Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCoastal Element Amendment 86-1 - White Hole Area - Resolutio r Na`VAR�R0 CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 712 North Garfield Avenue,Alhambra,California 91801 N-19f 576-7800 818 May 31, 1986 IvE.Y�L.9iY-l�/�1Tt" /YULE S7Z Vy_ ,f CS X16 S7o 70-�- � OdPTEQ .9S Mr. Robert P. Man.dic, Mayor City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street AvE �X .trsio�v Huntington Beach, CA 92648 t Re: Huntington Beach Land Use Plan for the "'Jhite hole" area Dear I°1ayor I,Iandic , ,is one of the Owner' s of Huntington By The Sea Nobile Home Park, I am writing on behalf of the other park Owners and of their concern .for the Residents in our park. We would like to go on record as being categorically opposed to any plan to create a "wetlands" of the area to the ,Jest of our park with seawater by any means. This includes leaving the existing flap gates presently installed between that area and the flood control channel open, or by any other _plan that might include altering the flood control channel. During the storm that occured during the high tide in ilarcn of 1983, water from that area, caused by a breach' in the flood control levee, poured into and flooded our park. That afternoon as the water level rose in the park, the Huntington Beach Fire Department rescued many residents from their homes. A number of them by boat. Later that same day, the Officers in charge recognized that a potentially disastrous situation existed and rightly ordered. the park closed and evacuated. Many of our Residents suffered damages to their homes from that flooding. Several other mobile home parks in Huntington Beach experienced severe economic damages , as did the residential area Borth of Atlanta and mast of Beach Blvd. The fact that damages were not more extensive in our park was that our drainage pumps continued to operate throughout the night while the breached levees were being sandbagged by volunteers. vde will not address the question here as to whether that event was an "Act of God" or that the .flood control channel was not properly maint4k,yC-fl„ l F _r t May 31, 1986 - Mayor Plandic, page 2. We do maintain that if such an event were to recur, in part due to any plan implemented by any Council , Commission, or District , those persons who would suffer any economic damages or hardships would have no choice but to seek recourse against that governmental agency(ies) . Mayor Mandic , we would appreciate your making our concern and opposition known to your fellow Council Members. Sincerely Allen F. Van Schaick REQUES FOR CITY COUNCIPACTION /q®oR/W Dies, S-6-o/- 4y1*1 *01 Date June 2, 1986 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrators- James W. Palin, Director, Development Service Prepared by: o Subject: COASTAL ELEMENT AMENDMENT 86-1 • ,�'G 04 Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception P�1/ G o -� Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Coastal Element Amendment 86-1 is an amendment to designate land uses within the uncertified (white hole) area of the City between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River. Staff has prepared the White Hole Report which constitutes the background information for the amendment . RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission action on May 6, 1986 : A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECOND BY ROWE, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION #1357 - ALTERNATIVE 1 , AS AMENDED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter , Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO RECOMMEND ALTERNATIVE #3 OF THE HAMILTON EXTENSION TO THE CITY COUNCIL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell , Schumacher , Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Planning Commission recommends 5 acres of visitor serving commercial, 143 .5 acres of conservation and 83 acres of industrial energy production. .r PIO 4/84 / Staff recommendation is for 14 .5 acres of visitor serving commercial and 2 .0 acres of residential development with 115 acres of conservation, 83 acres of industrial energy production and 17 acres of conservation/ industrial energy production as depicted in the alternate resolution and map. Staff further recommends that Hamilton Avenue between Beach Boulevard and Newland Street be retained as shown on the adopted Circulation Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways . ANALYSIS: BACKGROUND• The City's Coastal Land Use Plan was certified in geographic part by the California Coastal Commission in April , 1982 . The Land Use Plan established land use designations and policies for development for that portion of the City within the Coastal Zone boundary. The land use designation proposed by the City for most of the property between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River south of the flood control channel and north of Pacific Coast Highway were not accepted by the Coastal Commission and were omitted from certification, creating a blank spot on the map, or a "white hole" . After developing the zoning ordinances for the remainder of the Local Coastal Plan and receiving Coastal Commission certification and return of the permitting function , the staff has turned their efforts to resolving the land use issues for the white hole area. During April of 1985, the City began discussions with the California Coastal Conservancy about how that agency might assist the City in developing a land use plan for the white hole . Conservancy staff attended a study session with the City Council and Planning Commission on March 18, 1985, at which time staff presented proposed planning objectives for the area. At their April 1, 1985 meeting the Council adopted these planning objectives as amended. These are attached for your information. Efforts continued by the Coastal Conservancy staff to develop a restoration program and development scenario for the white hole. They reported back to the City Council on their progress on September 3 , 1985 . At this study session, the Council directed staff to initiate the process by which to designate land uses in the white hole area . On this direction, staff began work on the white hole report. The draft white hole report was circulated for review by staff, affected agencies, property owners and interested citizens during February and March of 1986 . During late March staff held two meetings, one with the affected agencies and one with the property owners and interested citizens, to review the report and take comments . The comments have been summarized, and are attached for your information . RCA - 6/2/86 -2- (5237d ) During preparation of the draft white hole report and the staff recommendation, staff met regularly with the white hole committee appointed by the City Council . The committee members, Chairman Peter Green, Ruth Bailey, and Jack Kelly, reviewed the document prior to its release. On April 1 , 1986 , the Planning Commission held a study session with the City Council on the White Hole Report . Meeting notes from the study session are attached for your information. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 6, 1986 and approved Resolution No. 1357 (attached) recommending land use designations for the white hole area to the City Council for adoption . ISSUES: Three land use alternatives were studied in the White Hole Report . Alternative One had very little development and called for 124 acres of conservation. Alternative Two showed conservation on 78 acres and a moderate amount of development . Alternative Three proposed extensive development and restoration of 27 acres of conservation. The staff recommendation showed 16 .5 acres of development and 132 acres of conservation. 1 . Flooding - The area is within the 100 year flood zone. Flooding up to 11 feet above sea level could be expected in a 100 year event . Federal regulations require all habitable portions of structures to either be elevated 11 feet above sea level or be floodproofed. 2 . Biological - Considerable wetland habitat values exist on site . Coastal Act and other federal and state regulations require preservation of wetlands and prohibit fill for any uses not specifically allowed . 3 . Soils and Geology - Some peat deposits may exist within the area . The soil has a high propensity for liquefaction . Earthquake faults may traverse site. Geologic problems can generally be mitigated, but the cost may be high . 4 . Oil production - Ten capped wells within the area will have to be reabandoned to current standards at a minimum cost of $25, 000-$30 ,000 per well . An application for a new drillsite is presently before the City. 5 . Hamilton Avenue Extension - The completion of Hamilton from Newland to Beach Boulevard is vital to the City 's circulation plan for traffic flow and safety purposes . Since at least a portion of the extension will traverse the wetland, construction and mitigation costs will be high, if, indeed, a roadway can be permitted at all . b� RCA - 6/2/86 -3- (5237d ) i 6. Revenue Analysis - The alternatives with the highest development potential appear to produce the most revenue, but when costs are considered, the cost/benefit ratios show wetland restoration in a more favorable light . Lower intensity alternatives may also have revenue benefits from open space and property value enhancement that are hard to quantify. 7 . Public interest - The issues include the benefits of wetlands and open space as well as tax and economic base benefits . 8 . Equity for private landowners - Possible solutions include outright purchase, land swaps , transfer of development right programs or some development trade-offs for restoration. Additional issues not discussed in the report include: Public Trust Lands Staff obtained a map from the Coastal Commission depicting the area subject to the public trust . Within this area, the Coastal Commission will retain original permit jurisdiction. Consultation with the State Lands Commission staff indicates that only uses compatible with the public trust would be allowed in these areas . Such uses include recreational or environmental uses, as , for example, wetland restoration or nature trails . Transfer of Development Credits One suggestion for providing property owners with a return on their property was the suggestion for a transfer of development credits (TDC) program. A TDC program requires a receiver site, where the development credits can be used, as well as a plan for assigning development credits to the properties involved. Staff has worked out an illustrative TDC program to show how the concept operates . The attached map and narrative explain the program. Removal of Flood Control Levees A number of comments were received on the concept of removing the flood control levees for restoration purposes . Staff believes that restoration will be needed, and that this concept remains a viable one . However, more study is needed, especially a detailed biological study to determine how best to restore tidal flushing and recontour the land. More definitive measurement of the levees that might be removed indicates that approximately 14 .5 acres of new wetland could be created. In addition, the productivity of the existing wetland would be greatly increased . Staff is recommending that, in conjunction with the restoration , 9 .5 acres of development be placed along Beach Boulevard and 2 .0 acres at Magnolia and Pacific Coast Highway. .� RCA - 6/2/86 -4- ( 5237d ) Comments and Responses: Staff has prepared a summary of comments and the responses to these comments, which are also attached. In some cases, the comments represent an opinion and no staff response was made. The White Hole Report has been revised to incorporate comments received where appropriate. The revised report is attached. FUNDING SOURCE: None needed . ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1 . Adopt an alternative set of land use designations for the area. 2 . Do not adopt any land use designations for the area . In this case, there will be no Local Coastal Plan for the white hole areas . ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Resolutions 2 . Planning Objectives 3 . Summary of Meeting Comments 4 . Comments and Responses 5 . Letters received 6 . Planning Commission Minutes of May 6, 1986 7 . TDC Sample Program 8 . Revised White Hole Report �wr mare�=taNs� sN 6 rn�flied �o C�fy C/P�k WP:JAF:kla RCA - 6/2/86 -5- (5237d ) 4 A 1p O n'`%i:„�.. ��Y,��i}.��• O Qp J./ O.C.SANITATION DI OCpC TRRATM&NTPI.ANT QiK �`1`y)�,�' ♦ / � J.1'JJ >J'� /.t'J..f - . f )> Jy J y/,.J� y�jJ�l r'��%J D�2 AY7n �► J i .i- J J.J -> J vw - J/ }'2.7J:rJ ' �.N�i; O.C.F QD D2-I $ Wiz.s;. ' i, r•'/J JJ].+'<:� rySr.> ''- /.i��`�s k ' d J 3Jf J� J♦`Jy'hb.�l^J.♦ VISITOR SERVING COMMERCIAL EXHIBIT A t�suF CONSERVATION ® _.NONCERTIFIED INDUSRTIAL ENERGY PRODUCTION R COASTAL AREAS_ _HUNTINGTON BEACH C4 CQMA PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1 -TAFF RECOMMENDATION RESOLUTION NO. 500 " A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING COASTAL ELEMENT AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN NO. 86-1 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington B ach desires to update and refine the General Plan in keeping ith changing communi y needs and objectives; and A public hear\app option of Coastal Element mendment No. 86-1 to the Generas held by the Planning ommission on April 22, 1986, and for recommendation o the City Council; and Thereafter the City Council, after giv ng notice as prescribed by the Government Code, held least one public hearing to consider Coastal Element Amendment No. 86-1; and At said hearing before the City Council all persons desiring to be heard on said amendment wer eard, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RES VED b the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach pur uant to pr visions of the California Government Code, that Coas al Element Ame dment No. 86-1 consisting of the follow ng changes is here y adopted: Designate the 2 1.5 non-certified white ho e area for 14.5 acres of Visit r Serving Commercial, 2 acre of Medium High Density Resid tial, 83 acres of Industrial nergy Production, acres of Conservation/Industri 1 Energy Production a d 115.0 acres of Conservation as dicated in Exhibit A. Coastal E1 ment Amendment No. 86-1 will be presente to the California Coastal Commission as the Land Use Plan for the uncertified white hole area. 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on he day of 1986. Mayor ATTEST: APPRO D AS TO FORM: City Clerk ,�-Z _�� City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED City inistr to irectory o Deve opment Services 2 . Kp 0 •:: �!r �"y`� / C"DQD `� O.C.SANITATION TREATMENTPLANT .Jr)A�"'- ~l� fit' ✓fv/ -S r„' �r � i-i-..r r� ,.rt,�� O.C.F-C-D. D2-1 t'�-) 'i�;',\�Y .;--•,.".j/.-,�rt:::t:•,-�:li �S):r'ir7'-�s����i� Fh T'(+�_> I; f fit{: .;r�:'"?` �_!..s-�^•'� ,�•�,�r ,�f�i,Y't�f,�� 1 1 4r,. !� < {,`�i 3 <I� c { VISITOR COMMERCIAL EXHIBIT A •:•:•:•• MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL INDUSTRIAL ENERGY PRODUCTION ® NONCERTIFIED COASTAL AREAS CONSERVATION/IND, ENERGY PROD, HUNTINGTON BFACH C4LIFORMA PLANNING DEPARTMENT �: CONSERVATION ---HAMILTON AVENUE �� `dAuthorized to Publish Advertisements of rids including pubpublic notices by Decree of the Superior Coup, of Orange County. California. Number A-62z14, dated 29 September, 1961. and PUBLIC NOTICE'.' / A-24831, dated it June. 1963 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING �f COASTAL ELEMENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA AMENDMENT8*_1 _(White Hole Study) NOTICE IS HEREBY County of Orange Puot,c Noun •o•vtnmg co•trW GIVEN that the Huntington by INS &mowIt 12 W ,n r Pant Beach City Council will hold -In 10 PK•column-loth a public hearing In the Coun- c1l Chamber at the Hunt- Ington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Hunt- I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of Ington Beach,California,on the date and at the time In- and the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen co consider the s atemen ated below to rivts of years, and not a party to or interested in the below j all persons who wish a be heard relative to the ppll- entitted matter. I am a principal clerk of the Orange �catlon DATE:June 2, 986 TIMECoast DAILY PILOT, with which Is combined the SUBJE:30P. SUBJECT: Coastal Ele- ment Amendment No. 88 1 NEWS-PRESS, a newspaper of g �(White Hole Study) printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, IngtonLBe chT City of Hunt- LOCATION: Between County of Orange, State of California, and that a Beach Boulevard and the PUBLIC HEARING Santa Ana River, generally Notice of south of the flood control channel PROPOSAL: A public hearing to consider an amendment to the Coastal _-- Element of the General Plan of which copy attached hereto is a true and complete addressing the 231.5 acre White Hole area generally copy, was printed and published in the Costa Mesa, located on the Inland side of .Pacific Coast Highway be- Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, t e sa tach B ulevard and Irvine, the South Coast communities and Laguna Planning Commission rec- ommendation Is for 5.0 Beach issues of said newspaper for = one acres Visitor Serving Commerrcc ial,83 acres of In- dustrial Energy•Production consecutive weeks to wit the issue(s) of and 143.5 acres of Con- servation. The staff rec- ommendation Is for 14 acres of Visitor Serving Com- mercial,2 acres of Medium High Density Residential, 17 May 22 98 6 acres Of ve- tion/Industrial Energy rPro- duction, 83 acres of Indus- trial Energgy Production,0.5 1 98 acres of 011 Production and 115 acres of Conservation. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Exempt pursuant[ 1 98 to Section 15265 of the Cali- fornia Environmental Quality' Act Guidelines. ON FILE: A copy of they 198 proposed amendment Is on file In the Department of De- velopment Services. - Jeanine Frank,Senior Plan- i ner-(536-5271). 1 98 ALL INTERESTED PER- SONS are Invited to attend ;said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence [for or against the application I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the as outlined above.All appal- cations, exhibits, and de- foregoing is true and correct. scriptlons of this proposal [are on file with the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main 6 j Street, Huntington Beach, May 2 California,for Inspection by Executed on , 198 _ the public. HUNTINGTON BEACH sta Mesa, California. CITY COUNCIL, By: Allele M. Wentworth, City Clerk, Phone(714)536-5405 Published Orange Coast Daily Pilot May 22,1986 0 Signature Th939 r\ b PROOF OF PUBLICATION PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RESOLUTION NO. A A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING COASTAL •- ELEMENT AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN NO. 86-1 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach desires to update and refine the General Plan in keeping with changing community needs and objectives; and A public hearing on adoption of Coastal Element Amendment No. 86-1 to the General Plan was held by the Planning Commission on April 22, 1986, and approved for recommendation to the City Council; and Thereafter the City Council, after giving notice as prescribed by the Government Code, held at least one public hearing to consider Coastal Element Amendment No. 86-1; and At said hearing before the City Council all persons desiring to be heard on said amendment were heard, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach pursuant to provisions of the California Government Code, that Coastal Element Amendment No. 86-1 �� H consisting of the following changes is hereby adopted L�-� Designate the 231.5 acre non-certifi d whitR,shole area for `5� acres of Visitor Serving Commercial and .'5 acres of Conservation and 83 .0 acres of Industrial Energy Production as indicated in Exhibit A. Coastal Element Amendment No. 86-1 will be presented to the California Coastal Commission as the Land Use Plan for the uncertified white hole area. 1 . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 1986 . Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: /a, City Clerk City Attorney (� REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED City Administrator ODirectory of Development Services u r o 'r�^s"?' .•'•-•,:;rw-�•' / P r O.C.SANITATION �•:✓+�,"' �, �'.it�" �/ �J,�r`l -- �• �Cy TBEAIMffiItP1.ANf DT-1 ..,.'� ��S i)}J i.; '« y`,�J'J�}I+'�( SSYri �, �;Ii;.:.��J�J]�'J, ,:4 .✓ •GD. T � 1J. j Jjt 3J /y� .- .l J..�d.{'•. •1} J S� !J'IJl j �!�l. �.S%} wa�1y{1�.;� J�,,-,y,.-. j )J� 1 Jh. •/.r ♦��r'!�i 1r::�,�5�?'ui J" i-'ll �:�.i .