents
in the area regarding this proposal.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Huntington Beach that the City of Huntington Beach is
opposed to the Coastal Conservancy's proposal to reroute
Pacific Coast Highway inland from its existing route.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th
day of Aug,ust 1984. /9
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM
City Clerk fit ttorney
1 .
1 J
INITIATED AND APPROVED:
9tydminstrat
2 .
-f Res. No. 5429
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City
Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of
members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven;
that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative
vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council
at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day
of August 1984 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen:
Mar Allictar, Thomat. KPllx, Finl y, Bailey- Mandic
NOES: Councilmen:
None
ABSENT: Councilmen:
Pa tinson
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk
of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach, California
The foregoing instrument is a correct copy
of the original on file in this office.
Attest -J- -i 19 IL
ALICIA M. WENTWQRT4
City Clerk and Ex•officio Clerk of the City
Counci the City of Huntington Beach, Cal.
BY. ............. . ---rr Deputy
zc,
STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY
STAFF PRESENTATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING
JUNE 21, 1984
BOLSA CHICA HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
THE CALIFORNIA
STATE COASTAL
CONSERVANCY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-RESOURCES AGENCY
f
STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY
STAFF PRESENTATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING
JUNE 21, 1984
BOLSA CHICA HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
STAFF SUMMARY
Coastal Commission certification of the Land Use Plan (LUP) for the Bolsa
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 (600+ 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 DFG to prepare a Habitat Conservation Plan
(HCP) for Bolsa 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 OFG staffs have been
working very closely with the County, Signal Landmark (the major landowner),
the Coastal Commission staff and the Amigos de Bolsa 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 Bolsa) 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 finanically 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
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
benefits.
Mate of California • RESOURCES AGENCY OF CALIFORNIA
0 State Coastal Conservancy
Date June 14, 1984
To Interested Parties Telephone: (415)464-1015
ATSS 561-1015
From : Joseph E. Petrillo
Executive Officer
Subject
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 discussion document which could be used to deve op a
consensus p4an; it is not meant to portray a particular final pan
ut 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.
r T • •
2
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 means: first, by a reduction of 50% or more in the public
costs that must be supporte� by the residential development; and second, by
design features that allow an increase of over 350 acres of wetla�s wwhile
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 will recommend 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.
3
TABLE 1
LUP AND HCP COMPARISON
Component LUP HCP
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 Commercial 38 acres 25 acres
Linear Park 89 acres 78 acres
Special Facility Costs $163-194 million $56-82 million
Net Revenue after
Development Costs* $201-225 million $210-234 million
Margin as % of Revenue 21-24% 27-31%
*Total revenues less special public facility costs and unit development costs
(assumed to be 65%)
4
DRAFT
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
5
DRAFT
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
INTRODUCTION
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 all 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.
HCP GOALS
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 call for the protection and,
where feasible, restoration ofwetlands, the provision of access to
the shoreline, 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.
(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 own way" while still providing an adequate
return to the landowners.
THE HCP
Figure 1 shows the HCP recommended by Conservancy. staff at this time.
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
ALTERNATIVE 1 ,
HABTAT CONSERVATION PLAN
STATE C OTAL =5ERIANCY
SCALE Ir•300 /
�axrallrv�
.a.F aecw
_� lM RaGrIIMI IK11K
RE90CMTUL 11
�� ' ��—'_
e*
---------------------
9 1�lRY1L i •� I�IebR OW�tl.
__---
c.ar
i a.o�ewe�•
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 Bolsa Bay; a riparian wetland corridor on Bolsa Mesa; the
expanded flood channel and 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 tremendous 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 ocean 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
(ESH) , 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 be
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 deve 1 opment 'costs (compared to the County LUP) . These are discussed
more fully in the following section.
HCP COMPONENTS
Wetlands
Presently, the Bolsa 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.
These wetlands will be made up of:
(1) 60 acres of intertidal habitat with cordgrass at outer Bolsa Bay
(this habitat already exists and will be preserved in place) ;
BOLSA CHICA
HCP
WETLAND
HABITATS
FIGURE 2
•
INTI�lC11Dh►-
�/.NNt�
lrNp►�iN
IZ.IrhR1NJ W!°'il.tJJD � . . . � � . • • � �C„��-..ram- �=' ��1�� � 6 a �=
. . • %�C�.n�- ���.,,-ram 7=� d.`�__-='�
r. f ! —A=' ah=
_�=a�=L.. - _Z�_-...—____—a►=�mac-=—
r — —
uu--rtD�-w tl�wDS wTr-p-nPA -Wr-f ND
WITH I51..6+,1DS AND CA^J4NCI�
`TA 8LC 2
r _
STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY
PLAN �;A31TAT CC>>JSERy�1T1GrI pLt1ti
BOLSA CHICA HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
ACREAGE BY LAND USE JrjNL= ,� 19
ACREAGES
Total Bolsa Lowland Seaward Hunt. Subtotal
FLANDSE DESIGNATION Area Mesa Inland Total Beach Wetlands
Mesa
1. 311 (3. 5-6. 5 D.U. /AC)
1. 4R (6. 5-18 D.U. /AC)
1.5R (18-28 D.U. /AC)
Subtotal Residential 3�5.76 168 51 62, 9d 144 ,-31
COMMERCIAL 2. 0
Community Commercial
Marina Commercial I Z.5,00 28,00
Subtotal Commercial ,00
OPEN SPACE 5. 0
Main Boat Channel 27, 46
Minor Boat Channel 'Z5,08 ' 25 .u8 I
Sed. Basin and F.C . Channel 13 ,78 7,7 j G .. 09 13,78
Bolsa Mesa rr,[EN uSf 10E 13 ,43 0, 9 -- ,6 3 i-�3 �43
Outer Bolsa Bay 59,OG ;y E6 5-') .8G
Central Wetland [77, 00
, °J3 8-39. 3)3 939 ,93
Subtotal Open Space ,5¢ 2, O5
RECREATION 5. 1
Linear Park 77, 90 b9 Go
Marina ,00 7. 74 3e>, 26
Warner Garfield Coll.
Subtotal Recreation ,00
NATURAL RESOURCES 5.2
Consol. Farm Ioj dO Iy,oO i9.00
Subtotal Natural Resources t,9,00
ROADS 601120 1912 S 37, 90 2,50
TOTALS V
d �7 p
1 I i OL- -GL G •��� �ICC'
i 1 • 7 •
(2) a riparian wetland corridor on Bolsa Mesa of 10 acres including
southern California riparian trees and shrubs and brackish water
marsh in a low swale, extending through a 3-acre intertidal channel
link to the central wetland--total area of 13 acres;
(3) a 14 acre intertidal channel and basin, also with flood and sediment
control functions, in the northern corner of the site;
(4) a 5-acre brackish water marsh created on an alluvial delta in the
Linear Park;
(5) a central wetland of 840 acres divided between:
a) a "muted tidal" (reduced tidal range) wetlands of 400 acres in
the area- of oil operations, which also contains 50-80 acres of
shallow, brackish water ponds and a variable acreage of salt
ponds (circulation in this area will be provided by a combina-
tion of tide gates and pumps); and
b) about 458 acres of low intertidal bay containing a large number
of islands reaching above high tide, a subtidal channel to pro-
vide drainage and several subtidal ponds to provide fish
refugi a.
Nonwetland Environmentally Sensitive Habitats (ESH)
DFG identified about 88 acres of ESH at Bolsa Chica made up of coastal
dunes, a eucalyptus grove, an artificial vernal pond and coastal scrub/shrub.
The HCP proposes preserving the coastal dunes in place (in the present Ecolo-
gical Reserve), transferring the eucalyptus grove and coastal scrub/shrub to
the Linear Park from their locations on, respectively, the Bolsa Mesa and Rab-
bit Island. The 2-acre pond will be established within the residential area
with appropriate setbacks 'as a part of the development's open space require-
ment.
Ocean Entrance, Marina, and Boat Channels
The HCP shows a navigable ocean entrance with a cut through the State
Beach about midway through the project site. The entrance consists of two
jetties extending to -12 mllw which provide channel depths of 8 to 12 feet at
mean low water (10 to 14 feet at an average tide) . The entrance is designed
to meet criteria agreed to by all the HCP parties which are:
(1) The entrance shall be navigable, i.e.; at least 8 feet deep at mean
low water, with the width dependent on boat use (between 400 and 600
feet at surface) ;
(2) The entrance shall protect and maintain existing beaches and not
increase down or upcoast erosion;
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 on 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 marina is a 25-acre marina commercial area which can
accommodate one 150-room motel, four free-standing restaurants, 100,000 square
feet of retail uses and 7 acres for a potential 400-room 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 cost 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 ocean
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 homes with private slips and serves to create a focus for
the entire region, rather than another strip development.
The HCP contains, as a contingency plan, provision for no reroute of PCH
(Figure 3) . In this case, cross-Gap traffic would be handled through 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.
Other 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 groves. These groves are part of the nonwet-
FLOOD ONTROL CHANNEL
BOA &SEDIMENT BASIN
7
�,�, •
7 f AREA BOW'ID�Y
L RESIDENTIAL
CA FIELD
/ GARFIELD CONNECTOR / A ENUE
WARNER-
% r ORIBN'TBD FtESIDe �'L'
,} IR
RESIDEPITtAI `T��I �� iN6—"OA�CN
BOLSA CHICA LINEAR
REGIONAL PARK
CENTRAL WETLAND
MARINA/COMMERCIAL AREA
RESIDENTIAL rr
TURNING BASIN
O �
MAJOR BOAT CHANNEL /'l
��� L PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY NATLRAL RESOULCES
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY \ BOLSA CHICA STATE BEACH
BOLSA CHICA STATE BEACH
OUTER BOLSA BAY
NON-NAVIGABLE
OCEAN ENTRANCE : ALTERNATIVE 1A
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY
PREPARED BYs
SANTINA & THOMPSON, INC.
1 1.J1 V-¢. � NORTH
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 the specific mix of housing types and allowable density ranges.
SUMMARY
The Conservancy staff is especially concerned that this plan work, i.e. ,
that the components are not only cost-effective but that they interact posi-
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
beach. The marina is almost adjacent to the ocean entrance, creating the
possibility of a world-class harbor with no impediments to sailing-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
to create one space with many uses.
1 • 10
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
STAFF REPORT
11
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
STAFF REPORT
SITE DESCRIPTION
The Bolsa Chica study area is 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, on the
northeast and southeast borders (respectively Bolsa Chica and Huntington Beach
mesas) and a 1300-acre lowland in the center, often referred to as the Bolsa
Chica Gap. The mesas and attendant bluffs are essentially undeveloped while
the lowland is the site of an active oil field operated under long-term leases
by Aminoil 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
non degraded 166 acres
degraded but viably functioning 686 acres
historic and no longer functioning
but feasibly restorable 440 acres
Total 1292 acres
(2) Non wetland environmentally sensitive habitat (ESH)
Eucalyptus grove raptor habitat) acres
Coastal dunes 14 acres
Rabbit Island (Coastal shrubs) 51 acres
Vernal ponds 2 acres
Total 88 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 endangered least tern feeds
in the study area waters.
SITE HISTORY
Prior to the 1870's, the Bolsa Chica Gap was a large coastal estuary, one
of a chain of such wetlands in Los Angeles and Orange Counties (Exhibit 5) .
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 outlet 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, brackish water ponds in the Gap
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 oil roads and
dotted with oil pads and other energy facilities. These developments 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.
PLANNING 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
14 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 complete 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
were submitted by this group to the County; nine of these were selected for
consideration by the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors dur-
ing public hearings between 1980 and 1982, with a final plan approved by the
County for submission to the Coastal Commission in early 1982. This plan
(Figure 4) calls for, among other things: (1) the restoration/protection of
about 600+ acres of wetlands (including boating channels); (2) the creation of
an 1800-slip public marina in the lowlands and 75-acre linear park along the
Huntington Beach mesa; (3) 500 acres of residential development, of which
about 141 acres would be waterfront residential with private slips; and (4) a
"Marina del Rey" style ocean entrance.
r� �MMFIMIGTOM
CoMtAL►AID( ♦� `
' % I• ram:
LEGEND •• •: a ,. .
r
1 I MED♦IR11 DENSITY RESIDENTIAL �, y ,� ,•` �� :, L '
,1 1 us
7 I IYG"DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ° 1
a I tKAVY DENSITY RESIDENTIAL i.• JI.�/
IIIC I NEIMMORIIOOD COMMERCIAL tR'�a 1 ♦1� •
IC', I OPEN SPACE,RECREATION ACCESS
MARS"SYSTEM ~•• `ti
t `� emu CHCAlfeAu'
/�LCP SUBAREA BOUNDARY 61ttor"velm oMAC14 f �:\ Km"1PA1p1
L
2 7f t I ' '.•
IN
� I '\ ` ,.`,\.\�♦ •\ •\�♦ \; \ l t♦' `.\. 1,. ._'7' ! l
,mar ,.frr Vf51_j!�J SFOVM(1 . •\, •\; ;`y f �,
MINTINGTON HAFW" ' Y
�,v+•�'-......r-�.. _----• •,♦` • •♦.. .. •�Y3__:y,krl��-.•�..ur -ai' � wlwrys
a 1
�rr♦�rY _Y
p('ll WAIINFN AVfNW �A[�C fru4l NfNM'AY —
llq'411111ANi1 9%SA COCA STAIF f1FAC11
' N'11U1 l W N SOrwrf A
�IGU1�� � rowwr+AntuAnAr_��
W tam 760 1=00 2260
� nrnnw•rr rrr xvnwA r
{jam/ 4
L r .... .. ....
NAVIGAOI E
%A
0cFAt1 f:NlnANCE
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 Commission identified a
1018-acre restoration requirement without boating channels).
(2) The protection of non-wetland environmentally sensitive habitat or
ESN (the LUP includes no provisions for the 88 acres the Commission
identified) .
(3) Access (the LUP proposes a "nodal" system; the Commission would
require continuous lateral access 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) .
(6) Scenic resources, recreation and visitor-serving facilities,
hazards, public works, archaeology, and the protection of energy
facilities.
The County subsequently withdrew the LUP and began work on a supplemental
package to respond to the Coastal Commission concerns. During this time,
there was widespread belief among a number of people that the issues raised by
the Coastal Commission could not be resolved between the Commission and the
County and that a new approach was needed. Accordingly, Senate Bill 429 was
passed, allowing a local applicant to request the Department of Fish and Game
and the Conservancy to attempt to resolve "fish and wildlife concerns" as they
relate to development conflicts through the development of a Habitat Conserva-
tion Plan (HCP) . Under the terms of SB 429, the Conservancy is responsible
for developing "alternative land use plans" while the Department is 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 Depart-
ment to formally prepare an HCP for the Bolsa Chica study area (Exhibit 7) .
In December, 1983, the County resubmitted the LUP to the Coastal Commis-
sion. The resubmittal does not alter the basic features of the plan as orig-
inally 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) .
Wetland 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
the lowland without fill of some wetlands would be almost impossible.
Normally, the oastal Act does not allow fill of wetlands for housing or
marinas. However, 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 major restoration, 25% of the wetland can be developed as marina or
boating facilities (or housing according to Coastal Commission findings) as
long as the remaining 75% are restored.
The Department determined that there were 852 acres of presently-existing
wetlands at Bolsa Chica, but that these acres were not so severely degraded as
to require major restoration. DFG did determine tia 1000 acres of privately
owned present and historic wetlands (the so-called "wetland system") at Bolsa
are severely degraded and in need of major restoration but that the 268
7ate-owned wetland system was not so severely degraded. Accordingly, it may
only be possible to apply Section 30411 of the Act, and the 75-25 split, to
this 1000-acre wetland system. Following are the various acreage figures used
by the various parties.
(1) DFG: 1018 acres
Senate ffi 9, which set up the HCP process, requires DFG to
"identify wetland acres" at Bolsa. The Department provided the fol-
lowing breakdown:
750 (75% of the 1000-acre privately-owned wetland system at
Bolsa)
268 (100% of the 268-acre State-owned wetlands at Bolsa)
=03$
(2) County of Orange: 621 acres
e County has 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% = 621 acres
(3) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/Amigos de Bolsa Chica: 1292 acres
Both the USFWS and the Amigos have stated tha e entire -acre
"(all existing and historic wetlands) should be restored.
(4) Signal Landmark Inc. : 453 acres
Signal, basedon analysis by their consultant biologists, has iden-
tified only 453 acres of wetlands at Bolsa.
(5) Coastal Conservancy Staff: 951 acres
e HCP au orizing egis a ion, as noted above, mandates that the
wetlands determination by DFG be used. Conservancy staff accept
that determination 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 its approach:
(1268 acres) x 75% = 951
• 15
COMPARISON OF THE HCP AND THE LUP
The major differences between the HCP as shown in the attached document
and the LUP are in:
(1) The number of acres of wetlands to be restored (the HCP has 951, the
LUP 600) .
(2) The rerouting of PCH around the project site's perimeter (the LUP
maintains PCH in its present position along the beach) .
(3) The public facility costs (the HCP will cost an estimated $56 to $82
million, the LUP $163 to $194 million) .
These are shown graphically in Table 1, with the two plans shown in Figures 1
and 4, respectively.
It is important to note, though, that the major issue that has held up
approval of a land use plan for this area is the acreage of wetlands to be
restored. As noted earlier, the County LUP proposal of 600 wetland acres has
been considered deficient by the Coastal Commission, DFG, and US Fish and
Wildlife Service. However, it must also be remembered 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 dedicate
more acres to wetlands, then this plan must also provide some relief to the
developer from development costs.
Wetland Restoration
Restoration Goals
As discussed above, the amount of wetlands to restore is an open issue:
the HCP proposes 951, the LUP--sNows 600, and the Department of Fish and Game
requires 1018. The type of wetlands to be restored 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:
(1) high habitat diversity
(2) low capital and operation costs i
(3) compatible with public and private development, including present
and future oil operations; and
(4) 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 similar to Anaheim 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.
However, since 1973 our understanding of wetland restoration goals in
this region has advanced considerably, partially based on the Conservancy's
Los Angeles-Orange County Wetland Restoration study. That study and recent
DFG analyses point out that, in L.A. and Orange Counties, there is a tremen-
dous need for the restoration of tidal, muted tidal, and non-tidal (fresh or
brackish water) wetlands. A "muted" tidal wetland is an area where 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 18 inches.
As it happens, the restoration of a tidal/muted tidal/non-tidal system at
Bolsa Chica is both cheaper and more compatible with existing oil operations
than a solely tidal system (see below for a more detailed account of oil oper-
ations and their effect on wetland restoration) . Given the subsidence that
has occurred at Bolsa, restoration of a strictly tidal system would require
extensive sculpting of the lowland, estimated to cost at least $25,000 per
acre, and might endanger oil operations through groundwater intrusion at the
low elevation oil pads. The HCP-proposed wetlands (Figure 2) takes advantage
of both subsidence and oil operations, though, by:
(1) removing the present tide gates and letting natural tides establish
tidal wetlands on about 460 acres in addition to outer Bolsa Bay.
Some sculpting will take place to create islands, fish refugia,
channels and a large berm to protect existing oil facilities.
(2) creating a muted tidal habitat in the "cells" formed by the present
oil roads. Tidal water will be let in through two tide gates
and move through the cells from higher to lower ground. The water
will then be pumped out into the tidal wetland. The presence 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 will continue at Bolsa for quite some time, at least through the life of
any development project. The oil wells themselves are clustered in two sec-
tions of the lowlands commonly referred to as the North and South Fields (see
Exhibit 3) . Under both the LUP and HCP, residential development would overlap
with much of the North field, while the central wetland would encompass the
I
_ I
11
i
entire South field operation. Accordingly, the major challenge that confronts
wetland restoration at Bolsa is to find an economically feasible way to allow
restoration to proceed in the near term yet still avoid conflict with the
existing oil company leases. Aminoil USA representatives (the largest oil
operator at Bolsa) agreed that the HCP proposed wetland 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. msl (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
(2) development of a joint DFG/Aminoil management agreement, possibly
similar to the present agreement between DFG, Signal and Aminoil and
which would include allowances for:
(a) periodic drying of cells to allow oil facility maintenance (the
HCP assumes several cells will be 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 for planning purposes of the oil operation/
wetland area as "petroleum reserve" with the understanding that
this area will be included within the Ecological Reserve when
oil operations cease. Aminoil would still be responsible for
all cleanup of any oil spills in the area and subject to all
existing rules and regulations.
Phasing
An important part of any wetland restoration project at Bolsa Chica is
the phasing of its development, which in turn will depend on the type of ocean
entrance constructed. As discussed below, the HCP provides for a navigable
ocean entrance, with a stated preference for a relatively low cost, self-
maintaining one if it should prove to be feasible. This type of entrance
requires a large enough tidal prism (about 500 acres) to power the
Conservancy-preferred self-maintaining ocean entrance. The first phase of the
HCP wetland restoration consists of the construction of a berm to provide the
requisite 500 acres of full tidal wetlands (Exhibit 8) and to protect exist-
ing oil facilities. This first phase includes portions of the present DFG
Ecological Reserve but does not require consolidation of any existing oil
wells.The second phase of the restoration, which could occur concurrently with
the first phase, includes the development of the muted and nontidal wetlands
by the extension of the Phase 1 berm around the inland edge of the oil area
(shown in Exhibit 8 as the "Phase II 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 above, 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 ($5.5 million versus
about $29 million) and do provide more habitat diversity. Therefore, the HCP
proposal is preferred.
ARTERIAL ROADS AND BRIDGES
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 Bolsa have agreed on certain goals. First, that
major improvements must be made in regional and local traffic connections.
Presently, Bolsa Chica exists as a kind of "white hole" in the regional trans-
portation network. Second, these parties also agree that some form of "cross-
Gap" connector is necessary to channel traffic through the lowland. Finally,
there has also been recent agreement that it would be useful to locate this
cross-Gap connector as far 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 open issue, however, is how close to existing
housing this connector should be located, due to noise and traffic impacts.
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
between $16 and $30 million), the reroute will:
(1) free up almost 20 acres of land 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) ;
(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;
(5) enhance the value of both the marina and the waterfront homes by
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
widening of PCH in its present location.
19
The PCH reroute does have drawbacks. The County considered such a plan but
rejected it at the time of the last gas crisis, due to increased 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 50-60,000
cars per day on this stretch. Finally, the reroute could be perceived as a
major disamenity by adjancent neighborhoods.
Parsons-Brinkerhoff, Inc. , 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 volumes 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 desirabilitly of the PCH reroute and its specific alignment remains
an open question among the various parties. From the Conservancy staff's
perspective the reroute's overall recreational, development and environmental
benefits outweigh the potential mitigatable traffic impacts. However, given
that the reroute might not 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 of a new ocean entrance at Bolsa Chica has been one of
the more controversial items. Early in the HCP process, the Conservancy staff
analyzed the possibility of completing a wetland restoration project at Bolsa
without a new ocean entrance. However, a hydrodynamic analysis completed by
ram. PF Tl Williams, 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 Harbor. As a number of complaints had already been
registered from Harbor residents as to present current 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-
tina 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 established (see
Appendix B 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 would then be kept open by the ebbf 1 ow tides which would push lit-
toral sand back out into the ocean (see Figure 5) .
The "429" interests (those groups specified in SB 429 to develop the HCP)
also agreed that the actual design of the ocean entrance shall be left to the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) with the understanding that the following
criteria shall be employed in the design:
Philip Williams&Associate •
Boy
,
Bay Shoal
=JIM \�
1 W
Fbb
---
Go9r
e
000,
.-�-
Of
011ter
Seo
Typical barrier beach tidal inlet.
From Escoffier 1977'-
' • 20 •
(1) The entrance shall be navigable, i.e. ; at least 8 feet deep at mean
low water, with the width dependent on boat use (between 400 and 600
feet at surface) ;
(2) The entrance shall protect and maintain existing beaches and not
increase down or upcoast erosion;
(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 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 Bolsa to provide
adequate tidal flushing of boat channels and wetlands.
Staff is not recommending this entrance, however, due to the increased
boat traffic through Huntington Harbor, the possible, though unspecified,
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
Bolsa.
Staff prefers that the HCP include a self-maintaining entrance with
channel depths at -12 mllw as the best entrance to meet the criteria jointly
agreed upon. This entrance is not as deep as many other entrances in southern
California (see Appendix C for more information) , but it is relatively
inexpensive and does protect up and down coast beaches from erosion. This is
the preferred entrance, subject to COE evaluation using the above criteria.
Two other, more expensive, entrances are also possible. The first con-
sists of two jetties extending to -18 mllw. This entrance, proposed by Pro-
fessor Joe Johnson (see Exhibit 10) , would provide average channel depths com-
parable to other southern California entrances. Littoral drift would be
interrupted but Dr. Johnson feels it has been significantly over-estimated for
this area and may not be 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
mllw. The breakwater reduces the possibility of storm waves entering the
harbor and, as designed by Signal 's engineering consultant, Jack Nichols, also
creates a calm water area on the upcoast beach for dredging of sand deposits
for transferral to the downcoast beach (similar to the sand bypass system
presently in use at Channel Islands Harbor).
• 21
All participants in the HCP process wish to develop a plan approvable by
the various regulatory agencies. It will be very difficult for any agency to
approve 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 recommending that the lower cost, self-
maintaining entrance be included within the HCP with the understanding that
this entrance is preferred unless the Corps states that this entrance is not
within the range of entrances approvable by the Corps. If the Corps makes
such a finding, the preferred entrance, whatever it is, must still meet the
criteria agreed upon as discussed above. As noted above, the HCP may not be
as navigable as that proposed in the LUP, but if Corps funding is not avail-
able, it may be the most feasible entrance due to its low cost and beach main-
tenance aspect.
Public Marina and Boating
Most parties involved at Bolsa have agreed on the need for a public
marina and the provision of recreational boating in the land use plan. Con-
servancy staff have also agreed with the County and Signal that a logical
location for the marina is the lowland area near the ocean entrance. Two open
issues remaining, though, are the size of the marina and the widths of the
boating channels. Staffs have agreed that the size of the public marina is a
function of the benefits nee3ed to create a positive benefit/cost ratio for
the construction of the ocean entrance, assuming Corps of Engineers 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 increment to
create added recreational benefits (room to tack for small sailboats) .
The HCP proposes a 1000-slip marina, a main boating channel from the
marina to the entrance averaging 350-feet wide, a turning basin 700 feet in
diameter at the entrance, a minor boating channel 150-feet wide adjacent to
the waterfront homes, and a public boat launching ramp on the State Beach at
the turning 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 ($60.3 to $71 million) compared to the HCP and the con-
*Assuming Corps financing is available, the Corps will develop a benefit/cost
(B/C) 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 number of public slips
can offset a higher cost project.
22 •
commitant need for a positive Corps B/C Ratio. The wider waterfront home
channel also provides some additional recreational boating opportunities for
sailors not wishing to enter the ocean.
Marina Commercial
Most parties involved at Bolsa have agreed that, if a public marina is to
be built, a commercial area adjacent is necessary to provide revenues for
financing the marina upkeep.* The Coastal Act also mandates visitor-serving
commercial facilities at the coast to accommodate public use. As with the
public marina, the major difference between the HCP and LUP is the size of
this area. The HCP, with its smaller marina, contains somewhat less
commercial acreage (25 acres) than the LUP (38 acres) . However, the HCP
acreage can accommodate all the visitor-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 final marina
commercial acreage would be based on the amount of activity necessary to
support the marina.
Nonwetland Environmentally Sensitive Habitat (ESH)
DFG has identified the following ESH at Bolsa:
Habitat Acreage Location
Eucalyptus tree 21 Bolsa Mesa and adjacent
lowlands
Coastal dunes 14 Ecological Reserve
Coastal Shrub 51 Rabbit Island
Vernal pond 2 Bolsa Mesa
DFG 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.
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. Normally, the leases for these commercial sites
specify that some part of this revenue will be channeled into marina
operation.
. � 23 •
3. The vernal pond (an artificial construction) will be recreated within
the residential acreage with suitable buffer.
The LUP contains no provisions presently for either restoration or protection
of the ESH.
Flood Channel Improvements
Wintersburg Flood Control Channel provides the primary means of flood
protection for Bolsa and 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. The 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 with this type of project (Palo Alto Baylands, Carpinteria Estero),
it would be possible to design the channel and basin to function as a wetland.
The LUP originally proposed an expanded Wintersburg Channel which would
flow between the marina and the visitor-serving area. This option is
apparently being rethought, however, 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 has proposed a linear park along the Huntington Beach mesa and
bluff face to connect the State Beach with a reginal park in the interior.
The HCP proposes the same park but is including within that park most of the
nonwetland environmentally sensitive habitat (ESH) requiring 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
ESN; the HCP proposal simply helps to resolve this issue without creating a
loss of developable acreage.
Residential Development
Almost any plan prepared to date by any of the various parties shows a
substantial amount 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
of the housing in the lowland.
The HCP and the LUP are very similar in their response to these criteria.
The HCP includes less acreage of housing overall (396 vs. 502 acres) but about
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
I
24
analysis the NCP itself does to specify densities, leaving this to local
jurisdictions. Both plans also show the waterfront perimeter along the edge
of the north Bolsa oil field to accommodate future oil wells and lines. The
HCP residential edge curves inland to accommodate the needed wetland acreage
compared to the LUP and does not include any housing 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 provide greater wetland view potential .
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
Summary Cost Comparison
The LUP, as approved by the County Board of Supervisors in 1981,
represents a financially feasible plan in ' the landowner's eyes, and provides
the logical benchmark for assessing the acceptability of the HCP.* The burden
of proof on the HCP process is to demonstrate how a plan, with significantly
more wetland acreage than the LUP, and some reduction in development acreage,
compares financially to the LUP--particularly in respect to its ability to
support the range of public benefits provided by the LUP. As discussed above,
the HCP hopes to accomplish this primarily through achieving major cost
savings in the project's capital budget for public facilities.
Since the Conservancy's April workshop, Conservancy staff and consultants
to Signal and the County have made considerable progress in agreeing on a
reasonable set of cost estimates for comparing the LUP with the HCP. Table 3
gives a summary comparison of the cost estimates used in the staff's analysis.
However, as unresolved cost issues still remain within each plan, the finan-
cial analysis was done on the basis of two sets of cost estimates for both the
LUP and the HCP:
1. LUP Low Cost Estimate. This is the cost estimate for the LUP pro-
vided y Signal 's consultants. The budget includes $24.3 million for
a T-bridge over the ocean entrance and outer Bolsa Bay with bermed
approaches up to 45 feet in height.
2. LUP High Cost Estimate. The primary differences between this esti-
mate and the LUP Low 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
i
*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
ways that would reduce their cost. But the presumption is that any such cost
savings would have the effect of making an already feasible plan even more
feasible.
I
25 •
TABLE 3
COST COMPARISON SPECIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES
BOLSA CHICA LUP AND HCP
(In Millions of $)
LUP HCP
COST ITEM Low Highow
Marina $ 34.4 $ 34.4 $ 16.2 $ 17.4
Ocean Accessa 60.3 71.3 12.2 38.9
Huntington Harbor Connectb 18.1 18.2 -- --
Flood Control 5.2 6.5 1.4 1.4
Wetland Restoration 21.7 28.5 5.5 3.0
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 $ 56.3 $ 81.7
Total Without Huntington
Harbor Connection 144.7 175.6 56.3 81.1
NOTES:
(a) The ocean access figures in Table 3 include the ocean entrance itself,
the PCH bridge (LUP only) turning basin and main boating channels, and
state beach improvements.
(b) The Huntington Harbor Connection figures include all the costs asso-
ciated with providing a boating link between Huntington Harbor and an
ocean entrance at Bolsa, and include (in addition to channel costs) the
incremental cost for widening the ocean entrance and PCH bridge to
accommodate added boat traffic, a bridge over outer Bolsa Bay, demoli -
tion costs for the existing Warner Avenue Bridge, and channel costs.
(c) The Arterial Bridge figures include bridges over internal traffic
arteries (e.g. over the flood control channel) that are unrelated to
recreational boating. The LUP flood control estimates include bridge
costs for linking the marina and visitor service commercial area over
the flood control channel .
26 •
fully tidal wetland were to be 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 Low Cost Estimate. This estimate reflects the following major
cost 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 mixed tidal , muted and
nontidal 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. HCP High Cost Estimate. The figures in this column represent the
costs agreed to for the 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 which
becomes unnecessary if an LUP style ocean entrance is constructed.
In sum, it seems evident that the HCP should reduce the project's budget
for special public facilities by at least 50% in comparison to the LUP as
initially approved.
ECONOMICS OF PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Table 4 summarizes 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 I. Total Revenues. This is the estimated gross revenues from home sales
including allowance for the 25% affordable housing requirement
imposed by the LUP. The figures reflect the mix among density types
assumed in the LUP, with other key assumptions (density per acre,
home prices, acreage netted out for boat channel) either based on the,
Fiscal Impact Report or provided by Signal consultants.
*Exhibit 5 of the Phase I Plan. Consultants to Signal believe that nearly 12
million of the $16.8 arterial bridge costs reflects elements that were
mistakenly included in the Phase I cost estimates.
• 27 •
TABLE 4
SUMMARY RESULTS: RESIDENTIAL FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
( In Millions of $)
HCP LUP
COST ITEM Low High Low High
1. Total Revenues $767 $767 $954 $954
LESS
2. Net Public Costs Supported 35 59 106 137
By Residential Development
3. Unit Development Costs @ 65% 498 498 620 620
4. Margin for Land and Profit 234 210 228 197
5. Margin as % of Revenues 31% 27% 24% 21%
6. Public Costs as % of Revenues 5% 8% 11% 14%
• 28 •
Line 2. Net Public Facility Costs Supported by Residential Development. This
is an estimate of the ' net funds" for special public facilities at
Bolsa that would have to be supported directly by the residential
development--either through 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 assumes that the Huntington Harbor boat connection
would be built only if Huntington Harbor residents assess them-
selves or some outside funding source materializes;
° that the marina (the basins and immediated 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 Resolution); and
that the State will bear the wetland costs required strictly for
oilwell protection (primarily berming around the South field) but
restoration costs incurred primarily for aesthetic purposes would
be born by the development.
In the absence 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 net public costs borne by
the project under the High Cost HCP are about 40-50% those estimated
for the LUP; assuming the low cost HCP, the costs are less than one
third of the LUP estimates.
Line 3. Unit Development Cost. This is a typical allowance for home con-
struction 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. Margin for Land and Profit. Line 1 less the sum of lines 2 and 3.
This is the rest ua tat 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. Margin as Percent of Revenues. Line 4 divided by Line 1. Although
e dollar amounts inLine may seem large, the percentage figures
in line 5 suggest that the economic feasibility of both the HCP and
the LUP may be marginal without the availability of some outside
funding for major cost elements such as the ocean entrance and the
PCH bridge. However, the results do confirm the feasibility of the
HCP relative to the LUP.
* This assumption is based on currently available financing from government
agencies and other sources.
A • •
29
Line 6. Public Costs as Percent of Revenues. This line measures the special
public facility costs (Line--as a percent of total residential
revenues. As can be seen, the cost burden for the HCP, under both
the low and high cost assumptions, is less than the estimate for the
LUP.
IN SUM: The above results suggest that a plan incorporating the basic HCP
concepts could provide a 951 acre wetland and still meet the devel-
oper's basic economic requirements. In particular, it would do three
things:
(1) It would provide the developer with an economic return comparable
to what he/she could realize under the LUP, and perhaps even
better.
(2) It would offer a more workable relationship between costs and i
revenues, thereby increasing the feasibility of paying for the
special public facilities envisaged for Bolsa Chica--including
both extensive, attractive wetland restoration and a major
recreational boating facility.
(3) By greatly reducing the upfront costs of development, it should
reduce the developer's financial risk and exposure in carrying
out the development.
Financial Feasibility of Marina
Table 5 summarizes the results of staff's analysis of the financial
feasibility of a major public marina at Bolsa Chica. The financial analysis
assumes the availability of low cost loans for marina development which would
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 1 of Table 5 gives the net revenues available for debt service after
netting out a 10% allowance for adminstration costs. Line 2 gives the annual
payment on the marina 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 LUP, but they support a smaller, and hence, less costly
facility.
Here it should be noted that the Conservancy's financial analysis has
focused primarily on the capital costs for public facilities at Bolsa. The
Phase I Report contains a rougFi 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
30 •
TABLE 5
MARINA ECONOMICS
LUP HCP
I. Total Cost $34 million $16.2 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
5. Surplus available for other maintenance $ .3 million $1.2 million
and operations
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)
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 down marina in the NCP
appears more feasible than the LUP. As mentioned earlier, if COE
grant funding for the ocean entrance becomes a real probability, a
larger public marina may be required to obtain a favorable
cost-benefit ratio from the Corps.
II
EXHIBITS
i
MORBA LINDA\
FULLERTON
I
ANANEIM
ARDEN GROVE ».. ANGE
SANTA ANA
TUSTIN IL
StudyAroa
COSTA SA a IRVINE
NEWPORT BEACH' — ,•
a
LACUNA BEACH
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO
,r
SAN CLEMENTE
Q Incorporated
[_] unincorporated RIEGOONAL LOCATUGH
Coastal Zone Boundary
BOLSA CHICA
NORTH COAST PLANNING UNIT
LOCAL CO&STAL PROGRAM
COWTV Or aRAWA
r
tr
r
Anaheim Pungot
say Aquatic L i
Hun ten
Haab +' -
vt
unttn t on • �,� t �, 1'••`
solaa Chic& each -
State Beach Pit!i r.• ` f='
•
Seaciltt
y ors/A
:� •�• t
. J
Newport
Beach
BOLSA CHICA
NORTH COAST PLANNING LUT
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
fir,.^^,(r17Sff�e•'+i!� Y. y'
'd
kw
t
,l'��>�j��D�v�FS•�y1?," ZiO��g�'Y 1�a •-y��t' A'c�il ! .\
C, �,��t� l� �,Intt�C♦YI�`r `•
1�ti �trhl�r(iti '�;; 1' ��v• i,•:i%,47
�1L1� ♦' �,�r1�'il air,, . `,. .,., o.J��� '.-'/�\.�1 �, • •C '
ti �'f ti•' d t ♦ :nc�
11♦' .•�• •. �♦ + ,tT rem'! %
1 ♦ . ♦ t.,�::n `.
�r^.♦�) ��yr ♦f} t '��;i:�11 l�1JY 1.3 i.u!,�,��1',Ir�j � • L�T' , ��
1 Jr i 1 r a1s r f *.+ i �,3 kSd♦1 } , � - •
A.
J.
� �. - . � , . Ir pc' r its .> . ..• s �
.t 7lrry '�r .•.� .,' } i! :.,,1 r1'��'1'.`•C' i1,�r,1,111r•n'' rr4,'�♦�,r�.ut�Tm.. '•, •, .��•'
1 y �f� _ v '.r• to ,i r,111 ` • j'♦ •p-1 �- ,per •
\%
♦ r{ r r .,1 .11'1,w♦IYfi ? �y 1 3grl.� i +l^%.•_ ••' '' •.•y
.' ,�{'.• y y% .� ,�, _.•�� Uc �'i lu is / ,� � M •/
TtA
urlu•143 a u6LJ
��-`-\•�.._r•%�• __ .� •MKCt1 t0 QUILL NTt
�PRg 38NT O►�. �'I�t��.��� 'C►S fietd
L:r aEMON
F'Trl
-U
TLIP'OCrtAPW DAT.-* tAF1N SF:IC'C
o PUKC,NAcem
�► .,AM Ca1WNW-
1110► „
.�
,w1.e1e oeaa,v..11 �ouewn -_ `'!'"�' ,� '.A•
mm now"A"W"1►i1L ,
1
1.4
1.6
�yI�P�C AM 1.2
um
A CkLvmwww
IMfIMi� �A �.AA CICA UWMI
IAA poolo ML PAW
Aoo'M�'I � IR1ldp AI�A
IA
PM
_ �' RIIO�r 1e01/ICl/
. Mll/Ml p
eoA,1 Aoow D O � d CAI! r•Nr
AW MIP N.IM.
AM1AN A TA7r�01 R.
ALTERNATIVE
c13FACIJ - �
METROPOLITAN
F�F7 1
r/.•wu1111 uulxN u•.1 ••,I nl w/l. S
1 WI ul pAx i
SUMMARY ACRES ll
1 M11.W11. .,1r1N111•111 BEACHPNGTON COMPANY -
sun or tyl/OAI�A �/ SI Avl A%%1•I:INL•IN A
t(b►1A 11A>ZOtO1tAt1 win r(l11 of NY14tI11N/%.wMt
M N',11•Il M.wlrl.1.NI ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD
tWINt�01 L.NRA14 tt171! / 1
1loNAt 101 f. toles AIO rl•ro ,
arrorwrLoloN«AQI Lwr CONTROL-DISTRICT 1 �/
IIt II1(yp11 AMMttA altt�,'t M1� 1l\AI 1•'.I ur N11•Nl wall tNI. 1-•\•
0.ft ocow"m Ootmoct 11%a 111NN1((W 1111Y /'.N•NN11
1/t111{.pIMININ1111.N111(M ,•�, yt,
1 OQAN 1/oM 1U40l ObtlKt 11� I.Y111WIW NI{ '
Ot 0000tt1 11r f•I •�. ,`1
r41r/1 Novo"amwco1MMI
yyyyN,QRACE Il - ` 1 1 TOTAL 1,6e1 11S �fJ
.\ •1l• •e
AR AJ.REA E ( i' t :
' •10UWA 11orw tAIlarAtlt.C '/
QPEPRATIQU
PINY M'Ef
SIGNAL BOLSA
COBWAATI
OCEAN VIEW .. .Y i / �� ' , ��'.+y�i.r.(•et' ..1, ` 1
STRICT
po"
.As MO/RPI11 to corstNuc*
euloot an Slti ' •% 1• r r �' ,
•t 1
/ _ Oo
4.4
• r r i 1r IV� _ r r���r��r.r
OLSA ��r,r�.r.� r.��� •
SIGNAL B ` . _
- Uff
.AC .
ttt 1111t t11ANeWj6l1t0t0StAlt
60L3A CHICA •.11 ii.le iM r11AI1Kir ova IMItM111tM1{(MNI/A1111(IIIIfNt
SIAtt ICI IMr R NAWf."K 0I.t AN tillN ilI IIAI Mt14A �.,...�....�.��
Cut inots11111CIt0 ON mwwoty MIpr1I1 IM:IIIf115711ACPISt/IK1t11►ACIIL
"Go""MAID r�Hmm UWF • 'W ttAW N11100Lom 1'11At1 M1L1MMv
.ww11..vA S I ►LI�� wi Y11I _ _ ®.. �1 40•cRi.cR'M9
:Y EXHW
Y
.i .
v�1��`�1!��1��
,�f�,��`�.�;wr\•`�,1�',b�a"
yx
��iI�Y. \1 i �. .,�''!•�r��'a'. alY'V�1�,.1,.•. ,`y..a , VI11�'�ht,1- �:
rF tir � �� � •' ` `t t ,
S
•Mate of California • X N,a I T ! Department of Justice
Memorandum
To John 2entner Date March 28 , 1984
Coastal Conservancy
File No.:
Steven H. Kaufmann Telephone: ATSS: ( 677) 2136
Deputy Attorney General ( 736) 2136
From Office of the Attorney General
LOS ANGELES
Subject: 1973 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 Agreement 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 have enclosed two documents for your
information which evidence the three-year extension of the option
term.
Should have any questions regarding these documents , please do
not hesitate to contact me.
zz
STEVEN H. KAUFMANN
Deputy Attorney General
SHK:dc
Enc. RECEIVED
cc: N. Gregory Taylor n �, ) 1984
Iy
STATE COASTAL
C�,lF VAS:'
OAKLA
i
SENATE BILL 493
STATEMENT OF STATE LANDS COMVISSION REGARDING
THE 1973 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
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
were :
a) The State owned 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 State 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 development 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 t300 acre parcel, now managed
by the Department of Fish and Game as the Bolsa Chica Ecological
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 trust
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 .
This 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 not established within the 14 year period (1987) , the lease
will terminate and the 230 acres will revert to Signal.
SENATE BILL 493 - 2 -
A clause pledging; mutual cooperation and assistance was
included in the Settlement Agreement (Exhibit A) . The clause
pledges thA signatories to mutually cooperate and assist each
other in c taining . . . 'Licenses and-permits necessary or desirable
to effect the foregoing from governmental agencies including , but
not limited to, the United States Army Corps of Engineers and other
Federal and State agencies".
The Agreement did not exempt Signal from applicable laws
and regulations . Specifically, the Agreement 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 on 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 plan for the development of the public lands ,
only, was included in the Settlement Agreement . The conceptual
plan specifically contemplated, as primary uses , the following:
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 is an agreement, in principle, for the develop-
ment of resources and recreation in Bolsa Bay. The plan is con-
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 government permits . Failure to implement the concep-
tual plan will not affect the validity of the Settlement Agreement. i
I
Conclusion
The 1973 Settlement Agreement was a vehicle for settling
title disputes . As a result of this Agreement , Signal received the
benefit of clear, title to lands within the Bolsa Chica area.
SENATE BILL 493 - 3 -
Thi's Settlement Agreement , like all others negotiated by
the State Lands Commission , could not and did not exempt Signal
or any other landowner from being subject to all applicable local•
State and Federal laws and regulations including, but not limited
to. the California Coastal Act.
BOLSA CHICA
WETLAND
PHASING
EXHIBIT 9
•
rS�
Ya i
J
pHAS� �
6l-Vl�i' l�Nl' WCtLANDS
�St bb RM
' - • (415) 524-1127
J. W. .JOHNSON
CONSULTING ENGINEER
2E8 LAKE DRIVE
139RKILEY• CALIFORNIA 94709 R E C E I V E D
May 22, 1984 MAY Z 4 IS84
SANTINA$THOMPSON INC.
Santina & Thompson, Inc.
1040 Oak Grove Road
Concord, CA 94518
ATTN: Peter F. Santina
Dear Pete:
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 a well-planned
and low-cost maintenance 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 conference on
May 22, 1984.
2. The entrance jetties should be extended seaward to the eighteen foot
(MLLW) contour to provide 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
extremely high to me. The deposition at other entrance jetties in this
area indicates a relatively low rate of drift. Several range lines
should be made perpendicular to the shoreline in the vicinity of the
proposed inlet, out to about the 20 ft depth below MLLW, to provide the
exact bottom topography in the area.
3. Since it will be some years before appreciable development will be made
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 con-
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 expensive structure is required.
4. More reliable data on the wave climate are now available than in previous
years. The 1960 hindcast data by the National Marine Consultants did
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.
Santina & Thompson are fully qualified to conduct further studies for
design purposes and complete the plans for the project.
Sincerely,
�J. W. J on
JWJ:mi
J.W. JOHNSON
Professor of Hydraulic Engineering
University of California
Education: B.S. in Civil Engineering, 1931
M.S. in Civil Engineering, 1934
University of California, Berkeley
Experience•
1934-35 Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers,
Vicksburg, Missippi
1935-42 Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.
1942-75 Teaching, University of California: Professor of
Hydraulic Engineering, 1942-1975
1975- Professor of Hydraulic Engineering, Emeritus
Licensed Engineer in California
Membership: American Society of Civil Engineers - Fellow
Chi Epsilon (Civil Engineering honorary society)
Pi Tau Sigma (Mechanical Engineering honorary society)
Sigma Xi (Research honorary society)
Secretary, ASCE Coastal Engineering Research Council
International Association for Hydraulic Research
Honors: Guggenheim Fellowship - 1955
Department of the Army "Outstanding Civilian Service Medal"
1973
Berkeley Citation, University of California - 1975
Member, National Academy of Engineering - 1976
J. '«• Juanson
C_asulting Experience and other Professional Activities:
(1) Consultant to Utah Power and Light Co. . Sa!t Lake City, Utah, on
sediment problems in the Bear River near I•.-ran, Utah, 1;+50j.
(2) Consultant to Waterways Experiment Station, Vicxsburg, Mississippi.
Wave action problems, 1951-52.
(3) Consultant to Jacksonville District, Corps of Tagineers, Jacksonville,
Florida, on wave and wind tides in Lake Okeechobee, Florida, 1952-58.
(�) Consultant to B. A. Houel, Engineers, Caracas, Venezuela, on sedimenta-
tion, beach erosion, and harbor development along the Venezuela coast.
1954-58.
(5) Expert witness in numerous court cases on sediment problems.
(6) Consultant to Santa Fe Railroad on sedizenation in the Rio Grande
Valley, 1954-58•
(7) Consultant to U.S. Navy, Breakwater at Subic Bay, ?.I. , 1955•
(8) Consultant to Dames and (Moore, Littoral drift on Alameda fill. 1957-59•
(9) Consultant to Tudor Engineering:
(a) Wave action at Puerto Matarani, Peru, 1958.
(b) Harbor development, Da Hang Bay, S. Vietnam, 1962.
(c) Fort facilities, Chimbote, Peru, 1962.
(d) Fish processing plant, Chimbote, Peru, 1963.
(10) Consultant to Takota Corp. , Birmingham, Alabama, proposed improved
entrance to Russian River, California, 1959.
(11) Santa Cruz Seaside Co. , California, proposed sea wall, 1959.
(12) Consultant to J. 3. Pomeroy b Co.
(a) Shoreline processes at Tahoe Keys, California, 195?.
(b) Surging at Navy Fuel Terminal, San Pedro, California, 1959•
(c) Port development, Ras-Al-Khafji, Persian Gulf, 1959.
(d) Small craft harbor, Martinez, California, 1960.
(e) Phillips Petroleum Rarbor, Puerto Rico, 1966.
(f) Water front development at Columbia-Geneva Steel Plant,
Pittsburg, California, 1960.
(13) Consultant to Secretaria de Marina, Government of Mexico, Port develop-
ment at
(a) Ensenada, Baja, California
(b) Topolobampo, Sinaloa
(c) Salina Cruz, Tahuantepec, 1960.
(14) Consultant to Raymond Concrete Pile Co. , littoral drift problem at
proposed small craft harbor, Santa 3arbara, 1' 6D.
k15) Consultant to Stevens and Thocspscn, Seattle, Washington, Silting
problem in Green Lake, 19bl.
J. o. Johnson
Consulting Experience and other l-rofesjional Activities (cons. )
(16) California State Lands Comm., Los Angeles, Shoreline changes In
Monterey Bay, 1961.
(17) Pacific Architects and Engineers, Okinawa
(a) LST mop fees:bility report, 1961.
(b) Wave action, Tengan Pier, Okinawa,
(18) Dames and More., Honolulu, Beach development, Kona Coast
(19) Belt, Collins and Associates, Honolulu, Scull craft harbors, 1961.
(20) Soil Conservation Service, Honolulu, Sediment problems at stream
outlets, 1962.
(21) International Engineering, San Francisco, Ore port at Vitoria, Brazil,
1961-63.
(22) Mareona Mining Co. , San Juan, Peru, Wave action in San Nicholas Bay,
1962.
(23) Los Angeles Coun.y Small Craft Harbor Dept. , ,iave problems, Marine del
Rey, 1962-63.
(24) Miners Bayovar, Palo Alto, Calif. , Port development, Schura Bay, Peru,
1963.
(25) Utah Construction and Mining Co. , San Francisco, Fort development,
Northwest Australia, 1963.
(26) John Blume b Associates, San Francisco, Scull craft harbors, 1963-64.
(27) Mac Silvert, Consulting Engineer, San Francisco, Fort development
for Kaiser Aluminum at Dry Harbor, Jamaica, 1964.
(28) Bechtel Corporation, San Francisco, Tarapur Nuclear Power Plant, India,
1963-64.
(29) Bay Area Rapid Transit, San Francisco, High-Later levels in the Bay,
1964.
(30) U.S. Navy, Guam, Silting in Power ?'.ant Intake Channel, 1964.
(31) U.S. National Park Service, Shoreline stability, 1965.
(32) International Engineering, San Francisco, California, Shoreline stabi-
lity, Baia de Sepetiba, Brazil.
(33) Petroleos Mexica.nos, Port expansion at Coatzacoalcos, Mexico, 1965.
(34) Mac Silvert, Consulting Engineer, San Francisco, California, Rock
loading facility, Ot. Sur, California, 1966.
(35) F. R. Harris Co. , N-v York, Proposed fill problems, Lorain Harbor, Ohio,
1966.
J. W. Jchnson
Consulting Experience and other Professional Activities (cont. )
(36) Bechtel Corporation, Gaithersburg, Md. , Turkey Point Atomic Power Plant,
Fla. , 1966-67.
(37) Suez Canal Authority, ::ew port development, Damietta, Egypt, 1966.
(38) U. S. Attorney, San Francisco, Limantour spit, 1965-67.
(39) Crown-Zellerbach, Seattle, Wash. , Beach erosion, Port Angeles, 1967.
(40). Parsons. Srinckerhoff. Quade, 4 Douglas, Sedimentation, Bahia Blanca,
Argentina. 1967.
(41) Bolinas Harbor District, Calif. , 1967-68.
(42) Swan-Wooster, Vancouver, Pt. Grey beach fill. 1967.
(43) John Blume b Associates. Harbor surge, San Nicholas Bay, Peru, 1967-68.
(44) B. A. Nouel and Juan Font, Caracas, Venezuela. Shoreline problems, 1968.
(45) Mac Silvert; Consulting Engineer, San Francisco, Proposed port, Bezout
Is. . N. W. Australia, 1968.
(46) Southern Cross Mines, Cape Cuvier Port, W. Australia, 1968.
(47) Calif. Dept. of Highways,, Santa Monica Causeway. 1964-72.
(48) Calif. Dept. of Highways. Ventura Highway protection. 1969-72.
(49) Utah Construction Co. . Hay Point Coal Port, Australia, 1969.
(50) Utah Construction, Loading facility. Cape Flattery, Queensland,
Australia, April 1969.
(51) L. Zeevaert, !lexica City. Port development. Tres Palos Lagoon, Acapulco,
May 1969.
(52) United Nations, New York, Erosion of Nile Delta, August 1969.
(53) U. S. Attorney General, Limantour spit. Pt. Reyes, Calif. , Ncvecber
1969.
(54) Soros b Associates, Port expansion, Tubarao, Vitoria, Brazil. 1969-70.
(55) Bolinas Harbor Dist. . Sediment studies, September 1969.
(56) Santa Fe-Pomeroy. Bonny River Terminal, Nigeria, February 1970.
(57) Northern California Aggregates, San Francisco, Russian River mouth
study, April 1970.
(58) Mac Silvert, San Francisco, Port at Jervis Bay, N.S.W. , Australia.
April 1970.
(59) California State Office of Attorney General. Kent vs State, Bolinas Bay,
1970-72.
(60) Utah International , San Francisco, Rupert Inlet Tailing Disposal, 1970-71.
I
J. W. Johnson
Cun_ulting Experience "nu Uther Profe;sional (:ont .)
(61) Qeorge S. Nolte & Assoc. , Emeryville Marina, 197U.
(u-') Ci3. talc Uu Itio Uoce, Rio do Janeiro, i9:s:i1 , l,cvclopir1%:r1L of new Wood-
chip port, Espirito Santo, .)70.
(63) International Engineering. San Francisco, N%uw por: site, Pacific Coast
of Guatemala, 1972.
0 4) Federal Commission of Electricity, Mexico City, Sediment problems at
Laguna Verde nuclear power plant, Veracru:, 1972.
(65) Valuec Servicos Technicos, Ltd. , Rio de Janciro, 14.ci poi ite, Northern
Brazil, 1972.
(66) Carr b Donald &Associates, Toronto, Now port Lu: . .._ti.,� , Alaska,
1972.
(67) Engeo Incorp. , Serkc ley, Calif. , Wave action on Nation-i & _ A" Cu. ,
North Dike, Grcat Salt Lake, Utah, 1972.
(6S) Commonwealth Edison Co. , Chicago, Ill . , 3cacii erosion at Zion Atomic
Power Plant, June-September 1973.
(69) Dames and Moore, San Francisco, Ocean floor stauility, Atlantic Atomic
Power Plant, New Jersey, January 1974.
(70) Dames and Moore, San Francisco, Silting in 'toss Landing Harbor.
California, June 1974.
(71) International Engineering, San Francisco, Calif. , Steel plant protec-
tion against wave damage, Lazcro Cardenas, +lexico, ,august 1974.
(7:) -Dames and Moore. Sun Francisco, Scour studies, San Lucia Power Plant,
Florida, 1975.
(73) International Engineering, San Francisco, stave action and sedimentation,
SMARCO, Brati1 , 1975.
k74) Swan Wooster Engineering. Vancuuver, Marine Terminal . Net: Brunswick,
Canada, 1975.
(75) Chief of Engineers Shoreline Erosion A%ivisury Panel , 1976-1981 .
(76) UNESCO Nile River Delta Erosion Study. 197u.
(77) Parsons, Brinkerhoff, et al . , San Francisco Uccan uutfsll , 1977.
(73) City of San Francisco. Ocean beach stud+•, 1J77.
(79) Cabinete de Sines, Portugal , Sand dur►es . 1`_►77.
(30) Proyectos Marinos, Mcxico, Dos Fucas Harbor, 1977-.'3.
(31) Paradise Cove Marina, Tiburon , California. 1J76.
EXHIBIT 11: OTHER HCP ALTERNATIVES REVIEWED
At the request of the Conservancy Board, this Exhibit reviewing other HCP
alternatives examined by staff is attached to the staff report. The preferred
HCP was selected primarily because, among all the options reviewed, it promises
to meet the HCP goals with the minimum departure from the LUP as approved by the
County. However, as noted in the staff report, unresolved questions remain in
respect to the economic feasibility and beach erosion impacts of a fully
navigable ocean entrance at Bolsa Chica under either the HCP or the LUP.
This Exhibit contains a brief review of two HCP alternatives that meet the
planning objectives set forth in the staff report, and that might prove workable
if an ocean entrance is later found to be infeasible. For comparative purposes,
a third alternative, with no lowland development, is also included. The Exhibit
concludes with a summary comparison of the three plans in respect to their
economic feasibility.
Alternative 2:
Figure A depicts this alternative, and Table A provides an acreage breakdown by
major land use components. Alternative 2 is basically the same as the preferred
HCP except that recreational boat access to the ocean would be via Huntington
Harbor. The plan retains a 951 acre wetland, the lowland location for the
marina, and the potential for private waterfront development with private boat
slips. Specific differences from the recommended HCP, aside from the changed
boat access, are the following:
(a) Non-navigable ocean entrance. A non-navigable ocean entrance would be
constructed to provide water circulation to the wetlands and boating
areas, and (2) to prevent any serious increase in channel velocities through
Huntington Harbor as a result of expanding the tidal area within Bolsa
Chica. The entrance channel would be maintained by the tidal prism from
the wetlands and boat channels. In a sense, this ocean entrance would
recreate the historical entrance that once existed at Bolsa Chica.
(b) Roads Network and 'Bridges. No PCH reroute. As in the LUP, a new
Warner-Garfieldconnector would handle crossgap traffic, but would be moved
towards the rear of project area to free up more acreage for waterfront
housing. The plan contains a 25-foot bridge over the Huntington Harbor
connection channel (with clearance for boats comparable to bridges at
Newport and Anaheim Bays) and an at-grade causeway over the non-navigable
entrance.
(c) Residential Development. Total residential acreage is 360 acres, about 35
acres less than We recommended HCP. This reduction results primarily from
the longer boat channel required to provide a navigable connection between
the Bolsa Chica Gap and Huntington Harbor.
Alternative 3:
Figure B show this alternative and Table B provides the breakdown of acreages.
This option includes:
(a) Non-navigable ocean entrance. A non-navigable entrance as described above
under Alternative 2.
j (b) Marina. A 1,000 slip marina excavated from lowlying portions of Bolsa Mesa
adjacent 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) Residential Development. About 430 acres of residential development.
Lowland eve opment 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 bridges. 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 features (including the 951 acre wetland) remain essentially the same
as the preferred HCP.
Alternative 4: This alternative was examined at the request of the Department of
Fish and and the Amigos of Bolsa Chica. It is depicted in Figure C and
includes the following main features.
•(a) 1300 acres of wetland in the Bolsa Chica lowland
(b) about 200 acres of housing on Bolsa Mesa.
(c) a non-navigable entrance would be included if Fish and Game chooses to
significantly expand tidal habitat.
RESULTS OF FINANCIAL ANALYSIS.
Summary cost Comparison
Table C compares the extimated costs for special public facilities for each of
the three alternatives described above. As can be seen, the estimates 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 recommended 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
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 D 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. The 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 lower market price for waterfront homes when compared with the
prices assumed for the LUP and preferred HCP. This allows for the possibility
that the less convenient ocean access for private boats under Alternative 2 may
have some 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
1% to 6%. These results compare favorably with the results obtained for both the
LUP and the recommended HCP as given in Table 3 of the staff report. This is
because the cost 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 the 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.
6
FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL
[ d SEDIMENT/BASIN.
h�o LUP SUBAREA BOUNDARY •
RESIDENTIAL 0GARF
r - , AVENU
TW
IENTEO REgIDBN
WAllR
�RESIDENTIAL .—`MINOR B��L
BOLSA CHICA
p 9� LINEAR REGIONAL
TURNING BASIN CENTRAL WETLAND
�' :'i i•` MARINMCOMMERCIAL AREA:
OIITiR BOLSA BAY RESIDENTIAL
�•���_ MAJOR BOAT CHANNEL
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY NATURAL RESOURCES
ACIFIC COAST
SOLSA CellIGAMATE BEACH 19OLOASMA STATE BEACH
`
NON-NAVIGABLE ALTERNATIVE 2
OCEAN ENTRANCE
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY
PREPARED 8Y:
SANTINA & THOMPSON, INC.
NORTH
TALI 5 A
STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY
PLAN HAt3iTnT C0K),S RN/,ZM0N PI,A,�3
BOLSA CHICA HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
ACREAGE BY LAND USE V UN'i�- 14 1994,
ACREAGES
Total Bolsa Lowland Seaward Hunt. Subtotal
LAND USE DESIGNATION Area Mesa Inland Total Beach Wetlands
Mesa
1. 3R (3. 5-6.5 D.U. /AC)
1.411 (6. 5-18 D.U. /AC)
1.511 (18-28 D.U. /AC)
Subtotal Residential 3S9.67 )C-9,,24 62,24 IO-3,Ig
COMMERCIAL 2.0
Community Commercial
Marina Commercial 25,Oo 29 ,00
Subtotal Commercial 2s,00
OPEN SPACE 5.0
Main Boat Channel ge-07 58,07
Minor Boat Channel 25 ,O8 i 20,0a 1
Sed. Basin and F.C . Channel ►3178 -7.7 1 �� 09 13 78
Bolsa Mesa Gp"- SMOE 13 4-ti 1,3.43
Outer Bolsa Bay �xc`u
38,7y 30 74
Central Wetland 861.05 I :05 £Gl ;0.G-
Subtotal Open Space 1010, 12 �J92,G6
RECREATION 5. 1
Linear Park ?8,26) 78.20 ,00
Marina 47, 00 7,7¢ 3� ' 5
Warner Garfield Coll. f3.2f 2 ,47 10 -'7,-
Subtotal Recreation 1 � . �j j0,r'� ) 50.60 78,20
NATURAL RESOURCES 5.2
Consol. Farm 19,00 i-�) -66
Subtotal Natural Resources
ROADS 51 . 10 IT 00 1 ,10 31.70 2, 10
TOTALS
tG04.03 230,25 D1. 1+ 12o2,-G �O, O ���-5► GC
FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL
6 SEDIMENT BASIN ,o
O,re
f
O
ItESIDE►'�IAL
FFT /C LUP SUBAREA BW!!! �Y •
NTIA — \.
` \ RESIDENTI L RESIDE
FIE ENUE
LAGOON RESIDENTIAL `
ARESIDENTIAL
/
MARINA/COMMERCIAL AREA
� BOLSA CHICA
LINEAR REGIONAL PARK
d CENTRAL WETLAND
� .
MAJOR BOAT CHANNEL
y / RESIDENTIAL
1 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
NATURAL RESOURCES `
STATE BEACH ' r•' BOLSA CNICA STATE BEACH PACIFI T HICHW
NON-NAVIGABLE
OUTER BOLSA BAY OCEAN ENTRANCE ALTERNATIVE 3
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY
PREPARED BY:
SANTINA & THOMPSON, INC.
NORTH
PLAN H C P A STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY
BOLSA CHICA HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
ACREAGE BY LAND USE 19
ACREAGES
Total Bolsa Lowland Seaward Hunt. Subtotal
LAND USE DESIGNATION Area Mesa Inland Total Beach Wetlands
Mesa
1.311 (3. 5-6.5 D.U. /AC)
1.411 (6, 5-18 D.U. /AC)
1.511 (18-28 D.U. /AC)
Subtotal Residential '432.76
COMMERCIAL 2. 0
Community Commercial
Marina Commercial ZS.a 25.0
Subtotal Commercial ZS,O Z,S,D
OPEN SPACE 5. 0
Main Boat Channel / �• /� 03
Minor Boat Channel - 1
Sed. Basin and F.C. Channel 13. 7V
Bolsa Mesa 13,q3 7,f 3143 i ► -T",
Outer Bolsa Bay �J,s3 yq, 83 g3
Central Wetland � '1�9�, q4i
Subtotal Open Space c13 ,03 19 71)3, 5,
RECREATION 5. 1
Linear Park Ei�,,
z.
Marina 0 (;�
Warner Garfield Coll. �3,2) °11 /D, -75�
Subtotal Recreation J 3g,41 ti 5,N7 /0 , 7'
NATURAL RESOURCES 5.2
Consol. Farm
Subtotal Natural Resources
ROADS 17, O 1 , Z ( 1-7 '30.3
TOTALS 14c7q. 3 Z.30.Z5- al 1, 14 I ZOl,SI 60,-1 9s�
71
m ~
IMP MBAR pARY \ 1
Q � ; LINEAR REGIONAL PARK
RESIDENTIAL CENTRAL WETLAND
.sc'ef,
OUTER BOLSA BAY
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY �
LSA ICA T EACH C ICA STATE BEACH
NON-NAVIGABLE OCEAN ENTRANCE ALTERNATIVE 4
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY
PREPARED BY ,
SANTINA & THOMPSON, INC.
NORTH
TABLE C
COST COMPARISON SPECIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES
HCP ALTERNATIVES 24
In Millions 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
Arterial Roads 13.4 13.4 3.9 3.9
Arterial Bridges 2.1 2.9 .2 .2
TOTAL 68.7 55.8 10.6 22.6
TABLE D
SUMMARY RESULTS: RESIDENTIAL FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
n Millions o
i
ALT ALT ALT 4
MEASURE 3 Low High
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. Margin as % of Revenues 29% 32% 39% 36%
6. Public Costs as % of
Revenues 6% 4% 1% 4%
_ n34
REQUE 1 FOR CITY COUNCI" ACTION
i l
�a5 k :r381 Date June 13 , 1984
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council �y
Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administr
ti
Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director of Development Servi `1
Subject: A RESOLUTION TO THE COUNTY OF ORANGE AND `1COAS
CONSERVANCY REGARDING THE LAND USE PLA HAB T
CONSERVATION PLAN FOR THE BOLSA CHICA
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative cti chments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
At its June 11, 1984 study session, the City Council directed staff to pre-
pare a resolution to the County of Orange and to the Coastal Conservancy
stating the City' s concerns regarding the County' s Land Use Plan (LUP) and
the Coastal Conservancy' s Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) . If the resolu-
tion is adopted, it would provide a formal mechanism by which the City' s
concerns will go on record to both the County and the Coastal Conservancy.
RECOMMENDATION:
, Adopt the attached resolution regarding the City' s position on the
planning efforts for the Bolsa Chica and direct staff to send it to the
County of Orange and the Coastal Conservancy.
ANALYSIS :
This City has been involved with the Bolsa Chica for a number of years.
Listed below is a chronology of the City' s participation in the Bolsa
Chica planning process. This list has been prepared with the most recent
actions you have taken first, proceeding back to prior actions.
Date City Council Action
June 11 , 1984 Council directed staff to prepare a resolution
regarding the City' s concerns on the County ' s
LUP and the Coastal Conservancy' s HCP.
April 16 , 1984 Council directed Jim Palin to attend the
April 19 Coastal Conservancy Board hearing to
verbally express the City' s concerns regarding
the Conservancy ' s draft HCP.
August 2, 1982 The Council adopted Resolution No. 5147 to
update and refine the City Coastal Element.
i
P10 4/81
Bolsa Chica Resoluti so J
J ne if, 1984
Page 2
Date City Council Action'
July 19, 1982 The City Council directed the City Attorney' s
office to draft a resolution to send to the
Coastal Commission in support conceptually of
the County' s plans . Because of inadequate
time, a letter was drafted and no resolution
was prepared (see attachment) .
June 20, 1982 Council approved a motion to send Councilman
Ron Pattinson to Sacramento to support the
County' s Local Coastal Plan for the Bolsa Chica
and revised SB 493 at the June 29 , 1982 hearing.
December 14 , 1981 Council approved a draft statement on the
County' s Bolsa Chica LUP to be presented to the
County Board of Supervisors on December 15, 1981
by Mayor Ruth Finley (see attachment) .
January 19 , 1981 The Council adopted Resolution No. 4954 adopt-
ing the City' s Local Coastal Program in the
form of the Coastal Element of the General Plan.
Within the adopted element, Section 6 (pages 61a
and 62) states the City' s concerns regarding the
Bolsa Chica (see attachment) .
February 4, 1980 Council adopted Resolution No. 4840 requesting
the County of Orange to accept additional City
input in the County Local Coastal Program for
the Bolsa Chica (see attachment) .
July 3 , 1978 The City Council considered annexing the Bolsa
Chica, but the motion failed.
January 3 , 1978 Council adopted Resolution No. 4580 requesting
preparation by the County of a Local Coastal
Plan for the Bolsa Chica for concurrent review
by the South Coast Regional Commission with
the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Plan (see
attachment) .
FUNDING SOURCE:
None needed.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS :
1 . Do not adopt the resolution. In this event, the City will not
officially go on record as to having any concerns regarding the
Land Use Plan or the Habitat Conservation Plan.
2 . Modify the resolution reflecting issues that should be added,
deleted, or amended.
t
� . B(Asa Chica Resolution
June f13 , 1984
Page 3
ATTACHMENTS:
1 . Resolution
2 . Letter to State Coastal Commission dated July 21 , 1982
3 . Resolution No. 4954 adopting the Coastal Element
4. Section 6 - Environmentally Sensitive Habitats
5 . Statement to the County Board of Supervisors
6 . Resolution No. 4840 requesting additional City input to the
County' s Bolsa Chica LUP
7. Resolution No. 4580 requesting preparation of Bolsa Chica LUP
for concurrent review with City' s document
CWT:JWP:FW:df
00
r f
RESOLUTION NO . 5147
A RESOC,[ITION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BF,ACH REIVISING THE COASTAL ELEMENT
OF THE' GE'Nf.RAL PLAN
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
desires to update and refine the Coastal Element of the General
Plan to meet the needs of the community better ; and
A public hearing on the proposed changes and additions to
the element was held and a report on those changes and additions
was prepared by the Planning Commission,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby
approves the changes and additions to the Coastal Element listed
In the Planning Commission' s report , attached hereto an-i by this
reference made a part hereof . . ,
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
1untington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2d day
of' August , 1982.
Mayor
ATTEST : APPROVED AS TO FORM:
'2
ity Clerk City Attorney .
1if:VII:W AND APPROVED : , INITIATED AND APPROVED :
City Administrater irector of Development
Services
r f
6
' RESOLUTION NO. 5391
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUESTING THE COUNTY OF
ORANGE AND THE COASTAL CONSERVANCY TO CON-
SIDER THE CONCERNS OF THE CITY REGARDING THE
COUNTY LAND USE PLAN AND THE CONSERVANCY'S
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN FOR THE BOLSA CHICA
WHEREAS, the Bolsa Chica is virtually completely sur-
rounded by the city of Huntington Beach and is within the city' s
sphere of influence; and
The ultimate land use in the Bolsa Chica is of great con-
cern to Huntington Beach; and
The County of Orange is the lead agency for the preparation
of the Local Coastal Program for the unincorporated area of the
Bolsa Chica; and
The County of Orange has submitted the Bolsa Chica Land Use
Plan to the Coastal Commission for its review and approval; and
The state, Legislature has charged the Coastal Conservancy
with the responsibility of working in conjunction with Signal
Landmark, the state Department of Fish and Game, and the County
of Orange to prepare a Habitat Conservation Plan by July 20,
1984 ; and
The City of Huntington Beach, in the spirit of cooperation,
has been working with the County of Orange and the Coastal
Conservancy to address issues of concern the City of Huntington
Beach has regarding the Bolsa Chica -Land Use Plan; and
It is in the best interest of all concerned agencies that
cooperative planning efforts for the unincorporated area of
the Bolsa Chica are continued,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of ,, .. .
the City of Huntington Beach respectfully requests that the
a
'CS:ahb
:/14/84
1.
i
1
County of Orange and the Coastal Conservancy address the fol-
lowing concerns of the City of Huntington Beach relating to modi-
fications to the Land Use Plan and the Habitat Conservation Plan
- �, for the Bolsa Chica:
1. CIRCULATION
(a) Realign Edwards Street and connect with Pacific
Coast Highway within the Bolsa Chica planned area.
(b) Align cross-gap connectdwo so that it will not have
a negative impact on the existing residential units.
(c) Connect Talbert Avenue to cross-gap connector.
(d) Realign Warner Avenue to allow for sufficient
grade for a minimum twenty-five (25) foot bridge and to maintain
access for the Warner Avenue Fire Station, as indicated in
No. 2 (a) hereof.
(e) Connect the cross-gap connector and f9arner Avenue
to provide convenient circulation to the proppsed commercial uses .
(f) Existing local street system to be accommodated by
providing for similar adjoining land uses and for adequate neigh-
borhood circulation.
(g) Provide for Bolsa Chica Street (cross-gap) connec-
tion to Garfield Avenue.
(h) Address the following concerns created by the pro-
posal to reroute Pacific Coast Highway: .
(1) High projected daily traffic volumes on
Pacific Coast Highway, particularly between Bolsa Chica
Street and Garfield Avenue.
(2) High projected intersection traffic volumes
at Pacific Coast Highway/Bolsa Chica Street and Pacific
Coast Highway/Garfield Avenue .
(3) Vehicle miles travelled, safety and level
of service impacts on rerouted Pacific Coast Highway
through traffic (Pacific Coast Highway functions as a
regional highway) .
(4) Penetration of through traffic into existing
city arterial system.
2.
(5) Disruption of a scenic, coastal access and
regional highway which satisfies motorists ' desires to
travel within view of the ocean.
These concerns need to be considered and mitigation mea—
sures provided to eliminate negative impacts on the travelling
public and the citizens of Huntington Beach.
(i) Bolsa Chica development on the Bolsa Chica Mesa
should be planned in a way that results in minimal direct
access off Warner Avenue .
2. SERVICE DELIVERY
(a) Planned circulation for the area needs to main—
tain access for the Warner Avenue Fire Station or provide for
an alternate site if such access is not feasible or desirable.
(b) Consideration should be given to service of the
proposed development with water supply and sanitation facilities
in order to minimize costs and ongoing maintenance requirements.
(c ) Due regard for cost—benefit rat16s is fundamental
to this development .
3. LAND USE PLANNING
7 It is critical that all proposed land uses as to type
and density should be compatible with existing land uses within
the city.
4. OCEAN ACCESS
There are three primary concerns regarding the proposed
ocean access which need to be addressed. They are : safety,
preservation of the beach, and ongoing maintenance costs.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 1gth..
day of June , 1984 .
ATTEST:
a
City Clerk
3 .
f j
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
�►• - -City Ad min t for `-�t�,� City Attorney
INITIATED AND APPROVED:
v
J474elocit5oar 'of De elopment
Services
•r
a
4 •
No. 5391
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
J
JJJJJJ •Y : I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City
Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of
members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven;
that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative
vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council
at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th day
of June , 1984 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen:
Patti nson, MacAllister, Kelly, Finley, Bailey. Ma ydi c
NOES: Councilmen:
Thomas
s
•.i
ABSENT: Councilmen:
.None
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk
of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach, California
a
-_1
City of Huntington Beach
P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648
OFFICE' OF MAYOR
July 21, 1982
The Ilonorable Naomi Schwartz , Chairwoman
California State Coastal. Commission
631 I[oward Street, Fourth Floor.
• San Francisco, California 94105
Dear Chairwoman Schwartz:
'rhe matter of adopting a General Land Use Plan for the Bolsa
Chica is now before the Coastal Commission and is a matter of
are-at concern to the City of Huntington Beach. The development
r,f this area will he an rxtcnsion of the development of the city
of t!t111t.1 ngt•on Bol-ic h , alld wI. 1 .l have a (treat_ I of luonCe. oil t1w char
.rllrl (lucl.l iL-y of: life of tl:is city for ln,.lny years to � r;n►c .
Tho Bo 1sa Chica is v i r tua 1 l.y surrounded I)•, t.11e c.1 ty of Ilul,t inct-
! nn Tle;rah and L-oL-al ly wi Lhi n the city'-!; sphere, of influence.
,J(Al, t-.IlQ city ha5 had Zl c:ontinuiny interc_st and has reviewed and
offered recommendations to tho County of Orange regarding the
County L. U. 11. l n view of these considerat i.on s , the County of Orange
adopted oil December 16 , 1.981, Resolution No. 81-1806 acknowledyi i-i
the ci L;• ' s i nter.est- --and indicating willirlyness to provide for the
City ' s participation in the development of the Dolsa Chica , and there-
fore included the city in the planning process .
In addition, the City of. Huntington Beach and the County of Orange
.have entered .into a cooperative agreement: to plan and acquire a lin
ear park which provides In connector along the bluff line from the
City ' s Central Park to the coastline. This area serves as the east-
ern boundary of the l3olsa Chica.
Thp C.i Ly Council has a I.so i nd i_ca ted a llo l..i cy di rec t.ion to achieve
the annoxation C1" !-he 11olsit Chic, Sj)cc- i.f Wally , t.Iie Citv wi.shu:, to
record its opposition tr1 (.lie Coastal Commission sLaff ' s L. U . P . di .iyral-
a l t_e1-11,1 t. I ve to t Ile' cil :lllr;0.. County Plan clue` Lo Ilt:l 'tor spar tco1 ings in
the followilly tll:.10:;
1. It wcluld t r,l f f i.c anc1 circulation problems which a
proper land use pl;ln would avoid;
2 . /\rtor.is l a 1 i (Irmwn t_ is not in accord wi Lll the - City ' s adopLed
L-irterial alignment ;
Y 1.1-THrl\1 (i 1 1)
Chairwoman Schwa -2- 60 July 21, 1982
3. The plan would cause serious safety and fire access problcn�„_
through the isolaLi.on of the Warner. Avenue Fire Station and
the elevation of the Warner Avenue bridge;
4 . The plan is lacking in the provision for proper tidal flushing
within the wetland areas ; and
5 . The plan would create serious impacts as a result of the High
density residential development on the 13olsa Chica Mesa and
would be detrimental to the quality of the general area and
create interface problems with the City ' s existing residential
areas .
Since the City Council is the principal. elected body representing this
area, and }laving spent many years working and living in this area , the
City of Huntington Beach wislies to go on record as endorsing the con-
cept embodied in the County ' s L. U .P . , acknowledging there may be minor •
adjustments in the plan which would improve its overall desirability .
These changes alt:liough minor in nature could result in further improve-
mcnt in the traffic circulation, arterial alignment , improvement in
public safety response and could reduce the number and height of the
bridges proposed and could more specifically address the precise loca-
tion and size of the ocean access.
of spcc:i.nl i.ni.c.re!;t.- to 1 ho City Lire Lhts long i-ancic' fiscal impacts
are im1)(lsod by dc'V01-U111110111 , i . e. , street 1TL:I LIIhc.'ll:l_nCC , traffic co111.r
fire and police sei-vicos , pai-k maintenanc e . 1. ibrary servic os , Bahl :lT
-ind storm drainage requirements, water service , recreational recluir'7•-
monts , etc. The County has included a fiscal impact review in which
the City has been involved.
In indicating its general approval of the County L. U . P . the City will:
to also r.eduost that it be included as a full participant in al-] -id in
ments and negotiations regarding the Bolsa Chica L. U .P .
Sincerely,
City Council. Plepiher.s
City of Huntington Beach
RPM/CWT: hj
i
i
RI:SOLUT l ON NO . 4954
A RESOI,UTI'ON OI? THE CITY MIUNCI I, M` THE CITY
Or HUNTINt;TON BRACH ADOPTINn TILL. E..00AIL COASTAL,
PROGRAM IN THE VORM OF THl•; COASTAI, ELEMENT Or
THE GE;NERAI, PLAN.
W111"REAS , California Public Resources Cade Section 30500
t•eouires all cities lying, within the coastal zone to prenare
a local coastal program for that portion of the coastal zone
wlthin� their jurisdiction; and
WIILRCAS , said local coastal prorr1.1m must contain a lr►rd
ii.- plan (California Public Resources Code Section 30108 . 0 `
vitt 1 ch may be submitted in the for►n of a coastal element to the
),c•neral plan (California Public Resources Code Section 301'"+ . 5) ;
:roil
WHFRE,AS , a coastal element has been nrehared in coinp] lane,:'
I: I t.h r',i l l ['ornia Publ Ec Resources Code Sect 1 tins 30000 throuirii
100 n1.d r(�lev�.tnt 1�uidel lees adopted by thy• State of Call re,rrtia ; I
' ittl
WHEREAS , pursuant to the State Planning and Zoning I,aw and
t.ht. California Coastal Act of 1976 , the Huntinlrton Leach planninv t�
Cominisslon and Huntington Beach City Council have had separate
public hi•arinFs relative to the proposed ado)nt. ion of the cw :;trll
c lerriont. to the general plan , wherein both bodl es have carefully
c(gis ldered all informat ton presented at. said hc,clrtnr;s , and c, 'ter
due corisi(leration of the f'indinf:s and. rec011I1V•rld,lt.ions of the
I' I :111n 11Ij; Cornmiss I On , lric 1 ud InI- Cit. Cuunc I 1 -Imetittments by i:hant*es
,ititt t>ddlt Ions 1 tst:ed In Attachments i :uid 3 , by this r(.'f't-renC"
11worpurated hevoin and matte a part i:et �. ��S' , ;)nd ;111 evI.60111—
li►•enerited to said City Council , the ('tty Cmilicll f•lnd:3 thr. '
kw;) coastal program is nr•oper , and lritortl:tl1v c-on^intent. ; tth
' 6
the general plan ;
, M
NOW , 'I'll HIRE FORE , IiE 1'1' th:lt tilt, City
the City of Ifunti.ngtun Beaeh hereby ;ipprovv,; said c,o(jst,jl
element of the f;eneral plan.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
HunLingt'n Beach at ;t vef*,ular meeting. thereof held clu the _19th__
day of January 1981 .
40
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM :
ATTEST:
C At o n J
City Clerk .
REVIEWED AND APPROVED :
City Adtini trator
INITIATED AND APPROVED A) TO CONTENT:
O
Development S ' vices Director
- 2 -
STA E OF CALIFORNIA ) �.
C011yl'Y OF ORANCF. ) a a:
CITY OF liuyrlNC'rON BEACH )
1, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City
Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-of.ficio Clerk of the
City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of
members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven;
that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative
vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council
at a. regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day
of January 19 81 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen:
Patt_inson , Finley, Thomas , Bailey, MacAllister, Mandic, Kelly
NOES: Councilmen:
None
ABSENT: Councilmen:
None
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk
of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach, California
cupy ul v filo ;n ',Jw� of i;:C.
19 /
— Cily t;lerk and Ex•nffic•1-)C1(,ikott1wC1ty
COUnCiI Of thO Clly Of Hullhrlkton bCdch,
Ca I. ,
By- -��C�- /-227-t-4-at-- Deputy
w v,
J
�da
C�
DEFINITIONS
AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM:
An area where organisms grow or live in the water and interact with each other.
BIOLOGICAL QUALITY:
The ability of an area to support living organisms.
BUFFER:
Any of various devices (land, fencing, vegetation) which serve to separate adjacent land uses in order
to lessen any adverse impacts of one land use on another.
CONSERVATION:
Planned management of a natural resource to prevent exploitation, destruction or neglect.
CONTINGENCY PLANNING:
Planning for events that are of possible but uncertain occurrence.
ECOLOGICAL RESERVE:
Officially determined area being preserved for its environmental value.
ECOSYSTEM:
The complex of a community and its environment functioning as a unit in nature..
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT:
Any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are rare or especially valuable and which
could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments.
FILL:
Any earth or any other substance or material placed in submerged area.
HABITAT:
The place or type of site where a plant or animal naturally lives and grows.
INDICATOR SPECIES:
Species which are representative of a specific area or habitat.
PREEMPT:
To take jurisdiction away from an existing agency or entity.
TIDAL FLUSHING: '
A process in which normal tidul action results in continual exchange of ocean water within a wetland.
COASTAL ACT POLICY
30240. (a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected
against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses
dependent on such resources shall be allowed within such areas.
(b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally
sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and
designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade such
areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of such habitat areas.
30411. (b) The Department of Fish and Game, in consultation with
the Commission and the Department of Navigation and Ocean
Development, may study degraded wetlands and identify those which can
most feasibly be restored in conjunction with development of a boating
facility...Any such study shall include consideration of all the following:
(1) Whether the wetland is so severely degraded and its natural
processes so substantially impared that it is not capable of
recovering and maintaining a high level of biological productivity
without major restoration activities.
(2) Whether a substantial portion of the degraded wetland, but in no
event less than 75 percent, can be restored and maintained as a
highly productive wetland in conjunction with a boating facilities
project.
(3) Whether restoration of the wetland's natural values, including its
biological productivity and wildlife habitat features, can most
feasibly be achieved and maintained in conjunction with a boating
facility or whether there are other feasible ways to achieve such
values.
30607.1 Where any dike and fill development is permitted in wetlands
in conformity with this division, mitigation measures shall include, at a
minimum, either acquisition of equivalent areas of equal or greater
biological productivity or opening up equivalent areas to tidal action;
provided, however, that if no appropriate restoration site is available, an
in-lieu fee sufficient to provide an area of equivalent productive value or
surface areas shall be dedicated to an appropriate public agency, or such
replacement site shall be purchased before the dike or fill development
may proceed. Such mitigation measures shall not be required for
temporary or short-term fill or diking; provided that a bond or other
evidence of financial responsibility is provided to assure that restoration
will be accomplished in the shortest feasible time.
Other provisions related to wetlands are relevant to sensitive habitat
areas in the Huntington Beach coastal zone.
Other policies involving diking, dredging and filling which could affect
habitat areas in the City's coastal zone are listed in Section 5.0, Water
and Marine Resources.
57.
(411
6. Environmentally Sensitive Habitats
,+ 6.1 BACKGROUND
An "environmentally sensitive habitat" is any area in which plant or animal life
is either rare or especially valuable and could be easily disturbed or degraded by
human activities and developments. The Coastal Act requires that local coastal
plans delineate these environmentally sensitive habitats and establish policies
for their protection and enhancement.
6.1.1 Environmentally Sensitive Habitats in the Huntington Beach Coastal Zone
Two areas in the coastal zone of Huntington Beach have been preliminarily
identified as environmentally sensitive habitats: 1) a nesting sanctuary for the
California least tern (a bird species considered endangered by both the State
and federal governments) located on the Huntington State Beach; 2) a possible
wetland area located between the southern end of the Southern California
Edison plant and Brookhurst Street. (See Figures 6.1 and 6.2.)
Least Tern Nesting Sanctuary
The California least tern is a bird species which is native to Southern California
coastal salt marshes. These birds nest on sandy beaches close to wetlands and
estuaries where they feed on small fish. Encroaching development has resulted
in loss of feeding grounds, and heavy recreational use of sandy beaches has
disrupted natural nesting areas. These factors have threatened the existence of
the least tern.