�':. �)J S� �''' ��e./ Bill 111111 VISITOR SERVING COMMERCIAL EXHIBIT A CONSERVATION m NONCERTIFIED INDUSRTIAL ENERGY PRODUCTION I COASTAL AREAS HLNTNGTON BEACH CA FOR14A PUNNNG DEPNRTMEM HUNTINGTON BEACH WHITE HOLE AREA WETLANDS ASSESSMENT SUBMITTED TO CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BY JORDAN COVIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATE, SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY MAY 25, 1986 Huntington Beach "white hole" Area Wetlands Assessment This report is the result of a brief assessment of the restoration potential of the Huntington Beach white hole area wetlands. The assessment consisted of a site visit and review of the available literature regarding the resources of the wetlands. My expertise is in southern California coastal wetland plant community structure and function. My current research interests deal with factors that influence southern California salt marsh plant community dynamics in heavily disturbed as well as less disturbed systems. The white hole area wetlands were assessed in detail by Radovich (1982) . He provided wetland definitions from the USFWS wetland classification system (cf. Radovich 1982) . The California Coastal Commission Wetland Guuidlines (1961) also defines wetlands. By these difinitions, there is no doubt that the white hole area wetlands are indeed wetlands. Are they "viable" wetlands? The answer to this question depends upon how one defines viable. From my experience with southern California salt marshes, I have seen a range of systems from relatively natural to heavily disturbed. The wetlands located in separate areas that comprise the white hole area exhibit different amounts of disturbance. The areas between Magnolia and Brookherst, for example, are cut off from tidal action but seem to have less disturbance from filling and vehicles than does the Mills Land and Water Company land between Beach Blvd. and Newland. All of the areas between Brookherst and Beach Blvd. , however, show severe effects of long term elimination of tidal action. The degree of tidal influence is one factor that seems to be important in deternininq salt marsh plant community structure and function. Southern California salt marshes exhibit a range of plant communities that relate to the deqree of tidal action as they have been altered by man. In general, systems that are permanently open to tidal action support the greatest variety of plant species. If tidal influence is only periodic, some species are lost and permanent closure to tidal flushing often forms monotypes of pickleweed. Other factors, such as fresh water influence and filling, also influence salt marsh plant community structure and have contributed to the variety of plant associatons within the white hole area wetlands. Fresh water influence in the salt marshes is evident from the invasion of fresh and brackish marsh species near storm drains as well as invasion into the interior of the salt marsh. Because the white hole area salt marshes are cut off from tidal action, the impact of freshwater is likely continue to encourage fresh and brackish species. Filling and the lack of tidal influence has allowed upland speceis to expand into former marsh habitats. If tidal action is not restored in these areas the, plant communities will probably continue to become less and less like they used to be. Total elimination of tidal action has virtually eliminated aquatic soil organisms from the wetlands. Since the organisms that inhabit salt marsh sediments are aquatic, this is an expected result of no tidal action. While some fill and other activities have contributed to the degradation of the white hole area salt marshes, the most important factor has been the elimination of tidal action. Therefore I believe that resumption of tidal influence would restore the wetlands to more natural systems. There is no question that these wetlands can be restored. The resulting plant community structure in the wetlands will be dependent on the hydrology of the restored system and the elevations of the salt marshes. These data can easily be obtained by topographic and hydrologic studies that should be done prior to any restoration effort. I an aware that some of these data already exist. Nevertheless, plant distributions will undoubtedly be different following return of tidal action. From the elevations within the salt marshes one can predict what the relative amounts of the various habitats that will result. The hydrology can thus be managed to encourage the desired habitat types for endangered species. There is no reason to believe that resumption of tidal action will not encourage benthic organisms and the insect fauna from re-establishing along with the plant communities. Return of salt marsh insects and invertebrates will provide food for the Belding's Savannah sparrow which has been observed using the salt marshes, as well as other wetland-dependant animals and shore birds. In my opinion, the white hole area wetlands can be made "more valuable" to wildlife with relatively minor restoration effort most of which would consist of restoring tidal action. The salt marsh habitat in white hole area wetlands are regionally important because of the declining salt marsh habitat in southern California and the wildlife that is depentent upon them. Respectfuly submi ed, J dan Covin .Research Associate, San Diego state University MILLS LAND & OMPAN SINC 1901 w, C `1 � "3o—etrap (714)- -7898 . May 28, 1986 ' HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Robert P. Mandic, Mayor MAY 2 91986 City of Huntington Beach City Hall P.O. Box 190 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Huntington Beach Land Use Plan Coastal "White Hole" area Dear,Mavor Mandic: As you and your colleagues on City Council are aware, Mills Land & Water Company and other property owners in the City's coastal area have long questioned the validity of the so-called "wetlands " designation of lands which were cut off from tidal flow years ago. The Department of Fish & Game and others have chosen to ignore the significant changes which have taken place in this area in the last 40 years. We have repeatedly directed the attention of the City, Fish & Game, and the Coastal Commission to the events which have clearly and fundamentally transformed the historic marshland into an area devoid of the characteristics of a true "wetland" . If you will take a look at the letter which Dr. Richard J. Vogl submitted to the Coastal Commission in 1982 , you will see there are substantial shortcomings in the official "wetlands" mapping. A copy of Dr. Vogl 's letter is enclosed. You should also understand that any "wetlands" designation of the Mills and Caltrans parcels will effectively block any westerly extension of Hamilton Avenue to Beach Boulevard and into the Downtown Redevelopment Area. Your planning staff will confirm that major streets are not permitted in "wetlands" except under the most restrictive conditions. These conditions include extensive bridge construction and condemnation of private property for special right of way alignment. Under these circumstances , the cost of constructing such an extension will be . astronomical and may be prohibitive. The City' s Downtown- Redevelopment Area has been planned on .the basis of an extension of Hamilton Avenue to"' provide for an orderly and integrated - traffic circulation. This will be defeated if P(KT( rnrF RnY 710R Robert P. Mandic, Mayor May 28, 1986 - page two Hamilton is not extended, and the Redevelopment Area would be adversely impacted. If extended, Hamilton Avenue would provide a much-needed parallel route to congested Pacific Coast Highway. Fire Chief Ray Picard has stressed that an extension of Hamilton is essential to give the fire department improved access and response time to the downtown area from the station located at Hamilton and Magnolia Streets. The Chief has told the Huntington Beach Planning Commission that it will be critical to have this improved access as the Downtown Redevelopment takes place. The best interests of the City, its citizens, and the hundreds of thousands of visitors to the beach area will be realized if the land use adopted for the Mills and Caltrans parcels is visitor- serving commercial. The benefits of this are many and obvious. Among other things , the local tax base will be dynamically enhanced and the City will get the relief from traffic congestion in this area which it so badly needs and deserves. There will be equity and fairness to all citizens, including recognition of private property rights. A "wetlands" designation would effectively deny the family of Mills owners any use of their property, while they must continue to pay taxes on the land as they have faithfully done for over 80 years. If the City were to put our family and other property owners in this fix, it may be held to have taken the property by "inverse condemnation" . This could subject the City to multi-millions of dollars in liability. We urge you and your fellow City Council members to treat everyone -- including the City -- with fairness and in good faith in your consid- eration of the Land Use Plan for the future of this City's strategic coastal area. in rel y ROBERT ONDON MOORE, JR. cc: Huntington Beach City Council Members i/ Administrators CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY• LOS ANGELES =, =L 1 S AA M L,\i FvERSFFY DP\NE LOS 'LNG EELES.G-\U FO(ZN IA-_00322 :�e:;rt:ent of Holosj :a_iforr�a ;oastal _-o=iS6I= .+i . Huntington Huntington 3eaC _:;-,an,! Use :1a .uuliC ..?Ci.,..13 :Yot'.', Los Lngeles yea :v`=ission riemDerS: 1 = wr_tine� in relar:S to the '_inveV: io-pe: !an.-.s that ar.. 1CC t ??..' o: _e_-' . 171. a iC. _:1_3PQ of =acifio Coast .7i=niiay in the .,_ty of 3each, _ .__...,?.r_ t. 2 yarCE 1S O'.:P.SC by :Li11S ian:_ 3C1C stet .C. 2a.G r+3itr3n 1 3iiC.^,5' t»c reS': eG ''__^_. '_:ns'ulst ntiated conclusions of Jalilornia Fish and :i3-e iC: Cia and; :3 +S_ - rni3 Oc t .0 jS1CII staff fiat, Cij t.ese are33 are =mod 1y V-abl--' ar.d \2 j th.it they cat: be f'il_y r eS zfre: by 3i" '1y o en:_ng Culvert.. _n flood Control channel. _..ese ...ncevelo e': lands were oi1Ce a -art of 3 .4�al mrs, :_ 7i:__Cn e1CraC''i ?oSt Of `..B- re?"on. .',ut Wit:. tale encroaC:�e_ntJof . .aa-mace 1eveloU.^.P_.t=, -J --uiluin,_-, t.e of the :13t1aral ocean outlet 'e 194 the nnel Oi the .`.?n_t('_ Ana .liver, a.:._ :i e ccnst_uCt-= of flood c.^,._,._,:1 dr?_.. . :a=n7 e_S, is rS-l_._ d ceased to f'.mctien a.'.. bet-an to tLze o: uolard CP_ar.C.tes'_cs. ''.:e ri :5 .jam.--4d3._Cn occurred :di ..@ !ice:ati ._ of ._ _ai n5 f _:_ `e Sea a i :.o "_^io dic renewal f_ :: fresh-water floods. :n JSst 2J years, 1 h.-ive ob—_rved,as ail the a'.1Van cec, =_1.; oer'- 's, o: :.is e,r3da.i 'r.. :✓i e.ce _or :ri c�.clusi= a_re th.e _ i_. w-ng: 1. ) The sCiis are 7"e5?Iltly dead; the muds no lo- er ai_ ?"lt_. for myriads O: .' UG-dW iIIo- _?7V Jr t23 SL'CIl -3 �__CS s:__ ,., JC:._e-3lle_13, v3rnisn cla:_-s, ari �r3_'er cla=s ...at are e6se__,_u_ ..gUal vri:amic 2'.ncticning of we .l nd:J \e. :r^di.._n5 _i JOr: itj� an- S:;_i it:ina-7e .~al.11 ill,' _oi\ .: „Q s, '..e , ,^:'r,'�n , ..vr�.. e 1 ^•'on _e.. ., tides).. i yang a_ 33, former 1.. i.._.:i =1av= been �u,_ a_ntd de:.'reSsed b.YfM 'materials u:se-1 to Cuild _CGaS, porter _i±'_o3, and 1=vSeS i.� 'ave `een S' ear _ �i a as the _�'_c"al .3 :r ��r ro on, well with ..5._ ::i:e f concrete, an-d __Ibbish. --=ai_ ing of the ar'_'3 _3 in tra...,_.�... 3 _z=,er,lOW1'nJ type tc t" t cf y�St fr eC upland'. :..e a= 3 Li car_-.tom u'1'der5cinz rai:i_.f - 'es a: _S, '-ere:-re, '1i=fJcu_I to as-"e,_z, ec _ :�_Ca, ✓. ?le ra:_ininj _iclkleWee; is '.ieC_.ding w4 _i tie or . o si__-^_iS o_ J_ roar J:ow✓ ._ ani renei:31 1e',-:olte its _.-er l2t nt ilaL:re. :•i ch of :' ve_zeta:_on `,.as been bbeen .estrayed or diz3t_u"bed by of.-ro_:._ venicleS, f.1'as on bicycles, 'iu.::_ _S, p C 1e :.iru._n5dogs. As of 198J, 'I'­e area Su- ,, o. .- out of tale 21 plant o3Cies cr_ar ctLri.;tiC 7f Viable salt marStl _ystems. iiCk_:e- Weed 3s well as a nu.-�ber of other W-tlan:' plan---, aro ?ocr i._aicat.,rs cf ae an S O 0y ` eWselve3 sir Cd .:' ' i ten act aS r?neer J nv;':erS . of aan =ioturbed no n-.:etla _,3s in t:__ g,mer l vicinity tr:e °tietla::ca. �'::e go t active _�la^_t �-o rt a: prese^� e:`-ibite, by non-rat17e "u-1and ,.,e ell s. 3. he i_s::es a::.. ot::-r aquatic orga:._oms a._ Done. :lie ar=a now :3:. )COrts temLora--/ ..Cnds fnuter;> __ter rains -- wat --r3 t:;at rimy eV?..:C;r3 to 4- e3v'� e"-'__ e-:en la g rater-_��t i moo•./;arc Oi err S:-. . j .et1;Ad blr'i ai__7atiOri lc; 1eC_ini g aL _Don ':a_ve �ecl_::ed. .etla�� _ri _beds ar_. largely ab--unt. I sec: y.:_. ..ee1 ..Ourcez CO _:Cn t:, ___ __2_d3 __. u.rbel Jl�:�J 2.�. 1_^' -L "'^? neat wetland O1rd use is c t^o r23t_:ram ant: loafing- Os _re -...ce `J S, lawns, a::_. oarl.ing _C`s 1_^_ t:_ area) Wien neai b,; wetlands a. .,a--i_; e winter_'1�:- '..iris . True e ti ands, in ..contrast, are LsoL'ght— out 0,y birds 7ri..:....__iy for f eeQ1R= The 3ela:-'3 Savar-.ah sp.ar:%;w may n:) 1C^r t:e ,)resent. habltaa: _cr .:t cia.i=er rail is ne. Therg iS fCC d f3r t*: teams tern. i5 .a reE .lt of t: ".e aCC ul.^_t_ve e:,eCtS t::eS.. nc�'_tiVe 17Q3ct.-, zi-e a-•,'a is ^� ao 1::8 esSCRt13i funCtlOns of a vlacle Coa3t21 sa t-mars ecos;j'St=m ,_ ent_y vo1_ o_ _ , - �r�t for=eriy existed t:ler,�. The biotic an:i .rysical fHatures tat ccar?eteri..a wetlands art, elthdr lackin?, are indicative Of former wetlands and not :resent cO^.':i 4—; is� or :.ave been m151Rter^reted � i-neS;erienced o oservers Or _::O:;e who .Lave f ailed `.o ca_refully exa ine the =r a. i:03t UiOlOg13'S seem to a roe :'_mat n4 my ho')e .or ever. a _.ar+la' =3C 1'11c Oi a wetland is to restore tidal f_us:.1R57. 7-he pro-er .day to ac.leve t.._S is itcn a he s a t t_._on_ ___:Ct 0::2_^ � t0 t H � t."1Pre^,�� �S:L1�1..1n? :at„_ cu2ity, _0 0::�-.._ _..:_C ':�, 3i13 Or;a::lsm' reC:lO 1lZatlOri. Utilizing Culvert o ienings in tale :anti n�tC._ :3each i:rari�e �,OLL*lty :"Iood Control. Ch-aP:riel a:Gears to be an Oovious and i + .ram`,., .-o ce =b0, tl: al i_us.?lnc��. J1a :L'.s alternative doB3 n0' a' _ tO +.3 1_^: 1' t� OL L^? =�C''.ri` o_OOS_ on OI :.c �r3:�e .L,Jr y �S:v_rCRGen a_ .'ar_a_e I .. w r� ?_rit1.deed. i_aVadditio n, e' xi neeri n­ alai le-al )roGlc'.Ir's must be �`i3ltlat2 bef such a_:l alternative canbe COn sit?re: t0 be _easibie. Eve-1 if the an. P_eeri ng �RO teCnr_cai )roblems are Overcome ar: re3i ?'11 �OteRtlai ".1St2r 1� '3�" t� 3=i'=C'^% :Ct .reS are eli:i^ated, the problems of �)cor :dater ,uaiity, silt=_t_OP:, a_u even tOr�C :C1_iS adsociated '.Jith i1o0i charunel3 still remain 3s biological threats. I auestion the -cra;:ent evaiurtiot:s of this area and .do not find t.:E m acceptable because t ney appear to be unrealistic =.. ar.'. :lot baci:ed by ?..OV up-to-date and CoyJrehensive biological and engineering studies. Sincerely, Dr. Richard J. 'logl Professor of 3iol:)K7 a � ,• Bitter water Lake Properties 611 Anton Boulevard -� Ninth Floor �= 4 ' Costa Mesa, California 92626 May 23 , 1986 OPPOSITION OF BITTER WATER LAKE PROPERTIES , HOLDER OF PROPERTY INTEREST, TO PROPOSED ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-1 BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF HUNTINGTON BEACH , PURSUANT TO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1357 CITY .COUNCIL MEETING : June 2 , 1986 7 : 00 P.M. TO: The Members of the City Council c/o City Clerk 2000 Main Huntington Beach , California 92648 Dear Council Members : Bitter Water Lake Properties ("BWLP" ) , a partnership, has made a very substantial investment in, and holds an option on, approximately 67 acres of property north of Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River . This land , which is owned by Daisy Piccirelli , is part of the "white hole" area along Beach Boulevard. BWLP will be severely and adversely affected by the proposed adoption of General Plan Amendment 86-1 in the form recommended by the Planning Commission. The proposed amendment is premised on the mistaken assertion by the Department of Fish and Game that, the property within the "white hole" is wetlands or can be restored to wetlands. This is simply wrong . Contrary to the unfounded conclusions of the Depart- ment of Fish and Game, this property is not "wetlands, " nor can it readily or economically be restored to wetlands. See , e .g. , letter of Ronald J. DeFelice to Ms. Jeannine Frank, City of Huntington Beach, Department of Development Services , dated March 27, 1986, attached hereto; letter of Dr . Richard J. Vogl, Professor of Biology, California State University, Los Angeles , dated November 16, 1982, attached hereto. The Members of the City Council May 23 , 1986 Page 2 The property is not a scenic marsh likely to attract tourists or wildlife enthusiasts. It is unsightly and run down. Designating the area as "conservation" will not improve it. BWLP would like to develop the property subject to our option for residential use in a high quality manner , ful- filling a need for housing , and recognizing community needs. We would include affordable housing in any development. This is important to the interests of your constituents , the citi- zens of Huntington Beach. Our approach would be highly bene- ficial to the City' s tax base , would result in more jobs and more housing , and would enable this property to become a scenic community landmark rather than a useless, local eye- sore. The fact that certain State agencies have declared the property to be "wetlands" is irrelevant to your decision as to whether and how it can be developed. We submit that the Citv cannot substitute the policies of the Coastal Commission, the Department of Fish and Game , or other State agencies for its own judgment. These other agencies ' pronouncements and opinions are not binding on the City and do not relieve the City Council of the obligation to arrive at an appropriate land-use plan for this property, consistent with its legal obligations to the property owners. The proper land use for this property is high density residential. We have tried to 'briefly acquaint you with our opposition to an extraordinarily inequitable and unfounded proposed amendment to the General Plan. We hope you will listen and reject the proposed amendment. We thank you for vour attention to this matter . Yours very truly, g Martin S . Schwartz For Bitter Water Lake Properties MSS: 355-196 Enclosures j "Al or r United States Department of the Interior O `"' A FISH AND WQ.DLE E SERVICE LAGUNA NIGUEL FIELD OFFICE 24000 Avila Road Laguna Niguel , California 92656 28 May 1986 Jeanine Frank, Senior Planner Department of Development Services P.O. Box 190 , 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach , CA 92648 Re : Huntington Beach Coastal Wetland Areas Dear Ms. Frank : The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) had commented on the City's draft "white hole" document by letter dated 18 March 1986. Since that time, we have had very little communication with you but we have learned that the City staff has prepared written responses to our comments, and to others who responded to the draft. We hereby request a copy of the City' s reply to comments on the draft and request that we be supplied any other pertinent public documents, as they are prepared or considered. In our earlier letter , we mentioned the need for a thorough census of the State listed, endangered Beldings' s savannah sparrow, Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi, which breeds at the Huntington Beach wetlands. Fortunately, funding was provided to the FWS by the U.S. Navy, to conduct a Southern California census. The count of Belding's savannah sparrow pairs nesting in the wetlands between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River has been completed. The complete census results will be published later this year , but our findings at Huntington Beach seem important to your considerations, pursuant to the California Coastal Act, regarding land use designations in the area. A total of 71 pairs of Beldings's savannah sparrows are breeding in the wetland parcels between Beach Blvd. and the Santa Ana River in 1986. Nearly half of these (30 pairs) are located in the westerly portion of the parcel between Brookhurst and Magnolia. Another third of the total (24 pairs ) are breeding in the parcel beside Newland and north of the Huntington Beach Flood Control Channel. Eighteen percent of them (13 pairs) are nesting in the parcel between Magnolia and the Edison power plant. Another four pairs are breeding at the southerly end of the parcel adjacent to the east side of Beach Blvd. No pairs of Belding' s savannah sparrows were found to be using the parcel between Brookhurst and the Santa Ana River . Pending completion of the census at other local sites, we surmise that the number of breeding pairs of Belding's savannah sparrows using the Huntington Beach wetlands would constitute between 12 and 15 percent of the total breeding pairs in Orange County. We consider this to be a significant breeding concentration, particularly on the Newland parcel and the Brookhurst to power plant parcels. Destruction or adverse modification of the pickleweed-dominated wetland character of these parcels would be strongly opposed by the FWS in any regulatory scenario, pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. Therefore, in the interest of avoiding significant harm to the endangered Belding's savannah sparrow, we strongly urge the City of Huntington Beach to avoid approving or designating land uses which would cause these parcels to be adversely changed. We also recommend that serious efforts be encouraged to purchase or dedicate these parcels, primarily for their value to breeding Belding's savannah sparrow. As contact with the FWS is appropriate on this matter , Mr. Jack Fancher remains our representative and may be reached at (714) 643-4270 . Sincerely yours, Nancy M. Kaufman Project Leader cc : CDFG, Reg 5 , Long Beach CCC, Long Beach CCConsv, Oakland 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 7, P.O. BOX 2304, LOS ANGELES 90051 HUNTINGTON BEAC;1 DEVELOPMENT SERVI;-.< M1?Y May 29 , 1986 7-ORA-21 . 6 ,;,,., t'J0 Piccirelli , MIlls Land and Huntington Beach, Ui Water , and Coastal Conservancy Ms . Jeanine Frank, Senior Planner Department of Development Services 2000 Main St . City of Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re : White Hole Report Dear Ms . Frank: The State of California , Department of Transportation owns a considerable amount of acreage in the area covered by the White Hole Report . The Excess Land Sales Section has studied your report and discussed the findings with our Environmental Planning Branch. Based on the current status of the wetland description for the .property it appears that land use Alternative #1 , with a modi- fication of increasing the visitor commercial area to ten to twelve acres ( 10-12 Ac . ) would best serve the conservation needs of the State and the interests of the California taxpayers . Sincerely, , PILLIPVN. BRIERLY Excess Lands Sales Agent (213 ) 620-3757 PNB:ch cc : Harry Kagan Dave Simmes , Legal Ron Kosinski Reed Holderman, Coastal Conservancy A °h COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS 0 . OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA a P.O. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92728-8127 10844 ELLIS, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708-7018 j R'?4GE CO (714) 962-241 1 1 1 / May 27, 1986 HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES City of Huntington Beach MAY 2 91986 Department of Development Services P.O. Box 190 60X DO Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntintun Beach, CA 92643 Subject: Preliminary Draft, Non-Certified Coastal Areas Analysis of Land Use Alternatives for the White Hole Area The Districts ' staff has reviewed the draft document regarding potential land use alternatives for White Hole areas. Please be advised that the proposed improvements mentioned on Page 14, Section 2.2 are of concern. The 17 acres of property located between Brookhurst Street and the Santa Ana River presently owned by CAL Trans are impacted by the Sanitation Districts' two ocean outfalls. Presently, more than 240 million gallons a day of sewage is discharged through the larger outfall 5 miles out to sea in the pacific ocean. The smaller 78-inch outfall is not in use at the present time but is listed as an emergency dis- charge point in the Districts' contingency plans. Any work in that area will need careful coordination between your staff and the Districts' staff. We would like to suggest that it might be advisable during your talks with the California Coastal Conservency, the property owners, Flood Control District, Coastal Commission and Corp of Engineers for the Districts ' staff to meet with you on at least one occasion to outline for you the location of these facilities and the potential difficulties that could occur should any construction or restoration activities take place in that immediate vicinity. Secondly, we have noted the pending Pacific Coast Highway widening mentioned on Page 43, Section 7.0. The Districts do not have concern with the widening but do recommend that during design, plans of our outfall be obtained for location purposes. �orebti ��lsl ' Thomas M. Dawes Director of Engineering TMD:HJB:lb J HUNTINGTON BEACH CHAMBER of COMMERCE • SEACLIFF VILLAGE, 2213 MAIN, # 32 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 • TELEPHONE (714) 536-8888 1986-1987 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE May 30, 1986 President LARRY WASHA The Eroadway Vice President CHRIS N.CLAWSON Mr. Robert Mandic, Mayor McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Members of City Council PresidentVice KLAUSGOEDECKE City of Huntington Beach KLAUS Automobile Club of Southern California 2000 Main Street Vice President Huntington Beach, CA 92648 STEVE HOLDEN South Shores Insurance Agency Vice President Dear Mayor Mandic: ROGER WORK Huntington Beach Company Chief Financial Officer Our Board, at their May 23 meeting, reviewed the action taken by the ERIKLUN Certified Puublicblic Accountant Planning Commission on May 20, in reference to the Land Use Alternatives Accountant Executive Vice President for the White Hole Areas. JOYCE RIDDELL Past President The Board expressed deep concern over the Planning Commission's support SPENCER C.SHELDON Sheldon Consulting Services of Alternative i which takes private property from land owners and BOARD OF DIRECTORS designates it as an environmental preserve. We strongly believe that ARrA.VILES.JR. property owners should have the right to receive an economic return Art Aviles&Associates on their investment. Therefore, we recommend that Council not approve JEROME M.AttorneyAtaw the Planning Commission's recommendation and allow the parties involved BARRYBUSSIERE to get together and develop a compromise plan. In addition, the ERA Star Rea!Estate Center property involved is adjacent to our redevelopment area and will play BILL COMPTON Southern California Edison Co. a vital role in traffic circulation and commercial development which ROBERT DAVIS will enhance the overall downtown plan. Alternative 1 also takes Roden D.Davis Consultants land, owned by Southern California Edison Company, previously designated DALE L.DUNN Industrial Energy Production and places it in an environmental preserve. Huntington Savings&Loan JOHN FARIS Southern California Gas Co. Our Board has not had the opportunity to review the 91 page document MICHAELGINSBERG and would be willing to meet with City staff to analyze alternatives Computerized Property Services 2 and 3 and provide our input. In order to do this, we would also JERRY jBank need the necessary time for deliberation. The first opportunity Tokai Bank y P P y PHILIP S.INGLEE for this item to be reviewed and acted upon would be at our June 26 Lberty National Bank meeting. IVAN KATZ Business to Business Magazine ART LETTS Thank you. Dove Security Specialists ROXANNENICKEL-O'MALLEY Sincerely, Fabric Protection Inc. DON PANKHARO Donald M.Pankhard,C.LU. G2, ��u BROOKE PLUNKETT Plunkett Insurance Larry Wa a FRANK RICHMOND Francois' President HOWARD SHUPE LW:kb Weiser Lock ROBERT TERRY cc: Charles Thompson, City Administrator Terry Buick sTAuick YK Tom Livengood, Chairman, Planning Commission TKARainbow Disposal Co. Jim Palin, Director, Dept. of Development Services CAROLS ANN WALL President•Wornen's Division ROBERT ZINNGRABE 1.1—(:n -tinn V� arb Southern California Edison Compan g 7333 BOLSA AVENUE WESTMINSTER,CALIFORNIA 92683 ^OV'" May 28 , 1986 V M. D. MARTIN TELEPHONE MANAGER, HUNTINGTON BEACH (714)895-0255 Mayor Bob Mandic City of Huntington Beach Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, Calif. 