59.
f
® � 6
r r•�
w
rrw
r`
• J
/nw�
7
HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA n ItN Habitats
PLANNING DIVISION Environmentally Se s e
Figure 6.1
To help protect the least tern from extinction, a five-acre fenced nesting area
was created in 1969 on the Huntington Beach State Beach. This nesting
sanctuary is a permanent facility and is maintained by the State Department of
Parks and Recreation. The tern colony nesting there was one of the three
largest in the State in 1978, and it is ranked first in terms of nesting success.1
Wetlands
The City believes that the definition of "wetlands" in the Coastal Act could be
Improved to better identify environmentally important areas the Act intends to
protect. Nonetheless, the State legislature did adopt the following definition of
"wetlands" in the Coastal Act:
"Land within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or
permanently with shallow water and include salt water marshes, freshwater
marshes, open or closed brackishwater marshes, swamps, mudflats and fens."
The Coastal Act prohibits diking, dredging and filling of wetlands except for
very limited purposes related to energy production, boating and other regionally
Important activities.
Wetland areas within the City have been preliminarily identified by
representatives from the State Coastal Commission, State Department of Fish
and Game (DFG), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS). These agencies conducted an explicit delineation of
the boundaries and biological value of the wetlands. The results of this effort
are included in an appendix to the background report on Environmentally
Sensitive Habitats prepared by the City's Development Services Department.
Figure 6.2 shows the potential wetland areas between Beach Boulevard and the
Santa Ana River. The primary resource value of those coastal wetland areas is
their function as habitat for water-associated and marsh-dependent bird
species. The Belding's savannah sparrow, and California least tern, both
endangered species, feed in the area and the Belding's savannah sparrow nests
there. The physical Characteristics, natural resource values and unique features
of the area are discussed in greater detail in the document prepared by the DFG
for the Regional Coastal Commission staff which is an appendix to this plan.
Comprehensive lists of wetland indicator plant species and the bird species
observed on the site are included in the report.
The City has indicated visitor-serving and energy expansion uses for these areas
with the expectation that in exchange for development rights, certain of these
areas will be restored and enchanced.
Though the area known as the Bolsa Chica is not located in the jurisdiction 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.
61 .
1. The City urqes all appropriate State and Federal agencies to accelerate
efforts to positively define only specific acreage in the Balsa Chica La
which, in fact, can be scientifically justified as environmentally sensitive �'�✓
habitat. In addition, the City requests and urges these agencies to provide
precise recommendations as to the economic feasibility of rehabilitation
of such designated ecologically sensitive areas.
When these State and Federal responsibilities are properly presented and
accepted, the City will totally support the preservation of such designated
environmentally sensitive habitat areas.
f� ict .
• 2. Residua acreage in the Bolsa Chica which not included in State and
Federal designation of environmentally sensitive 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 will not be burdened with
unrealistic or excessive set backs and other restrictive ordinances and
codes intended to arbitrarily force sanctions against compatible land use
development.
3. It is further intended by the City to instruct and direct staff to organize
end 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 Bolsa Chica land and the County of Orange for the purpose of
achieving annexation of the Boise Chica into the City of Huntington
Beach.
6.1.2 Regional and Local Interests in Wetland Areas
Wetlands are recognized as especially valuable areas which provide numerous
public benefits including 1) breeding and "nursery" areas for marine species with
commercial and recreation value, 2) habitat for numerous wildlife species
including rare and endangered varieties, 3) natural flood control, and 4)
aesthetic amenities. The loss of coastal wetlands in Southern California has
been dramatic and drastic. Most of those that remain have been altered,
damaged or otherwise threatened. The protection of these increasingly scarce
ecosystems is recognized in the Coastal Act as an important greater-than-local
goal.
6.1.3 State and Federal Agencies Responsible for Wetlands Protection
yi Local control over development in wetlands has been largely pre-empted by
State and federal agencies because of the greater-than-local value of these
areas. The principal agencies charged with protection of wetlands are discussed
below.
Federal Agencies
The Army Corps of Engineers (COE) has permit authority over any development
that would discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the United States,
Including wetlands.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) reviews permits before they are
issued by the Corps of Engineers. A permit cannot be issued over the objection
of the USFWS, however, it can be appealed at the State or federal levels.
Permits must also be consistent with guidelines issued by the USFWS, the
Environmental Protection Agency and the California Coastal Zone Management
Program.
State Agencies
The Coastal Commission has authority to regulate activities in wetlands and to
protect against any significant disruption of habitat values. The Department of
Fish and Game (DFG) must issue a written statement that important ecological
resources have been protected prior to approval of any project in a wetland.
The DFG also has the responsiblity of proposing plans to protect, preserve,
restore, acquire and manage wetlands.
62 .
6.2 ANALYSIS
6.2.1 Restrictive Land Uses
The City's principal strategy for protecting environmentally sensitive habitats
is to designate them as "visitor-serving commercial", "conservation," and
"industrial energy production" with the intent that development proposals will
be accompanied by strategies to enhance significant wetland areas adjacent to
the proposed project.
6.2.2 Buffers
In addition to evaluating development in the wetland areas to ensure significant
habitat values are not destroyed, the City also requires buffers to the most
sensitive areas. In some cases, such as the area adjacent to the Bolsa Chica,
the buffer will be a setback along the Huntington Beach Mesa bluff. Other
acceptable buffers in areas where large setbacks are infeasible would be
elevation changes or barriers which inhibit access. The City will study buffer
strategies and catalogue those which protect the habitat value of wetlands in
aesthetically pleasing ways.
6.2.3 Aesthetic and Biological Improvements
The City specifically promotes the enhancement and/or restoration of
environmentally sensitive habitats. The City will investigate funding
opportunities from sources such as the California Coastal Conservancy for such
enhancement projects. The City will also require that any habitat restoration
strategies include measures to ensure against flooding in surrounding properties.
Another measure will be to encourage plantings and other improvements to the
flood control channel embankments and to the edges of the wetland areas to
increase species diversity, provide better screening and to promote their visual
attractiveness.
Additional protection is afforded by measures which require review of oil spill
plans to ensure sensitive areas are protected. (See Section 10.)
6.2.4 Public Access
In coordination with the aesthetic and biological enhancement of the wetlands,
the City encourages low-impact public access to allow nature study and
enjoyment of amenities. The City will investigate strategies to provide
boardwalks, peripheral trails, interpretive exhibits and other educational
facilities in or adjacent to coastal wetlands so long as such activities do not
significantly disrupt any habitat values or impair the viability of the ecosystem.
6.3 CONCLUSION
The City's coastal plan complements efforts by State and federal agencies to
protect and enchance sensitive habitat areas. Principal objectives of the plan
include:
63.
Protection of significant habitat areas by requiring wetland enhancement
and buffers in exhange for development rights.
Improved contingency plans related to oil and toxic material spills to
protect these high priority areas.
Improvement of the aesthetic and biological quality of wetland areas.
64 .
- ODU1::",: . l 1,'J�ti(L) OP S!il'IiIZ115U,:.` (),V ,. .I�c�l.:,,� ;.IIICA
LOCAL (:UAi 1 LAN liY '1'll': CITY 01 11UN'I'UN *TON ON BEACH
.f
It is essential that the special interests of all the residents
of Huntington Beach be taken into consideration as Bolsa Chica
planning proceeds .
Recognition of this duty to react to the plan led the City
Council to direct that a statement be prepared for the LCP
hearing before the board of Supervisors .
In this statement, the City Council is. putting aside its
polarization on the extent and nature of development in the
Bolsa Chica in order to bring up issues and questions involving
City inLerests, such as the City ' s participation in the planning
process, possible traffic circulation problems , adequacy of
fiscal information, and the potential annexation to the City .
Let me begin with a word of appreciation to Supervisor Wieder.
Following the discussion at the City Council meeting of
December 7 , regarding- the proposed traffic circulation in the
Bolsa Chica LCP and the limited financial benefits of the
project to the City of Huntington Beach, unless there is
annexation, Supervisor Wieder called a mect.iny of County and
Ci t.y s L,1 f f . As a rostil t of th,.I L 1110btiny there will be in the
fut:ui'L1 .vl(!,1r1y dol: iiwd by tho Ci t.y in Lhc plann.tn(l
1)rc.)c:ess and assessment of: effects of any plans oil the City .
. Page 2
Recognizing that Orange County is the lead agency in the
preparation of the Bolsa Chica LCP, the City ' s involvement
has consisted primarily in commenting on the various products •
submitted for public review by the County. The Bolsa Chica
is completely within the City ' s sphere of influence; therefore,
final planning for the area is of unique concern to the City.
in the past, information concerning the Bolsa Chica planning
has not always been received in a timely fashion which has
limited the scope .of the City ' s comments. In addition, the
City has not been consistently aggressive in its participation
in the planning process. ,
•
As an example, the fact that the conceptual plan of circulation
depicted on the plan rec,o,nmcnded by the Orange County Planning
Commission is inconsistent with the conceptual Flan the City
has adopted as part of its Circulation Element only came to
our attention recently. The Huntington Beach City staff tells
us that the traffic generation rate and directional splits used
by County staff differ substantially from City calculations and
understate the projected traffic volumes on some arterial highways
such as Springdale and Garfield. The City has proposed
Bolsa Chica Street as the major route for nert.l)/south traffic
through the Bolsa Chica area; however, the proposed County
alig»ment of streets may shift the north/south emphasis to
Springdale.
• Page 3
In addition, our staff believes the proposed crossyap highway
from Garfield to the new high bridge will be ineffective in
the stated goal of relieving traffic on Pacific Coast Highway .
This connector will require additional bridges and our
existing Warner Avenue fire station could be badly located
for response to Huntington Harbour. Until such time as —
additional information is available justifying these changes ,
we feel that the existing County master plan of highways
showing the extension of Bolsa Chica Street southerly across
the Bolsa Chica property and connecting with Pacific Coast
Highway northerly of the bluffs to be a more effective system
than the crossgab highway and extension of Springdale Street
to felt i.f ic: (bast II i ghwriy.
'i'here are other lnconsi.sL-encies which point up the fact that up
to now the County planning effort has not adequately related
to City Planning . One example is that we are now in the midst
of developing specific plans for some of the adjoining areas
which obviously should relate to the County plan.
The Council would like to take this opportunity to urge the
Boulyd of Sujzcrvisol. to take a position , }_prior to approval of
the LCI' , on whether Lhe residents of Hunting Lon Harbour will be
required to part. icipaLu Jll a special assessmcnL district to
cover any projected costs to the Huntington Harbour residents
rLilatlllCJ to -the use. of talc Detail entrallcc. t'llis is all issue
of particular concern t_o the residents of the Harbour.
Page 4
The preparation of the Bolsa Chica Specific Plan involves
many issues which are of special concern to the City. These
include the preciso location and description of tho ocean
access as well as Lhe desiyn and layout of the wetland area.
In addition, questions as to the impact of: ocean cuts on
beach erosion need clear answers .
A question raised in our City Council discussion related to
the proposed conwier_cial development around the marina. There should
be consideration of its relationship to existing conunercial uses
iri Peter' s Landing and additional commercial designated for
the Huntington Deach downtown in our LCP. `Nie market may not
be able to support- tlio amount of conun(-,rci.al areas being prnposed
by both the County and the City , resulting in a potential loss
of revenue to the City .
Similarly, public facilities and financing agr.cements as developed
in the Specific Plan will affect the. levels of service required
of the City. Updated financial information should be used for
the preparation of the Flit to accurately idenL-if.y tlae total
costs involved with t:he project. TI)e City r.equcsts that- wo
fully pal.-Licipate in citl discussions of financial a(ireelllents
as they will directly affect the residents of Huntington Beach
and may ultimately influence potential annexation of the area.
I'ayc S
The County FIR process does not call for assessment of •
financial impacts on the City. Because of the unique '
relationship of. the Bolsa Chica to Huntington Beach financial
. impacts on Huntington Beach should be thoroughly analyzed.
Once again, we appreciate Supervisor Wieder ' s responsiveness
in having the office of the CAO provide a hurriedly done
assessment of financial impacts on Huntington Beach this week .
Bolsa Chica is recognized to be within the City ' s sphere of
influence. For many reasons , past attempts to annex have been
thwarted. If annexation does not take place, development in
tho Bolsa Chica will. pt:ovi.de very l.ii,lited benefits to Clio Lax
base o l: the City of Hun tiny ton Beach.
'lhercCurc , lie 11111st. he very i011cerned ,lhout the I)otential and
ti.nling 0i annexation . As st;lted ill the hunt ingtun lie�lch LCP
Section 6 , approved by the City Council l:.lst . .land try ,
llunt.iltl;tun 131;ach. ilttencis to pursue annexnt ion. We request the
full coopel'at loll of the County lnd the 1 .1ndo%vners to achieve
this r11d.
In sununarv , t.110 city u1 Iltlnt ington Reach t'cclllc sl:s tut,ll ,111c1 ek1u;11
participation i.n the 1or111u1ation of all fllttlr•e I1lanning docunlerlts .
We feel an active role by tllc City will brave to be 11111 tU,l llv
beneficial to bath tl1r. Cunnt.\' and the City ol' Mintington lieacll .
tZfsr)Lll'1'It)N No . 4840
A RESOLUTION Or THE CITY COUNCIL. OP THE' CITY •
01� HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUESTING THE; COUNTY 01
ORANGE; TO ACCEPT ADDI`l'IONAL CITY INPUT PJ
THE: COUNTY LOCAL. COASTA1, PROGRAM POR 1101.:,A
CHI CA
Wllkltl?AS ; the County of Orange is .the lead agency for the
preparation of the Local Coastal Program I'or the unincorporated
area of Bol3a Chica; and
The ultimate use of land in such area is of gveat concert
to the City of Huntington Reach ; and
The City of Huntington Reach and the County of Orange have
it h13tovy of cooperative 'planning effort for the uninr.orpor:tted
area of L:olsa Chica; and
The CI t,y of 11untingtun Ilea 11 ha:; , III t.hw :;f, lrf t oi' coc)J,�: r•:,— •,
t 1 nn , rtpj)ut ntecl to the, NoT.1,11 Ccrt:;t, l,or::t l 1
['r �r;rant Advisory Commlttei; at re(pie,;t of tho Cowit,y of
0 t'a l ij."e ; Ind
It is In the he.,;t lttter•e;;t., of both the City of Hurittrti;t.on
Reach acid .the County of Orange that both agenele3 continue to ex-
plore mean:; for cooperative planning for the unincorporated arc-t
of Bolsa 1;ttica ,
NOW , THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Coun,;il or
City of Huntington Beach respect: ully requests that tho rolo
of the City of Huntington Reach In the COUnty Local Coastal L
Prugram be expanded to Include tl►e fol 'Lowtng:
1 . The City Council shall review the propo.iod Local Cori:;t:tl
Program Plan and make recot►unendations to the county Roavd oi'
Supervisors prior to adoption of the plan by the Hoard ; and
2 . County and city staffs shall continue to work coopera-
tively o:, all planning, nutters relating to the unincouporat"d
/28/8U 1 .
a
Of Bolsa ChIca ; and
3 . The City of liuritington (teach shall. ,Jointly sponsor, put,
I I n workshops with the County of Orange to ful fl t 1 the c tt i.,zen:;
pat'Llcip.+Lion requirement of the Coastal Act .
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Counctl of the City of •
llunttngton Beach at a regular meeting thereof hell On the )ith
riay of February, 1980 .
Ma y o r
M,rEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk ty AttoAi ey
INITIATEU AND APPROVED:
t
y *Imr1i3 t'rator•
2 .
. Ali ',I a:A1,I Ft►k`!I A 1
a aatr•I fY OF ORANGE ) ail:
t,1 t Y OF lolly ING ON BEACH )
I,, ALICIA M. WEViVORNI, the duly elected, qual i f ir•rl e:il v
CIcrk of Lite City of Iluntington Bench, and ex-officirl c:l('rk of thr•
t:Ity c:otancLl of snid City, do hereby certify that the whole manLier tit
members of the City Cutinci.l of the City of Iluntingtena Beach is Seven;
that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by Lite afffrmativc
vote of more than a majority of all the members of salt] City Council
at a regular meeting thereof held on the � 4th day
of February 19 £lO by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen:
Pattinson, Thomas, Mandic, MacAllister, Bailey, Yoder, Finley
NUES: Councilmen:
None
ABSEKf: Councilmen:
None
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk
of the City Council of the City
of Huntington beach, California
li ."•:r :I:_tli 'S ai fC^f CUI'y
of 1';. ,t�• ;1 .`�.'. is !�::, �';
r _.. ..�.......... .......
• 1 I
RESOLUTION NO. 4580
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF •
HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUESTING PREPARATION BY THE
COUNTY OF ORANGE OF A LOCAL COASTAL PLAN FOR THE
BOLSA CHICA FOR CONCURRENT REVIEW WITH THE HUNTINGTON
BEACH LOCAL COASTAL PLAN BY THE SOUTH COAST REGIONAL
COMMISSION
WHEREAS, the City of Huntington Beach has an approved world
program for the Local Coastal Plan by the South Coast Regional
Commission; and
The Bolsa Chica area under county jurisdiction is excluded
from said plan; and
The County of Orange is the responsible agency for the
preparation of the Local Coastal Plan for the Bolsa Chica; and
In order for the South Coast Regional Commission to reach
a decision on the Local Coastal Plans for Huntington Beach and
Bolsa 1:h1ca , It is Necessary to have both plans before the
Commis:.ion for approval concurrently ,
NSW, THEREFORE, BE IT REISOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Huntington Beach that it respectfully requests- the Boar,1
of Supervisors of the County of Orange to give the Local Coastal
Plan for the Bolsa Chica a top priority , and that said plan be
completed concurrently with the Local Coastal Plan for the city
of liu►:t.ington Beach.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular me g thereof held on the 3rd
day of January, 1978 .
ATTEST
Mayor
City Clerk
: C5 1 .
REVIEWED AND APPROVED : APPROVED AS TO FORM.:.
4100,
Ci / Administratorf� cc: Attor y
INITIATED AND APPROVED
AS TO CONTENT:
Planning Director
2 .
.i
Iv ao.45ttU
R S'TA'lE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City
Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of said City, do .hereby certify that the whole number of
members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven;
that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted- by the affirmative
vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council
at a regular meeting thereof held on the 3rd day
of ihnuary , 1978 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen:
Bartlett, Wi.eder, Coen Gibbs, -Siebert, Shenkinan. pattinson
NOES: Councilmen:
Noue ��
ABSENT: Councilmen:
None
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk
of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach, California
,• (Jh,d y Sir — �z.e f 'e
�� CITY OF HUNTINGTON EACH CA 84_3 1 ��
COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION Coo-off-� i
HUMINCToN BEACH —
To Honorable Mayor and From Charles W. Thompson,
City Councilmembers City Administrator
Subject SERVICE AND DEVELOPMENT CONCERNSDate June 11, 1984
RE: BOLSA CHICA PLAN j
Upon review of the Orange County plan for the Bolsa Chica, which was prepared by the
county and the proposals being advanced by the state Coastal Conservancy, the city staff
has identified several matters which are of concern to the city of Huntington Beach.
Following the county's development of their proposal for the Bolsa Chica, the city direc-
ted its principal focus on traffic and circulation, land use, service delivery, and ocean
access issues. Based upon conditions addressing these concerns, the City Council indicated
support for the county plan. Subsequently, the City Council set forth general policies ef-
fecting this area in the "Coastal Land Use Plan" adopted in August 1982, Resolution #5147.
In the Spring of 1984, the city became aware of certain proposals being made by the state
Coastal Conservancy for development of the Bolsa Chica. Once again, it was mandatory
that city provide input into this process in order to protect existing city development and
to insure the workability of city plans already in place.
I
During this study period, the City Council directed that staff involve itself in discussions
then underway. This involvement was again pointed toward the same general areas of con-
cern - service delivery, traffic and circulation, ocean access and beach impact, and land
use planning.
Following numerous meetings involving the state Coastal Conservancy, county of Orange,
state and county consultants, Signal Landmark, and city staff, there have emerged several I
points of agreement. In addition, the city has been able to spell out and better identify
its concerns as they relate to specific proposals of the county and the Coastal Conservancy.
I
Attached is a "Draft Proposal Language of Points of Agreement Between City and County
Staff on Major Circulation Issues." It is believed that this draft will be acceptable to both
city and county. In addition, the following seven points spell out the major aspects of traf-
fic and circulation which are felt to be necessary to effectively integrate the Bolsa Chica
traffic circulation plan with existing city plans.
1. Realign Edwards and connect with P.C.H. within the Bolsa Chica planned area.
2.- Drop down the cross-gap connector so it will not have a negative impact on the exist-
ing residential units.
3. Talbert connecting to cross-gap connector. .
4. Realign Warner Avenue to allow for sufficient grade for a minimum twenty-five (25) i
foot bridge.
5. A connector between the cross-gap connector and Warner Avenue to provide conven-
ient circulation to the proposed commercial uses.
-2-
6. Existing local street system to be accommodated by providing for similar adjoining
land uses and for adequate neighborhood circulation.
7. Provide for Bolsa Chica Street connection to Garfield Avenue.
It should be pointed out that the principal function of Pacific Coast Highway is a re-
gional transportation link and also serves as an important scenic highway and coastal
access.
Service Delivery
The Bolsa Chica is virtually completely surrounded by the city of Huntington Beach and
is within the city's sphere of influence. Spheres of influence are designed because of the
city's ability to serve the area with sewerage, water supply, police and fire services, and
street and other public works services.
In this regard, it is important that the planned circulation for the area maintain access
for the Warner Avenue Fire Station, or provide for an alternate site if such access is not
feasible or desirable.
Second, due consideration should be given to service of the proposed development with
water supply and sanitation facilities in order to minimize costs and on-going maintenance
requirements. Due regard for cost-benefit ratios are fundamental to the development.
Land Use Planning
Of critical importance in this respect is that all land uses, as to type and density, should
be compatible with existing land uses within the city.
Ocean Access
There are three primary city concerns about any proposed ocean access. They are:
(1) Safety;
(2) Preservation of the beach, and;
(3) On-going maintenance costs.
There are innumerable ways in which a plan can be formulated for the Bolsa Chica. It
is the staff recommendation that whatever plan be proposed, the issues identified above
should be adequately and satisfactorily addressed.
Respectfu submitted,
es W. Thompson,
City Administrator
CWT:pj
Attachment
r '
• *DRAFT PROPOSED LANGUAGE 4
OF POINTS OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN CITY AND COUNTY STAFF
ON MAJOR CIRCULATION ISSUES
BOLSA CHICA
1. WARNER AVENUE
City and county staffs agree that Bolsa Chica development on the Bolsa Chica
Mesa should be developed in a way that results in minimal direct access.
2. PCH REROUTE
If the plan that emerges from the Coastal Conservancy HCP includes a PCH
reroute, then city and county staffs share a number of concerns that would need
to be recognized and addressed including, but necessarily limited to:
(1) High projected daily traffic volumes on PCH, particularly between Bolsa
Chica Street and Garfield Avenue.
(2) High projected intersection traffic volumes at PCH/Bolsa Chica Street and
PCH/Garfield Avenue.
(3) VMT, safety, and level of service impacts on rerouted PCH through traffic -
PCH functions as a regional highway.
(4) Penetration of through traffic into existing city arterial system.
City and county staffs generally agree that (1) and (2) above would need to be mitigated
for the plan to function effectively, subject to the level of land use eventually approved.
City and county staffs also agree that (3 and (4) above would probably include some un-
avoidable adverse impacts which could not be mitigated.
3. ACCESS LINK TO PCH ON OR NEAR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MESA (IF PCH
IS NOT REROUTED)
City and county staffs agree that there is a projected need for one access route
parallel to the Huntington Beach Mesa bluff line within the Bolsa Chica planned
area. There are a number of possible alignments for accomplishing this. As long
as one such route is provided, the plan will function effectively.
i
•
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 84-31
COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION
HUNTINCTON BFA01
To Honorable Mayor and From Charles W. Thompson,
City Councilmembers City Administrator
Subject SERVICE AND DEVELOPMENT CONCERNSDate June 11, 1984
RE: BOLSA CHICA PLAN
Upon review of the Orange County plan for the Bolsa Chica, which was prepared by the
county and the proposals being advanced by the state Coastal Conservancy, the city staff
has identified several matters which are of concern to the city of Huntington Beach.
Following the county's development of their proposal for the Bolsa Chica, the city direc-
ted its principal focus on traffic and circulation, land use, service delivery, and ocean
access issues. Based upon conditions addressing these concerns, the City Council indicated
support for the county plan. Subsequently, the City Council set forth general policies ef-
fecting this area in the "Coastal Land Use Plan" adopted in August 1982, Resolution #5147.
In the Spring of 1984, the city became aware of certain proposals being made by the state
Coastal Conservancy for development of the Bolsa Chica. Once again, it was mandatory
that city provide input into this process in order to protect existing city development and
to insure the workability of city plans already in place.
During this study period, the City Council directed that staff involve itself in discussions
then underway. This involvement was again pointed toward the same general areas of con-
cern - service delivery, traffic and circulation, ocean access and beach impact, and land
use planning.
Following numerous meetings involving the state Coastal Conservancy, county of Orange,
state and county consultants, Signal Landmark, and city staff, there have emerged several
points of agreement. In addition, the city has been able to spell out and better identify
its concerns as they relate to specific proposals of the county and the Coastal Conservancy.
Attached is a "Draft Proposal Language of Points of Agreement Between City and County
Staff on Major Circulation Issues." It is believed that this draft will be acceptable to both
city and county. In addition, the following seven points spell out the major aspects of traf-
fic and circulation which are felt to be necessary to effectively integrate the Bolsa Chica
traffic circulation plan with existing city plans.
1. Realign Edwards and connect with P.C.H. within the Bolsa Chica planned area.
2. Drop down the cross-gap connector so it will not have a negative impact on the exist-
ing residential units.
3. Talbert connecting to cross-gap connector.
4. Realign Warner Avenue to allow for sufficient grade for a minimum twenty-five (25)
foot bridge.
5. A connector between the cross-gap connector and Warner Avenue to provide conven-
ient circulation to the proposed commercial uses.
-2-
6. Existing local street system to be accommodated by providing for similar adjoining
land uses and for adequate neighborhood circulation.
7. Provide for Bolsa Chica Street connection to Garfield Avenue.
It should be pointed out that the principal function of Pacific Coast Highway is a re-
gional transportation link and also serves as an important scenic highway and coastal
access.
Service Delivery
The Bolsa Chica is virtually completely surrounded by the city of Huntington Beach and
is within the city's sphere of influence. Spheres of influence are designed because of the
city's ability to serve the area with sewerage, water supply, police and fire services, and
street and other public works services.
In this regard, it is important that the planned circulation for the area maintain access
for the Warner Avenue Fire Station, or provide for an alternate site if such access is not
feasible or desirable.
Second, due consideration should be given to service of the proposed development with
water supply and sanitation facilities in order to minimize costs and on-going maintenance
requirements. Due regard for cost-benefit ratios are fundamental to the development.
Land Use Planning
Of critical importance in this respect is that all land uses, as to type and density, should
be compatible with existing land uses within the city.
Ocean Access
There are three primary city concerns about any proposed ocean access. They are:
(1) Safety;
(2) Preservation of the beach, and;
(3) On-going maintenance costs.
There are innumerable ways in which a plan can be formulated for the Bolsa Chica. It
is the staff recommendation that whatever plan be proposed, the issues identified above
should be adequately and satisfactorily addressed.
Respectful submitted,
es W. Thompson,
City Administrator
CWT:pj
Attachment
DRAFT PROPOSED LANGUAGE
OF POINTS OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN CITY AND COUNTY STAFF
ON MAJOR CIRCULATION ISSUES
BOLSA CHICA
1. WARNER AVENUE
City and county staffs agree that Bolsa Chica development on the Bolsa Chica
Mesa should be developed in a way that results in minimal direct access.
2. PCH REROUTE
If the plan that emerges from the Coastal Conservancy HCP includes a PCH
reroute, then city and county staffs share a number of concerns that would need
to be recognized and addressed including, but necessarily limited to:
(1) High projected daily traffic volumes on PCH, particularly between Bolsa
Chica Street and Garfield Avenue.
(2) High projected intersection traffic volumes at PCH/Bolsa Chica Street and
PCH/Garfield Avenue.
(3) VMT, safety, and level of service impacts on rerouted PCH through traffic -
PCH functions as a regional highway.
(4) Penetration of through traffic into existing city arterial system.
City and county staffs generally agree that (l) and (2) above would need to be mitigated
for the plan to function effectively, subject to the level of land use eventually approved.
City and county staffs also agree that (3 and (4) above would probably include some un-
avoidable adverse impacts which could not be mitigated.
3. ACCESS LINK TO PCH ON OR NEAR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MESA (IF PCH
IS NOT REROUTED)
City and county staffs agree that there is a projected need for one access route
parallel to the Huntington Beach Mesa bluff line within the Bolsa Chica planned
area. There are a number of possible alignments for accomplishing this. As long
as one such route is provided, the plan will function effectively.
`fi.
A f s tr l 6 v +-e� q1—✓ 4-1(0—ry ►»'e eff
T��o.lr 'D�v S�v✓ �roseTn� � 2 � � � �� � DO
f--• E CITY OF HUNTINGTON SEA
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION APR 1 1 i�taw
HUNTINGTON BEACH `
CITY OF HUNTINGTON 6El1Cfl
,o ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
To Charles W. Thompson, James W. Palin, Director
City Administrator Development Services
Subject UPDATE ON THE COASTAL CON- Date April 10 , 1984
SERVANCY'S BOLSA CHICA PLANNING
EFFORTS FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW
The Coastal Conservancy was given the responsibility by the State
Legislature to develop a plan for the Bolsa Chica with input from
Orange County EMA, Department of Fish and Game and the Coastal
Commission staff. Their plan must be completed by the established
June 20 deadline. As the bill now stands, their plan will be a
recommendation by the Conservancy. There is presently an amendment
being proposed to the bill which would require the Conservancy Plan
to be the Bolsa Chica Land Use Plan without further approval by the
Coastal Commission.
To date, City staff has met three times with the State Coastal Conser-
vancy to review their progress on the Bolsa Chica Land Use Plan. At
the first meeting on March 19 , the Conservancy staff reviewed the
concepts of this plan; the major points are listed below.
Conservancy EMA
900 acres of wetland 600 acres
1, 000 boat slip marinas 1 , 800 slips
Natural ocean cut Fully navigable ocean cut
Dwelling units 5,700 dwelling units
Possibility of rerouting
PCH inland
10-12 acre desilting basin
The second meeting with the Conservancy took place on April 3 . At
that meeting, the Conservancy went into more detail on their plan and
stated that their primary concern was the number of acres of wetlands
to be restored as well as the nature of their restoration. The rationale
for their other planning efforts was to come up with an economically
feasible plan so Signal could have a development that would pencil
out and at the same time restore 900 acres of wetlands. The Conser-
vancy also stated that EMA could possibly already have 780 acres of
wetlands by only slightly modifying this existing plan instead of
only 600. Thus, this would only be 120 more acres needed to come up
to the Conservancy ' s desire for 900 acres .
On April 6 , City staff monitored a meeting between Signal , the Con-
servancy, EMA, Department of Fish and Game and PBR. The primary
purpose of that meeting was to only discuss the nature of the wetlands
restoration and not the number of acres to be restored. It appears
the Conservancy and EMA will be able to come up with a compromise to
accomplish their agreed-on goals listed below:
1. High habitat diversity
2. Minimum development cost
3 . Create habitat for endangered species
4 . Private amenities for developer (public acceptance)
5. Predictability of success.
Their next meeting is scheduled for April 12 in Oakland to discuss
the design of the ocean cut, the economics and the number of acres of
wetlands.
The Coastal Conservancy Board is scheduled to hold a hearing on the
Conservancy Plan on April 19 , in Sacramento. There will still be an
opportunity to provide. input on the Conservancy Plan after the hearing
date. We may want to consider having City representation at the
April 12 and 19 meetings.
JWP:FW: jlm
• 4 i
Rac um.cam
13
11
na[v oortwn
ovwm
►g MN. ' u+'`
w4 oewrY iesoe+ritic --
♦ i'/ is — 1
i
r is13
,o •��
s'
woo aP%
_ aavWrt n'°oa
�a� " I : \ w(tiwl►awt
WAPOL
L Acckg& UTTLJO s.Nn
fe; 1/ /
,.jm.ar
,-- - '`'y` ....-Jr' Arno...Rsa..c�s rt�s oa c?
ra,.oc.n.n ar�or: �•
J
"a rupwi
ocaw..azx
�;WRfM�rC1��d MC
I V1: 1
�1
[?X1i1131T A-3
M�r r•.(sue
"Anx USE♦CCU se }
Ft oco
C ► i
CKA�+MM*"1
4 eM
,• J
C.
TVVtACmMVWOM'Epe
14
!� _,oc . I
AFe-A r
,000 are
.w
'Le'riNo1a+
ijspa" `'�
�!.•-�Y I\... �
CITY OF HUNTINGTQN BEACH
�tJvNu� M�'i�t;
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNt ATION Q /�r►,
HUNTINGTON BEACH
To Charles W. Thompson o 49James W. Palin, Director
City Administrator 4 Development Services
Subject Resubmittal` of Orange County' Date December 13, 1983
Land Use Plan for Bolsa Chica
The Orange County Environmental Management Agency (EMA) will
seek authorization from the Board of Supervisors on December
20, 1983 to resubmit the previously approved Bolsa Chica LCP
along with new supplementary information to the Coastal Commis-
sion for a hearing in early 1984. The plan which would be
submitted is the same one which was reviewed by the Coastal
Commission in 1982. The County will be providing clarification
and supplementary materials to better interpret and justify the
adopted plan.
Attached herewith is a copy ,of a letter to the Coastal Commission
from the Huntington Beach City Council dated July 21, 1982 which
supports the County' s plan and critiques the Coastal Commissior: ' s
alternative. The City Council voted to support the County plan
at its July 19, 1982 meeting. Since the plan which is to be re--
submitted is the same plan the Council supported in 1982, they
may wish to take an action reiterating their support befcr the
Board of ,Supervisors votes to resubmit the plan on December 20,
1983.� ," The'_.Council could authorize the Mayor or staff to attend-
that meeting and testify in favor of the plan.
The City recently received an update from the County EMA on the
progress of the various studies being conducted in conjunction
with the Bolsa Chica LCP. This is also attached for your in-
formation and that of the Council.
Attachments:
1. Letter from City Council of July 21, 1982
2. Memo from EMA
JWP:JAF:jaf
1F
-�� City of Huntington Beach
P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648
Cam ' OFFICE OF THE. i19r\YOR
July 21, 1982
The honorable Naomi Schwartz , Chairwoman
California State Coastal Commission
Y 63.1 IIok.,ard Street, Fourth Floor
San Francisco, California 94105
Dear Chairwoman Schwartz :
The matter of adopting a General Land Use Plan for the Bolsa
Chica is now before the CoasL-al Commission and is a matter of
great concern to the City of Iluntington Beach. The development
of this area will be an extension of the development of the city
of lluntington Beach , and will have a great influence on the char-
acter and duality of life of this city for many years to come .
The Bol.sa Chica i.s virtually surrounded by the city of llunt.i.ny-
ton Beach and totally within the city ' s sphere of influence. As
such, the city has had a continuing interest and has reviewed and
offered recommendations to the County of Orange regarding the
County L. U. P . In view of these considerations , the County of Orange
adopted on December 16 , 1981 , Resolution No. 81-1806 acknowledging
the city ' s interest- and indicating willingness to provide for the
city ' s participation in the development of the Bolsa Chica , and there-
fore included the city in the planning process .
In addition, the City of Huntington Reach and the County of. Oranges
have entered into a cooperative aclreement to plan and acquire a lin
ear park which provides a connector along the bluff lane from the
City ' s Central Park to the coastline. This area serves as the east -
ern boundary of the Bolsa Chica .
The City Council has also indicated a. policy direction to achieve
the annexation of the Bolsa Chica . Specifically, the City wishes to
record its opposition to the Coastal Commission staff ' s L.U . P . diagram
alternative to L-he Orange County Ilan due to major shortcomings in
the following areas :
1. It would create traffic and circulation problems which a
proper land use plan would avoid;
2 . Arterial. alignment is not in accord with the City ' s adopted
arterial alignment;
TI(I-I•:I'IIu,VP (7I 1)536-5553
. Chairwoman Schwar• -2- • July 21 , 1982
3. The plan would cause serious safety and fire access problems
through the isolation of the Warner. Avenue Fire Station and
the elevation of the Warner Avenue bridge;
4 . The plan .is lacking in F_he provision for proper tidal. flushing
within the wetland areas ; and
5 . The plan would create serious impacts as a result of the high
density residential. development: on the Bolsa Chica Mesa and
would be detrimental to the Quality of the general area and
create interface problems with the City ' s existing residential
areas .
Since the City Council is the principal elected body representing this
r area, and having spent many years •worki.ng and living in this area , the
City of Huntington Beach wishes to go on record as endorsing the con-
cept embodied in the County ' s L. U.P . , acknowledging there may be minor
adjustments in the plan which would improve its overall desirability .
These changes although minor in nature could result in further improve-
ment in the traffic circulation, arterial alignment , improvement in
public safety response and could reduce the number and height of the
bridges proposed and could more specifically address the precise loca-
tion and size of the ocean access.
of special interest to the City are the long range fiscal impacts which
are imposed by development, i . e. , street maintenance , traffic control ,
fire and police services , park maintenance , library ser.v.ices , sani. Lary
and storm drainage requirements , water service , recreational require-
ments , etc . The County has included a fiscal impact review in which
the City has been involved .
In indicating its general approval of the County L. U. P. the City wishes
to also request that it be included as a full participant in all ad.iust-
ments and negotiations regarding the Bolsa Chica L. U . P .
Sincerely, J
C.i.ty Council Plembers
City of Huntington Beach
RPM/ClgT: pj
r �• i is S. Is._ C <<:�a LC?� �,. r;`Fe50-iz3.i
County of Orange J
'Q • • NTT�1,y�-tt��},l 983
" ---
T0— Distribution List DEFT%DIST: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
l
FROM . `` Robert G. Fisher, Director of Planning/E�IA _ DEC 1 4 1 3
r �
SUBJECT: Update on Bolsa Chica 1983 Planning, Activity
--- -80x190!�
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
During 1983, E11,1A has concentrated on three basic areas of planning activity
with regard to Bolsa Chica: 1) Negotiation of an Agreement with the
Corps of Engineers for local sponsorship b;• the Countv and the California
Department of Fish and Game of the Sunset Harbor/3olsa Chica Feasibility
Study; 2) Preparation of materials to address the substantial issues
which the Coastal Commission found with our I.CP; 3) development of
a Habitat Conservation Plan with the Coastal Conservancy and Department
of Fish and Game.
EMA intends to seek Board of Supervisors authorization. on December 20,
1983 to resubmit the previously approved LCP along with new supplementary
information to the Coastal Commission for a hearing in early 1984.
I. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
At the end of August, 1983, all parties participation; in the negotiations
for local sponsorship by the County and DFG of the Corps ' Sunset
Harbor Study had agreed to the terms of the proposed Agreement ,
Scope of Work, Budget , and Schedule ("Agreement") .
Under the Agreement, the Corps will complete technical , planning
and environmental impact studies which will result in a report to
the U. S. Congress recommending whether the federal government should
participate financially in the construction of a navigable ocean
entrance, interior channels, and basins in conjunction with a marsh
restoration project at Bolsa Chica. The Corps estimates that the
Study will take 21 months and $490,000 to complete. The Study will
include: Development and assessment of alternative plans for the
area; a joint EIS/EIR, numerous cost/benefit and in-field environmental
studies as well as evaluation of previously prepared documentation;
and a public and interested agency participation program as part
of the EIS/EIR Scoping process. The funds for the Study will be
made available principally by the County of Cange via a reimbursement
agreement with Signal Landmark; and $50,000 has been appropriated
by Congress for the Study during this fiscal year.
Although the Local Sponsors and the Corps L. A. District staff have
concurred with the Agreement as proposed, the Corps is still in
the process of obtaining final review and approval from its higher
authorities at South Pacific Division Headquarters, and from the
U. S. Congress. The County is hopeful that these approvals will
be forthcoming shortly so that the Study may begin in earnest in
early 1984.
II. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION AND HABITAT CONSERVATION
PLAN
The LCP Land Use Plan, policies and programs as originally submitted
are being augmented by supplementary information clarifying and amplifying
the Plan and policies approved by the Board of Supervisors in January
1982.
Specifically, the County has responded in detail to the nine substantial
and other issues raised bv_ Coastal Commission staff and Commission in
1982 as follows.
A. WETLANDS
The Habitat Conservation Plan process mandated by Senate Bill 429
(chaptered as Section 30237 of Lho Coastal Act ) will be the primary
means by which the lonCstanding dispute over extent and type of
wetlands and their relationship to other planned uses will be resolved.
The County is working actively with the Coastal Conservancy to develop
the details of the Habitat Conservation planning process which will
result in completion of an acceptable HCP by the Jule 20, 1984 deadline
mandated by SB429. At the time of anticipated resubmittal hearings
by the Commission in early 1984 , the Conservancy has stated that
it expects to have a HCP plan available for Coastal Commission review.
The County will include illustrative plans and narrative of proposed
edge conditions for the marsh system, and statements regarding the
LUP consistency with the feasibility and wetlands restoration policies
of the Coastal Act in the LCP Supplementary Information document .
B. GEOLOGY
The Coastal Commission stated in their staff reporL of November
1982 that the County had failed to adequately recognize and Man
for the geotechnical hazards -- principally faulting, liquefaction,
and subsidence -- which could threaten the area under implementation
of the Land Use Plan.
At the request of the County, Signal Landmark has engaged Woodward-Clyde
Consultants (WCC) to conduct literature review and field studies
to gain a more precise understanding of the geological characteristics
of the area and to make recommendations for any modification to
the LCP that might be needed to assure that public safety is adequately
protected.
Woodward-Clyde representatives have met with EIMA staff --including
County geologists -- on several occasions to present ongoing work.
In October and November, WCC excavated trenches on Bolsa Chica and
Huntington Mesas and found evidence of faulting in the exposed sediments,
generally in the locations indicated by the previous mapping used
by the County in developing the Land Use Plan.
Representatives of agencies having a regulatory or review role (including
the State Division of Mines and Geology, and the Coastal Commission)
were invited to inspect the excavations.
County geologists and those of the State Division of ?fines and Geology
are presently reviewing and commenting on hoodward-Clvde's findings,
which will be summarized in the Supplementary Information package.
The general finding of the extensive field work is that the County
was correct in its original planning assumptions with respect •to
hazards. However, the new data provides much more specific information
regarding the nature of potential hazards and appropriate feasible
mitigation measures.
C. ACCESS
During the 1982 hearing process, the Coastal Commission indicated
that the. County had failed to provide <;de(Ii-late lateral and vertical
access in the following areas : 1) visitor-serving/public marina
facility and 2) proposed waterfront areas in the lowland. In addition,
staff indicated that the County had failed to mitigate the interruption
of lateral and vertical access along the beach area at Bolsa Chica
State Beach, and along Pacific Coast Highway that would result from
construction of the ocean entrance and Pacific Coast Highway bridge.
The County has responded to these concerns by clarifving its intent
to provide unfettered access throught the marina developing a superior
access program demonstrating through additional detail how the Access
Plan as originially submitted with its recreational Modes concept
provides superior access and greater variety of recreational opportunities
than that which would occur under Commission staff suggested modifications ;
and providing additional design detail and narrative to indicate
how access lost at the State Beach and Pacific Coast Highway aill
be compensated for and new access and recreation opportunities created
as a result of a navigable ocean entrance.
I). RECREATION AND VISITOR-SERVING FACILITIES
Coastal Commission staff stated that the County failed to provide
adequate detail regarding boat launching dry storage and overnight
lodging facilities in the Land Use Plan.
At the request of the County, Signal Landmark retained International
Tourism and Resort Advisors (INTRA) and Williams-Kuekelbeck & .Associates
to complete market demand studies for visitor-serving and marina
support facilities to provide additional detail regarding the demand
for the character of the uses noted above, all of which have always
been intended for inclusion in the Land Use Plan.
These studies have generally reconfirmed the County' s planning
conclusions for the proposed visitor-serving marina. The studies
are currently under review by several County departments.
E. ENERGY FACILITIES
The Coastal Commission contended that the County failed to .provide
sufficient detail as to how the Land Use Plan would accommodate
existing and future oil production vis-a-vis the various LUP component
uses. In response, an ener;;ti• facilities plan demonstrating several
feasible scenarios occurring over i 20 year period has been developed.
Design studies showing how oil production activities can be compatibly
accommodated with marsh restoration have also been prepared 'Phis
supplementary detail has been assembled generally pursuant to the
programs outlined in the Energ.; Facilities and LCP Phase II1,S )ecific
Plan Scope of ;-fork Components.
F. PUBLIC WORKS
The Commission cited two main <;ruas at issue with respect to PYiblic
Works: 1) lack of specificity and detail and failure to mitigate
potential adverse impacts related to co-istructing the ocean entrance
and 2) the potential conflict of boating recreation uses with Metropolitan
Water District prospective uses on their property in the lowland.
1. Ocean Entrance
In (larch 1983 , the County received the Corns of Engineers Sunset
Harbor Study Progress Report which illustr.:ted in fairly explicit
detaii several tech_nic_n_ lly feasible navil;c i,ic ocean entrance
alternatives . Several of these alternatives closely reSC;!1hle
the County Plan intent in this re?ard. These alternatives also
describe methods by which potential beach sand erosion problems
can be mitigati'd. The County In the Recreation -recess , Visual
and Scenic Resources Supplementary h._s also analyzed information
components how its ocean entrance pl.rn is consistent with the
feasibility definition of the Coastal Act Section 30108 and
the specificity requirement: of Scction 30108. 5 .
l
2. `letropolitan Water District Transrni: sion Corridor
The Coastal Commission Staff Report found that the designation of
recreation/visitor-serving uses and the ocean entrance on Metropolitan
water District fee title and easement land at Bolsa Chica would
adversely affect MWD' s ability to implement coastal-dependant water
supply options (e.g. , seawater desalinization facilities) at Bolsa
Chica.
The County disagreed with this contention and has prepared LUP policy
intent clarification and amplification through additional narrative
describing MWD's rights and past planning activity for their property.
Also provided in the Supplementary Information package are procedures
and design guidelines for precise planning; that rill assure that
.fWD's ownership and use rights are fully protected in the context
of the other uses proposed in the Land Use Plan.
C. VISUAL AND SCENIC RESOURCES
EMA is responding to Coastal Commission concerns in this issue area
through design studies depicting how the proposed ocean entrance bridge
can be designed to mitigate adverse visual. effects. Additional illustrative
plans and narrative clarifying the Count,:' s intent to protect and enhance
bluffs in the area as well as how lc::lan,i landforms will be treated
are also being prepared.
~
H. ARC8AE0L0CICAL RESOURCES
The Coastal Commission Staff report rzj ,cd s`6scantiol issue with the
LCP Archaeological Element policies and [rn�,.''.q ` indicating that the
remaining archaeological resources at O8A-83 on arl,x Chica Mesa were
not adequately protected pursuant to Coastal Act requirements and guidelines .
The staff report also stated that the LC|` i.i }od to provide for peer
review and consultation with affect-ed NaLi,e Aprric^na. '
In response, CMA has endorsed the implcm,n/xIli"n of o D,, irx Research
Program (site csc:vaLion and analysis) such as that .r,y^rcJ by Scientific
Resource Surveys for Signal Landmark. L3A }/cl (r,,, that comprehensive
cxcaveLinn of the highly disturbed 0KA-83 (.r co'swn,} site is the !
best means to protect: and determine the cultural significance of any
remaining archaeological resources. The Design Research Program has
undergone peer review and consultation by several archaeological professionals
and by the spokesperson for the Juanuon Band of Mission Indians, all
of `hum have responded favorably to the Programs ' s methodology.
l. LAND USE SPECIFICITY /
The Coastal Commission cooLcndcJ Lhxt. the Land Use Plan lacked /x[ [iciuu
dcLail regarding the bindu, location, and int-cnnit> of land oses, etc .
and was therefore inconsistent with Scctio'` 30108. 5 of the Coastal Act.
While the County L/licvcJ that its plan as originally subnjcLed was
,u[ficicoLly d,tailcJ for level of specificity gcn,rally provided in
LCP Land Use Plans. The Supplementary Information package noted above
represents EHA'o comy,ch,nxivc rcnrnnsr to this substantial ivxx,.
Nuch of Lhc additional detail has bccn completed pursuant to the 8nlsa
Chica Specific Scope of Work. '
J . FEASIBILITY
In its staff report, the Commission stated that the County had failed
' to provide any explicit analysis bm' the Land Use Plan was the least
environmentally damaging feasible alternative under Sections 30108.
| 30233 and 30411 of the Coastal Act. EMA is completing this analysis �
i in the relevant sections of the Supplementary Information package.
Included in the analysis is a discussion of previously documented information
which will clarify and expand upon technological , environmental , economic
and social feasibility factors ; and u description of mitigation measures
to minimize any adverse environmental effects so as to demonstrate how
the County reached its conclusion that the� Land Use Plan is the most
environmentally enhancing and only feasible alternative consistent with
Coastal Act policies.
G8Y: j8 (MS-81-013)
'
Distribution list :
Supurvisor Wieder, Second District
Michael Fischer, California Coastal Commission
Joseph Petrillo, California Coastal Cons-rvancv
Shirley Detloff, Amigos de Bolsa Chica
Lorraine Faber, Amigos de Bolsa Chica
Lindell Marsh, Nossman, Guelhcr , Knc::
Col . Paul Taylor, Corps of Enf,inecrs
Fred [1orthley, Dept . of Fish and Game
Roger Dunstan, Stater Lands Comri:i ,;sion
Steve Kaufman, Attorney General ' s Office
Jim Patin, City of Huntington 'Beach
Robert Gough, MCLropuliLan [:tiler District
William, Allen, Signal Landmark
Darlene Frost , Signal Landmark
Bill Phillips , PBR
TaJeri Chennela -- Administration Dote 1/17/84
i
I I
I
Jeri , Hers` are 7 conies of Lorraine Faber's letter
for Council . Gnus 1 for Mr. Thompson - Palin €>. Cook
P.S. Y sent Palin'sMook's
f�
Connie
I
.�. .._: .._., Signed
I
I
I
I
Date Signed
Rodif?.
45 465 SEND PARTS I AND 3 WITH CARBONS INTACT.
Poly Pok(50 so,14P465 PART 3 WILL BE RETURNED WITH REPLY.
B 11g
OS
eBelsa P.O. BOX 1563 .HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92647 . (714) 897-7003
Chica
January 13, 1984
To the Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
A private developer's lobbyist is currently making the rounds asking
Orange County' s various city councils to endorse their coastal development
project via your approval of a provided sample resolution. Therefore I
believe that Signal Landmark's Bolsa Chica resolution, if not before you
now, will undoubtably be brought to your attention soon.
Although this resolution reads as though such development endorsement
is akin to apple pie, motherhood and boy scouts, it should be obvious that
if the development, financing, recreational and ecological issues to be
resolved at the Bolsa Chica were simple and non-conflicting they would have
been long ago resolved and construction under way.
I would like to bring a few important points to your attention that
require consideration in any support/opposition position taking.
Public opinion throughout the county is sharply divided. Opposition
petitions circulated by grass roots methods produced more than 20,000
signatures and Signal's direct mail support petitions to registered
boat owners produced a like amount.
Public improvement costs for the Bolsa Chica exceed $110,000,000
under the county/Signal plan yet few confirmed funding sources
have been identified.
Financial viability is evaporating for the large commercial/tourist
area proposed adjacent to the marina to offset marina operating
losses.
Long term disruption of Pacific Coast Highway traffic will occur as
a 800 foot wide channel is cut through the highway and a 50 foot
high, six lane traffic bridge is built.
Thousands of ocean beach bathers who regularly fill Bolsa Chica
State Beach to capacity each summer will be displaced by construction
disruption and the permanent loss of +1,000 linear feet of ocean
beach front for the channel opening.
The incompatability of marinas and waterfront residential communities
imediately adjacent to coastal wetlands has been so well documented
that it is recognized both by state and federal laws, yet the Ccunty/
Signal plan will almost encircle such wetlands greatly reducing
biological productivity.
Property rights in the historic tidelands of the Bolsa Chico are
currently under challenge in the California Supreme Court. The
courts could decide that the public owned or has public trust rights
on property Signal Landmark plans to build on.
� - inued
In the event your body should decide to consider taking a position
regarding the future of the Bolsa Chica I would appreciate appropriate
notification and the opportunity for a Amigos de Bolsa Chica spokesperson
to address your body. In addition to the telephone number listed on the
letterhead, I am available at my business at ( 213) 431-7040 and at home
at (714) 897-3994.
Your kind consideration will be appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
Lorraine Faber
President
. • REQUE f FOR CITY COUNC ACTION
• oze3 k. .3� 1 Date June 13 , 1984
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council
y
Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administr 0v9�
Prepared by: James W. Palin , Director of Development Serving,
Subject: A RESOLUTION TO THE COUNTY OF ORANGE AND OAS •(1l `�
CONSERVANCY REGARDING THE LAND USE PLA HAB T rGl�4
CONSERVATION PLAN FOR THE BOLSA CHICA
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative ctio , chments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
At its June 11, 1:984 study session, the City Council directed staff to pre-
pare a resolution to the County of Orange and to the Coastal Conservancy
stating the City' s concerns regarding the County' s Land Use Plan (LUP) and
the Coastal Conservancy' s Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) . If the resolu-
tion is adopted, it would provide a formal mechanism by which the City' s
concerns will go on record to both the County and the Coastal Conservancy.
RECOMMENDATION:
*Adopt the attached resolution regarding the City' s position on the
planning efforts for the Bolsa Chica and direct staff to send it to the
County of Orange and the Coastal Conservancy.
ANALYSIS :
This City has been involved with the Bolsa Chica for a number of years.
Listed below is a chronology of the City' s participation in the Bolsa
Chica planning process. This list has been prepared with the most recent
actions you have taken first, proceeding back to prior actions.
Date City Council Action
June 11 , 1984 Council directed staff to prepare a resolution
regarding the City' s concerns on the County' s
LUP and the Coastal Conservancy' s HCP .
April 16 , 1984 Council directed Jim Palin to attend the
April 19 Coastal Conservancy Board hearing to
verbally express the City' s concerns regarding
the Conservancy ' s draft HCP.
August 2 , 1982 The Council adopted Resolution No. 5147 to
update and refine the City Coastal Element.
•
PIO 4/81
B01sa Ch.-_ca Resolutica r
June 13, -_984
Page 2
Da City Council Action •
July 19 , -982 T*ne City Council directed the City Attorney' s
office to draft a reso__ut.icn to send to the
Coastal Commission in support conceptually of
the County' s plans. Because of inadequate
time, a letter was drafted and no resolution
was prepared (see attachment) .
June 20, 1982 Council approved a motion to send Councilman
Ron Pattinson to Sacramento to support the
County' s Local Coastal Plan for the Bolsa Chica
and revised SB 493 at t_.e June 29 , 1982 hearing.
December 14 , 1981 Council approved a draft statement on the
County' s Bolsa Chica LU? to be presented to the
County Board of Supervisors on December 15, 1981
by Mayor Ruth Finley (see attachment) .
January 19 , 1981 The Council adopted Resolution No. 4954 adopt-
ing the City' s Local Coastal Program in the
form of the Coastal Elenent of the General Plan.
Within the adopted element, Section 6 (pages 61a
and 62) states the City' s concerns regarding the
Bolsa Chica (see attachment) .
February 4 , 1980 Council adopted Resolution No. 4840 requesting
the County of Orange to accept additional City
input in the County Local Coastal Program for
the Bolsa Chica (see attachment) .
July 3 , 1978 The City Council considered annexing the Bolsa
Chica, but the motion failed.
January 3 , 1978 Council adopted Resolution No. 4580 requesting
preparation by the County of a Local Coastal
Plan for the Bolsa Chica for concurrent review
by the South Coast Regional Commission with
the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Plan (see
attachment) .
FUNDING SOURCE:
None needed.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS :
1 . Do not adopt the resolution. In this event, -the City will not
officially go on record as to having any concerns regarding the
Land Use Plan or the Habitat Conservation Plan. •
2 . Modify -the resolution reflecting issues that should be added,
deleted , or amended .
Bolsa Chica Resolution
June 13 , 1984
• Page 3
ATTACHMENTS :
1 . Resolution
2. Letter to State Coastal Commission dated July 21 , 1982
3 . Resolution No. 4954 adopting the Coastal Element
4. Section 6 - Environmentally Sensitive Habitats
5. Statement to the County Board of Supervisors
6 Resolution No. 4840 requesting additional City input to the
County' s Bolsa Chica LUP
7 . Resolution No. 4580 requesting preparation of Bolsa Chica LUP
for concurrent review with City' s document
CWT:JWP :FW:df
•
RESOLUTION NO. 5147
A RESOIJITION OF THE CTTY COUNCIL OF' 'IHE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON RE,AC11 REIVISING THE CCASTAL ELEMENT
OF THF; GENERAL PLAN
WHERFAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
desires to update and refine the Coastal Element of the General
Plan to meet the needs of the community better ; and
A public hearing on the proposed changes and additions to
the element was held and a report on those changes and additions
was prepared by the Planning Commission,
NOW, THEREFORE, RE IT RESOLVED that tt-e City Council hereby
approves the changes and additions to the Coastal Element listed
In the Planning, Commission' s report , attached hereto ar by tiis
reference made a part hereof.
FASSFD AND, ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
1hintington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2d day
of August , 1982.
Mayor
ATTEST : APPROVED AS TO FORM:
,ify Clerk City Attorney . � .
W,'1VI1?'ri_ ,ll_ AND APPROVED : INITIATED AND APPROVED :
C=ty Administr<L r irector cf Development
Services
RESOLUTION N0. 5391
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUESTING THE COUNTY OF
ORANGE AND THE COASTAL CONSERVANCY TO CON-
SIDER THE CONCERNS OF THE CITY REGARDING THE
COUNTY LAND USE PLAN AND THE CONSERVANCY'S
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN FOR THE BOLSA CHICA
WHEREAS, the Bolsa Chica is virtually completely sur-
rounded by the city of Huntington Beach and is within the city' s
sphere of influence; and
The ultimate land use in the Bolsa Chica is of great con-
cern to Huntington Beach; and
The County of Orange is the lead agency for the preparation
of the Local Coastal Program for the unincorporated area of the
Bolsa Chica; and
The County of Orange has submitted the Bolsa Chica Land Use
J' Plan to the Coastal Commission for its review and approval; and
The state Legislature has charged the Coastal Conservancy
with the responsibility of working in conjunction with Signal
Landmark, the state Department of Fish and Game, and the County
of Orange to prepare a Habitat Conservation Plan by July 20 ,
1984 ; and
The City of Huntington Beach, in the spirit of cooperation,
has been working with the County of Orange and the Coastal
Conservancy to address issues of concern the City of Huntington
Beach has regarding the Bolsa Chica •Land Use Plan; and
It is in the best interest of all concerned agencies that
cooperative planning efforts for the unincorporated area of
the Bolsa Chica are continued,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of �..
the City of Huntington Beach respectfully requests that the
,CS:ahb
6/14/84
1.
County of Orange and the Coastal Conservancy address the fol-
lowing concerns of the City of Huntington Beach relating to modi-
fications to the Land Use Plan and the Habitat Conservation Plan
t• for the Bolsa Chica:
1. CIRCULATION
(a) Realign Edwards Street and connect with Pacific
Coast Highway within the Bolsa Chica planned area.
(b) Align cross-gap connect M so that it will not have
a negative impact on the existing residential units.
(c) Connect Talbert Avenue to cross-gap connector.
(d) Realign Warner Avenue to allow for sufficient
grade for a minimum twenty-five (25) foot bridge and to maintain
access for the Warner Avenue Fire Station, as indicated in
No. 2 (a) hereof.
(e) Connect the cross-gap connector and Warner Avenue
to provide convenient circulation to the proppeed commercial uses.
(f) Existing local street system to be accommodated by
providing for similar adjoining land uses and for adequate neigh-
borhood circulation.
(g) Provide for Bolsa Chica Street (cross-gap) connec-
tion to Garfield Avenue.
(h) Address the following concerns created by the pro-
posal to reroute Pacific Coast Highway: .
(1) High projected daily traffic volumes on
Pacific Coast Highway, particularly between Bolsa Chica
Street and Garfield Avenue.
(2) High projected intersection traffic volumes
at Pacific Coast Highway/Bolsa Chica Street and Pacific
Coast Highway/Garfield Avenue.
(3) Vehicle miles travelled, safety and level
of service impacts on rerouted Pacific Coast Highway
through traffic (Pacific Coast Highway functions as a
regional highway) .
(4) Penetration of through traffic into existing
city arterial system.
2.
(5) Disruption of a scenic, coastal access and
regional highway which satisfies motoristst desires to
travel within view of the ocean.
These concerns need to be considered and mitigation mea-
sures provided to eliminate negative impacts on the travelling
public and the citizens of Huntington Beach.
(i) Bolsa Chica development on the Bolsa Chica Mesa
should be planned in a way that results in minimal direct
access off Warner Avenue.
2. SERVICE DELIVERY
(a) Planned circulation for the area needs to main-
tain access for the Warner Avenue Fire Station or provide for
an alternate site if such access is not feasible or desirable.
(b) Consideration should be given to service of the
proposed development with water supply and sanitation facilities
in order to minimize costs and ongoing maintenance °reQuirements.
(c ) Due regard for cost-benefit ratios is fundamental
to this development.
3. LAND USE PLANNING
It is critical that all proposed land uses as to type
and density should be compatible with existing land uses within
the city.
4. OCEAN ACCESS
There are three primary concerns regarding the proposed
ocean access which need to be addressed. They are : safety,
preservation of the beach, and ongoing maintenance costs.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the lath
day of June , 1984.
ATTEST:
tX Z4
City Clerk
3.
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ity Admin t for `.�� r City Attorney
INITIATED AND APPROVED:
j4l0
rector of a elopment
Services
4 .
' No. 5391
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
`' �► I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City
Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of
members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven;
that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative
vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council
at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th day
of June , 1984 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen:
Pattinson, MacAllister, Kelly, Finley, Bailey, Mardic
NOES: Councilmen:
Thomas
ABSENT: Councilmen:
None
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk
of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach, California
i
City of Huntington Beach
P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648
OI I`IC1; OF '1111•: MAYOR ..
a�
: Tuly 21, 1982
The, Honorable Naomi Schwartz , Chairwoman
;~ California State Coastal. Commission
631 Howard Street, Fourth Floor
- San Francisco, California 94105
Dear Chairwoman Schwartz :
The matter of adopting a General Land Use Play for the Bolsa
Chica is now before the Coastal Commission and is a matter of
great concern to the City of Huntington Beach. The clove Iopment
r,f this Area will be an oxt-.cnsion of the development of the ci. ti•
rr] Hunt.incaton tar.-Ich , and will have a (Ireal. infll.lr_nce on th-, char
,i�,I.er -inn yull.l iL-y of I i fe of tiAs city for twiny ye,lr., to r nlc .
The 13olsa Chicci is virtually surrounded I)% the city of ttunLinct-
! On f3c;rrh and Lotal ly within the city' sl-hero of i nt- iilcnce . Ass
SlIc:Fl, t-.he city IWIS had a c-ontinuinq interest and has reviewed and
offered recommendat ions to tho County of orancle regaidi.ng the
County L. U. 1' . In view of these considerations , the County of Orange
adopted on December 16 , 1.981 , Resolution No. 81-1806 acknowledge I:1
the c.iL•_- ' s inter.est- •and indicating willingness to provide for the
city ' s participation in the development of the 13olsa Chica , and there-
fore included the city in the planning process .
In addition , the City of Huntington Beach and the. County of Orange
have entered into a cooperative agreement to plan and acquire a lin
t ear park which provides a connector along the bluff line from tllc
City ' s Central. Park to the coastline. This area serves as the east-
ern boundary of the Bolsa Chica .
Tho City Council h(l.s also indicated a policy direction to achieve
the annexation el.` ! he B(Asrl Chica . Sj)ecif lc•,ally , the Citv wish(.:, to
+ record its opposition tn the Co,lstal Commission staff ' s L . t_t . l' . di ,lyrai
' �I 1 I-ernrl t i ve to the Or.ln(;r. county Plan due to Illll jor shoutc-o11lings in
the fol l owing ill i`ilti
1 . Tt would trciffir and circulation problems which a
„ proper land use plan would avoid;
2 . /\rteria 1 a l i gnmr•n t is not in accord with the Ci ty ' s adopt(,(]
#1, orterial alignment ;
F LFTIMNI (71
Chairwoman Schwa r• -2- • July 21, 19' 8
`W 3. The plan would cause serious safety and fire access problem
through the isolation of the Warner. Avenue Fire Station and
the elevation of the Warner Avenue bridge;
4. The plan is lacking in the provision for proper tidal flushing
within the wetland areas ; and
5. The plan would create serious impacts as a result of the high
density residential. development on the- Bol.sa Chica Mesa and
would be detrimental to the quality of the general area and
create interface problems with the City ' s existing residential
areas .
Since the City Council is the principal. elected body representing this
area, and having spent: many years working and living in this area , the
City of Huntington Beach wishes to go on record as endorsing the con-
cept embodied in the County ' s L.U .P . , acknowledging there may be minor
adjustments in the plan which would improve its overall desirability .
These changes alt,hough minor in naturecould result in further improve-
ment in the traffic circulation, arterial alicnment, improvement in
public safety response and could reduce the number and height of the
bridges proposed and could more specifically address the precise loca-
tion and size of the ocean access .
of spocia l interest- to I ho C i. ty arc, Lh(� long r.lnclr` fiscal i nil�.lct:s wl '.
+ l L"f. lm�)Osod ley dove I opmon 1. , ] .e. , S tree t m.a L n t C'11.1 nce , t ra F f. i c cr) . -
fire and police services , park maintenance , library servi.cr,s , sarllt'll-.'
and storm drainage requirements, water service , recreational require-
moiits , etc. The County has included a fiscal impact review in which
the City has been involved .
i In indicating its general approval of the County L. U.P. the City wisi:-
to also request that it be included as a full participant in all
ments and negotiations regarding the Bolsa Chica L. U .P .
Sincerely,' J'rf
Ci ty Counci 1. Members
City of Huntington Beach
f
RPM/CWT: pj
it
r
E
RESOLUT t ON NO . 4954
A Rh:MIA)TION OF '['HE CITY (,MJNC l i, M' Till', CITY
0V fill NTIt-NTON BRACH APOPTiNr, THE, LOCAL COASTAL
NtiOGRAM f N THE VORM OF THE: COASTAL ELEMENT Or
THE GENERAL PLAN.
WHEREAS , California Public Resources Code Section 30500
requires all cities lying within the coastal zone to prepare
a local coastal program for that portion of the coastal zone
within� thelr jurtsdiction; and
WHEREAS , said local coastal program must contaln a land
us— Flan (California Public Resources Code Section 30108 . V
which may be submitted In the farm of a coastal element to the
vaneral plan (California Public Resources Code Section 301 "' . 5) .
anti
WHEREAS , a coastal element has been ur'epared in comv1 ' anr,:•
�r; l t.h Ca L i fornia Public Resources Code Sections 30000 thrount''
�UU a►.d inlevant guldvllnes adopted by th- State of Calir-pnia ;
Ind
WHEREAS , pursuant to the State Planning and Zoni.nF Law and
the California Coastal Act of 1976 , the Huntington Beach Planninv
commission and Huntington Beach City Council have had senarate
public hwarings relative to the proposed adent ion of the conntal
eleaif,nt to the general plan , wherein both bodies have carefully
a"ns ideped all Informat ton presented at said hearings , and n 'ter
duce consideration of the findings and recommendations of the
Planning Commis.; I OH , .Inc l ud lnr Ci tv Council ameHdments by whanres
and additions listed In Attachments 1 , 2 and 1 , by this reVevenc-
1 ncorporated hf�ro i ri and made a part i:t2ri,e i' , and ;i i l ev idenc-
pret ;ented to said City Council , the Cite Co"M I finis M ' � -?]
1 "M coastal program is proper , and intornNI K consistent ' th
the general plan ;
- 1 -
NOW, 'I'll H'REFORE, BE, JT ItE*-`,Ol-XEJ) th,it the ('it..v Counct I. ot,
the City of Huntington Beach hereby approves, said coastal
element of the general plan.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th
day of January , 1981 .
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM :
ATTEST:
C At o n
City Clerk
REVIEWED AND APPROVED :
Cty Admini trator
I N 1T[A':ED AND APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
O
Development Slvic6s Director
•
- 2 -
• n.:�•. 4y�4
ti'('A'1'h; OF CALIFORNIA )
I
• COITMI'Y OF ORANCF• ) ee
CITY OF 11MINGTON BEACH )
I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City
Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of
members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven;
that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative
vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council
at a• regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day
of January , 19 81 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen:
Pattinson, Finley, Thomas, Bailey, MacAllister, Mandic, Kelly
NOES: Councilmen:
• _None
ABSENT: Councilmen:
None
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk
of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach, California
Copy of fi-r• Ofl itldl (1,1 fi!•� ;n timsot1i,,C.
Cily f;lerk and Ex-nff iC��"ICr k of t��e(;ity
(,UUJ1C1l Of tl1Q filly Of Hui1t111gto1i BUC.11,
Cal. /J
By - (-(�`" z=`' � Deputy
•
MY-ROM
�C�[1cz [1�1CI
AB 72%73
dao
'L r'
Ri �C��D0 r�l 00
I)FFINrl'IONS
AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM: •
An area where organisms grow or live in the water and interact with each other.
BIOLOGICAL QUALITY:
The ability of an area to support living organisms.
BUFFER:
Any of various devices (land, fencing, vegetation) which serve to separate adjacent land uses in order
to lessen any adverse Impacts of one land use on another.
CONSERVATION:
Planned management of a natural resource to prevent exploitation,destruction or neglect.
CONTINGENCY PLANNING:
Planning for events that are of passible but uncertain occurrence.
ECOLOGICAL RESERVE:
Officially determined area being preserved for its environmental value.
ECOSYSTEM:
The complex of a community and its environment functioning as a unit in nature.
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT:
Any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are rare or especially valuable and which
could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments.
FILL:
Any earth or any other substance or material placed in submerged area.
HABITAT: •
The place or type of site where a plant or animal naturally lives and grows.
INDICATOR SPECIES:
Species which are representative of a specific area or habitat.
PREEMPT:
To take jurisdiction away from an existing agency or entity.
TIDAL FLUSHING:
A process in which normal tidul action results in continual exchange of ocean water within a wetland.
•
` COASTAL ACT POLICY
30240. (a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected
against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses
dependent on such resources shall be allowed within such areas.
` (b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally
sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and
designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade such
areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of such habitat areas.
30411. (b) The Department of Fish and Game, in consultation with
the Commission and the Department of Navigation and Ocean
Development, may study degraded wetlands and identify those which can
most feasibly be restored in conjunction with development of a boating
f acility...Any such study shall include consideration of all the following:
(1) Whether the wetland is so severely degraded and its natural
processes so substantially impared that it is not capable of
recovering and maintaining a high level of biological productivity
without major restoration activities.
• (2) Whether a substantial portion of the degraded wetland, but in no
event less than 75 percent, can be restored and maintained as a
highly productive wetland in conjunction with a boating facilities
project.
(3) Whether restoration of the wetland's natural values, including its
biological productivity and wildlife habitat features, can most
feasibly be achieved and maintained in conjunction with a boating
facility or whether there are other feasible ways to achieve such
values.
30607.1 Where any dike and fill development is permitted in wetlands
in conformity with this division, mitigation measures shall include, at a
minimum, either acquisition of equivalent areas of equal or greater
biological productivity or opening up equivalent areas to tidal action;
provided, however, that if no appropriate restoration site is available, an
in-lieu fee sufficient to provide an area of equivalent productive value or
surface areas shall be dedicated to an appropriate public agency, or such
replacement site shall be purchased before the dike or fill development
may proceed. Such mitigation measures shall not be required for
temporary or short-term fill or diking; provided that a bond or other
evidence of financial responsibility is provided to assure that restoration
will be accomplished in the shortest feasible time.
Other provisions related to wetlands are relevant to sensitive habitat
areas in the Huntington Beach coastal zone.
Other policies involving diking, dredging and filling which could affect
habitat areas in the City's coastal zone are listed in Section 5.0, Water
and Marine Resources.
57.
6. Environmentally Sensitive Habitats
• 6.1 BACKGROUND
An "environmentally sensitive habitat" is any area in which plant or animal life
is either rare or especially valuable and could be easily disturbed or degraded by
human activities and developments. The Coastal Act requires that local coastal
plans delineate these environmentally sensitive habitats and establish policies
for their protection and enhancement.
6.1.1 Environmentally Sensitive Habitats in the Huntington Beach Coastal Zone
Two areas in the coastal zone of Huntington Beach have been preliminarily
identified as environmentally sensitive habitats: 1) a nesting sanctuary for the
California least tern (a bird species considered endangered by both the State
and federal governments) located on the Huntington State Beach; 2) a possible
wetland area located between the southern end of the Southern California
Edison plant and Brookhurst Street. (See Figures 6.1 and 6.2.)
Least Tern Nesting Sanctuary
The California least tern is a bird species which is native to Southern California
coastal salt marshes. These birds nest on sandy beaches close to wetlands and
estuaries where they feed on small fish. Encroaching development has resulted
in loss of feeding grounds, and heavy recreatiohal use of sandy beaches has
disrupted natural nesting areas. These factors have threatened the existence of
_ • the least tern.
59.
Q
Us.: Now r--j ;
_d m
W
r
ti
HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFMNIA Environmentaly Sensitive Habits s
PLANNING DIVISION
Figure 6.1
60.
To help protect the least tern from extinction, a five-acre fenced nesting area
• was created in 1969 on the Huntington Beach State Beach. This nesting
sanctuary is a permanent facility and is maintained by the State Department of
Parks and Recreation. The tern colony nesting there was one of the three
largest in the State in 1978, and it is ranked first in terms of nesting success.1
Wetlands
The City believes that the definition of "wetlands" in the Coastal Act could be
Improved to better identify environmentally important areas the Act intends to
protect. Nonetheless, the State legislature did adopt the following definition of
"wetlands" in the Coastal Act:
"Land within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or
permanently with shallow water and include salt water marshes, freshwater
marshes, open or closed brackishwater marshes, swamps, mudflats and fens."
The Coastal Act prohibits diking, dredging and filling of wetlands except for
very limited purposes related to energy production, boating and other regionally
important activities.
Wetland areas within the City have been preliminarily identified by
representatives from the State Coastal Commission, State Department of Fish
and Game (DFG), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS). These agencies conducted an explicit delineation of
the boundaries and biological value of the wetlands. The results of this effort
are included in an appendix to the background report on Environmentally
Sensitive Habitats prepared by the City's Development Services Department.
Figure 6.2 shows the potential wetland areas between Beach Boulevard and the
Santa Ana River. The primary resource value of those coastal wetland areas is
their function as habitat for water-associated and marsh-dependent bird
species. The Belding's savannah sparrow, and California least tern, both
endangered species, feed in the area and the Belding's savannah sparrow nests
there. The physical 'Characteristics, natural resource values and unique features
of the area are discussed in greater detail in the document prepared by the DFG
for the Regional Coastal Commission staff which is an appendix to this plan.
Comprehensive lists of wetland indicator plant species and the bird species
observed on the site are included in the report.
The City has indicated visitor-serving and energy expansion uses for these areas
with the expectation that in exchange for development rights, certain of these
areas will be restored and enchanced.
Though the area known as the Bolsa Chica is not located in the jurisdiction 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.
61 .
•
1. The City urqes 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 recommendations as to the economic feasibility of rehabilitation
of such designated ecologically sensitive areas.
When these State and Federal responsibilities are properly presented and
accepted, the City will totally support the preservation of such designated
environmentally sensitive habitat areas.
•
61a .
2. Residual acreage in the Bolsa Chica which is not included in State and
Federal designation of environmentally sensitive 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 will not be burdened with
unrealistic or excessive set backs and other restrictive ordinances and
codes Intended 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 Bolsa Chica land and the County of Orange for the purpose of
achieving annexation of the Bolsa Chica into the City of I-untington
Beach.
6.1.2 Regional and Local Interests in Wetland Areas
Wetlands are recognized as especially valuable areas which provide numerous
public benefits including 1) breeding and "nursery" areas for marine species with
commercial and recreation value, 2) habitat for numerous wildlife species
including rare and endangered varieties, 3) natural flood control, and 4)
aesthetic amenities. The loss of coastal wetlands in Southern California has
been dramatic and drastic. Most of those that remain have been altered,
damaged or otherwise threatened. The protection of these increasingly scarce
ecosystems is recognized in the Coastal Act as an important greater-than-local
goal.
6.1.3 State and Federal Agencies Responsible for Wetlands Protection
Local control over development in wetlands has been largely pre-empted by
State and federal agencies because of the greater-than-local value of these
areas. The principal agencies charged with protection of wetlands are discussed
below.
Federal Agencies
The Army Corps of Engineers (COE) has permit authority over any development
that would discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the United States,
including wetlands.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) reviews permits before they are
issued by the Corps of Engineers. A permit cannot be issued over the objection
of the USFWS, however, it can be appealed at the State or federal levels.
Permits must also be consistent with guidelines issued by the USFWS, the
Environmental Protection Agency and the California Coastal Zone Management
Program.
State Agencies
The Coastal Commission has authority to regulate activities in wetlands and to
protect against any significant disruption of habitat values. The Department of
Fish and Game (DFG) must issue a written statement that important ecological
resources have been protected prior to approval of any project in a wetland.
• The DFG also has the responsiblity of proposing plans to protect, preserve,
restore, acquire and manage wetlands.
62 .
6.2 ANALYSIS
6.2.1 Restrictive Land Uses
The City's principal strategy for protecting environmentally sensitive habitats i
is to designate them as "visitor-serving commercial", "conservation," and
"Industrial energy production" with the intent that development proposals will
be accompanied by strategies to enhance significant wetland areas adjacent to
the proposed project.
6.2.2 Buffers
In addition to evaluating development in the wetland areas to ensure significant
habitat values are not destroyed, the City also requires buffers to the most
sensitive areas. In some cases, such as the area adjacent to the Bolsa Chica,
the buffer will be a setback along the Huntington Beach Mesa bluff. Other
acceptable buffers in areas where large setbacks are infeasible would be
elevation changes or barriers which inhibit access. The City will study buffer
strategies and catalogue those which protect the habitat value of wetlands in
aesthetically pleasing ways.
6.2.3 Aesthetic and Biological Improvements
The City specifically promotes the enhancement and/or restoration of
environmentally sensitive habitats. The City will investigate funding
opportunities from sources such as the California Coastal Conservancy for such
enhancement projects. The City will also require that any habitat restoration
strategies include measures to ensure against flooding in surrounding properties.
Another measure will be to encourage plantings and other improvements to the
flood control channel embankments and to the edges of the wetland areas to
increase species diversity, provide better screening and to promote their visual
attractiveness.
Additional protection is afforded by measures which require review of oil spill
plans to ensure sensitive areas are protected. (See Section 10.)
6.2.4 Public Access
In coordination with the aesthetic and biological enhancement of the wetlands,
the City encourages low-impact public access to allow nature study and
enjoyment of amenities. The City will investigate strategies to provide
boardwalks, peripheral trails, interpretive exhibits and other educational
facilities in or adjacent to coastal wetlands so long as such activities do not
significantly disrupt any habitat values or impair the viability of the ecosystem.
6.3 CONCLUSION
The City's coastal plan complements efforts by State and federal agencies to
protect and enchance sensitive habitat areas. Principal objectives of the plan
inc lude:
•
63.
Protection of significant habitat areas by requiring wetland enhancement
and buffers in exhange for development rights.
Improved contingency plans related to oil and toxic material spills to
protect these high priority areas.
Improvement of the aesthetic and biological quality of wetland areas.
•
64 .
: ;; • n,;AiW OFti'ii'IiIZ\-i �Vii` ON.
LOCAL CJAi ; PLAN 1;Y TIP. CITY OF HU,NI' ;TON BEACH
It is essential that the special interests of all the residents
of IIuntington Beach be taken into consideration as Bolsa Chica
planning proceeds.
Recognition of this duty to react to the plan led the City
Council to direct- that a statement be prepared for the LCP
hearing before the Hoard of Supervisors .
In this statement, the City Council is putting aside its
polarization on the extent and nature of development in the
Bolsa Chica in order to bring up issues and questions involving
City interests, such as the City ' s participation in the planning
process , possible traffic circulation problems , adequacy of
fiscal information, and the potential annexation to the City .
Let me begin with a word of appreciation to Supervisor Wieder.
Following the discussion at the City Council meeting of
December 7 , regarding the proposed traffic circulation in the
Bolsa Chica LCP and the limited financial benefits of the
pre,ject to the City of Huntington Beach, unless there is
annexation, Supervisor Wi.eder called a meeting of County and
C lt-y st,Iff . A(; a result of th.iL meeting there will be in the
futiii-k, c Early d(' 1- i >>c'cl porl. icil ,il. ion by tho Ci 1:,, in Lho planning
process and assessment of effects of any plans on the City.
• Page 2 `
Recognizing that Orange County is the lead agency in the i
preparation of the Bolsa Chica LCP , the City ' s involvement
has consisted primarily in commenting on the various products •
submitted for public review by the County. The Bolsa Chica
is completely within the City ' s sphere of influence; therefore ,
final planning for the area is of unique concern to the City.
In the past, information concerning the Bolsa Chica planning
has not always been received in a timely fashion which has
limited the scope .of the City ' s comments. In addition, the
City has not been consistently aggressive in its participation
in the planning process .
As an example, the fact that the conceptual plan of circulation
do- p.ict-ed on the plan recommended b the Orange County Planning
E I Y 1 i g
Commission is inconsistent with the conceptual plan the City
has adopted as part of its Circulation Element only came to
our attention recently. The Huntington Beach City staff tells
us that the traffic generation rate and directional splits used
by County staff differ substantially from City calculations and
understate the projected traffic volumes on some arterial highways
such as Springdale and Garfield. The City has proposed
Bolsa Chica Street as the major route for north/south traffic
through the Bolsa Chica area; however, the proposed County
alignment of streets may shift the north/south emphasis to
Springdale.
• Page 3 •
In addition , our staff Relieves the proposed crossyap highway
from Garfield to the new high bridge will be ineffective in
the stated goal of relieving traffic on Pacific Coast Highway. •
This connector will require additional bridges and our
existing Warner Avenue fire station could be badly located
for response to Huntington harbour. Until such time as .
additional information is available justifying these changes ,
we Feel that the existing County master plait of higliways
showing the extension of Bol.sa Chica Street southerly across
the Bolsa Chica property and connecting with Pacific Coast
Highway northerly of the bluffs to be a more effective system
than the crossgap highway and extension of Springdale Street
Lo 11aci fic c"ba.;t. IIiIhw iy.
There are other .inconsistencies which point up the fact that up
to now the County planning effort has not adequately related
to City Planning. One example is that we are now in the midst
of developing specific plans for some of the adjoining areas
which obviously should relate to the County plan.
1'Ile Council would like to take this opportunity to urge, the
13oard of Supervisor., to take a position, prior to approval of
the 1,C11 , oil whether Lhe resldenLs of 1untington Harbour will be
required to part: icipaLc' .in a special assessnienL district to
cover any projected costs to the Huntington Ilarbour residents
• relating to the use of the ocean entrance. This is all issue
of particular concern to the residents of the Harbour.
Page 4
•
The preparation of the Bolsa Chica Specific Plan involves
many issues which are of special concern to the City. These
include the precise location and description of the ocean
access as well as the design and layout of the wetland area.
In addition, questions as to the impact of: ocean cuts on
beach erosion need clear answers .
A question raised in our City Council discussion related to
the proposed commercial development around the marina. There should
be consideration of its relationship to existing commercial uses
in' Peter' s Landing and additional commercial designated for
the Iluntington Beach downtown in our LCP. The market may not
be able to support the amount of conunerci-al areas being proposed
by both the County and the City, resulting in a potential loss
of revenue to the City .
Similarly, public facilities and financing ayreements as developed
in the Specific Plan will affect the. levels of service required
of the City. Updated financial information should be used for
the preparation of the FIR to accurately identify the total
costs involved with the project. Tlie City requests that we
fully panic;ilxiLe i n all discussions of financial ayreements
as the-y will directly affect the residents of Huntington Beach
and may ultimately influence potential annexation of the area.
Page 5
The County FIR process does not call for assessment of •
financial impacts on the City. Because of the unique
relationship of the Bolsa Chica to Huntington Beach financial
impacts on Huntington Beach should be thoroughly analyzed.
Once again, we appreciate Supervisor Wieder ' s responsiveness
in having the office of the CAA provide a hurriedly done
assessment of financial impacts on Huntington Beach this week .
Bolsa Chica is recognized to be within the City ' s sphere of
influence . For many reasons , past attempts to annex have been
thwarted. If annexation does not take place, development in
tho Bolsa Ch.lra w.i. l..l. Provide very lii,lited bent.f.i. t-s to the tax
base of: the City of ]Huntington Beach.
lhel-efore , tie must he very concerned ahout the jwtential and
t i nl i ng of allnexat ioll. As st,lted .in the 11t111t 1 ngtun Beach LCP
Section 6 , allllroved by the City Council lnst January' ,
Huntington 13each intends to pursue annexation. We request the
full COOI)el'at loll Of the C(-)tlllty and the lalldoivnCrs to ichieVe
this (`Ild .
In sununlrv , t.11c, (: it)' of lltlnt ington Beach requcsts tot;1l Jild C,1u,11
p;trti.cipatton ill the formulation of all future planning documents .
we feel all active role I))' the City t,-i11 1lrovc to be l;illtu,111\'
beneficial to both the CotlntY ;lnd the City' ot' Iftlntington L'e,lcll .
RE,M)LUTION w . 4840
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL np Tlll'; CITY
OIL HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUESTING THE. COUNTY O
ORANGE TO ACCEPT ADDITIONAL CITY INPUT IN
THE COUNTY LOCAL COASTAL. PROGRAM FOR H01-:,A
CHI CA
WHl•;ftEM , the County of Orange is the lead agency for the
preparation of the Local Coastal Program for the unincorporated
area of Holsa Chica; and
The ultimate use of land in such area is of great concern
to the City of Huntington Reach ; and
The City of Huntington Reach and the County of Orange have
a hlstovy of cooperative planning effort for the uninr.orpovated
area of Polsa Chica; and
'I'lle Gi ty of Huntington lien �11 has) in the of cool,s: r:i-
t. lc�n , appolnted r'elwe:>c�rrr.atives to the: North r;o:r:-,t, l,o(,-.II (;r):i:: t.:I 1
Prk,r;ram Advisory at Li,,r rcclue6L of the t;omity or
It is In the he�;t inter•est.� of both the City of Ilunt[I'll;t.orr
Heach and the County of Orange that both agencies continue to ex-
plore mearr•s for cooperative planning for the unincorpc-rated are:c
of HolSa ";pica,
NOW , 'L'HEREFORE, BE IT RES01LVED that the City Counk�i l of'
City of Huntington Beach respect: ully requests that thy• rol,-
of the City of Huntington Reach in the county Coastal
Program be expanded to inr.lude the folIowinir:
1 . The City Council shall review the proposed Local Coastal
Program I'1an and make recommendations to the county Ho:lr•d of
Supervisors prior to adoption of the plan by the Board ; and
2 . County and city staff's shall continue to work coo�l,c,rrc-
tively o:i all planning matters relating to they unincorporated
i
i
•
i ahb
1/28/8o
1 .
a sir(:.i of botsa Chica; and
3 . The City of Huntington Beach shall. Jointly spo sor puh-
IIc workshops with the County of Orange to fulft11 the citizen.;
participation requirement- of the Coastal Act- .