92646 SUBJECT: Coastal Element Amendment No. 86-1 (White Hole Study) During the last several years we have been an active participant in the review and planning process of the Coastal Element of the General Plan which impacts 14 acres of Southern California Edison property. As a major land owner of property within the White Hole Study area, we respectfully request the city council consider the following before acting on Coastal Element Amendment No . 86-1 . We request the 14 acres of undeveloped Southern California Edison property be designated industrial energy production which is consistent with the original classification noted by the Coastal Commission. This land use designation will allow us to continue to utilize the property as an integral part of the existing generating plant and provide a site for any future energy uses we may have. This property in its present state provides us with an excellent buffer zone to surrounding properties . We would sincerely appreciate the city council ' s support of our land use recommendation of industrial energy production for our 14 acres in the White Hole area. I am prepared to discuss our request and will be present at your public hearing on Monday, June 2, 1986 to respond to any questions . Sincerely, MDM:ct cc: City Council Members City Administrator - Charles Thompson Community Services Director - Jim Palin AGENCY MEETING MAJOR COMMENTS 3/19/86 ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT - 1 . Actual right of way will be widened. 2 . New perimeter berms would probably take as much or more than existing berms. 3 . If additional developable area is made available, County would want compensation. U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE - 1 . Look at other alternative alignments of Hamilton farther to the north, traversing wetland next to the Breakers . 2 . Construction of roadway on piles is destructive to wetland . 3 . Preservation of existing wetland may be superior to restoring wetland for Beldings Savannah Sparrow habitat. More study needed. 4 . Two acre parcel at Santa Ana River cannot be made into wetland because sewer outfall traverses the area. 5. The 1 . 2 acre piece at Magnolia and the flood control channel is not restorable, therefore no credit can be given for it . CALTRANS - 1 . There are mud dwelling animals present on site . 2. Should have economic analysis of commercial and sport value of wetlands . 3 . Additional legislation and regulations should be cited. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME - 1 . Non wetland environmentally sensitive habitat areas also need analysis . 2 . Need more justification for Hamilton extension. 3 . Provide arguments why there is no other site for power plant expansion . Expansion should also require mitigation . . �h ( 4558d) COASTAL COMMISSION - 1 . Coastal Commission looks favorably on approaches such as this . 2 . Restoration plan is needed . Uses not permitted may be part of a restoration plan . 3 . Don' t isolate one piece of wetland with Hamilton extension - could swing it farther north . Roads not permitted in wetlands . 4 . Would challenge the validity of proposed acreage . 5 . There are better alternatives for drill site location . 6 . Discuss land use alternatives and recommendations in light of Section 30233 of the Coastal Act , including the three tests : permitted use, feasible alternative location, mitigation measures . 7 . Options for consolidation of developable pieces are limited because there has not been a determination of "severly degraded . " GENERAL - 1 . Are there pieces of land outside the white hole area that could serve as receiver sites for transfer of development rights? 2 . Acre for acre restoration for development will not be acceptable . Two to one, three to one, four to one or greater ratios will be required . 3 . There should be a net gain in wetland . Any fill must be necessary in the public interest , and the least damaging alternative. ( 4558d ) PROPERTY OWNERS MEETING - MAJOR COMMENTS 3/24/86 BILL COMPTON - EDISON - 1 . Edison is primarily concerned about preserving their option to expand their facility. RON DEFELICE - BITTER WATER LAKE PROPERTIES - 1 . A convenience market and gas station are not feasible uses . 2. Flooding wetlands would wipe out endangered species . 3 . State cannot flood property it doesn 't own . 4 . Alternative 2 would be a reasonable development scenario and provide funds for restoration. 5. Where will funding for restoration come from? 6 . Problems with transfer of development rights . GREGORY HILE - ATTORNEY FOR CABRILLO MOBILE HOME PARK - 1 . Cabrillo homeowners are concerned about whether any other uses are planned for their site. PHILLIP BRIERLY - CALTRANS EXCESS LAND SALES - 1 . Caltrans is interested in selling excess property and getting it back on the tax rolls . BILL CURTIS - OIL PRODUCER - 1 . Fault lines are not as depicted. 2. Daisy Picirelli claims the wetland is caused by the failure to line the flood control channels with concrete, and by digging out topsoil to create the channel berms . DON TROY - FRIEND OF DAISY PICIRELLI - 1 . Concerned about equitable compensation for Daisy 's land . 2 . Oil production should be allowed there . GARY GORMAN - FRIENDS OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH WETLANDS - 1 . Area has always been a wetland. 2. Coastal Act mandates preserving wetlands . ( 4558d) 3. Concerned about ratio of restoration to development . 4. Curtis should slant drill from off site . 5 . Staff 's recommendation would fill good wetland areas . 6. Landowners have had reasonable offers for their property. ROBERT MOORE - MILLS LAND AND WATER COMPANY - 1 . Fish and Game mapping isn 't accurate . 2. Pickleweed will grow anywhere. 3 . Must take into account surrounding development . 4 . Best interest of the City and its citizens is not in wetland designation. 5 . Mitigation for development can be carried out at the Seal Beach Weapons Station. VIC LEIPZIG - AMIGOS DE BOLSA CHICA - 1 . Area is a wetland and should be preserved . 2. Pickleweed is a good indicator of salt water marsh . DICK HARLOW - BITTER WATER LAKE PROPERTIES - 1 . Alternative 2 is reasonable, staff recommendation is not . ( 4558d ) REPORT COMMENTS Amigos de Bolsa Chica - Vic Leipzig 1 . Area is wetland and should be preserved . No Response. Bitter Water Lake Properties - Ron DeFelice 1 . Flooding wetlands would wipe out endangered species . Response• A beneficial restoration plan will provide adequate pickleweed habitat for Belding 's Savannah Sparrow and also provide tidal flushing to prevent further wetland degradation . 2. State cannot flood property it doesn ' t own . Response: An agreement between the state and property owners must be reached before the property can be flooded . 3. The white hole property is unsightly; it provides very little sustenance to wildlife or plantlife . Response• Biologists for Mills Land and Water , Caltrans , Orange Councty Flood Control District and the Department of Fish and Game all agree that the white hole area provides significant habitat values in its present condition. 4 . The degraded condition of the property, the very thing that makes the area unsightly and unappealing and cries out for "restoration ", is what makes the existence of the Salicornia and the Belding 's Savannah Sparrow possible . Response: Pickleweed is essential to the existence of the Belding's Savannah Sparrow. However , other endangered species , such as the light-footed clapper rail , require vegetation which could be introduced into a restored marsh . 5 . A convenience market and gas station are not feasible uses . Response: In t e staff alternative a convenience market and gas station were proposed for the site at Magnolia and PCH as it was felt that this type of land use could be compatible with an oil production site and also allow the property owner some development on the property. Oil Producer - Bill Curtis 1 . Daisy Picirelli claims the wetland is caused by the failure to line the flood control channels with concrete , and by digging out topsoil to create the channel berms . No Response . 2. Fault lines are not as depicted . Response: Soils and Geology, Section 4 . 0 , was expanded to include discussion of the Aldrich Fault and an discussion of the suspected extended South Branch of the Newport Inglewood Fault . Friends of the Huntington Beach Wetlands - Gary Gorman 1 . Area has always been a wetland . No response . 2. Coastal Act mandates preserving wetlands . Response: Sect-ion 30232 of the Coastal Act mandates the wetlands be preserved, and if possible , restored . 3 . Staff 's recommendation would fill good wetland . Response: No response . 4 . Contrary to the statements on page 60 , biologists have indicated that the area between Beach Blvd . and Newland can be restored as easily as the parcel next to the Santa Ana River . Response: Restoration of tidel action would be most easily accomplished closest to the ocean entrance of the channel . 5 . The 1 . 2 acre city-owned parcel at Magnolia and Banning is unacceptable for restoration . Response- A detailed restoration analysis is needed to determine which areas are best suited for restoration and which for upland habitat . 6 . Removing the wetland side of the flood control levees to restore wetland is an excellent approach . No Response . ( 4758d ) -2- CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 1 . Non-wetland environmentally sensitive habitat areas also need analysis . Response: As stated on Pale 22, DF6 has determined that there are 12. 7 acres of historic upland which lie adjacent to the wetland . 8 . 7 acres are classified as environmentally sensitive, and constitute approximately 35% of all remaining coastal dune habitat in northern Orange County (DF6 1982 ) . CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS) Department of Transportation 1 . On Page 12, Line 18 , the statement that Dr . Richard Vogl , Professor of Biology, CSULA, disagrees with the feasibility of restoration of the Mills Land and Water Company property property is incorrect . He feels that it is feasible and beneficial . Response: This statement is not found on Page 12, Line 18 . Dr . Vogl states the following in a letter to the Coastal Commission dated November 16 , 1982 : "Most biologists seem to agree that the only hope for even a partial facsimile of a wetland is to restore tidal flushing . The proper way to achieve this is with a direct opening to the sea , thereby maximizing water quality, potential functioning, and organism recolonization . Utilizing culvert openings in the Huntington Beach Orange County Flood Control Channel appears to be an obvious and simple alternative to bring about tidal flushing . But this alternative does not appear to be acceptable in light of the recent opposition of the Orange County Environmental Management Agency in word and deed . In addition, engineering and legal problems must be examined and evaluated before such an alternative can be considered to be feasible . Even if the engineering and technical problems are overcome and real and potential water damage to adjacent structures are eliminated, the problems of poor water quality, siltation , and even toxic spills associated with flood channels still remain as biological threats . " (4758d) -3- Mr . Soule states the following on Page 33 of the Soule Report: "The findings presented herein cast doubt on the viability or functional usefulness of the study parcels now as salt marsh habitat . There is certainly a question as to whether restoration or enhancement of true salt marsh status is feasible from a practical standpoint or if the benefits can be justified . A thorough feasibility study and a proper environmental impact report would provide much of the information needed so that planning decisions could be based on fact . As discussed on Page 23, Line 17 , of the White Hole Report , the Soule Report states that the feasibility of restoration of the Mills property is questionable . Dr . Vogl stated that restoration is beneficial but a feasibility study is needed . 2. Discussion of pickleweed in Section 3 should indicate that much of the pickleweed is annual and will , therefore, appear to be in bad condition . Response- The dominant pickleweed species , Salicornia Virginica is a perennial plant . It is widely found in the study area . Although it grows all year long, growth shows in the winter months and the plants turn a reddish color . Annual pickleweed, Salicornia Bigelovii is only found in poorly drained , sparsely covered areas . According to the DF6 Wetlands Determination, Page 81 , this species is not found in the Huntington Beach wetlands . Clarification from Dr . Vogl is needed to determine why the pickleweed appeared to be dead in 1980 . 3. There are mud dwelling animals present on site . No response . 4. In addition, the sewage outfall lines are under the parcel , making it extremely difficult to develop. See comment #3 by the California State Coastal Conservancy. 5 . The document ignores Federal Legislation for the protection of wetlands . ( 4758d ) -4- 6. The economic analysis ignores the commercial and sports value of the food chain and dependent fauna of wetlands . It is difficult to make an accurate estimate of the financial contribution of wetlands to the community. But the productivity mentioned in the document (Page 23 - 3. 2 Restoration ) hints at the value in ecological terms . The contribution of wetlands has been well documented and a proper financial analysis is not impossible . "A National Survey by the Interior Department has revealed that 1 of every 2 American adults took part in some form of outdoor activity involving Fish and Wildlife in 1980 . Nearly 100 million people spent $40 billion on Wildlife hobbies . " Response: Additional , yet not easily quantifiable public benefits are discussed in Section 8 . 3 of the Fiscal Analysis . In response to the above comment and, after a phone conversation (April 18 , 1986 ) with Mr . Gonzales , a statement was added to Section 8 . 3 regarding potential benefits to aquatic animal reproduction and also sport fishing if some of the wetland areas were once again subject to tidal flow . Mr . Gonzales also agreed to research financial analyses that have been prepared on Wetland contributions and provide the City with documentation of quantifiable wetland fiscal benefits . CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 1 . Restoration plan is needed . Uses not permitted may be part of a restoration plan. Response: After land uses in the area are determined, a restoration plan will be developed . CALIFORNIA STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY 1 . On Page 23, the report should reference additional reports that document wetland values in the white hole . Response• The following paragraphs will be added to Section 3 . 0 of the report: ( 4758d ) -5- 3. 1 .1 Wetland Preservation: A literature search was performed by staff and the California Coastal Conservancy . There is general agreement among all the sources that wetland-related species are found throughout the area, and that some wetland values do exist . However , there remains a question of precisely where the wetlands are viable to preserve or restore versus where the wetlands are too badly degraded to be feasibly restored . The Department of Fish and Game Wetlands Determination and An Ecological Study of Certain Properties . Owned by Mills Land an Water Company and the State of California in the city of Hun ing on Beach, by Scott Soule and Associates , were analyzed . 3 . 1 . 4 Other Studies : Appendix lists other studies which were undertaken in the area . Since they generally agree with the DFG determination , they need not be discussed in detail until more specific restoration plans are developed . 2 . Ordinarily, consolidation has been approved by the Coastal Commission only where the wetlands in question are severely degraded and cannot be restored without consolidation . The Huntington Beac wetlands are not severely degraded , thus this policy cannot be applied . No response . 3. The 2 acres located adjacent the Santa Ana River mouth have been designated as non-restorable by the Department of Fish and Game and are transected by the sewage outfull pipes , making restoration impossible . According to Tom Dawes , Deputy Chief Engineer , Orange County Sanitation District , excavation around the pipeline can be accomplished, although the pipe itself should remain covered . 4 . It may be preferable to leave the berms intact and provide tidal access by installing culverts with control structures in the berms . Response: Installing culverts would provide more controlled, although less extensive , tidal flushing . However , it may not be possible to totally drain the area at low tide . Complete hydrological studies are needed to determine the most effective restoration method . 5 . On page 50, costs should be discussed in the fiscal analysis . Response: ( 4758d ) -6- Costs have been included in the revised fiscal analysis and its supporting data in Appendix A. 6 . The chart on page 53 showing wetland use was prepared by the Coastal Conservancy, not the Nature Conservancy. Response: The reference to the source of Table 8 . 4 has been corrected to Coastal Conservancy in the revised fiscal analysis . CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH - ROBERT FRANZ , CHIEF OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1 . Delete sales tax on hotel room rate revenue from fiscal analysis . Response: The correction has been made and is reflected in the revised fiscal analysis . 2. Include property tax paid by utility companies and delete statement on page 46 that they don 't pay property tax . Response: The corrections have been made and are reflected in the revised fiscal analysis . 3 . Change the term "royalties " to "barrel tax" throughout text . ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 1 . New perimeter berms would probably take as much or more than existing berms . Response• A detailed restoration plan will be prepared at a later date . The size of the perimeter berm will depend on the method of restoration . 2. Actual right-of-way will be widened . Response: The Orange County Flood Control District has indicated that in most areas , the Talbert Valley Channel Project improvements will be constructed within the existing right-of-way. The section of channel D2-1 between Brookhurst Street and the Santa Ana River , however , will require some additional right-of-way. This need for additional right-of-way should be cited in paragraph 2 on page 14 . ( 4758d) -7- 3 . New perimeter berms would probably take as much or more land as the existing channel levees. Response: No comment . 4. If additional developable area is made available, the County would want compensation. Response: No o comment . SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON - BILL COMPTON LETTER OF 4-14-86 1 . The draft also contains the following incorrect statements : Pg. 47, Paragraph C. Energy Production : "Property tax is not paid by a public utility" . Pg. 48, Paragraph F. Industrial Energy Production " . . .as public utility land, it would not generate any propety tax" . Pg. 49, Paragraph F. Industrial/Energy Production " . . .exempt from property tax" . These are not true statements, as we pay taxes like any other roperty owner. The amount of property tax for this acreage is 7, 287 .05 which has an assessed value of t670, 000. Response: All of the above errors were identified and corrected in the revised fiscal analysis. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 1 . "Vie suggest that the fiscal consideration include an evaluation of the public costs of the proposed land use scenarios, in addition to the tax benefits occurring to the City. . . " Response: The revised fiscal analysis contains a cost evaluation section. (4758d) -8- U. S. FISH AND WILDLir'E SEPVICE 1 . Expand the Area. Description and History on page 2 to include a summary of the biological character of the parcels, the Federal Regulatory involvement through Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the fish and wildlife values attributed to them by the FWS and the California Department of Fish and Game. Response: The following will be added to page 2, paragraph 1 : " . . .some wetland values exist within the area. A full discussion of the biological character of the area and fish and wildlife values attributed to them is included in Section 3 .0 of this report" . 2. Preservation of existing wetland may be superior to restoring wetland for Belding ' s Savannah Sparrow habitat. More study is needed. Response : An intensive biological study of each parcel is needed to determine the best possible restoration method for the area . The most beneficial restoration plan will provide adequate pickleweed habitat to support the population of. Belding ' s Savannah Sparrow. 3 . The 1 .2 acre piece at Magnolia and the flood control is not restorable, therefore, no credit can be given for it . Response: According to the DFG determination on page 21 , the area is restorable. 4. Look at other alternative alignments of Hamilton Avenue farther to the north, traversing wetland next to the Breakers . Response: The City' s analysis of the Hamilton Avenue extension has featured two alternatives; 1) a straight connection on piles just south of the tank farm, and 2 ) a slightly northward connection on fill through the tank farm. Fish and Wildlife ' s suggestion for a third, more northward, alternative is possible by acquiring the northern half of the tank farm rather than the southern half as proposed by alternative two above. A more northern connection would place Hamilton Avenue on piles on the southern boundary of the Breakers apartment complex. Staff has three concerns with this alignment . 1) The .more northern (4758d) -9- alignment would Lesult in a Beach Boulevara intersection only 800 feet from an existing intersection for the W & B condominium development on the west side of Beach Boulevard to the north. 2) The more northern alignment would not coincide with the City' s proposed Walnut extension from Lake Street to the west and 3 ) a more northern alignment would not provide additional access possibilities for the proposed commercial and residential uses along Beach Boulevard . The above discussion will be added to Section 6.2 of the Vabite Hole Feport. 