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the C1. t,y of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the flth
day of February, 1980 .
Mayor
AWEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk Yty Atto ey
INITIATED AND APPROVED:
4Ci ,y dm. nis trator •
3
i
n
i
•
2 .
. Ali iiI c:A1.IFO R.'.'lA
► titrlfY uF ORANI;I•:
(,I I Y ()F lllitir ING 1:ON 11FAC11 )
I , ALICIA M. WEN'IWORF11, the duly elected , quaI i f i..'l Ci t v
Clerk of the City of Iuntington Beach, and ex-offici•• Clerk of thc-
City Cc+uncil of said City, do hereby certify thnt ihc' whole number .•I
uunihers of the City Council of the City of lluntiny;tcn► Beach is Seven;
that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative
vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council
at a regular meeting thereof held on the _ 4th day
of February 19 80 by the following vote:
! AYES: Councilmen:
Pattinson, Thomas, Mandic, MacAllister, Bailey, Yoder, Finley
NOES: Councilmen:
None
ABSEN•f: Councilmen:
Nagle
City Clerk and ex-officio C10 rk
of the City Cotcnci.l of the City
of Huntington Beach, California
c
cf t!; ,;
�a..............
r„
n'f. hlurr• [' ty
RESOLUTION N0. 4580
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUESTING PREPARATION BY THE
COUNTY OF ORANGE OF A LOCAL COASTAL PLAN FOR THE
BOLSA CHICA FOR CONCURRENT REVIEW WITH THE HUNTINGTON
BEACH LOCAL COASTAL PLAN BY THE SOUTH COAST REGIONAL
COMMISSION
WHEREAS, the City of Huntington Beach has an approved work
program for the Local Coastal Plan by the South Coast Regional
Commission; and
The Bolsa Chica area under county jurisdiction is excluded
from said plan; and
The County of Orange is the responsible agency for the
preparac.ion of the Local Coastal Plan for the Bolsa Chica; and
In order for the South Coast Regional Commission to reach
a decision on the Local Coastal Plans for Huntington Beach and
f3olsa Ghjca , it is necessary to have both plans before the
Commis:ion for approval concurrently ,
NuW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Huntington Beach that it respectfully requests the Boar-1
of Supervisors of the County of Orange to give the Local Coastal
Plan for the Bolsa Chica a top priority, and that said plan be
completed concurrently with the Local Coastal Plan for the city
of Hur::.ington Beach.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular me g thereof held on the 3rd
day of January, 1978 .
ATTEST:
Mayor
City Clerk
: cs 1 .
4 4* tvo. 4St1U
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) es: •
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
y
I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City
Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of
members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven;
that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative
vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council
at a regular meeting thereof held on the 3rd day
of Jbnuary 19 78 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen:
Bartlett, Wieder, Coen Gibbs, Siebert, Shenkman. Pattinaon
NOES: Councilmen:
None
r ABSENT: Councilmen:
None
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk
of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach, California
i
1
. • REVIEWED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
j CV Administrator C Attor y
INITIATED AND APPROVED
AS TO CONTENT:
9j
Planning Director
•
2 .
• , ash,d y Sir �-�q� �-�a.��-°-e
CITY OF HUMP—
""TON sR"M CA 8 4-31 �
COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION - -o--Q
KLACH YV
To Honorable Mayor and From Charles W. Thompson, _ o
City Councilmembers City Administrator
Subject SERVICE AND DEVELOPMENT CONCERNSDate June 11, 1984
RE: BOLSA CHICA PLAN
Upon review of the Orange County plan for the Bolsa Chica, which was prepared by the
county and the proposals being advanced by the state Coastal Conservancy, the city staff
has identified several matters which are of concern to the city of Huntington Beach.
Following the county's development of their proposal for the Bolsa Chica, the city direc-
ted its principal focus on traffic and circulation, land use, service delivery, and ocean
access issues. Based upon conditions addressing these concerns, the City Council indicated
support for the county plan. Subsequently, the City Council set forth general policies ef-
fecting this area in the "Coastal Land Use Plan" adopted in August 1982, Resolution #5147.
In the Spring of 1984, the city became aware of certain proposals being made by the state
Coastal Conservancy for development of the Bolsa Chica. Once again, it was mandatory
that city provide input into this process in order to protect existing city development and
to insure the workability of city plans already in place.
During this study period, the City Council directed that staff involve itself in discussions
then underway. This involvement was again pointed toward the same general areas of con-
cern - service delivery, traffic and circulation, ocean access and beach impact, and land
use planning.
Following numerous meetings involving the state Coastal Conservancy, county of Orange,
state and county consultants, Signal Landmark, and city staff, there have emerged several
points of agreement. In addition, the city has been able to spell out and better identify
its concerns as they relate to specific proposals of the county and the Coastal Conservancy.
Attached is a "Draft Proposal Language of Points of Agreement Between City and County
Staff on Major Circulation Issues." It is believed that this draft will be acceptable to both
city and county. In addition, the following seven points spell out the major aspects of traf-
fic and circulation which are felt to be necessary to effectively integrate the Bolsa Chica
traffic circulation plan with existing city plans.
1. Realign Edwards and connect with P.C.H. within the Bolsa Chica planned area.
2. Drop down the cross-gap connector so it will not have a negative impact on the exist-
ing residential units.
3. Talbert connecting to cross-gap connector.
4. Realign Warner Avenue to allow for sufficient grade for a minimum twenty-five (25)
foot bridge.
5. A connector between the cross-gap connector and Warner Avenue to provide conven-
ient circulation to the proposed commercial uses.
. : . •• -2-
6. Existing local street system to be accommodated by providing for similar adjoining
land uses and for adequate neighborhood circulation.
7. Provide for Bolsa Chica Street connection to Garfield Avenue.
It should be pointed out that the principal function of Pacific Coast Highway is a re-
gional transportation link and also serves as an important scenic highway and coastal
access.
Service Delivery '
The Bolsa Chica is virtually completely surrounded by the city of Huntington Beach and
is within the city's sphere of influence. Spheres of influence are designed because of the
city's ability to serve the area with sewerage, water supply, police and fire services, and
street and other public works services.
In this regard, it is important that the planned circulation for the area maintain access
for the Warner Avenue Fire Station, or provide for an alternate site if such access is not
feasible or desirable.
Second, due consideration should be given to service of the proposed development with
water supply and sanitation facilities in order to minimize costs and on-going maintenance
requirements. Due regard for cost-benefit ratios are fundamental to the development.
Land Use Planning
Of critical importance in this respect is that all land uses, as to type and density, should
be compatible with existing land uses within the city.
Ocean Access
There are three primary city concerns about any proposed ocean access. They are:
(1) Safety;
(2) Preservation of the beach, and;
(3) On-going maintenance costs.
There are innumerable ways in which a plan can be formulated for the Bolsa Chica. It
is the staff recommendation that whatever plan be proposed, the issues identified above
should be adequately and satisfactorily addressed.
Respectfu submitted,
es W. Thompson,
City Administrator
CWT:pj
Attachment
•DRAFT PROPOSED LANGUAGE •
OF POINTS OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN CITY AND COUNTY STAFF
ON MAJOR CIRCULATION ISSUES
BOLSA CHICA
1. WARNER AVENUE
City and county staffs agree that Bolsa Chica development on the Bolsa Chica
Mesa should be developed in a way that results in minimal direct access.
2. PCH REROUTE
If the plan that emerges from the Coastal Conservancy HCP includes a PCH
reroute, then city and county staffs share a number of concerns that would need
to be recognized and addressed including, but necessarily limited to:
(1) High projected daily traffic volumes on PCH, particularly between Bolsa
Chica Street and Garfield Avenue.
(2) High projected intersection traffic volumes at PCH/Bolsa Chica Street and
PCH/Garfield Avenue.
(3) VMT, safety, and level of service impacts on rerouted PCH through traffic -
PCH functions as a regional highway. 1.
(4) Penetration of through traffic into existing city arterial system.
City and county staffs generally agree that (1) and (2) above would need to be mitigated
for the plan to function effectively, subject to the level of land use eventually approved.
City and county staffs also agree that (3 and (4) above would probably include some un-
avoidable adverse impacts which could not be mitigated.
3. ACCESS LINK TO PCH ON OR NEAR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MESA (IF PCH
IS NOT REROUTED)
City and county staffs agree that there is a projected need for one access route
parallel to the Huntington Beach Mesa bluff line within the Bolsa Chica planned
area. There are a number of possible alignments for accomplishing this. As long
as one such route is provided, the plan will function effectively.
.J; '� • Zs" z„
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
4? A INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGT(NJ IIIACH
/ vD
To Charles W. Thompson, �m James W. Palin, Director
City Administrator Development Services
Subject ORANGE COUNTY BOLSA CHICA Date December 11, 1981
LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
As per City Council directive given at the City Council meeting
(December 6, 1981) , City staff has prepared the following comments
which City Council may wish to communicate to the Board of Super-
visors at their December 16th hearing on the Bolsa Chica LCP.
Recognizing that Orange County is the lead agency in the preparation
of the Bolsa Chica LCP, the City' s involvement has consisted primarily
of commenting on the various products submitted for public review
by the County. Because planning has been at the General Plan level
and therefore conceptual in nature, Huntington Beach' s participation
in the planning process has been limited. However, as Phase III
Specific Planning processes begin, the City wishes to increase its
participation in the planning effort for the Bolsa Chica.
The Bolsa Chica is completely within the City' s sphere of influence,
therefore, final planning for this area is of unique concern to the
City. In the past, information concerning the Bolsa Chica has not
been received in a timely fashion, therefore limiting the scope of
the City' s comments.
i As .an example, this lack of communication has resulted in inconsis-
tencies between the County LCP and the City' s Circulation Element.
The traffic generation rate and directional splits used by County
staff differs substantially from City calculations and understates
the projected traffic volumes on some arterial highways such as
Springdale and Garfield. The City proposed Bolsa Chica Street as
the major route for north/south traffic through the Bolsa Chica
area; however, the proposed County alignment of streets may shift
the north/south emphasis to Springdale.
In addition, the proposed crossgap highway from Garfield to the new
highbridge will be ineffective in the stated goal of relieving traf-
fic on Pacific Coast Highway. This connector will require additional
bridges and will isolate the Warner Avenue fire station at the end
of a cul-de-sac. Until such time as additional information is
available justifying these changes, we feel that the existing County
master plan of highways showing the extension of Bolsa Chica Street
southerly across the Bolsa Chica property and connecting with Pacific
Coast Highway northerly of the bluffs to be a more effective system
than the crossgap highway and extension of Springdale Street to
Pacific Coast Highway.
, ?age 2
Another problem is the diagram in the L.C.P. which reflects land uses
inconsistent with land uses in our Land Use Element (e.g. , property at
Bolsa Chica and Los Patos) . The County ' s plan also is not taking into
consideration our current plan ing effort on a specific plan for. the
Goldenwest/Ellis estate area.VWe would like to take this opportunity
to urge the Board of Supervisors to take a position, prior to approval
of the LUP, on whether the residents of Huntington Harbour will be
. required to participate in a special assessment district to cover any
projected costs to the Huntington Harbour Association relating to the
use of the ocean entrance. This is an issue of particular concern to
the residents of the City.
The County' s preparation of the Specific Plan will involve considera-
tions which will have significant impacts on the City of Huntington
Beach. They will include precise location of the ocean access, as well
as impacts associated with design and layout of wetlands and compatibil-
ity with proposed surrounding uses . Similarly, public facilities and
financing agreements as developed in the Specific Plan will also
affect the levels of service required of the City and may ultimately
influence potential annexation into the City.
;*4 The City of Huntington Beach is looking forward to taking an active
role in assisting the County in the formulation of future planning
documents. We feel an active role by the City will prove to be mutually
beneficial to both the County and the City of Huntington Beach.
JWP:FW:df
i ,;l
•
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
�!? INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
Charles W. Thompson James W. Palin, Director
To City Administrator From Development Services
Subject BOLSA CHICA UPDATE Date December 7, 1981
The following provides a brief history and status report on Orange County's plans for the
Bolsa Chica.
Currently, the County is processing three related documents on the Bolsa Chica: the Local
Coastal Program (LCP)/Land Use Element (LUE), a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR 81-250).
Although planning studies for the Bolsa Chica area have been on-going for the past ten
years, work on the Local Coastal Program did not get underway until late 1980. Between
November 15, 1980 and January 22, 1981, the County Environmental Management Agency
(EMA) conducted six community workshops designed to exchange information on the study
area and to receive comments or suggestions for the LCP. During this period, eight
alternative land use plans were developed by Signal Landmark with interested groups and
EMA staff. The alternatives ranged from preservation of almost the entire site to intensive
urban and recreational development on the majority of the site. With the assistance of
consultants, EMA staff prepared separate environmental analyses for each of these
alternatives. Draft EIR 81-250 was the result of these analyses. While this document did
not focus on any one land use concept, it provided extensive background material for
decision makers. The City of Huntington Beach was invited to comment on the Draft EIR
and a copy of our comments is attached.
On January 27, 1981 the Orange County Planning Commission began reviewing the eight
alternatives. Two Planning Commission hearings were held in February to select one of the
alternatives. No consensus was reached favoring any of the original eight planning options;
thus, EMA staff submitted a new alternative (Alt. Nine) which the Commission approved and
recommended to the Board of Supervisors. On April 8, 19819 this land use concept was
selected by the Board as the development concept for the Local Coastal Program Land Use
Element.
Alternative Nine (See Figure 1 ) consists of a mixed land use design including the following:
Approximately 5,700 residential dwelling units of medium, high, and heavy densities to
be located on the Bolsa Chica mesa and portions of the lowlands. The residential units
in the lowland will generally be water-oriented in character and will be served by a
centrally-located neighborhood commercial center.
next page, please . . . .
LEGEND a'�+
+ .4EM"DENSITY PE SOX NTIAL
�^Nib+DENSITY PESOENTIAI
HEAVY DENSITY PES"IRIAL -•r 1 I .
wC + ro4joP••Doo COE..rt PC+AL
( OPEN SPACE PECPEATION ACCESS
LJ
4 � .w.0�o•o-«c. wo.r
�, dry., 'i ..�-�`-`r ,` •(
NlPOV-'TOM IW6Q11 •' J `-(�`� (. '�' _ a �� .
.��' ' / �'^\(.•'ate//l u_
.�. r _- - Ptr•.r A•N••rlyUE �_ r.Ua.�.• �w�..
� `�(i.a-OCi AQ SA C>•C•STAR PEACH
a\.
�\ TOOOIMt�wr�rru�
BOLSA CHICA -OCEAN E.THAN,;E
1 r � •
BOLSA CHICA UPDATE -2- December 7, 1981
- A 600 acre (minimum) salt marsh system has been set aside as a planning objective by
the Board of Supervisors; however, the size of the marsh will be subject to economic
feasibility studies to be prepared concurrent with the Specific Plan (Phase III LCP).
- In conjunction with the marsh restoration program, public marina basins and a navigable
ocean entrance and waterways will be located in the lowland.
- A navigable channel through Outer Bolsa Bay is also planned, to provide a second ocean
access for recreational boating in the Sunset Bay/Huntington Harbour.
- The public marina basins will be integrated with a visitor-serving complex including
tourist recreation/commercial uses, restaurant, lodging and retail shops, as well as
marina-related services.
- The Bolsa Chica Linear Regional Park will be located along the southeastern portion of
the site (Huntington Beach Mesa) and will connect Huntington Beach Central Park with
Bolsa Chica State Beach and the restored marsh area.
- The East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Flood Control Channel within the study area will
be upgraded to 100-year capacity Incorporating a sedimentation basin and a channel
design, portions of which may be covered to provide parking or access along its
alignment.
Following the adoption of the land use concept, Signal Landmark filed a General Plan
Amendment (GPA 81-1) to amend the County's General Plan to conform with the land uses
proposed in Alternative Nine. In conjunction with the GPA a supplemental EIR 81-250 was
prepared to specifically focus on impacts associated with Alternative Nine and the GPA.
The EIR was circulated for public comment during September. The City's comments on this
document are included as attachment 2.
Concurrent with the review and comment period for the EIR, the County prepared the Local
Coastal Program Land Use Plan and submitted it for public review in early November. Two
Planning Commission hearings were held in November to review all three documents, the
LUP/LUE, GPA and EIR. (Summaries of these hearings are included as attachment 3.)
Extensive testimony was received at the Planning Commission hearings, the majority of it
centering on environmental issues related to the wetlands. The California Department of
Fish and Game along with the Amigos de Bolsa Chica expressed concern over the intensity
of proposed development. Fish and Game claims that the development plan is not consistent
with the Coastal Act because wetlands have not been adequately mapped.
The State Department of Parks and Recreation commented on another major issue, the
ocean cut across Bolsa. Chica Beach. The proposed 700 foot cut will remove public beach
area and may have significant impacts on transportation, emergency services and debris
deposition. The Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for the engineering and design of
the ocean cut; however, due to budget limitations no work has been done on the project at
. `. this time. The Corps estimates the report will take approximately two years to complete.
next page, please . . . .
SY, t
BOLSA CHICA UPDATE -3- December 7, 1981
Other comments concerned coordination of jurisdictional agencies within the Bolsa Chica on
issues such as public services, transportation, water, sewerage, linear park, oil consolidation
and many other aspects of the development.
On November 24th the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend that the
Board of Supervisors approve the LCP and GPA and certify the EIR. The Board of
Supervisor's hearing on the project is scheduled for December 16th at 9:30 a.m. If the
project is approved by the Board, EMA staff will submit it to the Coastal Commission before
the end of this year. The projected schedule for a Coastal Commission hearing is
March 1982.
Along with the processing of the planning documents, the County Board of Supervisors
directed EMA staff to prepare several other reports as part of Phase III of the Local Coastal
Program. Two of these reports, particularly, will require extensive coordination with the
City. The first is the "Public Facilities Management and Financing Plan" which will include
the following:
identification of all facilities, services and land areas involved in the
implementation of the projects including all non-marina public projects and
marina-associated capital projects; costs associated with each of these; and
determination of funding mechanisms and responsibilities.
The second is the "Special Area Management Plan" (SAMP) which is a concept for making
collaborative planning decisions. The SAMP is intended to be the mechanism for bringing
together the many local state and federal agencies that may be involved in this area to
develop a common areawide management plan.
As was stated earlier, these documents will require continued coordination with the City.
City staff has been continually monitoring the County planning efforts and will continue to
do so as these plans are considered by the Board of Supervisors and Coastal Commission.
Staff will provide regular reports to you on these Bolsa Chica planning efforts.
JWP:dp
Attachment
(7 _
ATTACHMENT 1 '
JA CITY &F HUNTINGTAM BEACH
P.O. BOX 190 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CALIFORNIA92648
BUILDING DIVISION(714)536-5241 PLANNING DIVISION(7141 536-5271
January 26, 1981
'''• Robert G. Fisher, Director
Advance Planning
Environmental Management Agency
P.O. Box 4048
Santa Ana, California 92702
Dear Mr. Fisher :
The City of Huntington Beach has completed its review of the Bolsa
Chica Draft EIR (EIR 81-250) , The Development Services Department
staff would like to take this opportunity to complement EMA and the
consultant on a well prepared document.
Copies of the draft EIR were routed to several City departments for
review. Comments received by the departments are listed below:
Development Services Department Comments:
2. 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Alternative One
The Land Use Element (Exhibit 2.9) designates the Bolsa Chica
Mesa and east project boundary for medium and high density resi-
dential uses, however, the land use concept (Exhibit 2. 10) indi-
cates two heavy density areas along Los Patos Avenue. Are these
areas consistent with the proposed LUE? The Land Use Concept
also designates proposed heavy and medium density areas for land
located in Huntington Beach (south of Los Patos on either side of
Bolsa Chica Street) . These proposed uses are inconsistent with the
City' s Coastal Element Land Use Plan, which designates the two
small areas for low density residential and recreational open spare,
respectively. The Grace property is designated high density on the
LUE, but appears as medium density on the concept plan.
The assumption that the entire restored marsh area will be acquired
by the public and restorcv] and maintained by the Department of Fish
and Game should be discussed in more detail as to actual feasibility.
Information on page 3-101 indicates that only two of 15 isolated
oil pools would economidally warrant well consolidation. Restoration
of an 1105 acre marsh area would appear to require extensive (rather
than "some" p. 3-104) alteration of existing oil operations (dikes,
access roads, pipelines, etc. ) which would take either a long period
of time or considerable expense, and possibly both. Assuming the
cost of acquisition, restoration, and maintenance will be borne by
Robert G. Fisher, Dirsor •
Advance Planning
Environmental Management Agency
Page Two
the State without identifying possible funding sources mitigates
against serious consideration of this alternative during the active
life of the oil field.
The proposed extension of Bolsa Chica Street into Ellis Avenue does
not adequately address the need to provide north-south movement to
Pacific Coast Highway needed to relieve Goldenwest Street. Warner
Avenue, Edwards Street, and 38th Street should be indicated on all
alternatives.
Alternative Two
As with the first alternative, the Alternative Two Land Use Concept
diagram (Exhibit 2. 12) varies from the Land Use Element (Exhibit
2.11) . While the LUE indicates areas of high density on the Bolsa
Chica Mesa, the concept map is confusing as to whether the two
areas south of Los Patos Avenue are intended to be high density
(as indicated by the dot pattern) or heavy density (per #3 code
and previous alternative) . Residential densities in the Gap are
inconsistent in the vicinity of the Bolsa Chica/Ellis intersection,
opposite the terminus of Talbert Avenue, and just west of Springdale
between Ellis and Bolsa Chica. The area generally southeast of
the Bolsa Chica/Springdale intersection is also inconsistent between
maps.
The TRC locations do not seem to be well located so as to take
advantage of channel orientation and view potential into and across
the Gap.
• The high and heavy density residential clusters appear to be located
directly over or in very close proximity to the North Branch Newport
Inglewood Fault.
Many existing oil wells are located in the area proposed for a
sailing lake. Does the construction of a sailing basin include
navigable passages under the complex road network? Would motorized
boats be allowed in this basin? Unless motorized boats are pro-
hibited or navigable ocean access provided to the waterfront resi-
dential community, impacts on water quality and the restored marsh
would be significant and detrimental.
Alternative Three
The costs and 'adverse impacts of realigning Pacific Coast Highway
are not discussed in nearly enough detail. Negative impacts include:
1. Increased travel time due to increased road distance and five
intersections where there now is one,
2. Loss of access to Bolsa Chica State Beach from southbound traffic,
and general loss of public access to shoreline,
Robert G. Fisher, Dior •
Advance Planning
Environmental Management Agency
Page Three
3. Necessity of two to four navigable bridges and related expense,
4. Increased noise impacts to residential areas,
5. Closure of Warner Avenue, removal of newly reconstructed bridge,
increased response time from Warner Fire Station,
6. Loss of ocean and marsh views from highway,
7. Disruption of oil and gas extraction operations.
8 ., Relocation of the roadway over fault traces and peat deposits.
The extension of Ellis Avenue parallel to Pacific Coast Highway
is unnecessary and the combined noise impacts of both highways pre-
cludes an acceptable environment for medium density areas between
the two. The closure of Warner Avenue should be clearly shown on
the exhibits for Alternative Three.
3.1 LANDFORM/TOPOGRAPHY
Exhibit 3 .1 does not show the existing dike abutting the single
family homes along the eastern project boundary. Diked oil access
roads are not clearly shown. Areas covered by water (Bolsa Bay,
Reserve) are not shown.
Continual grading of the landform as proposed development occurs
may have long term impacts on runoff, sedimentation, and turbidity
as they affect the marsh restoration.
3.2 GEOLOGY/SOILS
While individual geologic and seismic hazards may be mitigated to
some extent during implementation and construction stages, the com-
bined hazard potential should be assessed prior to designating
land uses in this highly sensitive area (Geotechnical Inputs,
Leighton-Yen and Associates, February, 1974, Geotechnical Land Use
Capability Map, Figure 4-1) . Page 3-14 indicates five geologic
factors that cause subsidence, all of which may occur at various
locations throughout the study area. Subsidence may be arrested
by water injection, however, information on page 3-100 indicates
that wells in the north Bolsa field have not responded well to
secondary recovery techniques. The combined potential of petroleum
withdrawal without reinjection, groundwater withdrawal, compaction
from grading, and fault activity to cause subsidence in the north-
east portion of the study area could pose special problems for
roadways and water-oriented residential uses proposed in the
project alternatives.
Robert G. Fisher, Dior •
Advance Planning
Environmental Management Agency
Page Four
3.3 HYDROLOGY
It is indicated that development of the Seacliff IV project is
anticipated to increase the amount of total runoff entering the
Bolsa Chica Gap. A condition of approval adopted by both the
City of Huntington Beach and the Coastal Commission on the
Seacliff IV project required a drainage system which includes
three water retention basins designed to dispose of all excess
surface waters originating from the project area. According to
the State Department of Fish and Game, this drainage system
will provide adequate protection to the coastal marsh environ-
ment and marsh restoration facilities within the Bosa Chica
Ecological Reserve.
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The first mitigation measure listed under Marina/Lagoons on page
3-88 is not consistent with the type of residential marina shown
in the conceptual plans. Once development takes place, it seems
unlikely that in-water boat storage would be prohibited or that
non-motorized or electric boats would predominate. Stricter
mitigation measures reflecting realistic conditions should be
included.
3.6 EXISTING LAND USE WITHIN THE STUDY AREA
The statement that approximately 620 dwelling units have been approved
in Seacliff IV with an additional 400 currently proposed is in error.
The California Coastal Commission conditionally approved the
Seacliff IV planned residential development in December 1979. The
project known as "Phase IV" involves construction of 531 resi-
dential units on approximately 112 acres located northwest of
Goldenwest Street and Palm Avenue. The site is proposed to be
developed with three individual "Product" areas for single-family and
townhouse units with an average density of six units per acre.
Among the conditions imposed by the Coastal Commission on the
Seacliff IV project was the requirement that affordable housing
for low and moderate income persons be provided. The Commission
authorized development of up to 450 residences in addition to the
original Seacliff IV proposal on a 21 acre-site directly west of
the Seacliff IV site. This 21 acre development is now commenly
referred to as the "West Palm Avenue Residential Development. "
The Coastal Commission stipulated in their conditions that 20
percent of the aggregate units developed within Seacliff IV and
the West Palm Avenue Residential Development shall be available
to low and moderate income persons at affordable costs.
I
Robert G. Fisher, Dior •
Advance Planning
Environmental Management Agency
Page Five
Development plans for the West Palm Avenue Residential Development
have yet to be finalized. The proposed residences will likely be
a mixture of condominiums and apartments, including both market
rate and "affordable" units.
3.7 EXISTING AND PLANNED LAND USES SURROUNDING THE STUDY AREA
Bolsa Chica State Beach - The limited use of Bolsa Chica State
Beach is not due entirely to lack of adequate parking. Approxi-
mately 2, 200 parking spaces are provided in a State-operated lot
for a fee, and substantial free on-street parking, restricted in
certain locations, is also available. Beach use is more than
likely limited by the current lack of concessions, restrooms, and
related support facilities.
Linear Regional Park - Depending on the extent of human intrusion
allowed into the restored marsh area as proposed in Alternative 1,
the linear park could have either positive or negative impacts.
Provisions for buffers or access points between the linear park
and the marsh should be considered.
The alignment of Edwards Street shown on Exhibit 3.17 is actually
the City' s alignment. The true alignment of 38th Street has been
established by the Coastal Commission as a result of the approved
Seacliff IV development. At the present time, three alternative
proposals for 38th Street connections are possible - to Garfield
Avenue, to the proposed extension of Bolsa Chica Street, or to
Edwards Street.
Regarding coastal access, it should be noted in Alternative 3 that
service levels on Pacific Coast Highway would be affected by the
addition of traffic signals at intersecting arterials. Limiting
beach access to one or two points would cause extreme congestion
on Pacific Coast Highway during summer afternoons.
In Alternatives2 & 3, Garfield Avenue should be used as the
principal east-west traffic route, not Ellis Avenue. Upgrading
Ellis to a major arterial as recommended on Page 3-106 is not
acceptable due to its alignment through predominantly open space
lands and lower density residential areas, alignment as a secondary
arterial east of Gothard Street, and intersection constraints at
Beach Boulevard.
The comparative 1995 traffic volume exhibits are not realistic.
For example, all 3 alternatives show lower average volumes on
Springdale and Graham Streets than if no new development occurred.
The connection of Graham, Springdale, and Talbert to a crossgap
roadway would suggest additional traffic on these streets.
The realignment of Pacific Coast Highway in Alternative 3 will
increase congestion in residential areas that are relatively
uncongested at present. The alignment of a parallel route does
not seem to relieve much of this congestion and poses problems on
Robert G. Fisher, Direor •
Advance Planning
Environmental Management Agency
Page Six
Ellis Avenue to the east. The land area located between Pacific
Coast Highway and the parallel route would be seriously affected
by congestion and noise, detracting from the proposed residential
area.
3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES:
The provision of adequate water, wastewater, and drainage facilities
,I for a project of this scale required detailed cost and feasibility
analysis prior to selecting a preferred land use alternative.
Deferring more detailed planning for sizing and phasing of facilities
until after a land use alternative has been selected is not recommended,
as desalinization and wastewater treatment facilities may be necessary
onsite, and should be properly located and designed. The impacts
of developing such major facilities onsite is not adequately discussed.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1. The EIR should include an analysis of added costs to the City for
operation and maintenance of storm drains, sewage and water
facilities?
2. The EIR does not address additional traffic impacts and required
special facilities (i.e. boat ramps, cranes and fuel stations) or
recreational boating.
3. The EIR does not adequately discuss increased costs of City/County
maintenance programs.
4. Re. Alternative 43 . Why have an interim roadway, parallel to P.C.14. ,
between Bolsa Chica and Springdale Streets.
5. Re. page 3-26 (paragraph 2) . Consideration should be given to omit-
ting reference to the deteriorated condition of the Warner Avenue
Bridge as the structure is currently being replaced?
6. Traffic, The Circulation Plans for the three alternatives are
based on a very generalized level of project definition and there-
fore should be considered in light of the same assumptions. It
appears that each of the Circulation Plans can be improved sub-
stantially to better serve the anticipated traffic demands. The
following comments are intended as suggestions to improve the
highway system.
A. Comments regarding Alternative 41:
(1) There should be a direct connection between Pacific Coast
Highway and Bolsa Chica Street. A direct linking of
these roadways would serve to alleviate anticipated in-
creasesin north-south traffic trips.
Robert G. Fisher Dir*or •
Advance Planning
Environmental Management Agency
Page Seven
(2) Extending Bolsa Chica Street to Ellis Avenue, rather
than to Garfield Avenue, is not a viable alignment be-
cause it would create an additional roadway through the
Central-Linear Park region and put additional traffic
burdens on the intersection of Ellis Street and Main
Street.
(3) The 1995 projected traffic volumes appear to be signifi-
cantly low when compared to volumes generated by the H.B.
Transportation Demand Modal (based on no development in
the Bolsa Chica) .
B. Comments regarding Alternative 42:
(1) Projected traffic volumes based on the City' s Demand Modal
and Exhibit 3. 21 of the EIR do not support two north-south
connections to Pacific Coast Highway. By linking Garfield
Avenue to Springdale Street, the southerly connection could
be deleted.
(2) Linking Bolsa Chica Street to Ellis Avenue is at best
questionable when compared to a connection of Bolsa Chica
at Garfield Avenue. Again, why not avoid two routes through
a park region and an additional major intersection on
Edwards Street.
C. Comments regarding Alternative #3:
(1) The impacts of rerouting Pacific Coast Highway and termi-
nating Warner Avenue near Pacific Coast Highway are
grossly understaded. A detailed economic study of this
Circulation Plan should be included in the EIR.
(2) It should be noted that this alternative does not include
a navigable bridge near the navigable ocean entrance.
By moving the ocean entrance closer to the existing
intersection of Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue,
a freeway-type interchange structure could be utilized
in linking Pacific Coast Highway to Warner Avenue. Such
a technique could resolve several major design problems.
(3) The linking of Bolsa Chica Street to Ellis Avenue would not
be as advantageous as a connection to Garfield Avenue.
7. Exhibit 3.18 showing the City' s current approved Circulation Element
is incorrect. It does not show 38 th St. and its proposed con-
nection with Edwards Street.
8. Comments on proposed Land Use patterns.
Robert G. Fisher, Director
Advance Planning
Environmental Management Agency
Page Eight
Alt. No. 1. Placing high density residential adjacent to existing
low density R-1 development does not seem to be a
compatible Land Use pattern.
Alt. No. 3. The medium density designation between 2 proposed
high volume arterial highways is not very good planning,
especially with long narrow parcels (traffic access
problems, noise and other problems) .
9.1 There is very little discussion on grading required to provide
buildable sites in order to protect structures from flooding.
Any roadways would most likely be elevated. What impacts would
this have, especially on existing residential developments.
� 10. Current storm flows from the seacliff area drain into the Bolsa
Chica. In otder to protect existing oil production facilities, it
is now necessary to pump storm flow into existing channels. How
will the proposed alternatives address this issue?
The City of Huntington Beach appreciates the opportunity to participate
in the review of this report. Should any questions arise regarding our
comments, please do not hesitate to contact our office.
Sincerely,
ames R. Barnes
Associate Planner
JRB:gc
ATTACHMENT 2
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
P.O. BOX190 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CALIFORNIA92648
BUILDING DIVISION 4714)536-5241 PLANNING DIVISION(7141 536.5271
�• November 2, 1981
Kenneth E. Smith, Manager
Environmental Analysis Division
County of Orange, EMA
811 North- Broadway
Santa Ana, California 92701
Dear Mr. Smith:
The Huntington Beach Coastal Element, adopted by the City Council in
January, 1981, establishes the City's official policy for all devel-
opment within its coastal boundary and sphere of influence. The
proposed Bolsa Chica General Plan Amendment and Draft EIR 81-1 sup-
plement have been evaluated using the policies set forth in the City ' s
Coastal Element.
In keeping with the California Coastal Act, the City has established
policies to protect environmentally sensitive habitats from the detri-
mental impacts of any new development proposed adjacent to these areas.
The following policies deal specifically with the Bolsa Chica, which
is located within the City' s sphere of influence :
Approve only that development adjacent to wetlands that does
not adversely impact habitat values.
Require new development contiguous to wetland areas to include
buffers which will consist of one or more of the following :
. One hundred foot setback from the edge of the wetland except
along Pacific Coast Highway.
40
. A visually attractive barrier that limits physical, but not
visual, access.
. Difference in elevation sufficient to deter access.
Develop specifications for buffers around wetland areas .
While it is recognized that specific development plans have not yet
been submitted for this area, these policies should be incorporated into
future development plans for the site.
The proposed General Plan Amendment calls for the creation of a navig-
able ocean channel through Bolsa Chica State Beach. This channel will
• IR. Smith, EMA • •
November 3, 1981
Page 2
have a significant effect on both wave patterns and sand transport.
Discussion of the'ocean channel is cursory; however, it does suggest
a groin system or sand bypass system as potential mitigation measures
for impacts to littoral transport. The City' s Coastal Element clearly
prohibits groins, cliff retaining walls, pipelines, outfalls, and
other such construction that may alter the natural shoreline processes.
Therefore, the proposed mitigations would be in direct conflict with
existing policy.
The Coastal Element outlines numerous policies regarding access to
coastal resources, preservation of visual resources and recreational
facilities. Most of these policies will apply to the actual project
design; however, a summary of these has been included, as they should
be incorporated into future planning for the site :
Recreation and Shoreline Access :
. Support development of the Bolsa Chica linear park.
. Establish an implementation plan for the Bolsa Chica linear
park in cooperation with the County of Orange.
. Site all uses to preserve views of the Bolsa Chica.
. Encourage the provision of public boating support facilities
compatible with surrounding land uses and water quality.
. Encourage privately owned recreation facilities to be open
to the public.
. Establish responsibility for maintenance prior to approval
of a marina or other major recreational facility.
. Promote public access to coastal wetlands for limited nature
study, passive recreation, and other low intensity uses
compatible with these areas.
Visual Resources:
Preserve and enhance visual resources within the coastal zone.
Ensure that new development wit;iin the coastal zone includes the
features listed below and establish review procedures for imple-
mentation of these measures:
• Preservation of public views to and from bluffs, to the shore-
line and ocean, and to wetlands.
. Conservation• of energy and facilitation of public transit
through design and siting.
. Provision of adequate landscaping and vegetation.
. Evaluation of project design regarding visual impact.
• Prohibition of development along the bluffs rising up to the
Bolsa Chica mesa (within the City' s jurisdiction) which will
alter the natural landform or threaten the stability of the
bluffs .
. ,K. Smith,. EMA
• November 3, 1981
Page 3
Water and Marine Resources :
Promote measures to mitigate the adverse impacts of human activi-
ties on marine organisms and the marine environment:
. Require that development plans include mitigation measures to
prevent the degradation of water quality of groundwater basins,
wetlands, or surface water.
. Require containment curtains around waterfront construction
projects on inland waterways to control drift of turbid
waters.
. Prior to approval of any new or expanded outfalls, encourage
the provision of mitigation measures to minimize damage to
marine organisms in accordance with State and federal law.
. Prior to approval of any new or expanded seawater pumping
facilities, encourage the provision of maximum feasible miti-
gation measures to minimize damage to marine organisms due
to entrainment in accordance with State and federal law.
. Limit diking, dredging, and filling of coastal waters, wet-
lands, and estuaries to the specific activities outlined in
Section 30233 of the Coastal Act and to those activities re-
quired for the restoration, maintenance, and/or repair of the
Municipal Pier; conduct any diking, dredging and filling
activities in a manner that is consistent with Section 30233
of the Coastal Act.
. Assess the adequacy of the existing water quality monitoring
and, if found inadequate, establish a more effective program.
. Require that new development employ catch basins and storm
drains with baffled compartments where uncontrolled drainage
could damage sensitive areas.
Require that agencies involved in the enhancement of wetlands :
. Site and design culverts to ensure against the risk of flood
damage to adjacent property.
. Develop a contingency plan to protect environmentally sensi-
tive habitats in the event of spills of toxic and other harmful
substances into the flood control channels .
We appreciate the opportunity of participating in the review of these
documents. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please
contact Claudette Dupuy at 536-5251.
Ja
' ncerely,
mes R. Barnes
sociate Planner
JRB:df
ATTACHMENT 3
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
fi!`d INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON 1EACH
To Mike Multari From Claudette Dupu
Subject ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING Date November 18, 1981
COMMISSION HEARING, BOLSA
CHICA LCP
On Tuesday November 17, 1981 I attended the Orange Councy Planning Com-
mission hearing on the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan (LCP/LUP)
and the concurrent General Plan Amendment (GPA) for the Bolsa Chica.
An illustration of the proposed land use plan is attached. The proposed
Plan consists of a mixed use concept and includes the following:
- Approximately 5, 700 residential dwelling units of medium, high,
and heavy densities to be located on the Bolsa Chica mesa and
portions of the lowlands. The residential units in the lowland will
generally be water oriented in' character and will be served by a
centrally located neighborhood commercial center.
- A 600 acre (minimum) salt marsh system has been set aside as a
planning objective by the Board -of Supervisors; however, the size
of the marsh will be subject to economic feasibility studies to
be prepared concurrent with the Specific Plan (Phase III LCP) .
- In conjunction with the marsh restoration program, public marina
basins and a navigable ocean entrance and waterways will be
located in the lowland.
A navigable channel through Outer Bolsa Bay is also planned, to
provide a second ocean access far recreational boating in the
Sunset Bay/Huntington Harbour.
The public marina basins will be integrated with a visitor-serving
complex including tourist recreation/commercial uses, restaurant,
lodging and retail shops, as well as marina-related services .
The Bolsa Chica Linear Regional Park will be located along the
southeastern portion of the site (Huntington Beach Mesa) and will
connect Huntington Beach Central Park with Bolsa Chica State Beach
and the restored marsh area.
The East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Flood Control Channel within the
study area will be upgraded to 100-year capacity incorporating a
sedimentation basin and a channel design, portions of which may
be covered to provide parking or access along its alignment.
� j Bolsa Chica
+� • 14ovembe r 18 , 1981
1!; Page 2
The hearing was primarily for the purpose of receiving public comment
on the LCP, as the EIR; responses to comments on the EIR and the
General Plan Amendment will be discussed at a second hearing on Novem-
ber 24th.
Public comments centered on the major issues associated with the project.
Numerous representatives of the Amigos de Bolsa Chica testified in
favor or preservation of the lowland areas, citing state funds available
for the restoration of the 600 acres. Additionally, this organization
,J expressed concern with compatibility of proposed high density residential
` � and marina-related uses and *..the. existing wildlife in the area. Addi-
tional testimony in favor of preserving the wetlands was given by
representatives of the following: Huntington Beach Environmental Board,
E1 Dorado Audubon Society, and other private individuals.
A representative of the California Department of Fish and Game commented
that the full extent of wetlands in the area has not been properly
identified and that land uses proposed in the LCP do not comply with those
specified in the California Coastal Act. The Department feels that there
has been a lack of coordination with other public agencies on this plan.
Similar testimony was given by the Metropolitan Water District, which
owns 80 acres of the proposed development area. Representatives of
the MWD indicated that they have not been consulted in the planning
effort and that their property will be inundated by the current proposal.
MWD officials also requested coordination with Orange County EMA staff .
A representative of the State Parks and Recreation Department spoke,
requesting that the Army Corps of Engineers ' study on the ocean cut across
Bolsa Chica Beach be completed before any further planning is done. The
ocean cut will require the removal of 700 feet of public beach, as well
as having extensive impacts on transportation, emergency services, and
cfebris deposition. Also, no cost analysis has been done on the proposed
ocean cut.
Testimony in support of the development came from the Santa Ana City
Council, who were also representing the cities of Costa Mesa, La Palma,
Orange, and Tustin. A representative from Paul Carpenter ' s office spoke
in favor of the development, as well as representatives from various
boating and recreational groups.
r Planning Commissioner Coen expressed interest in the City of Huntington
Beach's position on the proposed development and also spoke regarding
potential problems with consolidating existing oil uses, as have been
expressed by Aminoil•.
CD:df
Attachment r
r
ATTACHMENT 3 (cont. )
�� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
, N INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON{EACH
To Mike Multari From Claudette Dupu
Subject ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING Date November 25, 1981
COMMISSION HEARING, BOLSA
CHICA
On Tuesday, November 24th, the Orange County Planning Commission
held the second hearing on the Bolsa Chica LCP, General Plan Amend-
ment and accompanying Environmental Impact Report and documents.
County EMA staff and CAO' s office presented additional information
in response to comments made at the November 17th hearing, An
errata sheet of comments and responses was prepared and I have in-
cluded a copy in our file. Planning Commissioners held a brief
discussion of the project and a motion was made to recommend that
the Board of Supervisors 1) approve the LCP, 2) approve the General
Plan Amendment and 3) certify the environmental documents. The
vote was unanimous, to approve the projects. The Board of Super-
visors ' hearing on this project has been scheduled for December 16th.
CD:j lm
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator
PREPARED BY: James W. Palin, Director, Development Services •
•o
DATE: December 9, 1981
SUBJECT: BOLSA CHICA REPORT SERIES - #1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
On June 4 and September 2, 1981, staff submitted separate communications to
Council regarding planning efforts for the Balsa Chica. The June 4 communication
reviewed a department head meeting which was held to discuss the Balsa Chica
annexation issue and identified items to be addressed in pending annexation reports
to the City Council. The September 2 communication served as an introduction to a
series of reports on Balsa Chica annexation by bringing Council up-to-date on Balsa
Chica LCP/LUP planning efforts.
This report is intended to provide detailed information on important Balsa Chica
issues related to annexation and addresses the following items:
- Brief update on Balsa Chica LCP/LUP status.
- Review of the Balsa Chica Public Facilities Management and Finance Plan.
- Review of annexation procedures.
- Recommendation for City input in future Balsa Chica planning efforts.