5. Construction of roadway on piles is destructive to wetland . Response: Staff has reviewed two alternative methods of construction of Hamilton Avenue through the white hole area; on fill or on piles . It is felt that roadway construction on piles will have substantially less impact than construction on fill . No mitigation measures for either construction method can be addressed, however, until a restoration plan for the white hole area is approved. (4758d) -10- STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 7, P.O. BOX 2304, LOS ANGELES 90051 ( 213) 620-5335 May 16 , 1986 DEVELOPMENT Nil Ms. Jeanine Frank, Senior Planner Department of Development Services MAY City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street P.O. Box 'Lou Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, G,i 90046 Dear Ms. Frank: Department of Transportation Comments on Draft Non-Certified Coastal Areas White Hole Report On March 19 , 1986 Paul Gonzales of our branch authored a letter to you on the above referenced report. Be advised that the opinions expressed in that March 19th letter do not reflect the Caltrans management or legal position on the Huntington Beach "White Hole." Our Agency supports your efforts to resolve the difficult issues involved in the land use designations for this area. Caltrans recommendation for the Caltrans properties within the "White Hole" is that Alternative 1 would be the preferred option, if modified as follows: 1 ) It appears that the acreage within Area 1 realistically available for visitor commercial use is closer to the 10 acres shown on Alternative #2 . Approximately 7 to 9 acres, stretching from the entrance to the Mobile Home Park thru the boat yard to a point just south of the proposed Hamilton Avenue extension, should be designated as visitor commercial land use. The decision on the exact acreage should be based upon a careful analysis of habitat value balanced against the need to establish commercial parcels that can meet economic and specific zoning requirements . 2) Development credits should be offered to Caltrans for wetland designated acreage. Caltrans intent would be to put a portion of these credits into the City's replacement parking plan for the Pacific Coast Highway widening impacts through the downtown area. In addition, page 3 of the March 19th letter stated: "Finally, on page 45 - Daisy Thorpe [Sic] Hood does not own all of the property between Brookhurst and Magnolia. Her 9 Ms. Frank -2- May 16 , 1986 claim to all the property is based on the fact that much of it was bought from her, and she holds a first right of refusal option from Caltrans on the state-owned portion of the parcel. Ti—Fat option is in violation of the 118 .6 of the Streets and Highways Code and several other pieces of State legislation and the validity is, therefore, in question. Caltrans, in fact, could be required by law to sell the parcel to other State agencies or a private caretaker agency. This factor is ignored in the document." Those comments represent Paul ' s personal opinion and should not be interpreted as official comments made on behalf of the Department of Transportation, nor in any way construed as rendering a legal opinion. Additionally, he did not seek any opinion or advice from the Department of Transportation' s Legal Division on the option referred to above. We trust that this letter clarifies Caltrans position on the Non-Certified Coastal Areas White Hole Report. Please distribute this letter to those parties that received the March 19th letter. Any questions should be directed to Ronald Kosinski , Senior Environmental Planner at ( 213) 620-3755 . Very truly yours, WM A!"ief Environmental Planning Branch W � r STATE OF CALIFORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor CALIFORNIA STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY ,, 1330 BROADWAY, SUITE 1100 ` OAKLAND, CA 94612 - ATSS 561-1070 TELEPHONE 415/464-1015 TESTIMONY OF THE STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY BEFORE THE HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION, MAY 6, 1986 The State Coastal Conservancy has been pleased to work with your staff over the past year in a cooperative effort to prepare a Coastal Land Use Plan for the remaining area of the City of Huntington Beach. We appreciate the opportunity to assist the City in assuring protection for its natural resources and hope to continue working with you and your staff through the remainder of the planning process and through implementation as well. Last March, the City Council asked the Conservancy to * review the wetlands designation of the California Department of Fish and Game, * propose a land use plan including all the wetlands we believed were justified, and * address the problem of appropriate compensation to property owners. Conservancy staff and biology consultants reviewed all the available material and made several site visits. On the basis of this information, it is our view that the Department of Fish and Game's designation is fully justified. We therefore proposed to City staff that all areas designated by Fish and Game be designated as wetlands in the City's LUP. To address the problem of compensation, the Conservancy developed and offered to each of the property owners a proposal tailored to the specific circumstances. (See attached summary. ) To date, only Caltrans has reached a definite agreement with the Conservancy. That agreement provides that the 17 acres of Caltrans property between Brookhurst and Magnolia will be transferred to the Conservancy for restoration. The Conservancy has already given a grant to the Huntington Beach Wetlands Conservancy (a local nonprofit organization) to prepare a restoration plan. Although we do not expect resolution of the other properties until after the Council acts, these offers to assist the City in implementing an LUP with maximum wetland preservation remain open. We believe the suggestions we have offered, which are embodied in "Alternative No. 1" of your staff's report and the attached list of offers to property owners, would provide an LUP protective of increasingly scarce natural resources, approvable under the Coastal Act, and capable of implementation. 1 1 We appreciate City staff's concern to provide for revenue generation and for additional compensation to property owners. However, we believe the alternative recommended by your staff has serious problems because it relies on consolidation of wetlands and a transfer of development rights program. It does not appear that either mechanism will work at this site. (1) The wetlands designation is well documented and not easily open to successful challenge. It has, in any case, been our understanding that the Council did not wish to challenge the designation. Therefore, (2) Coastal Act policies and precedents become very important.' ordinarily the Coastal Commission approves consolidation of wetlands only where restoration is impossible any other way. That is not the case here. Wetlands that are approved for fill must be used only for those uses specifically permitted in wetlands. Residential and commercial uses, as proposed by City staff, are not included. (3) Your staff's recommendation assumes that the flood control berm will be removed at all points east of Magnolia and that the removal will result in a net gain in wetlands which is creditable to the private landowners. Both the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Fish and Game have informally recommended against removing the berm in order to maintain habitat for the Belding's Savannah Sparrow. The County, which owns the berm, will own whatever development rights might accrue from removal of the berm and would expect to be compensated by others wishing to use those development rights. (4) Even if the LUP were approved, it may not be possible to implement because a successful transfer of development rights plan would require more "receiver sites" than are available in the planning area. In conclusion, the City Council asked the Conservancy to investigate solutions to the wetlands and development issues in the planning area. The Conservancy has devoted considerable staff and consultant time to that investigation and arrived at a suggested solution. It remains our considered opinion that the solution we recommended to your staff is the most practical solution available and the fastest route to returning coastal permit authority to the City. Anything else will create more problems than it will solve. :.4 Southern California Edison Company 7333 BOLSA AVENUE WESTMINSTER, CALIFORNIA 92683 H. W. COMPTON April 14 , 1986 TELEPHONE CUSTOMER SERVICE MANAGER (714)895-0271 Mr. James W. Palin Director of Development Svs. City of Huntington Beach - BEACH P. O. Box 190 Huntington Beach , CA ,QQ� SUBJECT: Non-Certified Coastal Areas Preliminary Draft Dear Mr. Palin : We have studied the subject draft as it relates to our property and operations within the Coastal Area , and offer the following information. We concur with the recommended zoning designations of Conservation/Industrial Energy Production for our 17 acres of undeveloped property east of the generating station . This designation appears to be compatible with our use of the property for future electric system reeds . The draft also contains the following incorrect statements : Pg. 47 , Paragraph C . Energy Production : "Property tax is not paid by a public utility . " Pg. 48 , Paragraph F. Industrial Energy Production . . . . as public utility land, it would not generate any property tax" . Pg. 49 , Paragraph F. Industrial/Energy Production " . . .exempt from property tax. " These are not true statements , as we pay taxes like any other property owner. The amount of property tax for this acreage is $7 , 287 . 05 which has an assessed value of $670 , 000 . Some additional corrections include the tables on page 6 which indicate that all three alternatives propose Edison ' s 17 acres be reserved for Energy Production. However, the map for Alternative 1 (pg. 8) shows Edison property designated as Conservation. This map should be corrected to represent the area as Energy Production. The franchise tax paid to the City of Huntington Beach is one percent, not two as shown on page 74 . The draft makes reference to a partial removal of the southern levee of the flood control channel to enhance wetlands development. We strongly recommend this proposal include some assurance that Edison property will be protected from flooding. Also , before agreeing to any plan of action , we would appreciate the opportunity to investigate , with the Coastal Conservancy and the Department of Fish and Game , the interim leasing of the Edison property for wetlands enhancement without precluding our rights to future expansion of our energy facility. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this draft and should you or your staff have any questions please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, _ V J H CITY OF HUNTINGT HOM INTER-DEPARTMENT CMU ICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH 1 _4?r S6 To Jim Palin FromPaul Cook Subject "White Hole" Report Impacts Date April 2 , 1986 We reviewed the staff recommended land uses for the "White Hole" area and have the following comments : 1 . Sewer A city sewer system is not available, but the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) has facilities in the State beach area (Coast Trunk Sewer) , in Newland Street, and near Beach Blvd. and P .C .H . (Ocean Ave . Trunk) . The O.C.S .D. should be contacted for their concerns and locations of possible connections . 2 . Water Water mains are available to serve the proposed develop- ment, but depending on the fire flow requirements , the volume of water may not be adequate to serve the site . Therefore, additional water mains may be necessary. 3 . Drainage Whatever drainage that is tributary to the "White Hole" area presently remains on the property . If this area develops , the proposed drainage system shall be approved by the city . Also, a County permit will be needed to allow the water to drain into their channel. 4 . Traffic See attached memo from Bruce Gilmer. PEC:WAP : lw cc : Hal Simmons h1UNTINGTON BEACH DEV_E C'F-%`_1NT SERVICES P.G. Eox 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 S CIT91 OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUhMNGTON BEACH To Bill Patapoff From Bruce Gilmer 449� Subject "White Hole Reports" Date March 28 , 1986 Infrastructure Impacts Traffic Impacts As requested in your note 3-27-86 the following preliminary traffic impacts are perceived relative to the proposed uses in the "White Hole" area bounded by Beach Blvd. , P.C.H. and Santa Ana River. Beginning on Beach Blvd. and P.C.H. , the 50 condominiums proposed at 25 per acre as well as the 400 room hotel and 50 , 000 square foot of commercial retail can be expected to heavily impact the intersection of Beach Blvd. and P.C.H. as well as require the existence of the extension of Hamilton Avenue between Newland Avenue to Beach Blvd. My preliminary concern would be the necessity to create access other than Beach Blvd. access for these facilities along that Hamilton extension. Itsexistence is therefore considered necessary for the adequate access provisions to these facilities . The area at the northwest corner of Magnolia and P.C.H. indicates provision for a convenience market which also dispenses gasoline . This sort of facility will require access both on P.C .H. and on Magnolia. It should not however, create any "special" traffic problems . Given the Walnut extension to Beach Blvd. which is intended and planned to meet at the juncture of Hamilton and Beach the affect of that total intersection on the traffic flows in and around Beach at P.C.H. particularly during the summer time , maybe of some importance to the development of the proposed commercial and residential community at that location. BG: dw CC: Les Evans Jamal Rahimi nun UL LM MILL ND & WATER COM, ANY A R ?n SINCE 1901 J. box I'- Hgp1j$W41B � CA 92648 April 16, 1986 HUNTINGT.D 4 Jeanine A. Frank GEUr' City of Huntington Beach ' Department of Development Services 4,--R P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, Cal . 92648 Huntingiuo 8eid'i, Ck '.,_648 Re: Huntington Beach Land Use Plan Coastal "White Hole" area Dear Jeanine: Thanks for your informative follow-up to the Planning Commission study session on April lst regarding the Huntington Beach Land Use Plan for the coastal area between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River. Thanks also to your assistant, Lisa Ceran, for sending us the "White Hole Errata Sheet" and supplemental materials containing, inter alia, summaries of involved agency and property owner com- ments , and letters from Bitter Water Lake Properties, the Coastal Conservancy, and Caltrans. As you your colleagues on the City's planning staff are keenly aware, Mills Land & Water Company and others find the latest draft of the staff report on the "White Hole" area accepts without ques- tion the validity of assertions of the Department of Fish & Game and others that property owned by Mills and the State (Caltrans) in the vicinity of Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway is a so-called "wetlands" . The ecological assessment of Fish & Game is based upon the his- torical .existence of a tidal marsh at this location and basically ignores the impacts which have occurred in the last 40 years. Mills has repeatedly directed the attention of the City, Fish & Game , and the Coastal Commission to the events which have clearly and fundamentally transformed the historic marshland into an area de- void of the characteristics of a true "wetland. " A concise synopsis of these impacts and the reality of this transformation is contained in the March 27 , 1986 letter of Ronald J. DeFelice directed to the City of Huntington Beach and your attention. As I mentioned earlier, Dr. Richard J. Vogl, a biologist of con- siderable reputation and expertise in the field of marine and marshland ecology, has continued his observation and study of the area embraced in the City's latest focus on the Land Use Plan. Dr. Vogl's familiarity with the area goes back 20 or more years , prior to the involvement of Fish & Game and others claiming ex- pertise in the identification and restoration of former tidal marshes. POST OFFICE BOX 7108 18090 BEACH BOULEVARD • SUITE SIX • HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92615 ` ` Jeanine A. Frank City of Huntington Beach April 16, 1986 - page two In connection with the City's resubmittal of the Land Use Plan to the Coastal Commission in 1982, Dr. Vogl presented a letter which, among other things , pointed out that the undeveloped por- tions of the Mills and Caltrans properties in the vicinity of Beach Boulevard and Coast Highway are "presently devoid of the essential functions of a viable, coastal salt-marsh ecosystem that formerly existed there. " "The biotic and physical features that characterize wetlands are either lacking, are indicative of former wetlands and not present conditions , or have been misinterpreted tZ inexperienced observers or those who have failed to carefully examine the area. " There is no doubt a copy of Dr. Vogl 's November 16 , 1982 letter in the City's file, but to facilitate your present review and consideration, a copy is enclosed herewith. You will no doubt note that Dr. Vogl points out the obvious shortcomings of proposed tidal marsh "restoration" by means of breaching the earthen berms of the Huntington Beach Flood Control Channel. Among other things, Dr. Vogl mentions the problem of biological damage which could result from toxic substances which are periodically present in flood-control channels . According to the expert, the proper way to achieve restoration by means of tidal flushing of the area is to cut a new direct channel into the ocean. Virtually every proponent of "wetlands" restoration, including Fish & Game and the Coastal Conservancy, have ruled out this possibility as inherently unfeasible in terms of cost and the negative impact upon the City and State Beaches . As we have pointed out any number of times , one of the first things implemented by the State when it acquired the beachfront from Mills in 1946 was to fill in the "Gamewell" estuary which provided the "tidal flushing" to the former marsh. This enhanced and established Huntington State Beach as it is known and used today. If the City 's present report is to provide an objective statement on the present status of the Mills and Caltrans properties in terms of existing physical aftd ecological characteristics , then we would suggest it is essential that the observations and concerns of Dr. Vogl be incorporated in the draft of the staff report on the City 's Land Use Plan for the "White Hole" area. Should you have questions, or desire to discuss this in any par- ticular, kindly contact me when you have a convenient oppotunity. As you know, we shall be following developments closely and with considerable interest. You have indicated that the first public hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday, May 6, 1986 before the Planning Commission. If there should be any change of date, please let us know. Jeanine A. Frank City of Huntington Beach April 16, 1986 - page three And, as it may be forthcoming, we would be very much interested in obtaining a copy of written comment on the City's draft Land Use Plan made by the Coastal Commission. Thanking you for your ongoing assist in providing information and considering our concerns in the matter. cer 1y, g o R e_ ------ ROBERT LONDON MOORE, JR. Encl. CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY• LOS ANGELES =r 5151 STATE UNIVERSITY DRIVE LJS ANGELES,CA-IFORNIA XC32 Department of Biology November 16, 1982 California Coastal Commission City of Runtington Beach Land Use Plan Public Hearing Hacienda Hotel, Los Angeles Dear Co=ission Members: 1 Fim wri tin.o i n to. the ^devclvpca lands `tu3y tiTc iOCateil east OI t3eaCn Blvd. and inland of Pacific Coast Highway in the City of Huntington Beach, particularly those parcels owned by Mills Land and Water Co. and Caltrans. I challenge the presumed and unsubstantiated conclusions of California Fish and Game Department and the California Coastal Commission staff that, t1) these areas are presently viable wetlands, and (2) that they can be fully restored by simply opening culverts in the adjacent flood control channel. These undeveloped lands were once a part of a tidal marshland which embraced most of the region. But with the encroachment of man-made developments, particularly road building, the elimination of the natural ocean outlet in the 1940's, the channelization of the Santa Ana River, and the construction of flood control drain channels, this marshland ceased to function and began to take on upland characteristics. The most serious degradation occurred with the elimination of tidal flushing from the sea and the periodic renewal from fresh-water floods. In the past 20 years, I have observed, as an ecologist, the advanced, and perhaps, final stages of this degradation. Evidence for the s conclusion are the following: 1.) The soils are presently dead; the muds no longer are habitat for the myriads of mud-dwelling invertebrates such as ghost shrimp, jack=Imife clams, cockle-shells, varnish clams, and gaper clams that are esset_tial to the usual dynamic functioning of wetlands (e.g. providing soil porosity and soil drainage during low tides). In many, areas, the former lowland soils have been buried and "depressed byfM materials used to build roads, power lines, and levees and have been spread by erosion, as well as with the illegal dumping of dirt, concrete, and rubbish. 2.) The remaining vegetation of the area is in transition from. a former lowland type to that of a disturbed upland. The area is currently undergoing rapid changes and is, therefore, difficult to assess ecologically. The remaining pickleweed is declining with little or no signs of vigorous growth and renewal .despite its-persistent nature. Much of the vegetation has been destroyed or disturbed by off-road vehicles, kids on bicycles, rubbish dumpers, and people running dogs. As of 1980, the area supported only 8 out of the 21 plant species characteristic of viable salt marsh systems. Pickle- weed, as well as a number of other wetland plants, are poor indicators of THE CALUR:R.NL1 STATE UNNERSM A.N-D CCUEGE5 wetlands by themselves, since they often act as pioneer invaders or colonizers of man-disturbed, non-wetland areas in the general vicinity of true wetlands. The most active plant growth at present is exhibited by non-native upland weeds. 