2.0 BOLSA CHICA LCP/LUP STATUS
In April, 1981, the Orange County Board of Supervisors adopted the Alternative 9
land use concept incorporating residential, commercial, public marina and marsh
restoration components for inclusion in the Balsa Chica LCP/LUP. Following
adoption of the land use concept, Signal Landmark filed a General Plan Amendment
(81-1) to amend the County's General Plan to conform with the land uses proposed in
the LCP/LUP. In conjunction with the amendment, a supplemental EIR 81-250 was
prepared.
Concurrent with the review and comment period for the EIR, the County prepared
the LCP Land Use Plan and submitted it for public review in November 1981. At
the November 24, 1981 Orange County Planning Commission meeting, the
Commission unanimously voted to recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve
the LCP and GPA and certify the EIR. The Board of Supervisors hearing on the
project is scheduled for December 16, 1981. If the project is approved by the Board,
EMA staff will submit it to the Coastal Commission around Janaury, 1982.
EMA staff will also begin preparation of the LCP/Phase III Specific Plan. Being
prepared with the Specific Plan will be other related reports such as the Special
Area Management Plan and the Balsa Chica Public Facilities Management and
Finance Plan. This last report will be of special interest to the City and is detailed
in the following section.
3.0 PUBLIC FACILITIES MANAGEMENT AND FINANCE PLAN
Development of the Balsa Chica as proposed in the LCP land use plan will require
expenditure of a great deal of funds for public facility construction and
maintenance. While Signal Landmark is expected to pay the majority of capital
costs associated with residential development, the proposed public marina and
related ocean cuts will require other significant funding sources. In recognition of
the special management and financing problems which will be involved, the Orange
County Board of Supervisors placed a number of requirements on the LCP in the
conceptual land use plan adopting Resolution 81-479. The following fiscal
requirements were adopted:
1. No general County tax dollars shall be allocated to the cost of construction of
any infrastructure improvements on the Balsa Chica property other than those
funds now budgeted for the Balsa Chica Linear Regional Park. The developer
shall be responsible for construction of bridges, roadways, channels, flood
control channels, and other infrastructure, not otherwise financed by State or
Federal funds, or special assessment funds.
2. Land, improvements, operation and maintenance of the proposed linear
regional park, new navigable connection between Huntington Harbour and the
ocean, marina, bridges and expanded State Ecological Reserve can be secured
by a combination of contributions by the developer, assessments of property in
the area, budgeted County monies, existing or potential State and Federal
funds and taxes and other revenue generated on the site, such combination to
be determined as part of the LCP Phase III and Specific Plan preparation.
3. Visitor-serving commercial areas adjacent to the proposed marina shall be
included in a special assessment district to provide payback on marina capital
costs and to provide for ongoing operation and maintenance of the marina
complex at no net public expense. If the County Administrative Office's fiscal
analysis team cannot assure this Board that the above requirement will be
• met, the project will not proceed.
4. The road system improvements and other infrastructure necessary to support
the development including operation and maintenance of the private
development project elements will not result in costs to the general taxpayer.
Also adopted in Resolution 81-479 was the requirement that a Balsa Chica Public
Facilities Management and Financing Plan (MFP) be prepared and presented to the
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors in phases concurrently with the LCP.
The MFP is intended to serve as a comprehensive policy framework during LCP
Phase III/Specific Plan preparation for determining short and long-term financing
and management responsibilities related to development of various components
within the adopted Balsa Chica LCP Phase II land use plan.
3.1 Phase I MFP
On November 24, 1981, the Orange County Planning Commission reviewed and
approved Phase I of the Public Facilities Management and Finance Plan. The Phase
I MFP is a detailed outline of potential costs, management responsibilities and
funding options for public facilities in the Balsa Chica.
The report, prepared by the firm of Williams - Kuebelbeck and Associates, Inc. has
tentatively identified public facilities capital and operating costs for non-marina
associated items, marina associated items and items associated with a navigable
Huntington Harbour access channel. Also, tentatively identified are some existing
and potential funding sources and amounts. Tables 1 through 4 provide a.summary
of the projected costs and funds.
Table 1 indicates that non-marina associated public facilities costs will be
approximately $78.7 million, while existing capital funding for those items is only
$4.6 million. A net cost of $74.1 million will remain to be funded through other
sources.
Table 2 indicates that marina associated public facilities costs will total
approximately $83.1 million with potential capital funding of $36.9 million. $46.2
million remain to be funded for this portion of the project.
Table 3 estimates annual public facility costs and funding associated with the
marina at full development. A total annual cost of $1.7 million is projected with
annual funding of $0.5 million and a resulting deficit of $1.2 million. Pacific Coast
Highway bridge maintenance costs and CALTRANS funding, are not estimable at
this stage of the planning process, however, and are identified on the table only to
indicate their existence as related costs and funds.
Table 4 indicates costs associated with construction of a navigable Huntington
Harbour ocean access facility. A total cost of $17.8 million is estimated with no
existing funding sources Identified.
Together, Tables 1, 2 and 4 indicate that total capital costs for public facilities in
the Boise Chica may be approximately $179.6 million in 1981 dollars. A total of
only $41.2 million from existing and potential funding sources may be available. The
Phase I MFP, therefore, indicates that an additional $138.4 million will need to be
acquired from other sources in order to finance public works projects in the Bolsa
Chica which would be necessitated by implementation of the approved land use plan.
Because the Board of Supervisors Resolution 81-479 specifically excludes general
county tax dollars as a funding source, the Management and Finance Plan must
propose alternative sources for each identified cost. The plan identifies a number of
capital funding concepts, including tax exempt leasehold equity bonds, revenue
bonds, industrial development bonds, public facilities non-profit corporations,
property owners associations, special assessment bonds, "special tax" bonds and
potential developer dedications.
The Phase I Plan, however does not detail how or to what extent the funding
concepts will be utilized. Rather, it merely identifies costs and possible funding
sources which will be negotiated at a later date. Such negotiations and final
determinations are the subject of the forthcoming Phase II Management and Finance
Plan.
3.2 Phase II MFP
The Phase II Management and Finance Plan will be prepared concurrently with the
LCP Phase III/Specific Plan. Pursuant to Board of Supervisors Resolution 81-479,
the Phase II Plan will include a detailed analysis of the following items:
TABLE 1
NON-MARINA PUBLIC PROJECT COSTS AND EXISTING CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCES
(In Thousands of 1981 Dollars)
Capital Costs
Land Acquistion
Regional Linear Park $ 9,730
Restored Salt Marsh System 20,000
Subtotal 299730
Improvements
Arterial Roads $10,950
Arterial Road Bridges 139920
Salt Marsh Restoration 6,795
Oil Well Consolidation 109580
Regional Linear Park Improvements 29120
East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Flood Control Channel 4,630
Subtotal 48,995
Total Capital Costs $780725
Existing Capital Funding
State Lands Commission $ 39600
County of Orange Harbors, Beaches and Parks District
A.C.O. Fund 1,000
Total Capital Funding 49600
Net Capital Costs $74,125
Source: Moffat and Nichol; Williams-Kuebelbeck and Associates, Inc.
�
TABLE 2
MARINA ASSOCIATED CAPITAL COSTS AND POTENTIAL CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCES
(In Thousands of 1981 Dollars)
Capital Costs
Navigable Ocean Entrance $34,830
Public Deepwater Channel 5,950
State Beach Improvements 1,000
Turning Basin 680
Pacific Coast Highway Bridge 11,590
Marina Earthwork and Bulkheading 129130
Harbor Patrol 400
Marina Slips and Landside Improvements 16,500
Total $83,080
Potential Capital Funding
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers $20p390
Private Marina Lessees 16,500
Total $369890
Net Capital Costs $46,190
Source: Moffat and Nichol; Williams-Kuebelbeck and Associates, Inc.
TABLE 3
MARINA ASSOCIATED ANNUAL COSTS AND POTENTIAL ANNUAL FUNDING SOURCES
AT FULL MARINA DEVELOPMENT
(In Thousands of 1981 Dollars)
Annual Costs
Navigable Ocean Entrance Channel Maintenance $ 960
Marina Harbor Operations 272
Harbor Patrol 447
Pacific Coast Highway Bridge Maintenance --
Total $1,679
Potential Annual Funding
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers $ 480
CALTRANS --
Net Annual Costs $1,199
Source: William-Kuebelbeck and Associates, Inc.
TABLE 4
NAVIGABLE HUNTINGTON HARBOUR OCEAN ACCESS COSTS
Capital Costs
Navigable Ocean Entrance $ 3,540
Pacific Coast Highway Bridge 2,960
Huntington Harbour Connection Channel 1,530
Huntington Harbour Connection Channel Bridge 69740
Warner Avenue Realignment 1,760
Turning Basin 250
Flow Control Jetties 1,040
Total $17,820
Source: Moffat and Nichol; Williams-Kuebelbeck and Associates, Inc.
1. Identification of all facilities, services and land area involved, to include all
other public project and marina capital projects as outlined in the Phase I MFP
and other similar projects, If any.
2. Identification of all agencies, private ownerships and associations responsible
for management of the above facilities, services and land.
3. The costs associated with each of the above facilities, services and land.
4. Preliminary funding mechanisms for all of the above facilities and land.
5. A plan for funding the $138 million net cost Identified in the Phase I
Management and Finance plan, Including identifying specific sources, methods
and reasonable possibilities of securing such amounts.
The actual content (combination of potential capital funding sources) of the Phase II
Management and Finance Plan, however, will be evolved through a series of
negotiations among the affected parties. The Phase I MFP identified the following
likely participants:
Orange County Environmental Management Agency; Orange County Administrative
Office; Orange County Flood Control District; Metropolitan Water District; U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers; State of California State Lands Commission; State of
California Department of Fish and Game; State of California Department of
Transportation (Cal Trans); State of California Department of Boating and
Waterways; Signal Landmark, Inc. (including legal, planning, engineering,
environmental and economic consultants) and others.
Work on the Phase II MFP will begin immediately upon adoption of the Bolas Chica
LCP/LUP and the Phase I MFP by the Board of Supervisors. It will be developed
concurrently with the LCP Phase III/Specific Plan and is expected to take one to
two years to complete.
3.3 Phase III MFP
Prior to approval of any land division or development of the Bolas Chica, a Phase III
Bolas Chica Public Facilities Management and Financing Plan must be submitted for
adoption by the Board of Supervisors. The Phase III MFP will contain contractual
arrangements for the phasing, funding, construction, operation and maintenance of
facilities Identified within the Phase II Management and Financing Plan.
4.0 ANNEXATION
4.1 Bolsa Chica Annexation Effort History
Because the Bolas Chica falls within the City of Huntington Beach's sphere of
Influence, it has been the subject of City planning and annexation efforts since
1972. The following is a brief history of the City's efforts to annex various portions
of the Bolas Chica.
The Signal Balsa Corporation first submitted requests for annexation of the Balsa
Chica Mesa to the City In 1973 and again in 1975. During the years between 1973
and 1975, a Balsa Chica Annexation Study Committee was formed to work with the
State and Signal Balsa Corporation to formulate a recommendation to the City
Council. The Committee completed its study in 1976 and the City Council directed
total annexation of Balsa Chica with a target date of January 1, 1977. Anticipated
tax revenues generated to the City were intended to provide funding for preparation
of a comprehensive general plan for the Balsa Chica.
Because of contradictions with the City's adopted General Plan regarding annexation
prior to pre-planning the January 1,1977 annexation date began to look
unreasonable. A new target date of July 1977 was then established.
In February 1977, Assembly Bill 643 was introduced to the legislature with the
intent of providing the State Lands Commissions with funds necessary to acquire a
large portion of the Balsa Chica for wetland preservation and ecological preserve
expansion. The City at that time postponed annexation proceedings to avoid
hindering State acquisition efforts by inflating land values in the area.
The California Coastal Act of 1976 also affected annexation efforts for the Balsa
Chica. Faced with the prospect of losing local control over planning the Balsa
Chica, the City in July 1977, again considered a number of alternatives for
annexation and in August 1977 directed staff to proceed with partial annexation of
the Balsa Chica Mesa. In December 1977, annexation plans were dropped again
when it was announced that the County had been named the lead agency in preparing
the LCP for the Balsa Chica.
With the passage of Proposition 13 in June 1978, the City Council again considered
annexing the Balsa Chica. On July 3,1978 a motion to annex failed by a 3-4 vote.
Both the City and County continued to work on their respective LCP's.
In April 1979, staff reported to the City Council on the impact of preparing a
comprehensive Balsa Chica plan prior to prezoning. • A motion to proceed
immediately with prezoning and annexation failed. The last attempt at annexation
occured in June 1979 when a motion to annex the Balsa Chica with 1,315 acres
prezoned ROS and 235 acres LU also failed.
Since June 1979, there have been no additional attempts to annex the Balsa Chica by
the City. The county has reaffirmed its role as the lead agency in planning for the
Balsa Chica and the City has been limited to reviewing and commenting on County
documents pertaining to the Balsa Chica.
4.2 Annexation Procedures
Now that a conceptual land use plan for the Balsa Chica has been adopted by the
Board of Supervisors and the Phase II LCP/LUP has been approved by the county
Planning Commission, the nature of future development in the Balsa Chica is
becoming more predictable. Also, through development of the Public Facilities
Management and Finance Plan, the fiscal impacts of the recommended land use plan
are becoming evident.
Since final planning (LCP Phase III Specific Plan preparation) may soon be underway,
the City will have an opportunity to provide significant input to the county
regarding services and other responsibilities the City may have in development and
maintenance of operations In the Bolsa Chica. With that input and the increased
knowledge of the nature of future development, the City may wish to renew
consideration of Bolsa Chica annexation. The purpose of the following section is to
explain the procedures the City would be required to follow should annexation be
seriously considered.
4.2.1 LAFCO Requirements
The California Municipal Organization Act of 1977 established revised procedures
for annexation of unincorporated territory and continued the responsibility of the
Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to oversee such requests. The stated
purpose of LAFCO is to encourage the orderly formation and development of local
governmental agencies based upon local conditions and circumstances.
The Local Agency Formation Commission follows a detailed set of guidelines for
annexation which vary depending upon the size of the area to be annexed and
whether or not it is inhabited. The following procedures apply:
1. The first step in annexation is preparation by the City of a resolution of
application. When the City adopts such a resolution, it must also submit a plan
for providing services to the area to be annexed.
2. The application is then filed with the Executive Officer of LAFCO. The
application must include:
a. Resolution of application.
b. Reproducible map and legal description.
C. Completed "justification of proposal" questionnaire.
d. Completed "initial environmental information" questionnaire.
e. Appropriate filing and processing fee.
3. The Executive Officer reviews the application. if the application is deficient,
the City is given opportunity to correct the deficiencies. If it is adequate, a
Certificate of Filing will be mailed to the City.
4A. After the Certificate of Filing is issued, the Executive Officer will set a
proposal for a LAFCO hearing and, if necessary, publish a legal notice in the
newspaper. The notice and hearing can be waived if the application is
accompanied by written consent of all landowners in the area to be annexed
and if the territory Is uninhabited.
4B. The Executive Officer will request advisory reports from the Director of EMA,
the County Assessor, the Planning Commission, the Airport Land Use
Commission, the County Sheriff and any other agencies or individuals deemed
appropriate.
5. After the individual advisory reports are received, the Executive Officer will
prepare a report and recommendation on the annexation proposal. The period
of time between when the City's application is filed with the Executive
Officer and when the Executive Officer's report is released may be 30 to 90
days.
6. If required, the public hearing is held. LAFCO must approve or disapprove the
proposal by resolution within 35 days of the public hearing. If the proposal is
disapproved, further consideration is precluded for a period of one year. If the
proposal is approved, LAFCO designates the conducting agency (City Council
or Board of Supervisors) and transmits thereto a copy of the resolution.
LAFCO may authorize the conducting agency to proceed without notice and
hearing or election of all of the affected property owners consent to such in
writing.
7. LAFCO adopts the resolution within 105 days of the public hearing.
8. The conducting agency must initiate proceedings within 35 days after LAFCO
approves the proposal and must hold a public hearing within 45 days of
initiating proceedings. The public hearing may be waived, however, if the
proposal is for annexation of uninhabited territory and if all affected property
owners consent to the proposal.
9. Within 30 days of the public hearing, the conducting agency must take one of
the following actions:
If the case of an uninhabited annexation, the conducting agency could:
- Order the annexation if landowners who own less than 50 percent of the
assessed value of land and improvements protest; or
- terminate proceedings if landowners owning more than 50 percent of the
assessed value of land and improvements protest.
In the case of an inhabited annexation, the conducting agency could:
- order the annexation without an election if less than 25 percent of the
voters and less than 25 percent of the landowners owning less than 25
percent of the assessed value of land protest; or
- order the annexation subject to an election if more than 25 percent of
the voters or more than 25 percent of landowners owning more than 25
percent of the assessed value protest; or
- terminate proceedings if more than 50 percent of the registered voters
protest.
9A. If an election is required for annexation of inhabited territory as described
above, it would be determined by voters living in the affected area.
10. The conducting agency adopts a resolution of annexation. The period of time
between when the conducting agency sets the public hearing and when it
adopts a resolution of annexation may be 45 to 135 days depending on whether
or not an election is required.
11. The Clerk of the conducting agency must transmit a certified copy of the
conducting agency's resolution* with applicable State Board of Equalization
fees to the Executive Officer of LAFCO.
12. The Executive Officer examines the resolution and determines whether it is in
compliance with boundaries, modifications and conditions specified by LAFCO
in its resolution. If the resolution is not in compliance, the Executive Officer
will return it to the conducting agency, specifying points of non-compliance.
If the resolution is in compliance, the Executive Officer will issue a
Certificate of Completion.
13. The Executive Officer will record a certified copy of Certificate of
Completion with the County Recorder and file copies of recorded documents
with the County Surveyor and the City Clerk. The effective date is the date
of recordation with the County Recorder.
14. The Executive Officer will file a Statement of Boundary Change and submit
appropriate filing fees with the State Board of Equalization. The period of
time between the final action and step 11 may be 30 to 60 days.
Outlined above are the basic annexation procedures required under the Municipal
Organization Act of 1977. Total time between when the initial application of
resolution is filed with the Executive Officer and when the procedures are
completed may be 175 to 415 days depending on the nature of the area to be
annexed, the actions of those affected by the proposal and the resultant steps
which must be followed.
4.2.2 State Lands Commission Requirements
Apart from the procedures just discussed, however, the unusual nature of the Balsa
Chica may require that additional steps be taken for annexation. Section 35009 of
the Government Code contains a separate set of procedures for annexation of
tidelands or submerged lands owned by the State. This is significant because the
State currently owns approximately 300 acres of tidelands in the Balsa Chica. If
the City wishes to annex the entire 1,600 acres of the Balsa Chica, the following
procedures will also apply:
1. Section 35009 prohibits annexation of State owned tidelands except as
approved by the State Lands Commission. If any such lands are to be included
within territory proposed to be annexed by a City, a description of the
boundaries along with a map must be filed by the proponent with the State
Lands Commission. This filing must be made prior to filing the Resolution of
Application with the Local Agency Formation Commission.
2. Within 45 days of receiving the boundary description and map, the State Lands
Commission must make a determination regarding the proposed boundaries.
The determination will be final and conclusive. If no determination is made
within 45 days, the proposed boundaries will be considered to be approved.
3. The State Lands Commission will report its determination to the Executive
Officer of LAFCO as well as the annexation proponent. After this has
occurred, the City may file its Resolution of Application with LAFCO.
4.2.3 Property Tax Transfer Agreement
While the procedures outlined above constitute the major steps the City must
follow in order to annex the Bolsa Chica, there are still some additional steps
required. In association with the annexation procedures, the City must also
negotiate with the County to reach agreement on a property tax revenue allocation
formula for the Bolsa Chica. In October, 1980 the City Council entered into an
agreement (called the Master Property Tax Transfer Agreement) with the County
which provides for property tax exchange in areas annexed by the City.
Under the terms of the agreement, the property proposed for annexation must first
be determined to be either "developed/substantially developed", or "undeveloped".
The Bolsa Chica, however, does not fall into either category as defined in the
agreement. As a result, the City Administrator would have to file a written
request to the County Administrative Officer to jointly determine the area's
status. The City and County would have 30 days to reach agreement or the
Executive Officer of LAFCO would make the determination. The determination
must be made prior to filing the Resolution of Application for annexation.
If the Bolsa Chica were found to be "undeveloped" as is likely in its present state,
then the Master Property Tax Transfer Agreement would result in the following
formula: The County would receive 100 percent of the general fund tax revenue in
the first fiscal year following annexation. All tax increments in subsequent years
would be distributed to the City until the City-County historical tax ratio was
reached. The master agreement sets the historical ratio at 56 percent for the City
and 44 percent for the County. It would take a number of years to reach this ratio.
If the Bolsa Chica were found to be "developed/substantially developed", however,
as is likely if the City were to wait until development occurred before annexing,
then the provisions of the master agreement as outlined above would not apply.
Rather, a separate City-County agreement would have to be negotiated. The
County Administrator's Office has indicated that if substantial sales tax or other
revenue generating uses were existing In the Bolsa Chica at the time of filing for
annexation, the County would likely negotiate for a larger proportion of the
property tax revenue. The negotiations would occur concurrent with processing of
the City's application for annexation.
4.2A Fiscal Impact Analysis
A fourth City responsibility prior to annexation of the Bolsa Chica relates back to
the Board of Supervisors' Resolution 81-479. Among the other items included in
the resolution was the following:
"In the event of application for City annexation of all or part of the Bolsa
Chica area, a Fiscal Impact Report shall be prepared by the petitioners to
assess the cost/revenue impact of such annexation on the County and the
special districts serving the property to be annexed."
The fiscal impact report would be the City's responsibility and would be in addition
to any similar studies the County may do in conjunction with the Management and
Finance Plan. The report would be submitted at the time of filing the Resolution
s
of Application for annexation and would be analyzed in County advisory reports to
LAFCO as part of the annexation process. It is likely that such a study would be
beneficial to the City as well as the County in determining the benefits and costs
of annexation.
5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
The City Council has given staff direction to keep them up to date on planning
efforts for the Balsa Chico and to provide clarification on annexation procedures
and issues. This report has, therefore, been intended to be informational in nature
rather than to focus on specific recommendations.
Throughout the initial Balsa Chico planning process (LCP Phases I and II), staff has
continually monitored and commented on County efforts and periodically informed
the City Council of significant issues and events. Because the County is the lead
agency in the project, the City's role has necessarily been limited to such
observation and occasional commentary.
The Balsa Chico planning process is approaching a point, however, where City input
will become much more crucial, both to the City and the County. Preparation of
the specific plan will involve many important decisions which will affect
Huntington Beach much more directly than the relatively vague concepts which
have been prepared thus far. As discussed in this report, the Phase II Management
and Finance Plan which will be prepared concurrently with the specific plan will
involve negotiations which ultimately may determine which jurisdiction, the City
or the County, the Balsa Chico will eventually exist under.
If the City wishes to continue to consider eventual annexation of the Balsa Chico,
then it is important that an effort be made to become involved in the final planning
process in order to ensure favorable service and revenue responsibilities and
opportunities. The most logical forum for such input would be the County's
preparation of the Phase II Management and Finance Plan. Preparation of this plan
will begin shortly and it will be important that the City make the County aware of
its intention to provide significant input. This is especially true because the City
was not included in the Phase I MFP listing of entities expected to participate in
preparation of the Phase II plan.
_.IFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSL
"I Howard Street,Son Francisco 94105—(415) 343-SAI NTING TON BEACH
November 199 1984 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
TO:, Commissioners and Interested Persons NOV 2 6 1984
FROM: Michael L. Fischer, Executive Director P.O. Box 190
Tom Crandall , South Coast District Director Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Jack Liebster, Project Planner
Jim•McGrath. Coastal Analyst
SUBJECT: BOLSA CHICA HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE DETERMINATION
(For Public Hearing and Possible Action November 29, 1984. Holiday Inn,
LAX, as indicated in the enclosed meeting notice)
I. STAFF-RECOMMENDATION -
The staff recommends that the Commission find that the Bolsa Chica Habitat
Conservation Plan raises substantial issues with regard to Wetlands and Other
Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas; Public Works; and Recreation; and
that the effect of these substantial issues are not limited to certain
geographical areas.
In order to implement this recommendation,' the staff recommends;a NO vote
to the following motion:
I move that the Commission determine. that -the Bolsa Chica Habitat
Conservation Plan as submitted by the State Coastal Conservancy and the
Department of Fish and Game raises no substantial issue as to conformity
with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.
A majority of Commissioners present is required to pass the motion.
STAFF-NOTE
The effect of the recommended action is to enable the Commission to "consider
the modifications to the HCP suggested by the Conservancy, the Department of
Fish and Game and others, as explained in the staff report. Key concepts
arising from the HCP process are incorporated in the recommended Suggested
Modifications to the Orange County Bolsa Chica LUP.
II. BACKGROUND-AND-PROCEDURES
Background
Senate Bill 429 in 1983 amended into the Coastal Act Section 30237 to
establish the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) process. The HCP was to be
prepared by the Coastal Conservancy and the Department of Fish and Game in
consultation with Orange County and the major landowner, .Signal Landmark,
Inc. The Conservancy was to be the lead agency for the purposes of
identifying land use alternatives, while the Department would be the lead for
wetland identification purposes.
The HCP process has been extremely valuable in examining alternatives that
held promise for bringing the diverse interests closer to agreement on a
Plan. The legislative deadline of July 20, 1984 did not allow resolution of
1
all issues in the HCP. However key concepts were developed in the HCP
process, including a fundamental compromise that 915 acres will be restored
to high quality wetland on site at Bolsa Chica.
Summary of-HCP
The plan as adopted and submitted to the Commission is included in Enclosure C.
The Plan Map is attached as Exhibit 1. Features of this plan include:
• the rerouting of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) around the site,
• about 484 acres of private residential development including land
available for waterfront housing with private boat slips,
• 915 acres of restored wetlands located in the existing Ecological
Reserve, a large area of adjacent oil producing lands, a "riparian
wetland" excavated on the Bolsa Mesa, and a proposed new flood
control sediment/mixing basin and channel ,
• a new navigable ocean entrance,
• a 1300 slip public marina with an associated 17 acres of marina
commercial and boat launching facility on Bolsa Chica State Beach,
and
• a linear park along Huntington Mesa providing pedestrian and
equestrian access between central Huntington Beach and the coast,
and accommodating the proposed relocation of non-wetland
_ Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs).
In adopting this plan, the Conservancy Board recognized that many issues had not
been resolved in the HCP. In its resolution of adoption and transmittal
(Enclosure C) it specified that certain additional work be done.
Prior to HCP approval it provided that the Conservancy:
(a) determine an appropriate location for the rerouted-
. PCH in the downcoast (i.e. wetland) portion of the
study area; and the specific location of all secondary
roads in the HCP area.
(b) resolve the issue ofi required wetland and ESHA buffer
areas within the HCP; and
(c) develop specific criteria, location and acreage for
the design of the wetlands and ESHA
The Conservancy was also to continue to: -
(a) work with concerned parties and interests to
further define acceptable mitigation between
the proposed rerouted PCH and the existing '
residential development,
• -3-
(b) consult further with the various landowners,
including MWO and the Fieldstone Company
(agents for W.R. Grace), regarding the impacts
of the plan on their respective parcels, and
(c)-address any other issues identified by the
Coastal Commission staff in order to in-
corporate the Habitat Conservation Plan into
LUP and
The Conservancy Resolution also provided that the final Local Coastal Plan (LCP)
incorporate a detailed Wetland and ESHA Restoration Plan, and a Project Agreement.
The Restoration Plan was to specifically address the phasing of the restoration,
the financing of restoration work, and the utilization of agreed upon standards
addressing the quality of the restored wetlands.
The project aggreemwsnt was to provide specific -assurance s on the implementation of
the wetland, ESHAs, other public facilities, and private development.
Finally, the Conservancy provided for the option of a navigable Huntington Harbour
connection subject to additional detailed studies prior to the finalization of the
HCP.
Pursuant to this Resolution, the Conservancy held a hearing October 18 1984 in
Bodega Say and subsequently transmitted an information supplement to the
Commission (Enclosure D). r
Standard of Review
PRC Section 30237 establishes unique procedural requirements for the Commission's
action on the HCP. It provides:
Upon completion of the habitat conservation plan and on or before July
20, 1984, the Department of Fish and' Game and the State Coastal
Conservancy shall jointly forward it to the commission for approval.
The comsmission shall approve the plan if it finds it raises no
substantial issue as to the conformity with the planning and management
policies of this chapter. If the plan is approved by the Commission, it
may be incorporated into the county's local coastal program.
Four points need to be raised to clarify the procedural issues.
(1) The Habitat Conservation Plan under consideration
by the Commission is the Plan submitted on July 20
1984 and depicted in Exhibit 1.
.(2) The HCP is not equivalent to a Land Use Plan
under the Act and is not obligated to meet the re-
quiremients for specificity described.in PRC Section
30108.5.
(3) The Commission may either approve or take substantial
issue with the HCP as submitted. If the HCP is approved, .
the County of Orange potentially may be able to in-
corporate it into the County's LCP irrespective of any
- -
action of the Commission on the LUP. On the other hand,
if the Commission finds substantial issue with HCP, the
Commission is nevertheless free to include any-concepts
or provisions of the HCP it deems appropriate in any
modifications the Commission may suggest to the County's
LUP.
(4) While the information supplement (Enclosure D) is not
part of the HCP before the Commission for action, the
Commission may similarly utilize its concepts and infor-
mation in its action on the County LUP.
III. ANALYSIS•OF• PROVISIONS THAT RAISE SUBSTANTIAL- ISSUE
The Commission finds that the HCP raises substantial issue as to conformity
with the planning and management policies of the Coastal Act; including the
issues described below:
A. Wetlands•and Other. Environmentally.Sensitive-Habitat.Areas
The HCP raises substantial issue because it fails to adequately protect
environmentally sensitive habitat areas as required by PRC Section 30240, does not
provide for the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative required by
Section 30233, and does not assure restoration and maintenance of the wetland to
sufficient biological productivity as required by Sections 30411 and 30233.
Section.30240 provides:
(a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against
any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on
such resources shall be allowed within such areas.
(b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat
areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to
prevent impacts which would significantly degrade such areas, and shall
be compatible with the continuance of such habitat areas.
Section 30233 provides in part:
(a) The diking, filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands,
estuaries, and lakes shall be permitted in 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 environmental effects,
and shall be limited to the following:
(1) New or expanded port, energy, and coastal-dependent industrial
facilities, including commercial fishing facilities...
(3) In wetland areas only, entrance channels for new or expanded
boating facilities; and in a degraded wetland, identified by the
Department of Fish and Game pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section
30411, for boating facilities if, in conjunction with such boating
facilities, a substantial portion of the degraded wetland is
restored and maintained as a biologically productive wetland. The
size of the wetland area used for boating facilities, including
berthing space, turning basins, necessary navigation channels, and
. any necessary support service facilities, shall not exceed 25
- percent of the degraded wetland...
(c) In addition to the other provisions of this section,
diking,filling, or dredging in existing estuaries and wetlands
shall. maintain or enhance the functional capacity of the wetland or
estuary...
Section•30411 provides in part:
...(b) The- Department of Fish and Game, in consultation with the
commission and the Department of Boating and Waterways, may study
degraded wetlands and identify those which can most feasibly be
restored in conjunction with development of a boating facility as
provided in subdivision (a) Section 30233. Any such study shall
include consideration of all the following:
(1) Whether the wetland is so severely degraded and its natural
processes so substantially impaired that it is not capable of
recovering and maintaining a high level of biological. productivity
with out major restoration activities.
(2) Whether a substantial portion of the degraded wetland, but in
no event less than 75 percent, can -be restored and maintained as a
highly productive wetland in conjunction with a boating facilities
project.
(3) Whether restoration of the wetland's natural values, including
its biological productivity and wildlife habitat features, can most
feasibly be achieved and maintained in conjunction with a boating
facility or whether there are other feasible ways to achieve such
values.
The Department of Fish and Game has identified the wetlands and Environmentally
Sensitive Habitats Area in two reports, Environmental] .Sensitive-Nabitat-Areas•at
Balsa -Chi ca (Since 1982) and Determination. of the. Status, •o • -1361sa.ChIca. Wetan
hereby incorporated y reference In this report. It has a so
determined that the Balsa Chica wetlands constitute severely degraded wetland
system in need of major restoration.
The Coastal Act permits boating facilities to be located in a degraded wetland
(Section 30233 (a) (3)) identified by the Department of Fish and Game (Section
30411(b)) if a substantial portion (75 percent) of the degraded wetland is
restored 'and maintained as a biologically productive wetland. The Commission may
also permit uses other than those listed under Section 30233(a) if those uses
provide less environmentally damaging feasible alternatives to wetland restoration
than are provided by boating facilities. Procedures and standards for this latter
approach are set out in the Commission's Statewide Interpretive Guidelines.
-6-
The Department of Fish and Game found in the HCP (Enclosure C, Appendix A) that
"a total of 913.5 acres of severely degraded wetland
system must be restored in the Bolsa Chica area in
order to allow development to proceed in accordance
with Section 30411 of the Coastal Act. The principle
parties to the SB 429 effort agreed to a total of 915
wetland acres. In addition, 86.5 acres of Environmen-
tally Sensitive Habitat must also be protected within
the study area...
The Department was also pursuaded to agree to this
revised acreage by several compelling commitments
[including that]: .
...There will be at least 852 acres of good, viably
functioning wetland habitat retained- throughout the
various phases of development with full restoration
of 915 acres of top quality wetlands occurring con-
cident to the final phase of development..."
The agreement to restoring 915 acres to "top quality wetlands" is the essence of
the HCP. The full restoration of the wetland to the hi h level of biological
productivity required by Sections 30411(a)(1) and 30233(a3(3), howdver would be
frustrated by several provisions of the HCP, warranting a finding of substantial
issue.
As depicted in Exhibit 1, the HCP would locate a substantial portion of a rerouted
Pacific Coast Highway through the area to be restored as wetlands. The Department
of Fish and Game has repeatedly expressed concerns that such a routing would
create management constraints and divide up the restored wetland in a way that
would impair its full functioning.
The HCP does not provide that the reroute would be elevated on pilings to insure
the maximum flow of water, movement of mammals and avian species and clearance to
permit periodic maintenance. The Commission has previously found, in its Ballona
findings (CCC, April 25, 1984 p. 23, 64) that precisely such measures are
necessary to comply with section 30233(a). Absent such feasible mitigation
measures, 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 road, and residential and commercial
development proposed by the HCP. These are:
-- There is no feasible less environmentally damaging
alternative...(Section 30233(a))
-- Feasible mitigation measures are provided to minimize adverse
effects...(Section 30233(a))
-- The size of the wetland used for boating shall not be greater than
25 percent of the total wetland to be restored...(Section 30233(a))
i
• •
-- The wetland must be identified by OFS as degraded in need of major
restoration...(Section 30233(a) (3) and 30411 (b) (1))
-- Diking, dredging or filling shall retain or enhance the functional
capacity of the wetlands...(Section 30233(c))
No less than 75 percent of the raded wetland shall be
restored...(Section 30411 (b) (21
The Commission 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 alternative. Alternative 9, in the
supplemental information (Exhibit 2). The alternatives described in the suggested
Modifications the the Bolsa Chica LUP accompanying this report also represent such
alternatives. All of these alternatives avoid the extensive routing of roads
through the wetland.
Several other policies of the HCP raise issues of whether the areas identified
for restoration could be restored and maintained at a "high level of biological
productivity" as required by Sections 302411 and 30233. Policies 6 and 7, for
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 (totalling approximately
188 acres) associated with continued oil production.
i
Policies 6 and 7 imply that the needs of thisroil production would have precedence
over the needs of wetland restoration and maintenance. Policy 7, for example,
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
them. The policy also limits the water level in the cells to -1.5 feet mean sea
level , which may limit the ability to fully restore wetlands, contrary to the
requirements of PRC 30233. These restrictions have apparently been included to
respond to the expressed concerns of the current oil field operator, Aminoil, that
the designation of an area for wetland restoration not preclude or limit use of
that area for continued oil and gas operations. Aminoil's position is
understandable, since the establishment of new sensitive areas amidst its
operations offers the company no direct benefit, while exposing Aminoil to
liability for spills and other damage to the wetlands. However- if these wetlands
are to fulfill the obligation for wetland restoration under PRC 30233 and 30411,
the needs of the wetlands must take precedence, and policies must be included in
the Plan to establish the precedence. Measures which could compensate Aminoil for
inconvenience or limitations could be an element of a restoration plan funded by
the parties who stand to benefit from the development of Bolsa Chica. But in the
absence of a demonstration that these limitations on wetland restoration are
compatible with highly productive wetlands, these policies raise substantial
issue.
Policy 10 raises substantial issue with Section 30233 which requires that any
development in wetlands maintain the functional capacity of such wetlands. The
Department of Fish and Game has found that there are 852 acres of viably
functioning wetlands in Bolsa Chica. Policy 10 would allow development to proceed
in a manner that would permit that area of wetlands to be diminished by an
unspecified and unlimited amount for an indeterminate time. This provision -fails
to assure that such reductions would not diminish the functional capacity of the
wetland as required by PRC 30233, and thus raises substantial issue.
-$-
Moreover, the policy merely requires that "restoration...be phased concurrent with
development grading". This policy is imprecise. It would imply that restoration
need only be begun before grading could commence. This policy would permit
existing wetlands to be eliminated before their replacement is - assured.
Furthermore,- while the process of wetland and establishment restoration is still
largely an art under the best of circumstances, the HCP sets out an even more
difficult task. It proposes to establish wetlands under less than ideal
conditions: most of the acreage placed right in the middle of a working oil and
gas field; 37 acres in an artificially created "Riparian Corridor" canyon perched
at an elevation restricted to the upper range of tidal fluctation; 11 acres on an
alluvial delta; and 53 acres in an active flood control sedimentation/mixing basin
and channel. The policies for Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs) are
referenced to the wetland policies, and thus suffer the same deficiencies with
regard to assurance of performance. In view of these uncertainties, the HCP
raises the substantial issue of whether wetlands will be successfully restored in
a sufficient and timely manner to meet 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
short of the standards established by the Coastal Act and raise substantial issue.
Where PRC 30233 and 30411 set the requirements for establishing and maintaining
highly productive wetlands, PRC Section 30240(b) sets the standards for buffers.
It requires that development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive
habitat areas (including wetlands) be sited and designed to prevent Impacts which
would significantly degrade the sensitive area, and that such development be
compatible with the continuance of the habitat area.
The Commission has generally required that such buffers be a minimum of 100 feet,
as specified in the Wetland Guidelines. HCP Policy 12 implies that a ditch (which
itself would be counted as wetland) 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 Agua Hedionda and Chula Vista Land Use Plans
the Commission has required buffers of 100 feet or more in width. In one atypical
case, the Los Cerritos wetlands, the Commission did approve a buffer of a minimum
of 30 feet. This compromise was based upon consultations that suggested that
Beldings Savannah Sparrows, the expected resident species in the portions of the
wetland near developed areas, might not be as sensitive to disturbance as had been
thought. The compromise, however, was based upon judgement and the desire to gain
agreement on the project, not on experimental evidence. Recent field studies at
the Tijuana Estuary conducted by Abby White of the San Diego State Graduate
Biology Department provide new data that call this judgement into question. In
these field studies Belding's Savannah Sparrows, an endangered marsh species, were
observed to flush and fly away from a single approaching observer at distances
ranging from 30 feet to over 300 feet, with the average flushing at about 90 feet.
The study did not indicate the potentially greater distances at which the birdt'
behavior, including feeding or reproduction, would be interrupted.
This data indicates that Los Cerritos may best be left as the exception that
proves the rule that buffers of at least 100 feet are necessary to assure that the
wetlands they are intended to protect will be able to maintain their full
functional capacity. The Commission's recent Ballona LUP decision provides an
example much more comparable to Bolsa Chica. There the Commission required
buffers of 100 feet from the wetland, with an additional 50 foot structural
setback above and beyond that. In any event, the minimal buffer proposed in the
MCP is inconsistent with any of the Commission's decisions.
Provision of an adequate buffer is all the more important when considering, that
the compromise at 915 acres of wetland is only slightly more than the absolute
minimum 913.5 acres that could conceivably be found approvable at Bolsa Chica.
The Department of Fish and Game made this condition explicit in its memorandum
agreeing to the 915. figure. It specified that it was critical that the wetlands
restored be ".top quality" to justify the compromise.
A design which forces wildlife to flee from the edge to the deeper recesses of the
wetland clearly fails to meet the criterion of "top quality% It in fact means
that the functional wetland is 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 may 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 policies to guide the selection of an ocean entrance from among
the many potential entrance designs. It discusses three of these possibilities,
but acknowledges that the HCP policies "arre 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 be navigable". This policy
precludes consideration of a non-navigable entrance, which may be shown to be the
least environmentally damaging feasible alternative when the full consequences of
a navigable entrance are revealed. The findings for denial of the Bolsa Chica LUP
describe why the premature commitment to a navigable entrance is inconsistent with
Recreation, Marine Environment, Diking, Dredging and Filling and other policies of
the Coastal Act. Those findings are fully incorporated here by reference; and are
the basis for the Commission finding substantial issue with the HCP Ocean Entrance
policies. .
a
�,'••' �•�►rl•.(' '�•aalk4 "AAA` i Yf -' �%,
UST OF PARUWAM&
fTATE COASTAL CONEERVAhICt n{.i M9,w {�
DWARTWNT OF nW A®GAMt a:;i� r %�. .• F t k�< �i t
y� k•� s< 1
910WLA/DMAMW
ii =Lii
�;�.1.��•
`�- '•
i, i ji ; .a 11�1 I f I' �C�1 � �"" *.ti t.�'ri�J,���k�'t I?:I•�`,�z, ►*'L�'S�4 .�. f
1 ��'!� I� ' i .Iltt� l` F r k'•;{ � i("� l i-"' ��1 tP��M'If LN } !l14rT♦9'��♦ va.
I. � ��,r . I I I .1 1 .•1 :I� 1 /. ��pa.,�•t.< �'�'l��'`ii �.y�1i't s��Y {{�� }
f �>. rtG�I ,.�+,I'i1•�,I� , _] I •, .I ( r. , ��htiR�^"\ M Rs� +. ! i�i,�y �(�7r�
114,5 .
•• '�I'I�11 I fIII I"`1' ( .1 '{ _r-. {C' �- ! i �1Y�f+Fi T, Yilr ItjawY� I,� f��V ti{' ;f
II IMIT '�'�` in
Y• •' r ' i. ." I! ��i f: � i� r,i .•� t k a"- . 5 "t H '} d! 4 f • r ( iii.l "qj
.t'� • •-� ` � is �'" ti t� ;$ �# t #�.,�r v 94,t
,+ �i %",� � I 1 ,...wiq.�t1.� r eti.�F'x�"f',�.,5.. ���+jl"51i7+• ilt�S lr^�t;�� rr sr frJ i+t I 1'
FWAMM
■R`lC y,
/a' .R ;.1� �" � �,d;;'�f•il" �.: 1 �1. �� II� 'l*# i yFF'�kF''r „ .}"t �"t• ,�`:_ ti �, ,...5'f,`� �.t'L�,�t'`k,� u.�l'� ,r
LCF S1W AF"OOUMM
r•� il_"I�I_�I :";ICI IICi %i /' /. i f 1 , 1' ' t: 2 •;r�yyF'". ^ y ih.�x * r._ �T ir;;.� 11`j ' 5�h y.i.� J 3
ii i ii% i ,,, i it ? a1 Tr.,rA�� r �y#a���si ��'a r`'�; " ��`+ e�'S+t.��•', � •�f
i��� � +~. , �t »• c ^t �- t i xi "r a . ! y u�i SNt a '.i�
1
'if ^ :a r"F b. �+ �rh4KI � tiS l..�C� ` F � �'t`�'•`,�r`� "�;tr
"- ��^! "-1` � i'. . Yi P'!.; +1` rH " .r t r R b to ,'u.+•` a� �� '�' ;
BOL$A CHCA STAYS BEACN1.;�.:... .,._:.�f
- - -', tsAtTx .lulr�a ttae
HABITAT CONSERVATION P - � � EXHIBIT' NO.1� � Jay
STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY '
HABITAT CONGM0,T04
PLAK
slie
4 �'=`: • ..fit .,.