3.) The fishes and other aquatic organisms are gone. The area now supports only temporary ponds of lifeless waters after rains -- waters that quickly evaporate to leave behind life-denying and water-deterring layers of salt. 4.) Wetland bird utilization has been rapidly declining as habitat and food have declined. Wetland bird foods are largely ab^eat. Insect and seed sources common to old fields and disturbed uplands are increasing. The greatest wetland bird use is that of resting and loafing (as are levee tops, lawns, and parking lots in the area) when nearby wetlands are saturated with wintering birds. True wetlands, in contrast, are sought out by wetland birds primarily for feeding. The Belding's sava_nrnah sparrow may no longer be present. Potential habitat for the endangered clapper rail is gone. There is no food for the least tern. As a result of the accumulative effects of these negative impacts, the area is presently devoid of the essential functions of a viable coastal, salt-marsh ecosystem that formerly existed there. The biotic and physical features that characterize wetlands are either lacking, are indicative of former wetlands and not present conditions, or have been misinterpreted by inexperienced observers or those who have failed to carefully examine the area. Most biologists seem to agree that the only hope for even a partial facsimile of a wetland is to restore tidal flushing. The proper way to achieve this is with a direct opening to the sea, thereby maximizing water quality, potential functioning, and organism recolonization. Utilizing culvert openings in the Huntington Beach Orange County Flood Control Channel appears to be an obvious and simple alternative to bring about tidal flushing. But this alternative does not appear to be acceptable in light of the recent opposition of the Oran— County Environmental Karagement Agency in word and deed. In addition, engineering ar.:_� legal problems Lust be examined and evaluated before such an alternative can be corsidered to be feasible. Even if the .engineering and technical problems are overcome and real and potential water damage to adjacent structures are eliainated, the problems of pcor water quality, siltation, and even toxic spills associated with flood channels still remain as biological threats. I question the present evaluations of this area and do not find them acceptable because they appear to be unrealistic and are not backed by any up-to-date and comprehensive biological and engineering studies. Sincerely, Dr. Richard J. Vogl Professor of Biology TER WATER LAKE PROPERTIF 611 Anton Boulevard Suite 900 Costa Mesa, California 92626 March 27, 1986 Department of Development Services City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ATTENTION: Ms. Jeannine Frank Senior Planner Gentlemen: I am a partner in Bitter Water Lake Properties, the partnership which holds an option to purchase certain real property in the White Hole area north of the Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River. This letter is in response to the letter from James W. Palin dated February 21, 1986 enclosing a draft copy (undated) of the "Noncertified Coastal Areas Report." The property on which Bitter Water holds an option is that in which Daisy Thorpe Piccirelli has title, as well as that on which Mrs. Piccirelli has an option from the California Department of Transportation. Essentially, the property on which Bitter Water has an option is bounded by the Southern California Edison property on the west and Brookhurst Street on the east. I am sending this letter on behalf of all of the partners of Bitter Water Lake Properties. We are opposed to the Staff recommendation contained on pages 63 through 65 of the Staff Report. That recommendation calls for development of sixteen and one-half (16.5) acres of property near the intersection of Beach Boule- vard and Pacific Coast Highway — land, which, at present, is owned by the Department of Transportation, an agency of the State of California. It further calls for the "restoration" of one hundred thirty and one-half 030.5) acres to "productive wetland," and a "development node" of two (2) acres at the northwest corner of Magnolia Street and Pacific Coast Highway. The two-acre development node would be used for a service station and convenience market. Also, the Staff recommenda- tion allots seventeen (17) acres to be devoted to energy production. We find nothing in the evidentiary sections of the Report which justifies the Staff's conclusion, except the statement that the Staff's own Alternative 2 "allows more development than could be found to be consistent with Coastal Act policies." The Staff recommendation also calls for some type of transfer of devel- opment rights among property owners to share in the sixteen and one-half (16.5) acres of developable property, most of which is owned by the State of California. Before I comment further on the Staff recommendation, I would like to review briefly the history of the property in the White Hole. According to the State Department of Fish and Game, the property was at one time a pristine saltwater Ms. Jeannine Frank March 27, 1986 Page 2 marsh which provided life and sustenance to great numbers of exotic species of plant, animal and bird life. This conclusion is one which has to be accepted some- what on faith since there is, apparently, no written record of the appearance or quality of the property in question during the era before California became a State. In any event, it is conceded by all parties that the property, at present, is in a rather sorry condition. It is unsightly; it provides very little sustenance. to wildlife or plant life. It contributes no income to its owners and very little in the way of taxes. Finally, it has no recreational or scenic value. The property came into its present condition largely as a result of the acts of the State of California and its various subdivisions. Along the southerly edge, the Pacific Coast Highway was developed by the State of California. Along the northerly edge, the Flood Control District of the County of Orange constructed a flood control channel which also borders the property at the easterly edge. A sewage treatment plant stands just north of the flood control channel. Additional public streets constructed by the State or its various subdivisions criss-cross the property. In the middle of the property stands a great generating station which provides elec- trical energy for millions of people in Southern California. The land on which this generating station stands was obtained through the power of eminent domain, granted to public utilities by the State of California. There is a boatyard at Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway and some run-down residential development in front of the trailer park, both on land still owned by the State. After the develop- ment surrounding the property in private hands, all of which development was conducted by or under the auspices of the State, nothing of the alleged beauty and productivity of early periods remains. In addition, great swaths of this property were condemned by the California Department of Transportation about fifteen years ago for a Pacific Coast Freeway, a traffic artery so odious in its conception that it was never built. The property owners from whom this land was taken have waged, with partial success, long legal battles to regain title. The property, other than the por- tions used for public purposes, remains largely undeveloped because its fate at the hands of various public agencies has been uncertain from the time of the planning of the Pacific Coast Freeway to the present inability of the City and the Coastal Commission to agree on zoning. Plow•, the State of California, through the California Coastal Commission, would have the owners of the remaining undeveloped portions of this property some- how bear the entire responsibility of atoning for the state's past conduct, which caused the property to be in its present regrettable condition. The highway, the streets, the public utility, the flood•control channels, the sewage treatment plant, the boatyard and the run-down residential area are to remain, but the acreage in pri- vate hands, according to the Coastal Commission, should be devoted solely to environmental purposes. Although many would agree that the Coastal Commission's goal is laudable, there remains the question of compensation of the owners of this private property for the transformation of their property into a wilderness park. It is of no small significance to understand how it is that Bitter Water Lake Properties came to obtain an option on the Piccirelli property. Mrs. Piccirelli, a woman in her early eighties, was about to lose the property in a sale to the State for the failure to pay real property taxes. At the time this portentous event was about to occur, a lawsuit involving the Summa Corporation was pending before the I Ms. Jeannine Frank March 27, 1986 Page 3 United States Supreme Court in which the State of California argued that property like that in the White Hole area was subject to a tidelands easement of the State of California, effectively depriving private property owners of any use of the prop- erty. The California Supreme Court had upheld the State's view, overturning over one hundred years of precedent. Because of the cloud on Mrs. Piccirelli's title, she could not obtain from ordinary sources a loan of any kind secured by the property, and she had no other assets or source of income. Despite the California Supreme Court holding, Bitter Water Lake Properties, because it felt the California Supreme Court had erred, agreed to pay the real property taxes imposed by the State and to undertake other substantial obligations aggregating in excess of $500,000. In exchange, Bitter Water obtained an option to purchase Mrs. Piccirelli's property with an exercise price of $400,000 per acre for such portion of it as could eventually be developed. Ultimately, the United States Supreme Court reversed the holding of the California Supreme Court and rejected the arguments of the State of California. We now find the State of California attempting to achieve the same result it failed to obtain in the Summa litigation through the use of its zoning power. The pattern of the State's conduct with regard to this property from the commencement of the construction of the Pacific Coast Highway through the rezoning of the prop- erty from R-5 to open space is a history of government mismanagement and intimi- dation. In analyzing the deficiencies of the Staff Report, I have attempted to isolate those societal values which appear to be included in the discussions in the Staff Report. The societal values which I have identified are the following: 1. Equity and fairness to all citizens, including the recognition of private property rights. 2. Enhancement of the local tax base. 3. Scenic beauty for the enjoyment of the citizens of California generally. 4. Restoration of primeval wetlands to their original condition. 5. Preservation of endangered species. No one of these various societal goals can be attained in full without sacri- ficing the others. These goals are competitive and the land use alternative chosen should be the one that permits the greatest fulfillment of all of the goals. The Staff recommendation gives almost no recognition to any of those societal values except the restoration of primeval wetlands. Bitter Water Lake Properties contends that Alternative 2 contained in the Staff Report comes much closer to fulfilling, to the greatest degree possible, all of the societal goals which are expressed above. While Bitter Water Lake Properties does not agree with Alternative 2 in all its particulars, it endorses the basic approach contained therein. In exchange for development of enough of the property to permit some economic benefit to the owners, the owners could dedicate a substantial portion of that property for restoration as a salt marsh. Profits from development could furnish the funds necessary for restoration. Ms. Jeannine Frank March 27, 1986 Page 4 Let us examine each of the societal values as set forth above against Bitter Water's proposal and the Staff recommendation. A. amity and Fairness. The Staff recommendation makes a casual reference to the property rights of private citizens, but proposes to respond to the requirement that a govern- ment treat its citizens fairly in a wholely inadequate fashion. The Staff would somehow transfer development rights in the small portion of the property which it would permit to be developed among all property owners. No mechanism now exists for such transfer of rights and we doubt that the transfer of development rights could be made to function. Further, it would appear that, even if such transfers could be effected, there is simply not enough value in the development the Staff would permit to compensate the property owners adequately. Under present zoning and as proposed in the Staff recommendation, the owner of the property on which Bitter Water has an option cannot use it for any purpose. No agriculture is permitted. No disturbance of the earth is permitted. No grading or construction is permitted. This leaves the owner of the property with naked legal title and the obligation to pay State property taxes. When a State puts a property owner in this fix, it may be held to have taken the property by "inverse con- demnation." The California Supreme Court has, in lawsuits won by the Coastal Commission, interpreted the concept of inverse condemnation narrowly. Some of these California cases are just now reaching the United States Supreme Court. We believe that the United States Supreme Court will strike down the California Supreme Court's decisions and that the United States Supreme Court would find a "taking" in this instance. B. Enhancement of Local Tax Base. The Staff Report shows that Alternative 2 would provide substantial additional taxes to the State and the City of Huntington Beach. The Staff's own recommendation would provide little in the way of such taxes. The Staff's arguments that the restoration of the property to salt marsh would enhance the value of neigh- boring real property appear to be mere wishful thinking. First of all, it is difficult to see how neighboring property can be so enhanced in value when the neighboring prop- erty consists primarily of a gigantic public utility, the Pacific Ocean, a flood control channel and a sewage treatment plant. In addition, there is no explanation of where the money will come from for such restoration. If no development is permitted, the property may remain in its present condition for many years. Not only is money needed for restoration, it is also needed to purchase the land, since even the State of California has not contended that it can flood private property without obtaining title. The Staff recommendation does not come to grips with the problem of funding. C. Scenic Beauty. We are at a loss to understand the Staff's proposal that a gasoline station and convenience store should be built at Magnolia Street and the Pacific Coast Highway. This suggestion seems to defy common sense and good judgment. Certainly, the people of the State of California do not need another beachfront gas Ms. Jeannine Frank March 27, 1986 Page 5 station! However unattractive the site is now, its appearance could only be dimin- ished by the addition of the garish signs and bright lights of a gas station. The notion that a convenience market would serve beachgoers also seems ill considered. It is unclear whether the beachgoers would drive to the convenience store, in which case they could go to one anywhere, or will risk their lives crossing treacherous Pacific Coast Highway on foot to purchase soft drinks and candy bars. Although the Staff recommendation calls for the restoration of one hundred thirty (130) acres of the property to salt marsh, there seems to be very little acknowledgment that such projects cost money. It is unclear where the Staff pro- poses that the money for the acquisition of title and for the subsequent restoration would be forthcoming, if at all. The result would be that an area already unsightly area would be made even less appealing. On the other hand, if some substantial development were permitted on the property, the City could require as a condition to that development that por- tions of the property be restored to conditions optimal for bird and animal life and then dedicated to the City. Indeed, in order to obtain the maximum value from the development, the property would have to be beautified in some manner whether the City required it or not. It would appear that funds for the restoration of acreage, in addition to what Cal Trans would restore between Brookhurst and the Santa Ana river mouth, could be obtained only by permitting some development. D. Restoration of Wetlands. We are not certain that sufficient evidence has been advanced that the property ever was a salt marsh providing sustenance to rare bird and fish life. Nevertheless, if sufficient funds were invested in the property, certainly a facsimile of a salt marsh could be created on some portion of the property. Without such funding, however, it is highly unlikely that anything truly resembling the alleged original salt marsh conditions could be created. The Staff proposal of simply tearing down levees on flood control channels appears to be a reckless suggestion. There is no evidence that such simple measures will create the desired conditions. In fact, it appears to a layman that an old-fashioned, smelly slough, rather than a salt marsh, might well result. E. Preservation of Endangered Species. With respect to endangered species, the Coastal Commission and the Staff appear to be on the horns of a dilemma. According to the Report, the endan- gered species which exist on the property are the plant "Salicornia" and the bird species "Savannah Sparrow." These forms of life live in tandem and only in areas of "degraded" wetlands. Thus, the degraded condition of the property, the very thing that makes the area unsightly and unappealing and cries out for "restoration," is what makes the existence of the Salicornia and the Savannah Sparrow possible. The Staff's proposal to flood the area by tearing down levees would seem to make short shrift of the Savannah Sparrow. The Staff pays lip service to the Savannah Sparrow by noting, on several occasions, that "care should be taken" not to destroy it. No suggestions are made as to the manner in which the Savannah Sparrow would be so preserved. Ms. Jeannine Frank March 27, 1986 Page 6 It would appear that man's goals for this property, whether they be the restoration of the property to salt marsh or the development of the property for man's use, would pose some harm to the Savannah Sparrow. Again, however, if suf- ficient funds were forthcoming by the development of the property, trained biolo- gists and engineers might work out a means of accommodating these forms of life. The Staff's proposal simply to flood the area quickly and cheaply by tearing down levees does not seem to be a prudent approach to giving care to these endangered species. The Staff discussion of the Savannah Sparrow underscores one important point; i.e., the real goal of the Coastal Commission is not preservation. The goal is restoration, because, in this case, preservation does not make sense. But the prop- erty cannot be restored unless the State obtains title. Real property cannot be altered by the State without the permission of its owners. In summary, the Staff Report seems to us to give undue weight to the assumed current views of the California Coastal Commission. The City of Huntington Beach should make its own determination of what is the best use of the property, balancing the various societal goals discussed in the Staff report and such other goals as the City Council might identify. If the Coastal Commission chooses to pursue a different course, then let the Coastal Commission pursue them with its own powers and its own resources. The City of Huntington Beach should not be merely a rubber stamp for a State agency. Indeed, should the City make its decision based solely on its understanding of what the Coastal Commission desires, it is the City which may have to bear the cost of legal actions arising out of inverse condemnation claims. We respectfully submit that some variation of .Alternative 2 of the Staff Report is the best solution to resolving the competing interests with respect to the property. Representatives of Bitter Water Lake Properties are prepared to discuss these matters further with any member of the City Staff or the City Council. Very- u y ours, aid J. Felice RJD:sk (01/590XCM#04852-0002) STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENC., GEORGE DEUKmFJIAN. CALIFORNIA STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY 1330 SROADwAY. SUITE 1100 nAKLAND. CA 94612 fSS 561.1015 TELEPHONE 413/a64-1015 CCS March 26, 1986 MAP :; ! Z.Cpo Ms. Jeanine Franc C E�Y e Senior Planner HLfnt;n tC.n I City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box Huntington Beach, CA Dear Jeanine: Tha..k you for the opportunity to review the "Analysis of Land Use Alternatives for the "white-Hole' Areas". In general, we are encouraged at tie overall direction of the report and cormend the City on the rapid progress in achieving tie Council's goals. However, mica more work is needed to bring t :e propose,_ plan into ccnformnce with Coastal Act policies and to insure tie viability of certain elements of tie plan. Our specific comments follow: Proposed TDC Procram The proposed TJC program relies on two assurptions: (1) the acceptablility of consolidating upland acreage by restoring equivalent wetland acreage and (2) the availabilty of former wetland acreage that is restorable. (1) The first preftiise faces considerable policy ocstacles. Ordinarily, consolidation has been approved by tee Coastal Con nission only where the wetland's in question are severely degraded and cannot 'be restored without consolidation. Both the Bolsa Chica and the Los Cerritos Plans were approved by the Com cession because the severely degraded wetlands could not be restored by other means. The Huntington Beach wetlands are not severely degraded, thus this policy cannot be applied. In addition, pry wetland fill, such as that proposed along Beach Blvd. , . must be consistent with Coastal Act polices. Section 30233 establishes permitted uses in wetlands and they do not include residential or commercial uses. The plan should, in general, relate Coastal Act polices to the recomzlended land use alternatives, especially in light of the need for Comlrission certification. Although energy development is a use permitted in wetlands, the plan should document that siting energy facilities in a wetland meets the additional tests under the Coastal Act, ie, no other feasible alternative site and mitigation for project impacts on wetlands. (2) The plan identifies 8.3 acres of restorable wetland within the white-hole and proposes that restoration of these acres justify the filling of 8.3 acres along Beach Blvd. Most of these 8.3 acres are, in fact, not available for restoration. The 1.72 acre segment along the 17 acre Caltrans parcel is already committed to Caltrans and Orange County for mitigation of their project impacts. The 1.6 acres owned by the City are not suitable for restoration, the elevation of the site and its isolation from the other wetlands makes it impractical for restoration. The 2 acres located adjacent the Santa Ana River mouth have been designated as non- restorable by the Department of Fish and Game and are transected by the sewage outfall pipes, making restoration impossible. The remaining 6.61 acres under the flood control berm are not without constraints on their use for restoration. Since the berm is owned by Orange County, use of t1he credit would have to be negotiated with the County and a satisfactory arrangement cannot be guarunteed at this point. In addition, removal of the berms would necessitate perimeter berming; the County estimates that the perimeter berm would cover twice the amount of surface as the existing berm, creating a wetland restoration debit, not a credit. Substitution of a perimeter seawall would alleviate this problem, but the cost would be prohibitive aZld t:,e impacts on visual access have to be seriously considered. Restoration of the wetlands within the white-hole may or may not involve removal of the flood control berms. Most of the properties have subsided since their isolation from tidal influence, breadhing the berms may create a lake rather than a wetland. Depending on restoration goals, it may be preferable to leave the berms intact and provide tidal access by installing culverts with control structures in t:ne berms. Resource agencies may not permit filling of high quality wetlands and replacement with lower quality wetlands; if they do allow this exchange, the replacement ratio is likely to exceed 1:1. In summary, the proposed TDC. program does not appear to offer much. promise. Other Cements pg. 23 The plan should reference the numerous other reports, besides the DFG report and the Soule study, that document the wetland values on all of the properties in the white-hole. pg. 42 The proposed alternatives for the Hamilton avenue extension should be analyzed for consistency witti existing LCP polices. pg. 50 The fiscal analysis is really a revenue projection analysis and should include an aceirate analysis of t� relative costs of implementing each of the proposed alternative land use designations to reflect true fiscal impacts to the City. The cost to the City of iTplen-enting alternative 1 would be substantially lower than either alternative 2 or 3 because there would be limited public services to maintain. This fact should be included in the revenue projections developed:by staff to show actual, not just anticipated, revenues to the City. It is our belief that once thie analysis is done, alternative 1 will offer the most cost-effective solution. pg. 52 The chart on page 53 showing wetland use was prepared by the Coastal Conservancy, not the Nature Conservancy. Thank you for the opportunity to conr,,ent. As always, if you have any questions concerning our comments or require any assistance, call either Reed Holderman or myself. Sincerely, Wendy Eliot Project analyst STATE OF CALIFCRNIA-BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENC' GECRGE OEUKMEJIAN, Gvvkrq, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION M'MCT 7, P.O. BOX 2304. LOS ANGELES 90051 (213 ) 620-3992 HU74TING70;`4 ESEACH LEVEl;,F-VE:NIT March 19 , 1986 Ms. Jeanine Frank, Senior Planner 1190 Department of Development Services h CA 92E48 H;:n*:r?jri Eeac 2000 Main Street o•�-• •, City of Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Ms . Frank: Caltrans Environmental staff have some concerns regarding the Draft Non-certified Coastal Areas White Hole report. The biological information is shallow and often taken out of context from other reports. It would have been wise to include the Cal Fish and Game and Caltrans studies intact as appendices. The trade-offs offered are at best misleading and do not reflect existing conditions. As an example the parcel shown on the map as page 7 designated as LUDFPI is not restorable--as a practical :natter, and is not developable since a portion is in private ownership but has a flood control easement over it. Access to the parcel is controlled by Caltrans and from a traffic safety point of view access for development would not be granted. In addition, the sewage out fall lines are under the parcel making it extremely difficult to develop. Also , a portion of the parcel is owned by Caltrans and will be sold to the Coastal Conservancy and utilized in the 17 acre restoration project. It could also be used by the Orange County Flood Control District in the Talbert Channel Improvement Project. In any case it cannot be used in a trade-off since there is nothing to trade. Much the same can be said for the rest of the trade-off proposal. The document ignores Federal Legislation for the protection of wetlands-- A. - Rivers and Harbors Ac.t (33 U. S.C. 401 ) B. - Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 - 1376 ) C. - Executive Order 11990 D. - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (U. S.C. 661 - 666) E. - Executive Order 11988 E.O . 11990 - Wetlands protection is enforceable by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Authority is granted by A, B above, and by a number of Supreme Court cases--the latest being U.S. vs. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc. , 84-701 (decided in December 1985) . Ms. Jeanine Frank -2- March 19, 1986 E.O. 11988 - " (quoted directly) directs all Federal Agencies to - "avoid the long and short term adverse impacts associated with the modification of floodolains and to avoid direct or indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practical alternative. " The object is to protect and enhance natural floodplain values. The economic analysis ignores the commercial and sports value of the food chain and dependent fauna of wetlands. It is difficult to make an accurate estimate of the financial -contribution of wetlands to the community. But the productivity mentioned in the document (page 23 - 3 . 2 Restoration) hints at the value in ecological terms. The contribution of wetlands has been well documented and a proper financial analysis is not impossible. "A National Survey by the Interior Department has revealed that 1 of every 2 American adults took part in some form of outdoor activity involving Fish and Wildlife in 1980 . . . Nearly 100 million people spent $40 billion on Wildlife hobbies. " One reason for the loss of a commercial marine fishery in Southern California is the destruction and pollution of wetlands. This was totally ignored in the analysis. The study ignores the authority of the Corps of Engineers' permitting authority in filling/draining of wetlands that would be required under Alternatives 2 and 3 . Development allowable by those two alternatives by the City could not be allowed by the Corps, because of the legislation listed above. The latest case also indicates that the Corps' authori-ty supercedes the authority of the local jurisdiction, in this case the City of Huntington Beach. The document seems to ignore the sentiments of many of the citizens of Huntington Beach and of the Coastal Commission and the California Department of Fish and Game in proposing Alternatives 2 and 3 . Some of the "facts" in the document, e.g. , page 23 - line 18 are incorrect. Dr. Vogel has stated a number of times that opening the area to tidal action--which is not difficult - would result in a great benefit to the parcel. Many other statements in that section are also incorrect. As an example, much of the pickleweed on that parcel is annual and, therefore, will appear to be in "bad condition" in. winter. Ms . Jeanine Frank -3- March 19, 1986 Finally, on page 45 - Daisy Thorpe Hood does not own all of the property between Brookhurst and Magnolia. Her claim to all the property is based on the fact that much of it was bought from her, and she holds a first right of refusal option from Caltrans on the state-owned portion of the parcel . That option is- in violation of 118 . 6 of the Streets and Highways Code and several other pieces of State legislation and the validity is , therefore, in question. Caltrans, in fact, could be required by law to sell the parcel to other State agencies or a private caretaker agency. This factor is ignored in the document. Alternative One is the only feasible alternative. Sincerely, PAUL GONZALES Associate Environmental Planner Environmental Planning Branch CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION MI;NTINGTON BEACH V ' To Hal Simmons From %Ia. cwman Development Services Director, Community Services Subject. White Hole Report Date February; 2S, 1986 In furtherance of our conversation last week concerning subject report, we would like to see as much open space area as possible for future generations to enjoy in a recreational mode. S Hunter, � ',c 19p CA 92548. FOB C1* OF HLI GTON B ABC INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION c� To J,AiNtES PALIN, Director From ROBERT J. FRANZ, Chief Development Services Administrative Services Subject COMMENTS - ANALYSIS OF Date hl;,RCH 3, 1986 LAND USE ALTERNATIVES FOR THE WHITEHOLE AREAS As a follow-up to our phone conversation this date, my input/comments on this draft are the following main points: 1. In the fiscal analysis, there is an assumption that there is a sales tax on hotel room rate revenue. This is an incorrect assumption as there is no sales tax on such revenues. All alternatives need to have this projected sales tax revenue to the City deleted from the analysis. 2. On page 46 under Alternative I, paragraph C - "Enerdv Production" there is the statement that "property tax is not paid by a public utility. ." This is incorrect since utilities do pay property tax and this comment and any impact on the fiscal'analvsis should be corrected throughout the report. 3. Paragraph D on the same page - "Oil Production" indicates that "if oil is discovered the City could, in the future, collect royalties on.oil production." As we discussed, I believe the term "royalties" is an incorrect term and what is intended is the City's tax on oil production (barrel tax). Any references throughout the report to "royalties" to be received by the City should be changed to the correct terminology. 4. Please review the language used on page 57 under 10.4 Outright Purchase to determine whether the description of highest and best economic use of the land is the most accurate way to summarize the appraisal basis for such land. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this document.. Please excuse the delay in formalizing these comments. `Fft0BERT J. FRANZ, Chief Administrative Services Department RJFskd HUNTING T ON BEACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES I+�,.hR, J. Q 186 �i n �'�0 2045j Huntingtcn Beach, CA 92648 CH Jeanine Frank , Senoir Planner Depar_m ent cf Development Services c x i 2000 Main St . Hunt:ns'_-, —Peach. CA Hurtingtcn Bea=h, Calif . 92648 Oear Jeanine , ,On behalf of the Board of Directors and the members of the FRi =NZ�S cf the HUNTINGTON BEACH WETLANDS . I would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the " Noncertified Coastal Areas " rsDort . As you may know, this orginization is primarily composed of residents of south Huntington Beach , who are c0r,cerned about sensitive envarcnmentaI areas , and who are interested an protecting thier Quality of life . The Coastal Act states in dart " envirenmentaly sensitive habitat areas SHALL be protected against significant disruption of habitat values" _ ( section 3024C-a ) W, tn this mandate by the people of the State cf 2aIifcrnia develocing any area adertafied as wetlands . with few =xcepticn.s , is in violation or the law . With this 4n mind , I would like t= address certain items within _r9 rezcrt . ', . The two acre area located next to the mouth of the Santa Ana R4; ver as currently zoned Limited Use , Floodplaan . The Department cf =asr & Game has idertified this area as not restorable" . while t!-4s may be true , the area will provide exellent "ubland •' or buffer area . In addition , the cost of restoring this area would be extereamly expensive Therefore , this area snOUld not be included in any development rights transfer . 2 . While. it is true the city owns the 1 . 2 acre parcel at Magnolia and Banning , the area is unacceatable for wetlands . One important criteria for a wetland is that it be rela_ivly sale from predators , both human and animal . As this parcel as bounded by homes on one. side and a major highway on the other , adequate buffering would be difficut to provide . 3 . Avalable records indicate that ten oil wells have been drilled in the wetland area between 1935 and 1958 . Depths ranged from 1 , 340 feet to over 10 , 000 feet . "No significant amounts of oil were discovered" . ( page 37 ) The Coastal Act allows oil drilling on wetlands if it can be shown that there are no alternate locations . In view of this and the current oil glut , oil drilling should not be allow in the wetland area . 4 . Removing the wetland side of the flood control levees to restore wetlands is an exellent approach . However , most of the land adjacent to these levees is owned by private individuals , and there is no guarantee that the levees would ever be removed . 5 . Staff recommends development of two "nodes " one located at PCH & Magnolia , the other on the ease side of Beach , north of PCH . Contrary to the statements made on page 50 , noted biologist have indicated that the area between Beach and Newland can be restored as easily as the parcel next to the Santa Ana River . A careful analysis of the Fish & Game map or, page 21 will show " high use by wetland associated birds" in this area . Further analysis w' ll show that the northwest corner of Magnolia & PCH carries the same determination . Therefore , we are oppcsec to any development in these areas . 6 . The Coastal Conservany has contacted all owners of property located witnin the wetlands , and. has offered compensation for tnier ^rcoerties . We reconize that if the area were zoned foi^ development , the land would be extreamly valuable . I7 it is zoned wetland , it would , or course , be much less . Ass,.:ming a wetland zoning occurs , there will be buyers for the pro--erty . The Constitution of the United States does not guarantee arooerty owners a profit . We are also aware the desire to develoo as mucn of the wetlands as possible . With the above analysis in mind , we would cropcse the fol ? owin^ 7 1 _ Zone 125 acres wetland/conservation . 2 . zone 17 acres energy production/conservation 3 . Zone 5 acres at the corner of PCH & Beach visitor/commercial . 4 . If and when tine 8 . 3 acres of flood control levees are removed , allow development in an area designated as having the least amount of environmental destruction . The actual acreage would have to -aooroved by the Coastal Commission . We would suggest that t^is area be located at the east end cf the Parcel leca:ec north of the Huntington Beach Channel , west of Newland . An analysis or t^e Fish & Game map on page 21 would suggest this to be the most acceotaole area . 5 . If a convenience market/gas station is desired along Pacif ;c Coast Highway , we would suggest .ncn-wetlar,c areas such as tnose round between Beach & Newland . 6 . Not allow oil drilling' in the wetlands , as alternate sites are avalable . 7 . Extend Hamilton Ave . as depicted on page 41 , alternate 2 . In ar a^ea as congested as Southern California , and in particular . Orange County , it is more imoortant than ever to orov4de the public with oxen space . most of these wetlands are gone , and if we `ail to do everything in our power to protect what is left , it will be , indeed , a sad legacey we will leave to our children We acoreciate the oopertunity to comment on the future of these wildlife areas that are so important to us all . Sthcer 1 y• : Gary Gorman , Chairman United States Department of the Interior a� FISH'AND WILDLIFE SERVICE - -� . LAGUNA NIGUEL FIELD OFFICE �-.. 24000 Avila Road Laguna Niguel , California 92656 18 March 1986 Jeanine Frank, Senior Planner Department of Development Services P.O. Box 190 , 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re : Huntington Beach Non-Certified Coastal Areas - Preliminary Draft Analysis of Land Use Alternatives Dear Ms. Frank : The Fish and Wildlife Sevice (FWS) has examined the referenced document, provided under your cover letter dated 21 February 1986 , and offers the following comments. First, we suggest that Area Description and History section on page 2 , include a summaries of the biological character of the parcels, the Federal regulatory involvement through Section 404 of the Clean Water Act , and the fish and wildlife values attributed to them by the FWS and the California Department of Fish and Game. We believe our views on the biologic value of the wetland parcels in their present condition are well known to the City, but have enclosed for your reference, a 9 April 1982 letter to the Corps of Engineers on the subject of pending permit to fill a portion near Beach Boulevard. We suggest, that the fiscal considerations include an evaluation of the public costs of the proposed land use scenarios, in addition to the tax "benefits" accruing to the City. It is our understanding that various types of developments may . have considerable hidden costs associated with them. Demands on public services would presumably remain very low with a wetland conservation alternative, as well as not incurring old well capping and peat soils construction costs. There also seem to be public benefits of some alternatives that are not well evaluated. For example, in a seriously flood prone area such as this, a flood retarding function of a "restored wetland" parcel could offer significant public benefit, not to mention the fish and wildlife benefits. A logical thread throughout the document seems to be that the City is a land speculator with a high priority for -obtaining some fiscal gain. The document also seems inordinately interested in its consideration of the private owner's "return on investment" (p. 63 , p. 65) . Contrary to the statement on page 64 , the majority of the land in question is already owned by public agencies and a public utility. About forty three percent (64 out of 147 acres) is privately owned. Some of wetland acreage considered in the document is apparently involved in pending litigation which was initiated by those same private owners. This latter point has apparently forestalled all efforts, to date, to resolve the long-term status of the wetland parcels. Remarks offered on page 61, regarding outright. purchase, should be amended to more clearly indicate that purchase at presently appraised value is apparently possible. We understand that the easternmost parcel is expected .to .be sold by CALTRANS to the Coastal Conservancy, at the value appraised under the existing zone designations (LUD, LUD-FPI) and wetland status. It may be the private owner's willingness to sell at appraised value that determines whether any change is made to much of the other wetland acreage. They may elect to hold the land pending some more personally favorable circumstances. However, an inverse condemnation argument would seem to have no merit, either at the present time or after a change in zone designation. We suggest a more extensive discussion of the outright purchase possibilities. As for land use alternatives, we would like to suggest that all existing wetland parcels between Beach Blvd. and Brookhurst Ave. be considered for a special preserve status, .principally for the Belding's savannah sparrow, Passerculus sandwichensis beldinai. Available evidence suggests to us that the present nesting use, particularly of the Magnolia to Brookhurst parcel by this State endangered bird, and Federal candidate for endangered or threatened status, may warrant preservation of the area in its existing condition. That is, some of the wetland area may be of such high quality for Belding's savannah sparrow nesting that no alteration would be appropriate. A thorough nesting census of all the subject parcels would seem invaluable for determining the appropriate extent of such a preserve, however. Should one or more parcels best be preserved as Belding' s savannah sparrow nesting preserve, levee removal should likely not occur. Also, as stated, any such levee removal, even addition of culverts, may require construction of another levee or berm entirely around the subject parcel to prevent floodwater inundation of adjacent lowlands . Such berms could have significant footprints in the existing wetland. The various locations and techniques for restoration of tidal influence deserves additional discussion and detail in the referenced document. Complete levee removal, as shown on Figure 3.2, page 24, may already be accounted for or may not be feasible or desireable. For example, the 1.72 acre wetland habitat gain attributed to levee removal at the easternmost parcel is already being considered as a restoration benefit to be weighed against habitat losses of Orange County's proposed Talbert Channel improvement project. 2 Lastly, we question the validity of the statement on page 60 that "A;-thorities have all agreed that the most likely and productive restoration areas are those closest to the Santa Ana River mouth." This statment is offered in support of the notion that a "development node" at Beach and PCH would be a justifiable compromise. The FWS has reached no such agreement regarding restoration feasibility. We also request further elaboration of the tally of "transferable development rights" discussed on pages 64-65. Two acres of "non- restorable wetland" at the Santa Ana River mouth and a 1 .6 acre city-owned non-wetland parcel are counted as developable land fragments that can be redistributed into existing wetland. However, as these fragments could not be changed into functional wetlands , a net reduction of wetland area would result. We do not understand how the loss of wetland at a "development node" could relate to these two fragments. Similarly, the document seems to presume that levee removal and the resultant wetland habitat gains would be a "realistic tradeoff" for the proposed wetland fills and "return on property investment". We again do not understand the relationship of these remarks to the Coastal Act requirements, to the City' s interests, or to the public trust. The appearance is that of a land use designation shellgame that involves a diminishing high priority resource, coastal wetland, in favor of private economic considerations. The FWS is very pleased that the City has resumed consideration of the uncertified areas. We look forward to discussing these matters at the March 19 meeting. The FWS representative on this matter remains Mr. Jack Fancher, who may be reached at (714) 643- 4270, as needed. Sincerely yours, Nanm� Ra fman Project Leader Enclosure cc : CDFG, Reg 5 , Long Beach CCC, Long Beach CCConsv, Oakland Huntington Beach Wetlands Coalition 3 United States Department of the Interior o . o FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE rs AREA MANAGER ' "r 2800 Cottage Way, Room E-1803 Sacramento, California 95825 APR In Reply Refer To: ES-LN Commander Los Angeles District Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 2711 Los Angeles, California 90053 Attention: . Regulatory Branch Re: PN 82-56, Wharf Properties, Inc. Dear Colonel Taylor: The Fish and Wildlife Serv.ice (FWS) has reviewed the referenced public notice dated 16 March 1982, for work in coastal wetlands in the City of Huntington Beach, Orange County. These comments have been prepared under the authority of, and in accordance with the provisions, of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 D.S.C. 661 et seq.) and other authorities mandating Department of Interior concern for environmental values. The applicant proposes to fill a six acre parcel (about 3,200 cubic yards . of imported fill) of which an unspecified acreage is presently wetland . subject to Corps of Engineers (CE) regulation pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The purpose of the fill is to bring the parcel elevation up to the level of adjacent Beach Boulevard and construct a condominium development. The subject parcel is part of the 170 acres of salt marsh in the City of Huntington Beach which are all that remain of the 2,950 acres of the historic Santa Ana River Estuary. The average elevation of most of the 170 acres is thought to be less than two feet above mean sea level. Virtually all of these acres would be subject to tidal inundation except for the presence of flood control levees. The flood control channels are presently influenced by tides of the Pacific Ocean and the subject parcel was under regular tidal flushing in 1980 when a flapgate through the flood control levee disfunctioned. The entire area is within the one hundred year floodplain of the Santa Ana River, but is nevertheless surrounded by commercial and residential development. The figure supplied in the referenced public notice purporting to show 0.9 acres of existing wetland. is not in agreement with preceding wetland maps prepared by authorities, such as the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and FWS in 1979. The most conservative wetland map shows 2.8 acres of wetland on the subject parcel. See the revised drawing attached. Further, the area description prepared by a consultant .for an adjacent property owner also describes a larger area of wetland than is shown on the public notice figure. Refer to the enclosed map prepared by the CDFG in 1980 for the California Coastal Commission and subsequently included in. "An Ecological Study of Certain Properties Owned by Mills Land and Water Company and the State of California in the City of Huntington Beach, California, for Mills Land and Water Company by Scott Soule and Associates, November, 1980." The predominant wetland vegetation on the subject parcel is pickleweed, (Salicorn is virginica), but also includes sea blite, (Suaeda deoressa) , ditch grass (Ruppia maritima) , frankenia (Frankenia grandifolia) , salt grass (Distichlis spicata), seaside heliotrope (Heliotrooium curassavicum) , and cattail (Typha latifolia) . Invertebrates within the subject wetland are not well studied, but include California horn snail (Cerithidea californica) , and yellow shore crabs, (Hemigraysus oreeonenesis) . Bird observations indicate that the subject wetland parcel may be utilized by a wide variety _ of migratory birds (27 species of shorebirds, herons, egrets; 11 species of gulls and terns; 11 species of ducks and grebes; and at least 13 other species) . The subject wetland parcel also provides nesting habitat for the Belding's savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi), a State of California listed endangered species. The FWS believes the public fish and wildlife resources of the subject wetland parcel to be of high value and further concludes that improvement of this wetland habitat by restoration of regular tidal influence is both reasonable and practicable. We also believe that the scarcity of coastal wetlands in southern California heightens their value for public fish and wildlife resources. Also, in seeking to offset public fish and wildlife resource losses incurred by necessary coastal water-dependent projects, such as port developments, the FWS frequently recommends the restoration or improvement of a Huntington Beach coastal wetland parcel. Irreversible destruction of such a wetland would diminish the biological compensation opportunities of those conducting coastal water-dependent projects. Completion of the work described in the referenced public notice would result in the further decline of a severely diminished habitat of signifi- cant importance to migratory birds, in particular. The permanent loss of 2.8 acres of coastal wetlands is not in the best interest of public fish and wildlife resources. We have learned that in January of 1982, the subject wetland parcel was scraped of vegetation with a bulldozer, appar- ently in an effort to disguise the nature and extent of wetland habitat. We have also learned that much of the project area is presently owned by CALTRANS. 