14
S A
�aM��E♦�y�,��, y °4?v �w ..ow 1 �*T°� 1 •; `, ii �'• r i
� g ,y'ti `�• b^� :+ 'i�Hnrw .►� '`�•i t t.'ty.7w+r � •�/• �
,w A,
Is
IL
ar
�6.�r. O:c - t . F� � r {s�j ��- • •'•.. .s � '..mot.+ J� • .t•i• ',', :�� .,� .
WSA MS
SA It
C IT
,may- I f •'% •�. � '• '". �, �;��'•• � •
OUTER BOLSA BAY �► II rna cdMsr i►r F, i T
term,rreri�wua ,
BOLSA CHICA-,-�.� »
FIGURE 9 EXHIBIT No. [
IHGP SVpPI.E (E L '
- ItJ�oRMAiI� I
• "'fit Ef ER'1«sp i
' • ts__ I�r�Iwe�ir P�rJJ f•uwd�JM- -
HUNTINQTON BEACH •
DEVELOPMENT SERVICESCALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
631 Howard S~,San Francisco 9410S—(41 S)543-855S
NOV 2 6 04 November 1% 1984
To: PO Box � migs�ssiionners and Interested Persons
B84COM h�f . Fischer, Executive Director; James Burns, Deputy
Director for Land Use; Tom Crandall , District Director;
Jack Liebster, Project Planner; James McGrath, Coastal Analyst;
Eric Metz, Wetland Coordinator; Jon Van Coops, Coastal Analyst
Re: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: CERTIFICATION WITH'SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS,
ORANGE COUNTY BOLSA CHICA SEGMENT LAND USE PLAN (LUP),
(Public Hearing and Possible Commission Action; for the meeting of
November 27-30, 1984, as described in the enclosed meeting notice)
KEY STAFF.RECOMMENDATION
Background
The Commission, on April 22, 1982, found Substantial Issue with the Bolsa Chica ,
Land Use Plan (LUP) as submitted, and opened a public hearing on the LUP.
However, after further hearings and Commission discussion, the County withdrew
the Plan. In December 1983 the County .resubmitted the Plan along with a
Supplementary Information document (see Enclosure B). SB 429 was later passed
amending section 30237 into the Coastal Act to provide for the •devel'opment of a
Habitat Conservation Plan. In accompanying- reports staff recommends the
Commission (1) deny the LUP as submitteO, (2) certify the LUP subject to
suggested modifications, and (3) find substantial issue with the HCP. The
suggested modifications to the LUP incorporate elements of both the HCP process
and the County's Supplementary Information where consistent with the Coastal
Act.
Key Staff- Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Commission, after 'denying certification of the Bolsa
Chica Land Use Plan as Submitted by the County of Orange, adopt the resolutions
and findings contained in this report, certifying the plan subject to suggested
modifications.
In order to implement this recommendation, the staff recommends a YES vote to
the following motion and the adoption of the Resolution III (page 4) and
findings. An affirmative vote by a majority of the appointed Commissioners' is
needed to pass the resolution.
I move that the Commission -certify the Bolsa Chica Segment
of the Land Use Plan of the County of Orange if it is modified
in cgnfornity with the suggested modifications contained in the
staff report on this matter.
NOTE: Due to the size of the staff report, members of the public on mailing
lists will receive the public notice only. For a complete staff
report or executive summary, please contact Jack Liebster at the
Commission's San Francisco Office at (415) 543-8555 or tlie'South Coast
District Office at (213) 590-5071. Staff reports are also available'
at local libraries, as indicated in the hearing notice.
-2-
TABLE-OF CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION 3
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONN
I. Resolution III: Certification with Modifications 4
II. Suggested Modifications for Certification 5
III. Findings
A. Land Use Plan 17
B. Wetlands and Other Environmentally Sensitive 23
Habitat Areas
C. Public Access 24
D. Recreation and Visitor-Serving Facilities and 26
Recreation Boating
E. Hazards 26
F. Scenic and Visual Resources 27
G. Public Works 28
H. Energy 30
I. Archaeological Resources 31
IV. Exhibits
• -3- •
INTRODUCTION
The history of planning for Bolsa Chica has been long, complex and
controversial. These suggested modifications are a sincere attempt to help
bring that process to a productive resolution. They draw upon the results"'of
the additional work completed by the County since the LUP was last before the
Commission and upon the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) process resulting from
addition of section 30237 to the Coastal Act (SB9, 1983). c
These months of effort have yielded valuable results: Perhaps foremost among
these is the milestone agreement among the County, the Department of Fish and
Game, Signal Landmark and the Coastal Conservancy that at least 915 acres of top
quality wetlands will be restored at Bolsa Chica as part of its development.
That agreement is reflected in the suggested modifications.
Another useful concept to come out of the yrotess was the idea of substituting.:.
the "mini-reroute" of Pacific Coast Highway for the proposed bridge over a
navigable ocean entrance, should one be built. However other key controversies,
including the question of the ocean entrance, the diverse objectives of the
different landowners, and the uncertanties about feasibility of various
proposals for Bolsa Chica, have were not been fully resolved to date.
The suggested modifications take the basic Land Use Plan concept developed
through the County's work and the HCP process, identify possible adverse impacts
of such development, and establish policiee' to assure these impacts will be
avoided or fully mitigated as required by, the Coastal Act. In some cases,
however, the uncertainty is so great that additional information must be
developed before a determination can be made on whether a plan as suggested in
these modifications is consistent with the Coastal Act.
Any LUP for Bolsa Chica must meet three basic tests:
1. It must be specific,
2. It must meet all policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, and
3. It must be the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative.
For reasons discussed more thoroughly in the LUP Denial and HCP Substantial
Issue reports and the Findings below, the Commission cannot yet conclude that
the Land Use Plan concept embodying a navigable ocean entrance meets these
tests. Both the County's LUP and the HCP defer the major ocean entrance
feasibility analysis to the Corps of Engineers. The Corps study may well
provide the Commission useful information with which ,to determine the least
environmentally damaging alternative. Howev th t study has not yet been done.
The ability to successfully replace and wetlands and environmentally
sensitive habitat areas (ESHAs) that lie in the path of development is another
key concern. Restoration 1s a necessary quid pro quo for development. Under
the plan contemplated herep this restoration would occur in a presently active
oil field. Such a plan may well prove workable, but additional information on
its feasibility is needed to make the required findings on the Land Use Plan.
Under a strict interpretation of the Act, the Commission co t approve a .
plan subject to such fundamental uncertainties as these. Howe er�th County and
landowners have consistently sought approval of a Land Use in order to
• -4- •
justify the investment in further specific studies. The suggested modifications
propose a compromise: approving two alternative Land Use Plans (see Exhibit 0,
one with a navigable ocean entrance, one with a non-navigable entrance. The
Commission can certify the alternative plans now only because the modifications
would create- a review step between the LUP approval and the LCP certification,
at which time the choice of the least environmentally damaging alternative will
be confirmed.
This review -- "the LUP'Confirmation" - would occur after sufficient studies are
done to fully support a least environemermtally damaging feasible alternative
determination. Similarly, a Restoration Plan for the wetlands is to be
completed and reviewed by the Commission at this stage. The proposed
modifications also contain policies with which to evaluate the ocean entran4e
and Restoration Plan.
The LUP Confirmation process will be separ*te from and occur prior to the.::
implementation phase. The LUP Confirmation process will include a public
hearing, subject to the Commission's usual LOP notice and hearing procedures.
As more fully elaborated in the proposed suggested modifications and findings,
the navigable entrance alternative (Alternative 1) will be reviewed fPor
consistenSy with criteria cified in the suggested modifications. If 1t Is
found fully consistent by vote o a ea ty of appoint issionera.
Alternative 1 be confirmed as the certified �UP and the non-navigable entracte
alternative (Alternative 2) will no longerlbe a component of the LUP. :.If
Alternative 1 is not found consistent, it will no longer be deemed certified,
and Alternative 2 will become. the certified- LUP.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION j
Staff recommends that the Commission adopt the following resolution. The
appropriate motion to adopt the resolutions It:
I move that the Commission certify the Bolsa Chica Segment of the
Land Use Plan of the County of Orange if it is modified in conformity
with the suggested modifications contained in the staff report on this
matter.
Staff recommends a YES vote. The emotion requires an affirmative vote of 7
Commissioners (maJoriTY—of appointed membership) for approval.
RESOLUTION III: CERTIFICATION.WITN MODIFICATIONS
The Commission hereby ceMyPsubject
t Land Use Plan .for the Bolsa
Chica Segment of Orange� to the following modifications
and ado ts-the.findin s stated-belOw on the grounds
that, it modified as suggested be lows the Land Use Plan will
meet the requirements of and conform with the policies of Chapter S
(commencing with Section 30200) of the California Coastal Act to
the extent necessary to achieve the basic state goals specified in
Section 30001.5 of the Coastal Act; the Land Use Plan will contain.
a specific access component as required by Section 30500(a), of the
Coastal Act; the Land Use Plan will be consistent with applicable
decisions of the Commission that shall guide local government actions
pursuant to Section 30625(c); and certification of•the-Land Use Plan
will meet the requirements of Section 21080.5(d)(i) of the
Environmental Quality Act, as there would be no further feasible
- - mitigation measures or feasible alternatives which could-substantially
lessen significant adverse impacts on the environment. The suggested
modifications to the submittal are necessary to achieve the basic
state goals set forth in Section 30001.5 of the Coastal Act.
The Commission further directs that if the County of Orange adopts and
transmits its revisions to the Land Use Plan.-in conformity with the
suggested modifications, then the Executive Director shall so notify
the Commission.
II. MODIFICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATION
Certification of the Land Use Plan is subject to the following modifications:
A. LAND USE- PLAN AND MAP (Section III, Part 1)
1. Modify Section III, Part 1, The Land Use Plan, Exhibit 6, and all
text and exhibits derived therefrom to incorporate Alternatives I and
2 as shown in Exhibit 1, as the Land Use Plan.
2. Add to Section III: A."Land Use Pldn Confirmation" review shall-be
conducted by the Coastal Commission on the Plan Alternatives prior to
the County's submittal of the Phase III •LCP Implementation Program.
Alternative 1 shall be the adopted Land Use Plan provided that the
Commission by majority vote of the appointed membership finds at the
time of this review that:
(a) a navigable ocean entrance would have no significant adverse
effects and would conform with Public Works Policy 10;
(b) The Restoration Plan can be accomplished as provided in the
modified LUP; and
(c) The navigable ocean entrance is--consistent with all other
policies of the modified LUP and the Coastal Act.
If the Commission does not find that each of these standards is
satisfied, Alternative 1 shall no longer be the adopted and certified
Land Use Plan and Alternative 2, providing for a non-navigable ocean
entrance shall be the Land Use Plan adopted by the County and deemed
certified by the Commission.
3. Add to policy-2: The policies contained in the suggested
modifications of the Coastal Commission shall take precedence over any
other conflicting policies of the Plan.
4. Add the following Policy (p III-4): _
Land Allocation: The land Use Plan shall provide for the following
uses in the specified amounts within the Planning Area and the Linear
Park:
• -6-
(a) Restored wetland at least 915 acres.
(b) Restored Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA):
(a) Eucalyptus grove at least 21 acres,
(b) Coastal dunes at least 28 acres
(c) -Coastal scrub/shrub at least 37 acres
(c) Linear Park (not exclusive of restored ESHA) at least 57 acres
(d) Marina 75 acres
(including •at least the following public uses):
(1) Dry Storage 6.5 acres
(2) Launching Ramps 5 acres
(3) Boat Repair 2 acres
(4) Boat Sales/Rental 1 acre
(5) Chandlery and Fuel Dock Facilities 1.5 acres
(e) Huntington Harbor Connection"Channel up to 17 acres
(subject to Public Works Policy 10 (3))
j
B. WETLANDS AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT AREA RESTORATION
Modify Biological Resources/Habitat Management policies, Section III, Part
2 as follows. Conform all other LUP Maps, Text and Figures to these
modifications.
1. Modify Policy. 2. (p III-20).to. read:_ At least 915 acres of wetlands
snail e restored, enhanced and maintained as high quality, fully
functioning wetlands within the Bolsa Chica Planning Area as shown in
Exhibit 1, Alternatives 1 and 2.
2. Substitute for- Policy 3•and 4 (p. III-20)-the following:
Restoration.Plan: The owners of, Or agents for private lands within
e Bolsa Chica Planning Area shall fund the preparation of a detailed
Restoration Plan for enhancement and restoration of all the wetlAnds
and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs) required by the
LUP. The plan shall be prepared by the Department of Fish and Game or
a contractor to . the Department. selected jointly by the Coastal
Commission, the County and the Department of Fish and Game.
The Restoration Plan shall be completed and submitted to the
Commission for review and approval as part of the "Land Usa Plan
confirmation" prior to Phase III LCP Local Implementation Programs.
The Restoration Plan shall meet the following criteria:
a) Development of at least 915 acres of fully functioning, top
quality wetlands providing high biological productivity and
habitat diversity; specifically, the creation of a mix of
tidal muted tidal and nontidal (brackish, fresh and
hypersaline) wetlands;
b) Restoration of 86 acres of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat
'Area as specified in the Land Allocation policy.
c) Low capital and operation costs;
d) Whenever possible, consistent with restoration and resource
protection needs, mutual compatibility with public and
private development, including present and future oil
operations; '
e) High predictability of success; ,
f) Protection and/or restoration of endangered species habitat;
g) Assurance of quality water of sufficient quality to provide
for maximum productivity .in the wetlands; and
h) Protection of the wetlandk*' from •any impacts emanating from
the marina, commercial„#nd residential areas.
(2) The Linear Park, which includes a variety of ESHAs, shall be
designed to maximize wildlife values while still meeting public
access needs.
(3) The Plan shall provide for:
a) Adequate legal and institutional arrangements and a
financing plan for the successful establishment, operation,
maintenance and protection of all wetlands, ESHAs, and
necessary water supplies.
b) The funding of all operation and maintenance costs.
c) Specific criteria, in terms of species composition,
diversity and population density, with which to determine
the completion and success of ESHA and wetland restoration.
d) A monitoring program to assure that all Restoration Plan
provisions are complied with.
e) Specifications for the buffers necessary on lands adjacent
to the restored wetlands consistent with the LUP Buffer
policies.
f) The design of the wetlands to maximize aesthetic appeal to
developed areas consistent with resource protection.
g) Specific measures to ensure that high quality, fully
functional restored wetlands can be established in a manner
compatible with continued oil operations.
3. Add-the-following policy_.(p• III-20): The Restoration Plan shall be ,
enffre y consistent with and adequate to carry out* the Phasing
policies of the LUP.
4. Add the f��oll�oow►inn�apo��licy- (p•III-20): The owners of, or agents for,
private lands within the Bolsa Chica Planning Area shall fund the
wetland and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat restoration activities
set forth in the Commission approved Restoration Plan. Upon
completion of enhancement and restoration activities, these partieO
shall transfer sufficient funds to as endowment or other mechanism tO
assure the management and protection of the wetland anO
Environmentally , Sensitive Habitat = Areas. The fund amount anti.:.
financing mechanisms shall be specified in the Restoration Plan.
Contributions may also be made by the public, by government agencies
and by other parties interested In restoration, preservation and
interpretation of these natural resources.
PH_
S. Add the following policy to.Section.,III,•Part.2: Phasing Program:
A detailed Phasing Program shall be prepared prior to submission of the
Implementation Program. The Phasing Program shall include a precise
description of the kinds, locations and intensities of uses at ea0h
phase of development, and a schedule of the restoration and mitigation
actions prerequisite to each element of development. The Program
shall be consistent with the LUP's Phasing policies below.
6. Modify.Policy•6• (p III-21)•to•read: Phasing Policies.
(a) . There shall be no net loss of wetland or Environmentally
Sensitive Habitat (ESH) at any time. Specifically, the area of
functioning wetlands- and ESH in the Planning Area shall at no
time be permitted to be less than 852 acres and 86 acres
respectively, as specified in the Land Allocation Policy.
(b) No portion of the habitat of any endangered species, including
the Belding Savannah Spa rrow, ;shall be disturbed for development
until an equivalent area of fully functioning replacement habitat
has been established and its maintenance assured.
' (c) New development shall be permitted in the Planning area only
after the Restoration Plan has been reviewed and approved by the
Commission and all other applicable Plan policies have been met.
(d) Development grading in the lowlands shall be permitted only after
a proportionate amount of high quality wetlands akid Eviron-
*mentally Sensitive Habitat Area has been restored, found to •be _
fully functioning by the Diepartment of Fish and Game, and'
conveyed to the management agency identified in the Restoration
Plan. The proportion of restored wetland to proposed development
shall be one and a half acres to one until 852 acres of wetland
are restored, and thereafter one to one until all 915 icres of
wetlands are restored.
(e) Where wetland acreage above 852 acres is to be restored but land
within the designated wetland area is unavailable, due to oil
operations for example, interim on- or off-site restoration may
be accomplished with the former being of higher priority. If
interim off-site restoration is chosen, it shall be completed
only if: $1
i l 2 acres shall be restored for each acre lost;
ii) at the earliest feasible opportunity, but in no case later
than the final phase of development, the restoration shall
be completed on-site, afid '-
iii) the area off-site shall be permanently protected as ,
wetlands.
(f) The eucalyptus grove, Warner Avenue Pond and other sensitive
habitats of the Bolsa Mesa shall be recreated within the Planning
Area and/or the Linear Park and shall be fully functibning prior
to new development on the Mesa,
(g) Title to all lands designated. for wetlands or Environmentally
Sensitive Habitat Area in the lowlands shall be conveyed to an
agency or organization acceptable to the Executive Director of
the Commission prior to any new development in the Planning
Area.
BUFFERS
7. Modify Po11cy• 10 (p• III-21) as follows:
(a) Buffer areas shall be established to protect wildlife habitat.
The buffers in the Central Wetland shall be a minimum of 100 feet
in width measured from the edge of the wetland or environmentally
sensitive habitat to any adjacent development. The buffer
area shall be fenced and heavily vegetated. The buffers adjacent
to the "Edwards Thumb" area, the Mixing Basin and Flood Control
Channel , the Riparian Canyon, and the Outer Bolsa Bay wetlands,
may be varied from this standard if the Restoration Plan approved
by the Coastal Commission demonstrates.,- based on experimental
evidence, that lesser or greater widths are necessary to
establish fully functional buffers.
(b) Buffer Study: The buffer study may be completed as part of the
Rsto'r-a' on Plan. A work plan for the study shall be submitted
to the Executive Director of the Commission for review and
approval in consultation with the County and the Department of
Fish and Game. The Study shall be performed to meet the .
"Criteria for Establishing Buffer Areas" of the Wetlands
Guidelines as shown in Exhibit 3.
-10-
All wetland and ESHA areas shall be designed to prevent physical
intrusion, except where access designed consistent with resource
protection needs is provided in the Restoration Plan for the
fo-1]owing:
a) to provide visitor proximity to the wetlands and ESHA; and
b) to accommodate oil-related activities.
C. PUBLIC ACCESS
Modify.Orange.County LUP.Policies: Coastel-Access.- P III-31
1. Modify Policy. i-*(p. III-31) as.follows:
Access shall be provided:
a) to and along all shorelines between the restored wetlands and now
residential and commercial development.
b) to and along the entire marina, except in areas posing health and
safety risks, and
c) to and between recreation and access nodes within the residential
and commercial area.
A specific access plan consistent with Exhibit 2 shall be included
with the Implementation grogram for Commission review and approval.
2. Delete Policy 20-and substitute:
The maximum public recreation and access,including opportunities for
public waterway viewing, fishing, small boat launching and passive
recreation such as picnicking, shall be established within areas of
new residential and commercial development consistent with the Public
Access Area Concepts, Exhibits B3 through B 13, Bolsa Chica LCP Lard!
ma Use Plan.Supplementary- infortion. (Dec. 1983).
. 3. Policy•4 (p. III-32): Delete
4. Policy 5 (P III-321: Delete
S. Add the-followirg.p2licy. (e.11I-33): Any new alignment of Pacific
Ma -Hri way snall proviae pedestrian and cyclist corridors in both
directions of travel.
6. Add the following..to.Policy 10:
Access to provide viewing and educational opportunities shall be
provided on the perimeter of the :wetland as specified in the wet- and
Restoration Plan. Access shall be designed with DF6 and con sis ent
with resource protection.
7. Policy 16 (p•III-33): Delete.
Orange County LUP-Policies:• .Transportation. Policies,.pp. III-27
S. Add the following policies:
PCH and the Cross Gap Connector Policies:
a) Exhibit 1 shows the recommended location of the PCH reroute under.
Alternative 1. Exhibit 1 also shows a corridor for the location
of the cross-gap arterial road and connections thereto.
b) A detailed plan for the alignment of PCH and the cross gap
connection that is. the feasible. least environmentally damaging
alternative shall be prepared in cooperation with the HCP parties
in consultation with the C1 of Huntington Beach and local .:.
neighborhood groups, and inc uded for Commission review and
approval in the Implementation Program.
c) Talbert and Graham shall be kept as cul-de-sacs unless more
detailed planning and traffic engineering studies indicate that
their connection with the cross-gap road is essential.
d) With only Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) rerouting, -the former PCH
Right of Way shall be avallablq for use in expanding and
restoring beach recreation and coastal dune and wetland habitat.
Any relocation or change to PCH shall not cause a net reduction
in the area of useable beach, environmentally sensitive habitats
or the 915 acres of wetland to be restored.
9. Polic 6. --III-27 : Delete reference to Pacific Coast Highway
widening" n this policy and elsewhere that it appears.
10. The Coastal Access Concept Plan, Exhibit 35, and all exhibits derived
therefrom shall be modified to reflect the access modifications.
D. RECREATION AND•VISITOR-SERVING.FACILITIES•AND.RECREATIONAL.BOATING
Orange• County. LUP Recreation•Policies,.Sertioa.iII,•Part•5. (p• III-35)
1. Add to Policy.8 (p•III-37)•as follows
Any marina shall provide land sufficient to accommodate storage for at
least 400 dry stored boats, 10 lanes of launching rams, and related
necessary facilities including hoists, stacking and staging areas to
provide for maximum public access to and use of coastal waters.
2. • Delete. Policy.13 (P- III-37) and.substitute:
Any ocean entrance plan shall provide for no net loss of sand at Bolsa
Chica State Beach.
-12-
E. HAZARDS
1. Modify County Geology Policy 1,. (p. III-15) .to.add:
Fault zones and areas of soil liquefication potential and ground
subsidence, as indicated in the "Preliminary Evaluations" of the Bolsa
Chica Local Coastal Program (Jan. 1984) prepared by Woodward Clyde
consultants and concurred in by the State Division of Mines and
Geology shall be delineated on the LUP map.
2. Add the following to Policy 3 (p. III-15):
Habitable structures shall be set back at least 50 feet from active
fault zones.
Navigation channels and structures for human occupancy shall be.:.
located outside of areas of liquefiable soils unless specific
mitigation measures to avoid liquefaction hazards are approved by the
Division of Mines and Geology and are submitted for Commission review
and approval with the Implementation Program. Unless the Division of
Mines and Geology specifies alternative standards, mitigation measures
such as soil densification shall be sufficient to withstand a
repeatable bedrock acceleration of 0.65g.
3.—Add the following to•Groundwater. Po.-licy. l,. (p• III-17):
Specific measures to minimize the potential for groundwater intrusion
shall be approved by the Department of Water Resources and submitted
for Commission review and approval with the Implementation Program.
F. SCENIC AND VISUAL RESOURCES
Orange County LCP Policies: - .Landform, pp. III-14
1. Modify. Policy 1 (p III-14)as follows:
Revegetation and landscaping treatments shall be included in all
development to maintain and enhance the vegetated character of the
Bolsa Chica and Huntington Mesa bluffs. Any reroute of, or new bridge
along PCH shall be designed to enhance the scenic character of the
Bolsa Mesa and the coastline.
The existing Department of Fish and Game scenic and interpretive
overlook on the Bolsa Mesa shall be replaced in new development.
G. PUBLIC-WORKS
Orange County. LCP.Policies: • . Public-Works, pp.- III-40
1. Modify Policy. l. (p- III-40).to- read:
(a) A specific plan shall be prepared designating locations of
utilities for all new development proposed in the Land Use Plan.
This utility plan shall be submitted for review and approval of
the Commission as part of the Implementation Program.
(b) Utilities shall be located outside of the wetland and
Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas unless there is no other
• • -13- •
feasible less environmentally damaging alternative. Mitigation
measures shall be provided to minimize adverse environmental
effects of any utilities located in these areas, including
utilities directly related to petroleum production, marsh
restoration and maintenance, flood and water quality control and
coastal dependent industrial uses.
(c) Consistent with sound engineering and design practices, utilities
shall generally be located in road system rights-of-way or, where
necessary or feasible, in open space areas not directly related
to wildlife habitat.
Ocean Entrance
2. Policy 10- (p III-41).Revise-as follows:
(a) Any ocean entrance to Bolsa Chica, including any related
structures such as groins, breakwaters or channels shall be
permitted only if the Commission reviews such entrance and finds
that it is the least environmentally damaging feasible
alternative; that it will have no significant adverse impact on
sand supply, beach profile or recreation values of any of the
beaches in the area; and that an effective program of
institutional and financing arrangements adequate to mitigate or
eliminate any anticipated or unanticipated impacts has been
established and funded.
(b) A detailed analysis of the alternative plans for an ocean
entrance and channel system, including both non-navigable and
navigable options, shall be submitted for the Commission's review
and approval at the Land Use Plan Confirmation stage prior to
submission of Implementation Program.
The analysis shall address all alternatives to determine the
least
damaging feasible alternative. The analysis shall detail the
environmental and recreation impacts of all alternatives;
describe the proposed mitigation measures; and detail the costs
and financing for construction maintenance, and operation of each
alternative and its associated mitigation measures.
Land Use Plan Alternatives 1 and 2 as described herein shall be
included as explicit alternative plans in the Corps of Engineers
Sunset Harbor Study to receive complete analysis and review equal
to any other alternative considered.
•• (c) Ocean Entrance Policies:
Any plan for an ocean entrance shall meet at least the following
criteria:
(1) The entrance plan shall protect and maintain •the area's
beaches and shall not increase downcoast or upcoast erosion; _
specifically, the plan shall provide for no net loss of
sandy beach available for recreational use from the Anaheim
Bay Breakwater to the Huntington Beach pier.
-14- ` .
(2) The plan shall. specifically identify the area of existing
beach required for sand by-pass operations, and the means to
provide useable replacement recreational beach.
(3) The plan shall fully protect existing swimming, surfing and
beach enjoyment opportunities. The plan shall not require
the installation of a groin field to stabilize Vie beaches
.upcoast or downcoast of the proposed entrance.
(4) The plan shall avoid the risk of seawater intrusion into the
fresh water aquifer landward of the Newport-Inglewood fault
zone.
(5) Any ocean entrance and channels to Huntington Harbor and the
visitor-serving marina rooplex shown in the Land Use Plan
(see Exhibit 1) shall bo subject to detailed hydrologic - . -
analysis according to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
methodology. ,
(6) Any entrance shall minimize operation and maintenance costs
and maximize capital cost-effectiveness; and
(7) Any entrance design shall mitigate adverse effects, if any,
on the wetlands. ,
(8) Any navigable entrance shall be at least 8 feet deep at mean
low water, with the width dependent on proposed boat use
(between•400 and 600 feet at the surface);
(9) Any navigable entrance shall be designed so as to allow an
operator to accept responsibility within accepted liability
parameters.
(d) Huntington Harbor connection.
A navigable Huntington Harbor connection may be both technically
and economically feasible and should be considered for inclusion
in the LCP, provided that:
(1) prior to the LUP confirmation, the Coastal Commission
approves a complete financing program and a mitigation plan,
prepared by the proponents of the connection, for any
wetland-associated impacts of the connection.
(2) if a navigable connection is to be built, it must be the
• least environmentally danging channel feasible.
3. Revise•Policy•11:'. 0- 1II-41) as.fo]_
A financing, operation and maintenance plan for any ocean entrance and
navigation channels shall be established in the Public Facilities
Management and Financing Plan, and submitted for Commission review and
approval with the Implementation Program. The Plan shall:
(a) Detail the costs of the ocean entrance alternatives and all
mitigation measures.
(b) Provide for monitoring of the beaches for the life of the project
after completion of any ocean entrance and related structures-to
identify any beach impacts.
(c) Specify an impact mitigation program establishing financial and
institutional arrangements that will assure adequate funding to
eliminate any impacts that may arise during the life of the
project.
4. Add to• Policy•11 (p. 111-41) as follows:
Prior to the certification of the LCP, the Conservancy, the County and
the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) should work together with other
affected parties to identify appropriate locations for a potential
alternative development site to meet MWD's goals and, through the
project implementation agreement, described in Policy 22 below,
incorporate the necessary land financing measures to ensure an
equitable development.
5. Policy 22 (p III-42a) Revise as follows:
22. Prior to approval .of any land division and/or any development of
the subject property, a Phase III Bolsa Chica Public Facilities
Management and Financing 'flan .(M&FP) providing finalized,
contractural detail for Items 11 and 15 (a through e), above,
shall be submitted for the approval of the Planning Commission,
and the Board of Supervisors and the Coastal Commission. The
Phase III MVP shall contain contractural arrangements for the
phasing, funding, construction operation and maintenance for all
facilities as identified in Items 11 a` (a), above.
Orange County LCP. policies:. .Tidal Wydrology,.pp. III-17
6. Add- to-the be inning-of.Policy. 2. (p• III-17): "consistent with wetland
restoraTlon nee s...
7. Delete Policy-3 (p• III-17)
8. Revise the first line of-Folic 4 III-17 to read: " nnr ocean
entrance channel sys em s a e ...
H. ENERGY "
Orange County LCP Policies: Energy Facilities, pp- III-45
1. Modify Policy 1 (p III-45) to read:
The oil field operator shall operate the field consistent with
PRC section 30232 and shall consolidate operations. consistent
with PRC section 30262.
• -16-
A detailed Energy Facilities Plan shall be submitted for review
and approval as part of the Implementation Plan indicating both a
short-term plan for immediate wetland restoration and a long-term
plan compatible with the ultimate phase out of energy production
facilities. The short-term plan shall indicate: o11 and gas
wells proposed for secondary or tertiary recovery requiring new
injection wells and new roads or pads necessary for such
activities; and costs and phasing to remove obsolete well
facilities and roads and to install facilities necessary tb
implemedt the Restoration Plan.
2. Modify Policy 10 (p III-46)•to dead: As oil production is phas8d
outhe operator s a remove oil facilities, roads and pads in ;a
manner which promotes and is ' consistent with the Restoration
Plan,
I. ARCHAEOLOGY
Orange County- LCP Policies:. Cultural.Regources, pp. III-25
1. Add to-Policy 1 (p 111-26)•the :following:
Appropriate mitigation measure$ for archaeological site Ora-83 as
specified in Coastal Permit 5-83-984, including possitFle
preservation of all or part of the site, shall be Incorporated
into the LCP.
For other sites, if archaeological 'resources are disclosed during
any construction phase of the project, all activity which could
damage or destroy these resources shall be temporarily suspended
until the site has been examir*d by a qualified archaeologist and
mitigation measures have been developed to address the impacts-of
the project on archaeological resources. Such mitigation
measures shall be reviewed by - the State Office of Histo�he
ic
Preservation and approved by the Executive Director of
Commission.
• FINDINGS
RELEVANT.-COASTAL-ACT-POLICIES
Section 30108.5 of the Coastal Act provides that Land Use Plans must be suffi-
ciently detailed to indicate the kinds, location and intensity of land uses, the
applicable resource protection -,and development policies and, where necessary, a
listing of implementing actions. -
Section 30231 of the Coastal Act provides that the biological productivity and
the quality of wetlands appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine
organisms and for the protection of human health shall be maintained and where
feasible, restored through, among other means, minimizing adverse effects of
wastewater discharges and entrainment, controlling runoff, preventing depletion
of ground water supplies and substantial interference with surface water--flow
encouraging waste water reclamation and maintaining natural vegetation buffer.:.
areas that protect riparian habitats. -
Section 30233(a) of the Coastal Act provides that the diking, filling, or , -
dredging of wetlands shall be permitted in accordance with other applicable
provisions of this division, where there is no feasible less environmentally
damaging alternative.
I
Section 30411(b) of the Coastal Act provides that the Department of Fish and
Game may study degraded wetlands and identlf those which can most feasibly be
restored in conjunction with a boating facil4Y.
Section 30260 of the Coastal Act provides that ' coastal-dependent industrial
facilities such as seawater desalting facilities and oil and gas field op-
erations shall be encouraged to locate within existing sites such as that
currently owned by the Metropolitan Water District (MWD), and that operated by
Aminoil, providing that adverse environmental effects are mitigated to the
maximum extent feasible.
The Findings for denial of the LUP are hereby incorporated in full into these
findings.
A. LAND USE PLAN-AND-MAP
The suggested modifications take the basic approach of accepting the concepts
for a Land Use Plan developed by the County and the HCP process, and specifying
policies that would prevent or fully mitigate any impacts such a Plan might
have. In effect, the modifications thus - attempt to create the least
environmentally damaging feasible alternative plan. In some cases, however, the
uncertainty about such impacts and the feasibilty of their mitigation is so
great that additional information must be developed before a final- determination
can be made on whether the policies of the Act have been met.
One of the principal areas of uncertainty is whether a navigable ocean entrance
could be constructed, financed, and maintained in a way that it would not have
impacts unacceptable under the Coastal Act. The policies suggested this report
are intended to prevent or fully mitigate such impacts. By fully complying with
these policies a navigable ocean entrance could be considered the least
environmentally damaging alternative. But the studies which would allow the
Commission to determine whether such an alternative is feasible have not been
completed.
-18- •
Therefore the Commission is taking the unusual approach of adopting a Land Use
Plan with two alternatives for an ocean entrance - one navigable,'one not. At a
later point, the "Land Use Confirmation" stage, when the results of the ocean
entrance feasibility analysis and the intrinsically related Restoration Plan
called for fn the modifications are available, the Commission would determine
whether the ocean entrance plan met the policies of the Land Use Plan and the
Coastal Act.
Alternative- Procedures Considered.by.the•Commission
In recommending modifications which would estoblish a new two-step LUP review
and approval process, the Commission has considered several options including
(1) full certification as submitted; (2) certification with provisions foe
withdrawal of the LUP . at the Phase III Impleoentation stage if the navigabl
entrance cannot be shown to feasibly meet LUP Oolicies; and (3) withholding LUP
approval until more infoMtion is available. t4 make the determinations required,.
under the Act.
(1) Full Certification. This option would require the Commission to find that
Alternative , an specifically the navigable ocean entrance, is the least
environmentally damaging feasible alternative. This option is generally favored
by Signal Landmark. However throughout both the Land Use Plan and the Habitat
Conservation Plan processes, the determination of the environmental bffects and
feasibility -of- the navigable ocean entrance; alternative was deferred to the
Corps of Engineers process. Both the LUP and the' HCP rely on the forthcoming
Corps of Engineers feasibility study to proyide . the information to make the
determination of the best alternative. But that study has yet to be completed,
and subjected to the public hearing process. The Commission has a specific
charge to make the finding that the LUP incorporates the least environmentally
damaging alternative, and it cannot make that finding without a thorough
analysis of alternatives.
The Corps' 1983 Progress Report indicates that a navigable alternative is
possible, but the report specifically declines to conclude that that alternative
is the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative. In fact, as noted
in the denial findings, the Corps concludes:
Considerin the relative impacts of.the six concept plans [included in
the report, it is not possible to identify with certainty any plan
which is environmentally superior at this time. Further studies
are necessary in order to weight various environmental -factors
and to determine the nature of impacts on these factors.
The Commission requires sufficient data to make the least damaging feasible
determination. The Commission can agree with County's choice of the Corps to'do
this work. But until this work is done in s manner sufficient to support the
required analysis, the Commission cannot make its determination as to the least
damaging alternative, and therefore cannot fully certify the Plan as submitted.
(2) Certification with .Possible Withdrawal In the staff discussion on the
proposed'mDdifications, the County has ormally suggested language as a
substitute for specifying alternatives in the Land Use Plan:
If the letter and intent of these standards cannot be
fully satisfied via designs and feasible mitigation
-19- •
measures identified and developed during the LCP Phase .III/
Specific Plan and the Corps of Engineers Sunset Harbor -
Study (e.g. , Technical Studies, EIS/EIR), the County shall
withdraw its plan from the Coastal Commission. Any Plan -
resubmitted by the County must be entirely consistent with
the above-referenced standards in order to be deemed
certifiable by the Commission.
Adopting this.. option would have many of the failings discussed in
connection with the first option. As a practical consideration it would
tend to focus attention on the navigable alternative. and could lead to
insufficient effort to evaluate other alternatives which. with adequate
study, could prove less environmentally damaging. Specifying at least one
alternative which appears to entail less environmental risk is one way the
Commission can be sure the Corps study or any similar evaluation will yield
the information necessary to make the .determination required by PRC 30233....
Having such an alternative would provide the Commission a clear way out of
the dilemma that might ensue if the feasibility study of the design and
financing of the navigable entrance were to reveal that the mitigations
necessary to meet the policies of the modified LUP were too technically
difficult, too expensive, and/or too difficult to finance.
Also this option would make it more likely that the Commission would be
faced with arguments that it must accept somewhat less than full' compliance
with the LUP alternatives because there Was nonviable alternative. Finally.
under this option, if the studies resulted in withdrawal of the LUP,, the
costly and time-consuming process of-'LUP preparation and approval would
have to be begun again.
(3) Withholding. LUP . Modifications. This approach would eliminate the
' possibility of certification unTil substantially more information is
available. Given the inadequacy of available information, this approach
would certainly be consistent with a conservative -interpretation of the
Act.
However, simply denying the LUP might do little to give the County guidance
about what kind of Plan would be certifiable. To avoid this predicament
the Commission might give the County some form of concept approval that
would avoid the legal requirements of an- LUP approval. However, both the
County and the major landowners have expressed their keen desire to see
some form of Commission commitment to a Land Use Plan sufficient to warrant
their further investment in the studies necessary to finalize the LCP.
LUP Confirmation.Process.
The-Commission has considered each of the above options and determined that
each has unacceptable shortcomings. Instead, the Commission adopts a new
procedure for approval of this LUP, as set forth in the suggested
modifications. This process is designed to be responsive to the unusual
environmental and planning constraints of the Bolsa Chica Subarea as well
as the Coastal Act's procedural and substantive requirements for LUP
certification.
Information now before the Commission indicates that an LUP involving a
non-navigable ocean entrance to a Bolsa Chica marina (Alternative 2) would
be approvable as consistent with Sections 30233, 30240. and 30411 of the
coastal
• -20-
Act. However, the County has submitted a plan with a navigable ocean entrance
(Alternative 1). The county and major landowners contend that this alternative
also can be carried out consistent with the Coastal Act. As they acknowledge,
--- however, costly and lengthy studies will be needed to demonstrate whether
And how-it can be done. ,
In order to provide impetus for these studies, the County and landowners
look to the Commission for commitment to Alternative 1, should it.be proven
consistent with the Coastal Act. The Commission, on the other hand, is
concerned that id the forthcoming study process, attention be given to
identification of the environmentally best " means of imiplementid.g
Alternative 1, should it be the ultimate choice. If it is not the choice,
the Commission prefers to minimize the need for renewed planning and review
efforts at the County and State levels.
Thus the Commission adopts suggested 0041fications which, if -incorporated.::
into the LUP, would result in certifi tion of a plan containing bosh -. -
Alternatives 1 and 2. By adopting these suggested -modifications, the
County will agree to participate after certification in an LUP confirmation
review by the Commission. At that time ' the Corps study, the Restoration
Plan, and other relevant information wi)l be submitted. to the Commission
and form the basis of a new evaluation of Alternative 1 in light of
standards stated in the suggested modifications. The certification of
Alternative 1 will be confirmed (and' alternative 2 no lodger deemed
certified) only if it fully.satisfies all of the following criteria.-
(a) a navigable ocean entrance would have no significant adverse
effects and would conform with Public Works Policy 10;
(b) The Restoration Plan can be accomplished as provided 1n the
modified LUP; and
M The navigable ocean entrance 1;s consistent with all other
policies of the modified LUP and with the Coastal Act.
If it does not satisfy all of these criteria, Alternative 1 will no longer
be deemed certified and Alternative 2 will be the certified LUP.
The LUP confirmation process is separate from the Phase III Implementation,
. including any specific plan to- be adopted by the County. The Commission
expects that it will not be possible develop certain provisions of the
LCP Implementation until the choice be�een Alternatives 1 and 2 is firsal.
Therefore, the LUP confirmation review .must be conducted separate from the
Implementation Ordinance review and sufficiently prior to it to allow
accommodation of the Implementation provisions to the final LUP choice. .
Because the confirmation of one alternative to the exclusion of the other
involves identification of kinds, locdtion, and intensity of land uses,
this LUP confirmation process is an extension of the LUP review prowess
established by the Coastal Act. Thus the LUP confirmation will be carried
out consistent with the procedural provisions of Section 30512(c) of the
Coastal Act and Article it of the Commission's regulations .(Title 14,
Administrative Code). This will include preparation and circulation of a
staff report and recommendation, public
• -21- •
-hearing, and vote by the Commission on whether Alternative 1- fully satisfies the
specified criteria. Affirmation must be by a majority of appointed
Commissioners.
Land Use Plan Map
The Land Use Plan provides for the following features:
° 915 acres-of restored wetlands within the 1,292 acre historic wetland
delineated in the DFG wetland determination. The precise mix of
habitats to be created in this area would be defined in the
Restoration Plan recommended by modification.
° 86 acres of specified Environmentally Sensitive Habitat area, exclusive
of the restored wetland, to replace kind for kind the areas that would
be eliminated by the development,permitted under the plan. The :..
location of these areas would also be specified in the Restoration
Plan. .
A Linear Park on the Huntington Beach Mesa, 57 acres of which is
within the Planning Area.
° A 75 acre Marina with associated commercial. In Alternative I the
marina would be located approximately at the seaward, terminus of the
present Warner-Garfield Flood Channel (Exhibit 1(a). In Alternative
2 it would be located in the low lying portion of the Bolsa Chica Mesa
as shown in Exhibit 1 (b). Th6 modifications speCify certain key
public boating and visitor serving facilities that the marina complex
would have to include. The land allocation to these uses is
consistent with the Analysis of Demand found in the County's
Supplementary Information (Enclosures B. pg. C-5).
° A navigable connection to Huntington Harbor. The allocation of land
to this connection is sufficient to provide a workable channel as
described in the supplementary information provided by the
Conservancy.
° The balance of the area would be taken up in residential uses of
varying density, the necessary buffers for the wetlands and ESH areas,
roads and other public facilities.
The principal difference between Alternative 1 of the modified Land Use
Plan and Alternative 2 is that the ocean entrance in Alternative 1 is
navigable, whereas the entrance in Alternative 2 is not. Alternative 2
would also provide for the designation of a portion of the Metropolitan
Water District Lands as Coastal Dependent Industry/wetland.
• -22- •
Modification A 3 -is necessary because the policies suggested in these
modifications, operate in an integrated and interdependent fashion. The LUP
contains a myriad of policies subject to various interpretations. Rather than
belabor each of these, and each of its possible interpretations, the
modifications are established as controlling. It also should be noted that the
Denial of the Land Use Plan denied the entire policy sections rather than
individual policies. The Denial Findings are hereby incorporated in full.