2 I In view of the -long-term adverse impacts to public fish and wildlife resources described above, the FWS recommends that a permit not be issued for the work described in the referenced publice notice. We recommend the applicant seek a non-wetland, non-floodplain property for such a non-water dependent fill. Should there be any questions regarding this letter, , please contact Mr. Jack Fancher or Mr. Ralph Pisapia of our Laguna Niguel Field Office. Sincerely yours,. Area Manager Attachment (2) cc: EPA, San Francisco, CA NMFS, Terminal Island, CA CDFG, Reg. S, Long Beach, CA CCC, S. Coast Reg. , Long Beach, CA CALTRANS, Dist. 7, Los Angeles, CA City of Huntington Beach, Planning DeDt., CA ` 3 C-7 COASTAL ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 86-1 on April 1 , 1986 , the Planning Commission held a study session on the White Hole Report, which constitutes the background information for Coastal Element Amendment No. 86-1 . The item was then scheduled for a public hearing on May 6, 1986 . A number of specific i.ssues were discussed• at the April 1 study session, including flooding, biology, geology and soils, oil production, the extension of Hamilton _Avenue and the alternatives analyzed by staff . Additional information has since been prepared by staff on costs for the fiscal analysis, geology and faults . These sections of the report have been revised . One suggestion for providing property owners with a return on their property was the suggestion for a transfer of development credits (TDC) program. A TDC program requires a receiver site, where the development credits can be used, as well as a plan for assigning development credits to the properties involved.. Staff has worked out an illustrative TDC program to show how the concept operates . Removal of Flood Control Levees A number of comments were received on the concept of removing the flood control levees for restoration purposes. Staff believes that restoration will be needed, and that this concept remains a viable one. More definitive measurement of the levees that would be removed indicates that approximately 14 . 5 acres of new wetland could be created . In addition, the productivity of the existing wetland would be greatly increased. Staff is recommending that, in conjunction with the restoration, 9 .5 acres of development be placed along Beach Boulevard and 2 .0 acres at Magnolia and Pacific Coast Highway.. Hamilton Avenue Extension At the Planning Commission ' s request, staff has analyzed a more northerly routing of Hamilton Avenue between Newland Street and Beach Boulevard. This alternative would require acquisition of a large part of the oil tank farm. It would also necessitate a more curvilinear alignment of Hamilton, and would not align the Hamilton extension to meet the extension of Walnut Avenue at Beach Boulevard . This intersection would be an important linkage for traffic flow and emergency access in the southern part of the City. Accordingly, the staff recommends approval of Resolution #1357 . THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED .0010 Ruth Galanter of the State Coastal Conservancy spoke in opposition to Resolution #1357 as written and in favor of Alternative #1 . . Wayne Woodroff, California Coastal Commission, spoke in favor of Alternative #1 . He expressed concern regarding the TEC plan recommendations by staff. Robert Radovich, Department of Fish and Game, spoke in support of Alternative #1 . He felt that Alternatives #2 and #3 were not in agreement with Fish and Game regulations. He felt Alternative #1 was in agreement . Mr. Radovich indicated 13 acres in the white hole area which he believed to be better suited to development than the current proposal. Phyllis Carruthers, who lives -near the area under discussion, presented photos showing the area before fencing and what it could look like with restoration. She feels that preserving the natural look could be an asset to the community. . She urged the Commission to follow the Coastal Commission' s recommendations. Terry Harmon is a resident of the area and wants the subject area returned to a wildlife and natural setting area. Ronald J. DeFelice, Bitter Water Lake Properties, said he had serious concerns about the staff ' s proposal. He said he had made preliminary arrangements with a developer. in the hope of finding a compromise solution to this proposal . He felt that landowners in the White Hole area should have rights. He felt that Coastal Element Amendment No . 86-1 should be postponed and possibly an alternative or compromise worked out for the 65 acres between the Edison plant on the west and Brookhurst on the east. Mrs. Robert Belanger, a resident of Huntington Strand, said that she ,is one of 13 homeowners who paid a premium price for their land because of their view. Her view would be gone if development occurred. She said in 1979 a decision was made that the land was not suitable for development -- what has changed since then? She wants the land left as is. Dean Albright, Environmental Board, stated their support of Alternative #1 -- preserve the wetlands. Herbert Ahn, spoke against, the amendment and in support of Alternative #1 . Mr. Ahn felt that the area was not safe to build on due to' the earthquake fault . He was also opposed to the removal of the flood berms feeling this would be very unwise and unsafe. Martin S. Schwartz, Bitter Water Properties, felt the land is not attractive as it is now and should be developed, but keeping in mind a deep concern for conservation. He feels there can be a balance between property rights and conservation. He would like this agenda item carried over for 30-60 days to give developers an opportunity to see what they can come up with. PC Minutes - 5/6/86 -11- ( 5103d) Gordon Smith spoke in support of Friends of the Wetlands and their attempt to preserve the wetlands as they are . Mr. Smith also is opposed to the removal. of the flood control berms feeling this would also be unsafe for local residents. Sally Alexander, Flood Prevention Group, Huntington Beach South, spoke in support of the wetlands as they are and to make the area as free from commercialization as possible. Corinne Welch, Environmental Board, felt that just because land was empty doesn' t mean it has to be developed. Let the land alone, it ' s nice to see vacant land--let ' s preserve it . Bill Wiseman, local resident, President of Friends of the Huntington Beach Wetlands . Mr. Wiseman feels we should beautify the coast line not detract from it. He also was strongly against the gas station in the middle of the wetlands indicating he felt this would create dangerous traffic patterns. He also felt that the proposed mini-mart would attract teenagers, transients, etc.., not the type of people the residents would want to have there. He wants the wetlands preserved. Dr . Victor Leipzig, Vice President, Amigos de Bolsa Chica was supportive of the restoration of the wetlands and is opposed to any development in the wetlands . Ron Yocom, was against staff' s recommendations; he wants to preserve the wetlands. He felt residents didn' t want another New York City here. Zita Kozata, spoke in favor of preserving the wetlands and in opposition to any development in the wetlands area. . Glenn Richmond, a student at Ocean View High School , was opposed to staff ' s recommendations . He enjoys being able to drive in the area and see wide open spaces . He wants to preserve the natural setting -- we don ' t need more buildings. Bill Curtis, Zonal Holdings Corp. , and an owner of the mineral rights of 112 acres on Pacific Coast Highway, wants to develop the area -- feels this is not a true wetlands. He would like to see a nice hotel to keep the area nice. He was not in agreement with Alternative 1 , 2 or 3 . Felt this agenda item should be continued . Daisy Piccirelli , a property owner since 1946 , and the largest private landowner, expressed her feelings that selling her land for development was her only alternative. She needs money to pay her property taxes and has run out of options. She asked all present what else can she do. Gary Gorman, Vice President, Friends of the Huntington Beach Wetlands, was in favor of Alternative #1 . He felt it would be irresponsible to drill for oil in the wetlands . PC Minutes - 5/6/86 -12- ( 5103d) Robert London Moore, Jr . , Mills Land & Water Company, grandson of the person purchasing the property in 1901 . He is an 80 year taxpayer who wants the land developed. Mr . Moore was opposed to breaching the flood levees -- felt this could lead to disaster. Dr . Christine Padesky, property owner , in favor of the staff ' s presentation. She wondered where the landowners opposed to the proposal were last year when she helped pick up trash in the area . Tony Lopez, resident, wants to preserve the wetlands. Expressed concern of losing the natural habitat of the area. Georgina Usui , spoke in support of preserving the wetlands. She hoped the City would do something to help Daisy Piccirelli . She hoped that if the wetlands could be preserved that more birds would return to the area. She wants the City, the residents, the developers, to work together. Ron Parone, local resident, spoke in favor of preserving the wetlands . He mentioned seeing a flamingo in the area and hoped this was a good sign of other species of birds returning to the wetlands . Dr. Donald Shipley, wanted to preserve the wetlands . Felt there should be a balance between conservation and development . Chuck Gant , was supportive of Alternative #1 . Mr. Gant doesn 't feel that- the Magnolia area could support any more traffic -- it ' s already .too congested. There were no -other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. The Commissioners also expressed concern about the oil drilling site in this proposal . They were concerned if there were legal reasons why drilling had to be in' this spot . Some of the Commissioners felt that this was an issue of either/or -- must decide for development or for conservation. The Commissioners expressed their thanks to the many residents who came to the meeting and spoke. The Commissioners also want to thank the following groups or agencies for their representation at the meeting: State Coastal Conservancy; the California Coastal Commission; the Department of Fish and Game; Bitter Water Lake Properties; the Environmental Board; the Friends of the Wetlands; Flood Prevention Group (Huntington Beach South ) ; Friends of the Huntington Beach Wetlands; Amigos de Bolsa Chica; Zonal Holdings Corp. ; Mills Land & Water Co . The Commissioners had some of the same concerns --- loss of the wetlands when most of the wetlands in California have already disappeared. Staff informed the Commission that Dr. Vogel feels the area would benefit from restoration, contrary to the opinions expressed in his letter . A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECOND BY ROWE, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION #1357 - ALTERNATIVE 1 AS AMENDED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: PC Minutes - 5/6/86 -13- ( 5103d ) AYES: Rowe, Winchell , Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter , Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER, TO RECOMMEND ALTERNATIVE #3 OF THE HAMILTON EXTENSION TO THE CITY COUNCIL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher , Livengood, Erskine, Porter , Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Adopt Resolution No. 1357, Alternative #1 , as amended, recommending land uses for the White Hole area to the City Council for adoption . 8 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-26 Conditional Exception No . 86-26 is a request to permit the creatio of two p cels which will have less than the required minimum 1 area and 1 width. The existing parcel has 61 feet of stre frontage, me ured from a 20 ' setback line from Main Stre , and is 7 ,301 square f t in size. Proposed Parcel "A" will b ,350 square feet in size wit 34 ' 9" street frontage along Main S eet . Proposed Parcel . "B" will be ,951 square feet in size and ' 4" in width fronting Main Street . Current code requires n y created interior lots to be a minimum o 6 ,000 square feet in ize and 60 feet in width; and exterior lots to be a minimum o 6,500 square feet and 65 feet in width. Garage acc s for Parce 'A" is proposed from Tenth Street, Parcel B from the al ey. Reduction in lot size and lot w' d can only be approved with a conditional exception before th lanning Commission. Pursuant to the environmen regula ions in effect at this time, the Department of Develo ent Service posted draft Negative Declaration No. 86-25 r ten days , an no comments, either verbal or written were rece ' ed. The staff , in ' ts initial study of. the project , has recom ended that a negative claration be issued Prior to any act ' on on Conditional Exception No. 86-26, it is necessary for he Planning Commission to revi and act on Negative Declaratio o. 86-25. THE PU IC HEARING WAS OPENED Er est T. Oddo, co-owner, was present and voiced his s pport for the staff 's recommendation. PC Minutes - 5/6/86 -14- ( 5103d) 1 TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT CREDIT Any private holdings in the designated transfer area which are not suhject to the public trust will be allowed "transfer of development credit" (TDC) to a "receiver area" as identified on the map. The mechanism for credit shall consist of one unit for each 10, 000 square feet. A unit will be defined as one residential unit or 1 , 000 square feet of commercial or office space or one hotel room. Credits for transfer will become final upon certification of the. Land Use Plan and determination by the State that the area generating the transfer is not subject to the public trust. The receiver area will be allowed additional density up to a maximum of units when credits are applied from the transfer area. Credits transferred into the receiver area must conform to the land uses adopted for that portion of the area. JAF:pb (4722d) • Joo \�\ ors' � r• Al xz O.C.9AN1'1'ATION +++++ \ GV� - r .Cp _ •. -1��� lJ�.J. ,1 OC. �;. --� TREATM ENT PL Cr I z-p E ---- ++ 1pr � O.C.++ ++ ++ EDISON ++ ++r r COMPANY '_�- -- ---- i FIGURE TRANSFER AREAS TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT CREDITS PROGRAM RECEIVER AREAS m NONCERTIFIED PUBLIC TRUST LANDS , �' COASTAL AREAS HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA PUNNING DEPARTMENT PROPOSED POLICIES FOR. WHITE HOLE AREA 1 . A conditional use permit shall be required for any development . 2 . Development shall be permitted under a plan which consolidates upland and wetland in order to restore or enhance a wetland area at least as large as the total number of acres of wetland found to be degraded by the Department of Fish and Game . 3 . As a condition of development, restoration and management plans shall be required. The restoration plan should contain detailed plans for (1) grading and alterations to natural landforms , (2 ) timing of construction work, and (3 ) introduction and propagation of plant materials. The management plan shall constitute an agreement between the applicant and an appropriate agency or, organization approved by the City of Huntington Beach to guarantee that the wetland is restored and maintained to the extent established under stated management objectives and within a specified time frame . 4. Restoration work shall be accomplished concurrently with or prior to any development. 5 . Wetland acreage which is created from former upland or non-wetland areas may be used as a trade-off for developable area located adjacent to Beach Boulevard . Such trade-off shall be at a ratio of greater than one acre of wetland for each developable acre . 6 . Developable acreage within the white hole area shall be used as receiver sites for a transfer of development credit program. (5077d) Q FROM Law O,6im McKENNA, CONNER & CUNEO 3435 WnzHwx BOULEVARD Los ANGELES,CALIFORNIA 90010 I TO Members of the City Council c/o City Clerk 2000 Main 44 Huntington Beach, California 92648 i 's 1 Bitter Water Lake Properties ;lam 611 Anton Boulevard Ninth Floor " Costa Mesa, California 92626 May 23, 1986 OPPOSITION OF BITTER WATER LAKE PROPERTIES, HOLDER OF PROPERTY INTEREST, TO PROPOSED ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-1 BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, PURSUANT TO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1357 CITY COUNCIL MEETING: June 2, 1986 7: 00 p.m. TO: The Members of the City Council c/o City Clerk 2000 Main Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Council Members: Bitter Water Lake Properties ("BWLP" ) , a partnership, has made a very substantial investment in, and holds an option on, approximately 67 acres of property north of Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River. This land, which is owned by Daisy Piccirelli, is part of the "white hole" area along Beach Boulevard. BWLP will be severely and adversely affected by the proposed adoption of General Plan Amendment 86-1 in the form recommended by the Planning Commission. The proposed amendment is premised on the mistaken assertion by the Department of Fish and Game that the property within the "white hole" is wetlands or can be restored to wetlands. This is simply wrong. Contrary to the unfounded conclusions of the Depart- ment of Fish and Game, this property is not "wetlands, " nor can it readily or economically be restored to wetlands. See, e.g. , letter of Ronald J. DeFelice to Ms. Jeannine Frank, City of Huntington Beach, Department of Development Services, dated March 27, 1986, attached hereto; letter of Dr. Richard J. Vogl, Professor of Biology, California State University, Los Angeles, dated November 16, 1982, attached hereto. The Members of the City Council May 23, 1986 Page 2 The property is not a scenic marsh likely to attract tourists or wildlife enthusiasts. It is unsightly and run down. Designating the area as "conservation" will not improve it. BWLP would like to develop the property subject to our option for residential use in a high quality manner, ful- filling a need for housing, and recognizing community needs. We would include affordable housing in any development. This is important to the interests of your constituents, the citi- zens of Huntington Beach. Our approach would be highly bene- ficial to the City' s tax base, would result in more jobs and more housing, and would enable this property to become a scenic community landmark rather than a useless, local eye- sore. The fact that certain State agencies have declared the property to be "wetlands" is irrelevant to your decision as to whether and how it can be developed. We submit that the City cannot substitute the policies of the Coastal Commission, the Department of Fish and Game, or other State agencies for its own judgment. These other agencies' pronouncements and opinions are not binding on the City and do not relieve the City Council of the obligation to arrive at an appropriate land-use plan for this property, consistent with its legal obligations to the property owners. The proper land use for this property is high density residential. We have tried to briefly acquaint you with our opposition to an extraordinarily inequitable and unfounded proposed amendment to the General Plan. We hope you will listen and reject the proposed amendment. We thank you for your attention to this matter. Yours very truly, Martin S. Schwartz For Bitter Water Lake Properties MSS: 355-196 Enclosures TER WATER LAKE PROPERTI `... 