Modification •A (4): .Land.Allocation•Policy
As indicated in the Commission's findings of Substantial Issue (April 8,
1982), and Denial (Nov. 15 1984) the Department of Fish and Game has
completed wetland studies of Bolsa Chica. In its April 16, 1982 submittal
to the Commission the Department found that there are 686 acres of
degraded, but viably functioning wetland and 384 acres of restorable
historic wetland in the Bolsa Chica study area as defined in that report:...:_
Excluding the area contained in the StatO Ecological Reserve these figurers -. -
are 616 and 384 respectively. The Depalrtment further found pursuant to
Section 30411 that while the 616 acres of existing wetlands are not
severely degraded, if one considers the degraded wetland ecosystem as a
whole, including the 384 acres of restorable former wetlands, that this
comprises a 1,000 acre severely degraded ietland system which is in need of
major restoration. The Commission notes that portions of the Department's
study area are located outside of the jurisdiction of the County of Orango,
and therefore the acreage figures within the Bolsa Chica LUP area diffor
slightly from the above. However, in its substantial issue determination,
the Commission found that Of Bolsa, Chica Area required action as an
integrated unit. Consequently the Planning Area discussed herein includes
the entire wetland system identified by the Department.
Exhibit 4 summarizes the Department's findings on the breakdown of the
lands within the lowlands. Generally, only those uses specified in Section
30233 of the Coastal Act are allowed within a wetland. However, since Bolsa
Chica constitutes a 1000 acre "severely degraded wetland system in need of
major restoration", other uses can be considered pursuant to section 30411.
The table prepared by the Department of Fish and Game (Exhibit 5)
illustrates that were it not for this finding little to no urban
development would be allowed. Section 30411 specifically allows
construction of a boating facility on 25% of a severely degraded wetland if
the remaining 75% is restored. SectioO* 30411 (b)(3) also requires that
consideration be Ivan to "whether there4re other feasible ways to achieve
such [restoration values In Section VIII. D. of the wetland guidelines,
the Commission interpreted this language to allow consideration of uses
other than boating facilities if such uses are "other, more feasible ways
to achieve such values". ,
It appears that residential development on remedial fill would be one such
'other feasible way tg achieve such Values", and may be allowed under
Section 30233 and 30411 if such development could also be found to be the
least environmentally damaging alternative. The Commission finds that a
Land Use Plan and accompanying policies to protect resources as set out in
these suggested modifications in their entirety meets these requirements.
The obligation of such development under the Act is to assure that the wetlands
in fact are restored as a result. The modifications deal with this
obligation in two regards; the amount of wetlands, and the adequacy of
their restoration.
• -23- •
i-
The debate over how much wetland should be restored at Bolsa Chica has been
Intense. As noted above the Department of Fish and Same has determined the
area to be a wetland system. During the Habitat Conservation Plan process,
the Department of Fish and Game re-examined their determination of the
amount of wetland that is required to be restored pursuant to PRC 30411.
In the 'Department of Fish and Game Statement on State Coastal Conservancy
Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for Bolsa Chica' (see Enclosure C, Appendix
A), the Department states:
We...have determined that all of the 268 acres of wetlands in the
state-owned Ecological Reserve may be considered as part of the
severely degraded wetland system of Bolsa Chica in conjunction with
the other areas of the system. Also, we have elected to delete 50
acres of feasibily restorable wetlands from the wetland acreage
computation because these acres were also found to be Environmentally
Sensitive Habitat (ESH) in accordance with Section 30240. Therefore,
these acres must be included for protection pursuant to this
section of the Coastal Act.
Thus, in accordance with these amended provisions, the Department
finds that a total of 913.5 acres of the severely degraded wetland
system must be restored in the Bolsa Chica area in order to allow
development to proceed in accordance with Section 30411 of the Coastal
Act. The principle parities to the SB 429 effort agreed to' a total of
915 wetland acres. In.addition, 866 of Environmentally Sensitive
Habitat must also be protected within the study area.
This determination represents a compromise to a long standing dispute. The
Commission concurs in this compromise.
B. WETLANDS.AND• ENVIRONMENTALLY•SENSITIVE-HABITAT-RESTORATION
The modifications for wetland and ESH restoration provide for the
development of a specific Restoration Plan for the design, construction,
operation and maintenance of the enhancement of habitat as Bolsa. The
Restoration Plan is especially necessary because of the difficult site
conditions of the areas designated for restoration (in the midst of an
active oil field, in the flood control channel and mixing basin, and in an
artificially created canyon perched at the upper ends of tidal influence).
Since urban development in the wetland system is only permitted because it
is the means of restoring the wetland, those who propose development are
required by the modifications to pay for all costs associated with
restoration. The acreage of wetland to be restored would ultimately be 915
acres as discussed above and in the Denial Findings. Additionally the
modifications require that 86 acres of other environmentally sensitive
habitat areas also be recreated and/or restored in site. In order to
assure full functioning of the wetlands and other habitats, adequate
buffers are required to protect these sensitive areas from the impacts of
the intense urban uses planned adjacent to them.
County Policies 3 and 4, (p III-20 and 21) provide that a marsh
restoration, operation and maintenance plan shall be designed by- a ,
Technical Advisory Committee and developed in accordance with the Bolsa
Chica Public Facilities Management and Finance Plan, Phase II. Policy 6.
-24-
(p III-21) provides for the project to be phased so that marsh restoration
proceeds along with other project developments in the lowland.
Section 30231 of the Coastal Act provides that the biological productivity
and quality of wetlands be maintained and where feasible, restored.
Section 30233 provides that diking and filling in wetlands shall maintain
or enhance the functional capacity of the wetland. It is necessary to
modify the County's policy in order to insure that allowable' fill and
development on- the fill does not occur without the restoration required
under Section 30411. The suggested modifications provide that there be no
loss in wetland or environmentally sensitive habitat at any time. This
modification insures that no fill may be placed prior to the restoration of
acreage which would offset or mitigate the lost wetland acreage and, as
noted in the findings for denial , achieves consistency with Sections 30231
and 30233 regarding maintenance of biological productivity and functional
wetland capacity.
Modification 7: Polio 10 (p. III-21) provides that buffer areas shall be
established to protect wi dlife habitat. Section 30231 of the Coastal Act
provides for the maintenance of natural vegetation buffer areas to protect
riparian habitats while Section 30240(6) provides for development in areas
adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat ares to be sited and designed
to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade such areas. As noted
in the findings for denial , (Commission Permit Historyi Exhibit B, in
Appeal No. 349-79, Huntington Beach Co., Seacliff IV) , a residential
project on the Huntington Beach bluffs was conditioned to provide a
continuous buffer area in excess of 100 meters between the project and the
Bolsa Chica wetland. In the Ballona LUP, a comparable situation to Bolsa,
the Commission provided for; 100 foot buffers with an additional 50 foot
structural setback.This was necessary in order to find the project
consistent with Sections 30231 and 30240 of the Coastal Act.
In addition, the scenic and visual qualities of the marsh should not be
walled off from public enjoyment by residential development. Section 30251
of the Act provides that such qualities be protected as a public resource
and that development shall be sited to protect views to and along scenic
coastal areas, (Catalina Island is immediately adjacent to Bolsa Chica and
is often visible). Given the- above constraints, the placement of a 100'
buffer next to the wetland, separated by -a fence, with a continuous heavily
vegetated lateral pedestrian path and bike path paralleling the shoreline
will afford the necessary resource protection since intrusion from noise
and lights would be minimized by the vegetation. Residential development
would be placed outside the buffer zone, thus achieving consistency with
Sections 30231 and 30240 of the Act.
C. PUBLIC ACCESS
Section 30210 of the Coastal Act provides that maximum access shall be
provided for all the people consistent with public safety . needs and the
need to protect public rights, rights of property owners and natural
resource areas from overuse.
Section 30211- of the Coastal Act requires that new development not inter-
fere with the public's right of access to the sea. Section 30212(a)
provides that public access from the nearest public roadway to the shore-
line and along the coast shall be provided in new development projects
except where it is (1) inconsistent with public safety or the protection of
fragile coastal resources or (2) adequate access -exists nearby. Section
30252 of the Coastal Act -provides for the provision of transit with pew
development. -
Modifications 1 and 2 call for access along through the develo It all
along the marsh MR. the ocean shoreline and the marina except where
there are valid safety concerns due to dangerous machinery). In the inland
waterway system, access would be provided along the immediate waterfront in
the high density areas, and at recreation and access nodes placed throughout
the developed area. The nodes in the low and medium density areas would be
linked by a continuous trail system along the roads behind the waterfront
homes. A Linear Park corridor along any cross-gap connector would link the
whole system to Regional Park. The Commission finds this access system.,.-
consistent with section 30212(a). (See Exhibit 2)
This policy modification must also be delineated on the Coastal Access
Concept Plan, Exhibit 35, and all exhibits derived therefrom in order to
demonstrate consistency with LCP Regulation 00042, Public Access Component
which calls for the delineation of specific geographic areas proposed for
direct physical access to coastal water areas.
Policy 14 (p III-27), provides that alternative forms of transportation
with an emphasis on public forms, shall be encouraged. The Commission is
not modifying this policy with understanding that new development will
maintain and enhance access to the coast by providing adequate parking
facilities or providing a substitute means of serving the development with
public transportation. Modification G. 1.(c)(1) to LUP Policy 10 (Ocean
Entrance) provides that the ocean entrance plan fully protect existing
swimming, surfing and beach enjoyment opportunities. This modification
requires that any beach parking that might be eliminated by an ocean
entrance will be replaced or mitigated by public transportation such as
park-and-ride shuttles to the beach area. Testimony by the State
Department of Parks and Recreation at the June 18, 1982 public hearing
indicated that the Bolsa Chica State Beach currently serves over 3,000,000
people annually with the beach operating at approximately 25% under
capacity due to lack of adequate parking.
Modification 8: PCH- Reroute and Cross Gap
This modification provides policies to control the location of PCH and the
cross gap connector. This issue was the subject of intense debate through
the HCP process. The "mini-reroute" solution for the location of PCH with
Alternative 1 was one of the more creative ideas to emerge from this
process. The modification and Land Use Plan map provide for a corridor in
which the cross gap connector would be located. This corridor, as shown in
Exhibit 1 extends from 200 feet to 950 feet away from the property line of
the nearest houses. The Commission leaves the decision of where precisely
to locate the cross gap road and any connection to the marina, in local
hands. The proposal modification are consistent with the resol4tion on the
subject submitted by the City of Huntington Beach, which has Bolsa Chica .
within its sphere of influence (Exhibit 6).
• -26- •
D. RECREATION.AND•VISITOR-SERVING-FACILITIES.AND-RECREATIONAL-BOATING
Section 30213 requires provision of lower cost visitor-serving facilities.
- - Section 30222 lends priority to visitor-serving commercial recreation on
suitable. private lands while Section 30223 provides for the reservation of
upland recreational support areas. Section 30224 provides, in part, that
recreational boating shall be encouraged by developing dry storage areas
increasing public launching facilities and providing for neM boating
facilities in areas dredged from dry land.
Modification 1: The supplementary information submitted by the County
confl rms MeMrket demand for 550 overnight units and visitor serving
boating facilities. This modification addresses the needs confirmed in
those studies.
Modification D-2: provides that there be no net loss of beach area as a.,.
result of the ocean entrance. As the findings for denial indicate, the
three-mile long Bolsa Chica State Beach serves approximately 2,000.000
visitors per year. Testimony by the State Department of Parks anod
Recreation at the June 18, 1982 public hearing increased this estimate to
3,000,000 visitors and indicated that the Beach is . operating at
approximately 25 percent under capacity .due to lack of adequate parking.
As the findings for denial further indicate. Section 30211 of the Coastal
Act provides that development shall not 'interfere with the public's right
of access to the sea where acquirod through use or legislatilte,
authorization which are both applicable 46 this case.
A non-navigable, rip-rapped ocean entrance could much more easily meet the
intent of Section 30211 than. a navigable entrance since the channel would
be much narrower, and would be shallow enough to encourage wading and
swimming during much of the year. Indeed, the shallow water and offshore
bar might well enhance the recreational value of the beach for children "d
swimmers. The Modification. G-2 for the Ocean Entrance more thorough y
addresses this issue.
F. HAZARDS
Section 30108.5 of the Coastal.Act defin¢s land use plan to mean the
relevant portion of a local goveinnent's;General Plan which is
sufficiently detailed to indicate the kids, location, and intensity of
land uses, the applicable development policies and, where necessary, a list
of implementing actions. Section 30253 of the Coastal Act provides that
new development shall minimize risk to life and property in areas of high
geologic hazard.
The County has completed additional geotechnical studies on the questions
raised in the substantial issue determination. Those studies are currently
being reviewed by the California Division of Mines and Geology.
The modifications provide that the criteria established by the Division
for mitigation of hazard be incorporalted in specific studies prior to
Implementation. Both alternatives of the Plan generally avoid -placing
structures in. the fault zone, allocating that area to boat channels -or
wildlife habitat.
-27-
As noted in the findings for denial , the economic implications of
geotechnical hazards are of great concern as well , not only because.
substantial public investment or liability may be involved but also
because the fundamental wetland restoration policy question in Bolsa Chica
rests on the issue of feasibility. Under the Coastal Act, development•in
wetlands is only allowed if there is no feasible. less environmentally
damaging alternative (30233a). and where the remainder of the wetland is
restored (30233(a)(3) and 30411). Although hazard mitigation nay be
possible through such techniques as soil densification, addition of
overburden, tying back bulkhead sheet pilingss unit foundation pilings, and
mat foundations in addition to structural setbacks, the project's economic
feasibility may also be severely undermined or altered. This potential
dramatic change in the economic feasibility of the project is a risk the
proponents of development have chosen to take. It cannot be permitted to
affect the amount required of any development proposed in. the lowland
wetland system or ESH areas. The lommission finds that the detailed.,.
analysis of feasibility of hazard mitigation can be deferred only because -: -
the Modification Sections A and B in their entirety provide adequate
safeguards that the restoration required by the Act will be accomplished.
F. SCENIC AND VISUAL•RESOURCES
Section 30251 of the Coastal Act requires protection and enhancement of
visual qualities to and along coastal areas and where feasible,, 'is visually
degraded areas. Section 30253 provides =that new development shall minimize
risk to life and property in areas of high geologic hazard and shall not
require the construction of protective devices that would substantially
alter the natural landforns along bluffs.
Modification G (LUP Policy 1, p. III-14) provides that the character of
e SolsaTfirca and Huntington Mesa bluffs shall be maintained and
enhanced. This policy does not provide an adequate level of specificity to
protect the panoramic view of coastal beaches, wetlands, and bluffs.
As noted in the findings for denial . structural setbacks of 100 meters have
been required for the Seacliff IV development on the Huntington Beach Mesa
in prior Commission permit action. Structural setbacks varying from 25 to
100 feet depending on bluff heights (10 to 50 feet) are adequate for the
Bolsa Chica Land Use Plan to provide•• protection given the relatively
degraded state of the entire bluff system and the desirability of
transferring as much development as possible out the lowland to the upland
Bolsa Chica Mesa. The State Department of Fish and Game Scenic Overlook
requires special preservation and enhancement due to its historically
strategic viewing location. (the former "Gun Club" site) as does the inland
side of Outer Bolsa Bay due to its immediate visdbl proximity to Pacific
Coast Highway and the Bay itself. Thus, policies providing mechanisms such
as structural setbacks and revegetation are suggested modifications
necessary to achieve ,consistency with Sections 30251 and 30253 of the
Coastal Act.
Section 30251 also provides for protection of scenic and visual qualities
to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas. As noted in: %he findings
for denial , the Bolsa Chica segment is one of the last portions of the.
Orange County coastline which possesses a strong visual connection between
-28-
the ocean and wetland. environments. Any bridges constructed over a new
navigable, non-navigable or other ocean entrance system must preserve that
visual character as much as possible.
G. PUBL IC NORKS
Section 30108.5 of the Coastal Act provides that Land Use Plans must be
sufficiently detailed to indicate the kinds, location and intensity of land
uses, the applicable resource protection and development policies and,
where necessary, 9 listing of implementing actions.
Section 30231 of the Coastal Act provides that the biological productivity
and the quality of wetlands appropriate to maintain optimum populations of
marine organisms and .the the protection of human health shall be maintained
and where feasible, restored. through, among other means, minimizing adverse
effects of wastewater discharges and entrainment, controlling runoff,.=:
preventing depletion of groundwater supplies and substantial interference
with surface water flow encouraging waste water reclamation and maintaining
natural vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats.
Section 30233(a) of the Coastal Act provides that the diking, filling, of
dredging of wetlands shall be permitted in accordance with other applicable
provisions of this division, where there is no feasible less environmental-
ly damaging alternatives.
Section 30260 of the Coastal Act provides that coastal-dependent industrial
facilities such as seawater desalting facilities shall be encouraged to
locate within existing sites such as that currently owned by the Metropoli-
tan Water District (MWD), prpviding that adverse environmental effects are
mitigated to the maximum extent feasible.
In the County plan as submitted, the Public Works policies are among the
most important because they allow uses within wetlands that have been
identified in the Commission's findings for denials as raising major and
fundamental issues. The Section of policies in the County plan allows
public utilities, navigable channels, flood control facilities, and a new
navigable ocean entrance. Under the proposed policies, many decisions
regarding the location of facilities would be deferred until later stages
of planning. Finally, land owned by the Metropolitan Water District that
, may be needed for public utility purposes has been designated for a marina,
despite the objections of MWD. These problems have led to the specific
modifications which are now analyzed.
Modification G-1 provides that a specific plan for utilities shall be
submitted for review as part of Phase III. As the .findings for denial
indicate, neither plans nor specific policies for the size and location of
major utility System reaches such as sewers are indicated in the LUP. Such
a denial of fundamental decisions is inconsistent with Section 30108.5 of
the Coastal Act. The modification to require a policy controlling the
location of major utilities is therefore necessary to achieve consistency
with Section 30108.5 of the Act. This policy must indicate that reaches
shall not be planned through wetlands or other environmentally sensitive
habitat areas. in order to achieve consistency with Section 30233(a) which
permits such activities only where there is no feasible less
• -29-
environmentally damaging alternative. Since it is feasible .to place utili-
ties, such as sewers, below proposed streets, no dredging or filling of
wetlands beyond the allowable would appear necessary.
Ocean Entrance
Modification G-2 provides specific policies for the design of any ocean
entrance an c annels to Huntington Harbor and the visitor-serving marina
complex. A non-navigable entrance would significantly reduce the problems
involved in dealing with sand transport and shoreline processes. The
findings of consistency for an ocean entrance are extensively reviewed in
Section 1 (Land Use) above and in the denial findings. Those findings are
incorporated here.
Huntington.Marbor Connection
The question of a navigable connection with Huntington Harbor was another - -
subject of great debate during the HCP process. Both alternatives of the
Land Use Plan proposed in the modifications contain an enhanced water
quality connection. Alternative 1 provides for a connection to the new
navigable entrance. The land allocated to this connection is outside the
existing outer Bolsa Bay wetland, except for a small portion directly at
the entrance to Huntington Harbor, and is wide enough to accommodate a
120-foot channel and a buffer to protect the existing wetlandf of Outher
Bolsa. The policy language of the modification is derived from the HCP
supplemental information submitted by the Conservancy. It reflects their
conclusion on financing that: '
no sin le mechanism for funding the connection (estimated at $18
million] was advanced (although a range were discussed in County
financial documents (Draft Report on HCP issues, p 15 - see Enclosure
D).
It may in fact be concluded that when the costs, and financing impacts
of such a connection are fully identified, the connection will appear less
attractive. the Modification, however, keeps the door open to an appropriately
designed connection.
Modification 4-4 provides that the County of Orange cooperate with the
ropo tan a er District of Southern California, to ensure compatibility
between MWD's prospective transmission corridor uses and to find an
alternative site.
Section 30260 of the Coastal Act provides that coastal-dependent industrial
facilities such as seawater desalting facilities shall be encouraged to
locate within existing sites such as that currently owned by the The
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), providing that
adverse environmental effects are mitigated to the maximum extend feasible.
As noted in the findings for denial , MWD has indicated that its
"Transmission Corridor" parcel of land within the Land Use Plan area may be
utilized to connect seawater intake facilities located on an offshore
Tidelands Grant to facilities located on its nearby "switchyai�," parcel of
land (outside of the Land Use Plan area in the City of Huntington Beach).
Because portions of the MWD "transmission corridor" parcel are wetlands or
-30-
environmentally sensitive habitat, adverse environmenta_1 impacts would have
to be mitigated. If that is done, some uses on the MWDParcel would be
compatible with resource protection and enhancement.. Alternative 2 limits
MWD's options less than Alternative 1. MWD's wetlands obligation is met by
locating-on its property a portion of a sedimentation/mixing basin designed
to provide wetland habitat consistent with the Restoration Plan.
Modification G-5 provides that prior to any land division a specific Public
aci ities anagement and Financing Plan (MAFP) will be prepared to provide
secure contracturAl arrangements for the phasing, funding, constructing,
operation and maintenance for key project elements. These include the
identification of all facilities, services and land area involved and all
other public project and marina capital projects; costs and preliminary
funding for all facilities, services, land and public project and marina
capital projects; a plan for funding the costs identified in 'the Phase I
MAFP, including identifying specific sources, methods and reasonable. :
possibilities of securing such amounts. This Plan. essentially provides
development agreement. In the absence of a demonstration of feasibility
for the project elements at the Land Use Plan stage as required by sections
30108.5, 30233, and 30411 as discussed above, the specific agreements to
phasing and assurances of implementation of plan policies at the
implementation stage.
Modifications G - 6, 7 and 8 are necessary for consistency 'with other
modifications.
H. ENERGY
Section 30260 of the Coastal ;Act provides that where new or expanded energy
facilities are proposed in wetlands, maximum feasible mitigation shall be
provided to minimize adverse environmental effects. Section 30233 of the
Act permits energy and coastal-dependent industrial facilities to be sited
in wetlands only if this is the feasible, least environmentally damaging.
alternative, where feasible mitigation measures such as consolidation of
facilities and site restoration upon abandonment are provided to minimize
adverse environmental effects and the functional capacity of the wetland is
maintained or enhanced. Section 30231 of the Coastal Act provides that the
biological productivity and the quality of wetlands appropriate to maintain
optimum populations of marine organisms and for the protection of human
health shall be maintained and where feasible, restored through, among
other means, minimizing adverse effects of wastewater discharges and
entrainment, controlling runoff, preventing depletion of ground water
supplies and substantial interference with surface water flow, encouraging
wastewater reclamation and maintaining natural vegetation, and buffer areas
that protect riparian habitats. -
Modifications H. -- Land 2 provide for planning to facilitate consolidation
of facilities and site restoration upon abandonment. Given the extremely
high cost of oil and gas well consolidation, the LUP as modified would
provide for the less costly solution of berming and access road
consolidation combined with redistribution of water sources via culverts.
- -31-
i
The Restoration Plan proposed in these modifications woyld specify measures
that would enable the coastal dependent industrial land use of. energy
production to co-exist with the preservation, restoration and enhancement
of the wetland use.
It may in fact prove possible that the water levels in the cells between
the roads could be limited to -1.5 feet MS1 consistent with restoration
needs. However, as noted in the findings for substantial issue on the HCP,
it is inappropriate to so limit the Restoration Plan at this time. Any
adverse effects on the oil field operator could be, part of the negotiations
between the proponents of development and Aminoil• during the development of
the Restoration Plan.
I. ARCHAEOLOGY
Section 30244 of the ,Coastal Act establishes a mandate to protect archae
ological resources as identified by the State Historic Preservation Officer
and mitigate the impacts of development upon them. As noted in the find-
ings for denial , the Commission adopted Archaeological Guidelines on ,
December 16, 1981 establishing priorities for mitigation measures and
placed prohibition of development over such resources at the top of the
order of preference. The Guidelines adopted also call for a Peer Review
Statement including input from at least three qualified archaeologists and
consultation with affected Native Americans. Section •30108.5 of the
Coastal Act defines Land Use Plan to be an element sufficiently detailed to
indicate the kinds, location, and intensity of land use, the applicable
resource protection and development -policies and, where necessary, a
listing of implementing actions.
The proposed modifications incorporate the provisions of the Guidelines
pertaining to discovery of any known sites, and the specific provisions
of the Commission approved permit for work at ORA-83.
During the joint County/Commission staff review of ORA-82 which was also
noted in the denial findings, an error in the alignment of the Coastal Zone
boundary as shown in the County Plan was noted. Since the Coastal Zone
runs along the Huntington Beach Bluffs and not along Edwards Street as
shown in the County's Plan, ORA-82 does not lie within the Coastal Zone and
cannot be the subject of suggested modifications for this Land Use Plan.
ALTERNATIVE LAND USE PLAN Bolsa Chica
IhmlirMlan Beach CeMra!PasN
ILLUSTRATION; i • Navigable Entrance A ^ `
V/ON
fxttig . •= •�:�.. � .r
wr wr r r COASTAL ZONE MY.
LCP SEGMENT MYCor(ldo( •:;, -:� "_;,_.� _;`:,_ �•' v�
• , Gap
aped \ �.:.-:' •:'�•-w• 'j:- .#•w- •� m
cross
Riparian Area 7:A •� �L
H llnulon Har\10 Seaclill.� - -- w r .�•..P}.!i:�:�,i^.w w, . • w _ ••� ;}. ,• A
ntlnpton Harbour
Connection
-• Y. +- # _ ..r Piciflc Cois�i 1 1
A-- "4
. r: oisa g —— —
Bolsa Chita State Park - -
State Perk -
Ct>fca - • - -
golsa - ----
-,.. ....w..,...._..�....--
EXHIBIT N0. 1A LEGEND
Wetland Connection LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MARINA COMMERCIAL
Channel
.. 4' RED. DENSITY RESIDENTIAL �� ` MA MOPEN SPACE
llIGR DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ' LINEAR PARK/OPEN SPA
ALTERNATIVE LAND USE PLAN — Rolsa Chica
Ilunlinplon Beech CeMrd Ihak
ILLUStRAT10N 2 •Nf3�l-��1@ En#�'$pC8 _ ��,���
ARN
1;4•
lb
•r urr liw r COASTAL ZONE 8W. i j` a1
- - • - -- LCP SEGMENT am �. _ d COttldOf
I Cross Gap po14
81
0k reiluff��-"hires:.:.-
Hurittnglon Harbour ,.•. - ._ .... ,a w �,. w, -�.�': :' .' �A •• w '�. . ..� + �q-,:
�, w - ••.^ y �- �....w .fir� .• L'-_w � � .
.q i:'.►:�, + ,.�_ .'� _ - ,^_,�.....arw.':-+'•�. 'ii''� �-:? -��.;-i y/�t•''-. 'i;�- S 2'V'SeacN It IV
� • •. �••�A. w .-•�`_w''• '� �-•.lam _�•.x fi_"� A, -� w.' •�. w_.•• �` ;�
nt-
- fey lag : ,-��. _A �. ..�=- `'' ^ s I'scllk Coi'si tli`Aw• - �.�
._
Boise Chica Slate Perk Bolsa cl>ica State Park
EXHIBIT No. 18 LEGEND
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IIAR111A C011fl[RCIAL
MID. DENSITY RESIDENTIAL EIMARS11/0PEN SPACE
/►fir. IIIGII DENSITY RESIDENTIAL am LINEAR PARK/OPEN SPACI
ACCESS PLAN - Bolsa Chica llunllnolon Beach C•abd Perk
• Ulke/Pedestrian Tral
.• Equestrian TraH Linear Park /Cross Gap Corridor �a�j . �� "Edwards Thumb'
® Access Node (See full-size map for detain J�
�o� use
Jet
y
FM
r ri w w� COASTAL ZONE SOY.. � ' '4:'•R. ;� ■ �C
.- •�-•--�►- LCP MOMENT
NOW
MW
f }s.� �_:.�,h6r.' � '"`,: ,.....,,.... • .: •.. a-'�'-;P•cifle•void'IN Irw• �.�.'. .... .•.�: s. . � �;if�'!t��� _
46d
.�•.:.� •-' �%it%NN�t1• ■�•■N>An�iiNiNNJA/NN■n/NNNwBNwNB•
non r1+ Ji Perk a i�i " : n Boise Cilica State Park
Boise (Mica State w
•
...............
EXHIBIT NO. LEGEND
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MARINA C0111WRCIAL
t'ED. DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ♦tom` MARSII/OPEN SPACE
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. MLINEAK PARWOPEN SPAO
3. Criteria for Establishinc Huffer Areas
A buffer area provides essential open space between the development and the
environmentally sensitive habitat area. 'rho existance of this open space
ensures that the type and scale of development proposed will not significantly
degrade the habitat area (as required by Sac-..ion 30240). Therefore, development
allowed in a buffer area is limited to access paths, fences necessary to protect
the habitat area, and s4-4 A uses which have either beneficial effects or at
least no ai gm ficant adverse effects on the envirommentally sensitive habitat
area. A buffer area is not itseL a par- of the eavironmenzaly sensitive
habitat area, but a 'buffer' or "screen" that Protects the habitat area from
adverse envrraraental i=pacts caused by the development.
A bu.'ter area should be established for east development adjacent to
environmentally sensitive 'habitat areas based on the standards enumerated below.
The width of a '.offer area will vary dependinq'upon the analys:a. The buffer
area should be a -:-;— of 100 feet for small projects on we-z-timg lots (such
as one single family home or one ccr..aercial office buildisq) unless the
app"cant can demonstrate that 100 feet is unnecessary to protect the resources
of the habitat area. If the project involves substantial improvements or
increased human impacts, such .as a subdivision, a aazch wider buffer area should
be requlr-ed. For this reason the guideline does not recc—nd a uniform width.
'Me appropriate width will vary with the analysis raised upon the standards.
For a wetland, the buffer area should be measur*d from the Landward edge of
the wetland (Appendix D) . For a stream or river, •„he buffer area should be
measured landward from the Landward edge of riparian vegetatlon or from .tie top
edge of the bask (e.g. , in channal+ wed s~.seams) . :`Saps and supplemental
i:forration say be ragu.ired to detaYriae these 5xumda— es. Standards for
dete=4 nq the appropriate width of the buffer area are as follows:
1. Biolocical sieai.:icaace of adjacent lands. Lands adjacent to a
wetland, strea3a, or riparian habitat area vary is the c'.eg+ee to whiff
they are functionally related to these habitat areas. That is,
functional relationships may wrist if species associated with such
areas spend a significant portion of their Lie cyclo on adjacent
lands. Tho degree of sign'�ficance would depend upon the habitat
rem+_emaats of the species is the habitat a_--ea
`eedisg, breeding or resting) . ♦.lis determination requires, the
expertise of as ecologist, Wildlife biologist, orsithologisc or
botanist who is familiar with the particular type o:' habitat involved.
Where a sigmificimc functional. relationship eex sts, the land
supporting this relarionshig should also be considered to bra part of
the environmentally sensitive habitat area, and the bur=er area should
be =assured fr'bt the edge or these lands and be- sufficiently wide to
protect. these functional relationships. 54here no significant
function-a' relatianships exist, the buffer should be extended rise theedge of the wetland, stream or ripariaa habitat ( for eYamgle) whit:% is
ad jaceat .o the; promos d. development (as oaposed to the adjacent area
which: is significantly :eLated em=11.ogica.11y).
2. sensitivitf of species to disturbance. The width of the; buffer
area should be based, is part, on the distance necessary to ensure
that the most sensitive species of plants and animals will liar be
disturbed significantly by the pezmittted development. Such a
dstsrmiaation should be based on the following:
a. Nesting, feeding, breading, resting or other habitat
requi smsnts of both resident and migratory fish and wildlife
species.
b. An assessment of the soart-ta= and long=ce= adaptibility of
: various species to huUM disturbance.'
3. Susceptibility—of parcel to erosion. :he width of the buffer
area should be based, im part, on an assessment of the slope, •soils,
impervious sur:acs coverage, runoff characteristics, and vagscative
cover of the parcel and to what degree the development Will change
the potential for erosion. A sufficient butter to allo,s for the
interception. of any additional material eraded as. a result of the
proposed development should be provided.
4. Use of natural torn _aahic features to locate development. 8i1I3
and Lugs adjutant to env:roamenta _y sens,-Eve habitat areaa should
be used, ehe-s feasible, to buffer habitat. areas. Where- otherwise
pe=xitted, developmsat. should be locatqd on the sides of hills away
from environmentally sensitive habitat'areas:' Siailarly, blur: faces
should not be developed, but should. ber included in the: buffer azea..
S. Use. of am--stinjr cultural features to. locate buffer zones.
Cultural :enures, (e.g., roads and arced snoulb be used, where
feasible, to buffar habitat areas. Where feasible, development
should bat located on the. s:.de of roads, dikes, ixrigation canals,
rood: control channels, etc. , way !--= the save.-omeazally sensitive
habits= area.
b. Lot caa:icuration and location of existing development. where an
existiaq subdivision or other development is largely built-out and
the buildings a+-e a nnifozm distance frma a habitat area, at least
that same distance will be required as a ba::er area for any now
dsvelopmanz permitted. However, if that dis�.aace is less tijan
100 feet, additional mi tigstron msasu: es (s.g., plarm1=9 of native
vegetation which grows locally) should be provided to ensure
additional protection. Where development is proposed in an area
which is largely undeveloped, the widest and most protective barer
a--ei feasible should be required.
7. Tee and scale of develo=ent nr000sed. The type and stale of
the proposed development will, to a large degree, detersine the s:xe
of the buffer area necessary to protect the eavi_ y sensitive
habitat area. Tor exa le, Cue to domestic pets, human use and
vandalism, r+esiden..ial developments may aot be as compatibie as light
iaftstrial developmeaa adjacent to wetlands, and may therefore
require wider afar areas. However, such•evalrateons should be made
on a case-by-case basis depeaLnq upon :he resources involved, and
the type and densicy or do, lopment oa adjacent laads.
TABU I
(Ither Vacant Property Within
Me Study A"a as Shovm on
Class State Ecological Reserve— the Accoeman ink+-+ R Totel
I. Historic Wetland 276 acres 1 ,016 acres 1 ,292 acres
A. lion-degraded Wetland 166 acres 0 acres 166 acres
B. Degraded but viably functioning 70 acres 616 acres 686 acres
vretland - major restoration not
required.
=t =•�a= ►-}.—TV60ding documented high and 70 acres at leapt at least
moderate habitat value to 480 acres 550 acres
wetland-associated avifauna.
2. Providinq low value for wetland- 0 acres at most at most
associated avifauna and areas nat 136 acres )36 acres
yet thoroughly evaluated.
C. Severely degraded historic wetlands no 40 acres 400 acres 4=0 acres
longer viably functioning as wetlands,
and major restoration required.
1. Below 5 ft contour 32 acres 384 acres 416 acres
2. Above 5 ft contour 8 acres 16 acres 24 acres
II . Historic Upland 13 acres 19 acres 32 acres
Ig
MEMO
��►IAIIO ,•.p�'''�"':��•/•'�•f1,1 rr I:�.Y y..,•I• �./.� 1 ♦.1.� Fit,
It
I f 11104 SA%v w►n@M , ,;���,.`;,�i''i.:�'•.!. f'•'•:�;•+� 1 1 •i!�' I' / . `�
t..J V
L7 (IRACKMN YAR$M • ,• •.%!•!/::a�•i; f'.��I'.f. ,/r ,_r �'• •!�.:r�;
1 .,FAC5NWAt14 Y.Ilall .;�'••r• �' ,•a•••�� '�•. r •,r;�.•'`.• I �,��1 •, • t� fir.
i TtoAl N t: sir �. ''.•,t,:'t•'•'.;� .
c � .. r1(t)lt•� ; • r •�.
IIOII,110AL wA/tA OOM$ : A�i; •'��. •�..:,.,'�; /.`i •.t • �' :•; 1• :1,/M'r�\ •• •
• 1 •1�.0 s;•••,•,;j•I, j.r ,. h Y•.•r..:.• }i .t 1��1/ '!•:`, 1 A,-•. t
T r1Csl[wttS T1.TS :s :•/r� \, , A go / .. /
u11M1/[fiC/Atill/LATS � /••/f`1::� � - ..a•, •j.•Y ,.n�• ./i`�r/i •...•.•t., :,' .,. \'t•' .\•'►•�;/••�',� ♦. ��, .. •:
�''�� •%� /•%.•I r.f•,'•: �.•• •1; S �:� '� �i�.tt4 ` ..-:� .�•,..: i[r /\��♦'„�'t\�r.��.r�./� t.l'�I
f �Maf1H.AL0 �. It�; .L•• 't ` . ,•I t',•'''i%',•r,••It .1•.�•�•%.H�. J •.,i.`•'.'r•. �.t.��,. y• a' \�f/);.i. ,v �/^�/It f•`� •i! _j
1"-'__+� . .'�:. i::+ ,�./ •;.•./ �.: :: i.• /� - cir}, Ill rv/� 11 (, pit'•• �l
.•,�•: .'f, .•:, .�� • ��,��'�•�. •.•r• .•J Y ,.,, - _•iL'�A�•j Y .• •n' t l
p 1
r
•1 t ._ �w�
fie
L L\�T
< - '�. _.
r �l� r
• ti\q�r� �• is 'v , ... iJ. -•� -i _J I ���, •• . r ��'`♦ !�� '• ! r �. �•1 1.,
\ I f �• 1` .��"'�\ \ 1� v•'• ram,
r
• 1
•�r� �' `�� �/ � /•»-If••• +�'\ i /,:''I��.J �\ 1 1• `.: ♦� i ''_►1 �:� � •. %1 1,'f-� � �c• 1 I ���.ifif.. . I•� f
.
_:.Oros.
`)v��\`�/�♦ /;tlt;•• �, / - .• .J�.�'r t [i !_ri'11 r`. 1�r y � i�•.�I � 1• '_�: �!• 1�,�'t.i\/i��Z��—�/ 1 � ��, [•�� .
1 ,-•
R Al I I a A—
'' �'`/ ' , 1 ( � :�.A�!/�� /• �\�� �. _�—"-�j--mil r ` !' ��l•�=+�' 1 •� _e
Ice;
:;00�
. ,, .. — - _ '' ..... ' 1 `:.� � � ' I ! � _ •'pis•', '•�-ter'
• L:.•'a:.:.•/: ..•fir .. •v%» •.• /•�•• �. ~'i • •, , T.
•',
Generalized Pi!sp •f 1rialer Habitat Types C OASTA'L D U N E
13OLSA CHICA
R\a•i R hw r.,•••--••./.•••M-.•,. ,�t•M••V.•\ .•• •N• f'�•�,•� Lii.J 1
• r................•r.1•.,.»,•r..v....• s..•......na t\.�C �7 C:7 E1IM'�.T
• :'ap r-ndi!!ed ifc"3 !oisa C4ica Surrle-enta2 L::R 31-:!7.
1
FIGURE i - w
l. at. va acret2 e fi?ur or C:"I:lanu! r•(:stoL--1Li0n and development
.t t_• :1:: 1•.11"1::�.`tl ir! tile tr,:)lu.; bu LOW:
Table 1 - Tho Approach
1 HviLlz:nd ."Zor-toration
A. Within tn2 • State-own_d Ecological Reserve
1 . Existing Iletland. . . . . . . . . 7,35 acres
2. Restorable :Jon-wetland . . . . . 32 acres
3 . Total %zetla nd poozible. . . . . . . 268 acre
B. None-.citrate Land Outside Reserve
1 . Existing Wetland • . . . . . . . . . 616 acres
2 . Restorable Non-wetland • . 384 acres
3 . Total area of the wetland system. 1000 acres
4. Total to be restored-0. 75 x 1000
[From Coastal Act Section 30411
b( 2) and b( 3 ) _l . . . . . . . . . . . 750 acres
C. Overall Wetland Acreage to be Pestored
1. Within Reserve . . . . . . . . . . 268 acres( i .e. 236 + 32 )
2 . Outside Reserve . . . . . . . 750 acres( i .e. 1000 x 0 . 7
3 . Grand Total of wetland to be
provided. . . . . . . . . . 1018 acres
II Vi.•velopmenL Potential . . . . . . . 250 acres
Table 11 - No SysLem Approach
I rr:ctla.nd Festoration
A. Within the State-owned Ecological Reserve
1 . Existing wetland . . . . . . . . 236 acres
2 . Restorable non-wetland . . . . . . . 32 acres
3 . Total to be restored . . . . . . . . 268 acres
I') Non-state Lands Outside the Ecological Reserve
1 . Existing Wetland . . . . . . . . 616 acres
2. Restorable non-wetland with little,
if any, development potential . . . . 334 acres
3 . Total area .. . . 1000 acres
4 . Tot-al which may be restored given
no development within 1000 acre area . 0 acres*
II Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 acres*
ATO adopt. at position other than a system approach consistent with
Co:i:iLal Act Section 30.111 results in no requirement for restoration.
:aLher, . simply protection of the 616 acres of wetland outside the
Ecological Reserve would be required by the Coastal Act.
�t.ldiLionally, because cf the fragmented and largely linear nature of
rion-wetland areas ( i .e. roads and fill pads ) within the 1000 acre area
:ictonLif ied , the pot:eritial for development is nil given the preclusion
of f i11 (ivrc3if -ion wEr.hi,i erisL-inq areas.
NOV i W J
CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION NO. 5454 COASTAL COMMISSION
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HL'NTINGTON
BEACH ADOPTING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FOR THE BOLSA CHICA LAND USE PLAN
WHEREAS, it has taken many years study to prepare a General
Land Use Plan for the Balsa Chica; and
Numerous parties, both public and private; have made
contributions to said plan; and
The city staff has diligently studied all alternatives so
as to best serve the long term interests of the citizens of
this area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: j
Balsa Chica Avenue shall be extended to Garfield Avenue at
the minimum width necessary to safely and efficiently handle
traffic, preferably 80 feet, and shall be designed to encourage
southbound traffic to utilize Warner Avenue enroute to Pacific
Coast Highway. The extension of Balsa Chia Avenue shall
connect with a new connecting street to Pacific Coast Highway
and such connecting street shall, in turn, be connected to
Warner• Avenue. In a similar manner, Garfield Avenue shall have
a connecting street via an extension of :Edwards and 38th Street
with Pacific Coast Highway. The extension of Balsa Chica
Street to Garfield Avenue shall allow the tie-in of Springdale,
Talbert, and Graham.
Sufficient distance shall be provided (a ',minimum" of 800.
feet) between the Balsa Chica Street extension and existing
residential properties in order to complete the local street
systems through cul-de-sacs and, in addition, to allow for
proper development of low density residential properties which
would border the Balsa Chica -Street extension and be compatible
with existing development . All street construction shall be
performed under standard City of Huntington Beach development
requirements, as depicted in Exhibit A.
Any reroute of Pacific Coast Highway shall be limited to
the "mini reroute" and shall provide for adequate - and
satisfactory access for the city' s Warner Street Fire Station.
The City of Huntington Beach shall have no financial obligation '
for any Pacific Coast Highway reroute.
A navigable connection between Huntington Harbour and the
Bolsa Chica Marina is favored to allow for needed improvement
of water quality in Huntington Harbour and as an alternate
boating outlet. This alternate outlet is needed due to
possible limitations on the use of Anaheim Bay, which is
primarily for the U.S. Navy Weaporis • Station. The City of
Huntington Beach shall not have any significant financial
obligations through general funds for such navigable connection.
Any ocean cut of the Bolsa Chita State Beach should be done
only after comprehensive modeling to determine the impacts on
the sandy beach. Only under designs which predict no or
minimal effects does the city favor such ocean cut. Ways and
means should be required 'also ' to provide 'for the financing of
any required sand replenishment program. The City of
Huntington Beach shall have no financial obligation for any
ocean cut or channel maintenance.
All land uses within the Bolsa Chica shall be compatible
with existing development and appropriate transitions of zones
shall be provided adjacent to all - existing zones . Due regard
shall be given to topographic* features and seismic conditions
as well as for utility services.
The City of Huntington Beach favors optimizing wetlands
restoration and open-space development, but expresses concern
with regard to the viability of some of the wetlands area shown
in the extreme northeastern tip of the Bolsa Chica. Special
attention should be directed toward this area so as not to '
create nuisances for existing residential development as the
result of odors, insects, etc. All wetlands restoration shall
be within the bounds of the project area.
2.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by ' the City Council of' the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on
the day of ,. 1984.
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clark City Attorney
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INIA TED�BND APPROVED:
amity Administratoe Director of Public Works
WNW
3 .
4
L
� 1
_
/ / 3 WM
F�E.�117E-Nf1�L
s '"'"" p�51D1'1JTIAL..
rie5IveNnAL
J
lot"
CA.
EXFII:RIT A