611 Anton Boulevard Suite 900 Costa Mesa, California 92626 l March 27, 1986 Department of Development Services City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ATTENTION: Ms. Jeannine Frank Senior Planner Gentlemen: I am a partner in Bitter Water Lake Properties, the partnership which holds an option to purchase certain real property in the White Hole area north of the Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River. This letter is in response to the letter from James W. Palin dated February 21, 1986 enclosing a draft copy (undated) of the "Noncertified Coastal Areas Report." The property on which Bitter Water holds an option is that in which Daisy Thorpe Piccirelli has title, as well as that on which Mrs. Piccirelli has an option from the California Department of Transportation. Essentially, the property on which Bitter Water has an option is bounded by the Southern California Edison property on the west and Brookhurst Street on the east. I am sending this letter on behalf of all of the partners of Bitter Water Lake Properties. We are opposed to the Staff recommendation contained on pages 63 through 65 of the Staff Report. That recommendation calls for development of sixteen and one-half (16.5) acres of property near the intersection of Beach Boule- vard and Pacific Coast Highway — land, which, at present, is owned by the Department of Transportation, an agency of the State of California. It further calls for the "restoration" of one hundred thirty and one-half (130.5) acres to "productive wetland," and a "development node" of two (2) acres at the northwest corner of Magnolia Street and Pacific Coast Highway. The two-acre development node would be used for a service station and convenience market. Also, the Staff recommenda- tion allots seventeen (17) acres to be devoted to energy production. We find nothing in the evidentiary sections of the Report which justifies the Staff's conclusion, except the statement that the Staff's own Alternative 2 "allows more development than could be found to.be consistent with Coastal Act policies." The Staff recommendation also calls for some type of transfer of devel- opment rights among property owners to share in the sixteen and one-half (16.5) acres of developable property, most of which is owned by the State of California. Before I comment further on the Staff recommendation, I would like to review briefly the history of the property in the White Hole. According to the State Department of Fish and Game, the property was at one time a pristine saltwater Ms. Jeannine Frank March 27, 1986 Page 2 marsh which provided life and sustenance to great numbers of exotic species of plant, animal and bird life. This conclusion is one which has to be accepted some- what on faith since there is, apparently, no written record of the appearance or quality of the property in question during the era before California became a State. In any event, it is conceded by all parties that the property, at present, is in a rather sorry condition. It is unsightly; it provides very little sustenance to wildlife or plant life. It contributes no income to its owners and very little in the way of taxes. Finally, it has no recreational or scenic value. The property came into its present condition largely as a result of the acts of the State of California and its various subdivisions. Along the southerly edge, the Pacific Coast Highway was developed by the State of California. Along the northerly edge, the Flood Control District of the County of Orange constructed a flood control channel which also borders the property at the easterly edge. A sewage treatment plant stands just north of the flood control channel. Additional public streets constructed by the State or its various subdivisions criss-cross the property. In the middle of the property stands a great generating station. which provides elec- trical energy for millions of people in Southern California. The land on which this generating station stands was obtained through the power of eminent domain, granted to public utilities by the State of California. There is a boatyard at Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway and some run-down residential development in front of the trailer park, both on land still owned by the State. After the develop- ment surrounding the property in private hands, all of which development was conducted by or under the auspices of the State, nothing of the alleged beauty and productivity of early periods remains. In addition, great swaths of this property were condemned by the California Department of Transportation about fifteen years ago for a Pacific Coast Freeway, a traffic artery so odious in its conception that it was never built. The property owners from whom this land was taken have waged, with partial success, long legal battles to regain title. The property, other than the por- tions used for public purposes, remains largely undeveloped because its fate at the hands of various public agencies has been uncertain from the time of the planning of the Pacific Coast Freeway to the present inability of the City and the Coastal Commission to agree on zoning. Now, the State of California, through the California Coastal Commission, would have the owners of the remaining undeveloped portions.of this property some- how bear the entire responsibility of atoning for the state's past conduct, which caused the property to be in its present regrettable condition. The highway, the streets, the public utility, the flood control channels, the sewage treatment plant, the boatyard and the run-down residential area are to remain, but the acreage in pri- vate hands, according to the Coastal Commission, should be devoted solely to environmental purposes. Although many would agree that the Coastal Commission's goal is laudable, there remains the question of compensation of the owners of this private property for the transformation of their property into a wilderness park. It. is of no small significance to understand how it is that Bitter Water' Lake Properties came to obtain an option on the Piccirelli property. Mrs. Piccirelli, a woman in her early eighties, was about to lose the property in a sale to the State for the failure to pay real property taxes. At the time this portentous event was �__.. about to occur, a lawsuit involving the Summa Corporation was pending before the l I Ms. Jeannine Frank March 27, 1986 Page 3 United States Supreme Court in which the State of California argued that property like that in the. White Hole area was subject to a tidelands easement of the State of California, effectively depriving private property owners of any use of the prop- erty. The California Supreme Court had upheld the State's view, overturning over one hundred years of precedent. Because of the cloud on Mrs. Piccirelli's title, she could not. obtain from ordinary sources a loan of any kind secured by the property; and she had no other assets or source of income. Despite the California Supreme Court holding, Bitter Water Lake Properties, because it felt the California Supreme Court had erred, agreed to pay the real property taxes imposed by the State and to undertake other substantial obligations aggregating in excess of $500,000. In exchange, Bitter Water obtained an option to purchase Mrs. Piccirelli's property with an exercise price of $400,000 per acre for such portion of it as could eventually be developed. Ultimately, the United States Supreme Court reversed the holding of the California Supreme Court and rejected the arguments of the State of California. We now find the State of California attempting to achieve the same result it failed to obtain in the Summa litigation through the use of its zoning power. The pattern of the State's conduct with regard to this property from. the commencement of the construction of the Pacific Coast Highway through the rezoning of the prop- erty' from R-5 to open space is a history of. government mismanagement and intimi- dation.. In analyzing the deficiencies of the Staff Report, I have attempted to isolate those societal values which appear to be included in the discussions in the 1 Staff Report.. The societal values which I have identified are the following: 1. Equity and fairness to all citizens, including the recognition of private property rights. 2. Enhancement of the local tax base. 3. Scenic beauty-for the enjoyment of the citizens of California generally. 4. Restoration of primeval v.,etlands to their original condition. 5.. Preservation of endangered species. No one of these various societal goals can be attained in full without sacri- ficing the others. These goals are competitive and the land use alternative chosen should be the one that permits the greatest fulfillment of all of the goals. The Staff recommendation gives almost no recognition to any of those societal values except the restoration of primeval wetlands. Bitter Water Lake Properties contends that- Alternative 2 contained in the Staff Report comes much closer to fulfilling,. to the greatest degree possible, all of the societal goals which are expressed above. While Bitter Water Lake Properties does not agree with Alternative 2 in all its particulars, it endorses the basic approach contained therein. In exchange for development of enough- of the property to permit some economic benefit to the owners, the owners could dedicate a substantial portion of that property for restoration as a salt marsh. Profits from development could furnish the funds necessary for restoration. Ms. Jeannine Frank March 27, 1986 Page 4 Let us examine each of the societal values as set forth above against Bitter Water's proposal and the Staff recommendation. A.. Equity and Fairness. The Staff recommendation makes a casual reference to the property rights of private citizens, but proposes to respond to the requirement that a govern- ment treat its citizens fairly in a wholely inadequate fashion. The Staff would somehow transfer development rights in the small portion of the property which it would permit to be developed among all property owners. No mechanism now exists for such transfer of rights and we doubt that the transfer of development rights could be made to function. Further, it would appear that, even if such transfers could be effected, there is simply not enough value in the development the Staff would permit to compensate the property owners adequately. Under present zoning and as proposed in the Staff recommendation, the owner of the property on which Bitter Water has an option cannot use it for any purpose. No agriculture is permitted. No disturbance of the earth is permitted. No grading or construction is permitted. This leaves the owner of the property with naked legal title and the obligation to pay State property taxes. When a State puts a property owner in this fix, it may be held to have taken the property by "inverse con- demnation." The California Supreme Court has, in lawsuits won by the Coastal Commission, interpreted the concept of inverse condemnation narrowly. Some of these California cases are just now reaching the United States Supreme Court. We believe that the United States Supreme Court will strike down the California Supreme Court's decisions and that the United States Supreme Court would find a "taking" in this instance. B. Enhancement of Local Tax Base. The Staff Report shows that Alternative 2 would provide substantial additional taxes to the State and the City of Huntington Beach. The Staff's own recommendation would provide little in the way of such taxes. The Staffs arguments that the restoration of the property to salt marsh would enhance the value of neigh- boring real property appear to be mere wishful thinking. First of all, it is difficult to see how neighboring property can be so enhanced in value when the neighboring prop- erty consists primarily of a gigantic public utility, the Pacific Ocean, a flood control channel and a sewage treatment plant. In addition, there is no explanation of where the money will come from for such restoration. If no development is permitted, the property may remain in its present condition for many years. Not only is money needed for restoration, it is also needed to purchase the land, since even the State of California has not contended that it can flood private property without obtaining title.. The Staff recommendation.does not come to grips with the problem of funding. C. Scenic Beauty. We are at.,a loss. to understand the Staff's proposal that a gasoline station and convenience _store should be built at Magnolia Street and the Pacific Coast Highway. This suggestion r.seems to defy common sense and good judgment. Certainly, the people of the State of California do not need another beachfront gas Ms. Jeannine Frank March 27, 1986 Page 5 station! However unattractive the site is now, its appearance could only be dimin- ished by the addition of the garish signs and bright lights of a gas station. The notion that a convenience market would serve beachgoers also seems ill considered. It is unclear whether the beachgoers would drive to the convenience store, in which case they could go to one anywhere, or will risk their lives crossing treacherous Pacific Coast Highway on foot to purchase soft drinks and candy bars. Although the Staff recommendation calls for the restoration of one hundred thirty (130) acres of the property to salt marsh, there seems to be very little acknowledgment that such projects cost money. It is unclear where the Staff pro- poses that the money for the acquisition of title and for the subsequent restoration would be forthcoming, if at all. The result would be that an area already unsightly area would be made even less appealing. On the other hand, if some substantial development were permitted on the property, the City could require as a condition to that development that por- tions of the property be restored to conditions optimal for bird and animal life and then dedicated to the City. Indeed, in order to obtain the maximum value from the development, the property would have to be beautified in some manner whether the City required it or not. It would appear that funds for the restoration of acreage, in addition to what Cal. Trans would restore between Brookhurst and the Santa Ana river mouth, could be obtained only by permitting some development. D. Restoration of Wetlands. We are not certain that sufficient evidence has been advanced that the property ever was a salt marsh providing sustenance to rare bird and fish life. Nevertheless, if sufficient funds were invested in the property, certainly a facsimile of a salt marsh could be created on some portion of the property. Without such funding, however, it is highly unlikely that anything truly resembling the alleged original salt marsh conditions could be created. The Staff proposal of simply tearing down levees on flood control channels appears to be a reckless suggestion. There is no evidence that such simple measures will create the desired conditions. In fact, it appears to a layman that an old-fashioned, smelly slough, rather than a salt marsh, might well result. E. Preservation of Endangered Species. With respect to endangered species, the Coastal Commission and the Staff appear to be on the horns of a dilemma. According to the Report, the endan- gered species which exist on the property are the plant "Salicornia" and the bird species "Savannah Sparrow." These forms of life live in tandem and only in areas of "degraded" wetlands. Thus, the degraded condition of the property, the very thing that makes the area unsightly and unappealing and cries out for "restoration," is what makes the existence of the Salicornia and the Savannah Sparrow possible. The Staffs proposal to flood the area by tearing down levees would seem to make short shrift of the Savannah Sparrow., The Staff pays lip service to the Savannah SpaL-row by noting, on several occasions, that "care should be taken" not to destroy it. No suggestions are made as to the manner in which the Savannah Sparrow would be so preserved. _J ' r Ms. Jeannine Frank March 27, 1986 Page 6 It would appear that man's goals for this property, whether they be the restoration of the property to salt marsh or the development of the property for man's use, would pose some harm to the Savannah Sparrow. Again, however, if suf- ficient funds were forthcoming by the development of the property, trained biolo- gists and engineers might work out a means of accommodating these forms of life. The Staff's proposal simply to flood the area quickly and cheaply by tearing down levees does not seem to be a prudent approach to giving care to these endangered species. The Staff discussion of the Savannah Sparrow underscores one important point; i.e., the real goal of the Coastal Commission is not preservation. The goal is restoration, because, in this case, preservation does not make sense. But the prop- erty cannot be restored unless the State obtains title. Real,property cannot be altered by the State without the permission of its owners. In summary, the Staff Report seems to us to give undue weight to the assumed current views of the California Coastal Commission. The City of Huntington Beach should make its own determination of what is the best use of the property, balancing the various societal goals discussed in the Staff report and such .other goals as the City Council might identify. If the Coastal Commission chooses to pursue a different course, then let the Coastal Commission pursue them with its own powers and its own resources. The City of Huntington Beach should not be merely a rubber stamp for a State agency. Indeed, should the City make its decision based solely on its understanding of what the Coastal Commission desires, it is the City which may have to bear the cost of legal actions arising out of inverse condemnation claims. We respectfully submit that some variation of Alternative 2 of the Staff Report is the best solution to resolving the competing interests with respect to the property. Representatives of Bitter Water Lake Properties are prepared to discuss these matters further with any member of the City Staff or the City Council. Ve u y ours, aid J. Felice RJD:sk (0 1/590XCM#04852-0002) CALIFORNIA STATE L is1IVERST'Y• L OS ANGELtS `a 5LS1 STATE UNIVERSrIY DRIVE LOS ANGELES CAUFORNIA 90032 Department of Biology November 16, 1982 California Coastal Commission City of Huntington Beach Land Use Plan Public Hearing Hacienda Hotel, Los Angeles Dear Commission Members: I Am writing in raoards to the =develcped lands that are 'Located east of Beach Blvd. and inland of Pacific Coast Highway in the City of Huntington Beach, particularly those parcels owned by Mills Land and Water Co. and Caltrans. I challenge the presumed and unsubstantiated conclusions of California Pish and Game Department and the California Coastal Commission staff that, tl) these areas are presently viable wetlands, and (2) that they can be fully restored by simply opening culverts in the adjacent flood control channel. These undeveloped lands were once a part of a tidal marshland which embraced most of the region. But with the encroachment of man-made developments, particularly road building, the elimination of the natural ocean outlet in the 1940's, the channelization. of the Santa Ana River, and the.construction of flood control drain channels, this marshland ceased to.-function and began to take on upland characteristics. The most serious degradation occurred with the elimination of tidal flushing from the sea and the periodic renewal from fresh-water floods. In the past 20 years, I have observed,as an ecologist, the advanced, and perhaps, final stages of this degradation. Evidence for this conclusion are the following: l. ) The soils are presently dead; the muds no longer are habitat for the myriads of mud-dwelling invertebrates such as ghost shrimp, jack-knife clams, cockle-shells, varnish clams, and gaper clams that are essential to the usual dynamic functioning of wetlands (e.g. providing soil. porosity and soil drainage during low tides). In many areas, the former lowland soils have been buried and depressed byfM materials used to build roads, power lines, and levees and have been spread by erosion, as well as with the illegal dumping of dirt, concrete, and rubbish. 2.) The remaining vegetation of the area is in transition from. a former lowland type to that of a disturbed upland. The area is currently undergoing rapid changes and is, therefore, difficult to assess ecologically. The remaining pickleweed is declining with little or no signs of vigorous growth and renewal .despite its persistent nature. Much of the vegetation has been destroyed or disturbed by off-road vehicles, kids on bicycles, rubbish dumpers, and people running dogs. As of 1980, the area supported only 8 out of the 21 plant species characteristic of viable salt marsh systems. Pickle- weed, as well as a number of other wetland plants, are poor indicators of THE CAUMN LA STATE UNNERSrN AND COUFGFS � ..� wetlands by themselves, since they- often act as pioneer invaders or colonizers of man-disturbed, non-wetland areas in the general vicinity of true wetlands. The most active plant growth at present is exhibited by non-native upland weeds. 3.) The fishes and other aquatic organisms are gone. The area now supports only temporary ponds of lifeless waters after rains -- waters that quickly evaporate to leave behind life-denying and water-deterring layers of salt. 4.) Wetland bird utilization has been rapidly declining as habitat and food have declined. Wetland bird foods are largely absent. Insect and seed sources co.-imon to old fields and disturbed uplands -are increasing. The greatest wetland bird use is that of resting and loafing (as are levee tops, lawns, and parrying lots in the area)-when nearby wetlands are saturated with. wintering birds. True wetlands, in contrast, are sought out by wetland birds primarily for feeding. The BeldinggIs savannah sparrow may no longer be present. Potential habitat for the endangered clapper rail is gone. There is no food for the least tern. As a result of the accumulative effects of these negative impacts, the area is presently,devoid of the essential functions of a viable coastal, salt-marsh ecosystem that formerly existed there. The. biotic and physical features that characterize wetlands are either lac '4 =, are indicative of former wetlands and not present conditions, or have been misinterpreted by inexperienced observers or those who have failed to carefully examine the area. Most biologists seem to agree that the only hope for even a partial facsimile of a wetland is to restore tidal flushing. The proper way to achieve this is with a- direct opening to the sea, thereby maxi m;zing water quality, potential functioning, and organism recolonization. Utilizing culvert openings in the Huntington Beach Orange County Flood Control Channel appears to .be an obvious and simple alternative to bring about tidal flushing. But this alternative does not appear to be acceptable in light of the recent opposition of the Oran' County Environmental Management Agency in word and deed. In addition, engineering and legal problems must be examined and evaluated before such an alternative can be considered to be feasible. Even if the .engineering and technical problems are overcome and real and potential water damage to adjacent structures are eliminated, the problems of poor water-quality, siltation, and even toxic spills associated with flood channels still remain as biological threats. I question the present evaluations of this area and do not find them acceptable because they appear to be unrealistic and are not backed by any up-to-date and comprehensive biological and engineering studies. Sincerely, Dr. Richard J. Vogl. Professor-of Biology a 'i�yFq i- ADm!!�. V k Se e,4 , �Z G7 D 9021 Bermuda Drive 8untinston Beach CA 92646 • J ef V / 4C , _ J W4 l a . NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING COASTAL ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 86-1 (White Hole Study) C4 Covn c r� NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. Sure 2, -1:30 DATE/TIME: -P4�—G; 1986 - ?-.40 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: Coastal Element Amendment ' No. 86-1 (White Hole Study) APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach LOCATION: Between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River, generally south of the flood control channel. REQUEST: A public hearing to consider an amendment to the Coastal Element of the General Plan addressing the 23I.5-acre-11hite Hole area generally located on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River. The Planning Commission recommendation is for 5. 0 acres of Visitor Serving Commercial, 83 acres of Industrial Energy Production and 143 .5 acres of Conservation. The staff recommendation is for 14 acres of Visitor Serving Commercial, 2 acres of Medium High Density Residential, 17 acres of Conser- vation/Industrial Energy Production, 83 acres of Industrial Energy Production, 0. 5 acres of Oil Production and 115 acres of Conservation. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS : Exempt pursuant to Section 15265 of the -=- California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed amendment is on file in the Department of Development Services, 2000 Main Street , Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS- are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If--there are any further questions please call --Planner at 536-5271. - - - 34nine Frank, Senior' - James W . Palin, Secretary Huntington Beach Planning Commission (4.694d-8) 148-027-52 04-001 Robert A. Ujihara 3131 Foxhall Dr . aunt. Beach, CA 92646 3 ... .. . .... ... ... . ............a... . t.>.s....... 114-513-11 04-001 148-021-23 04-035 148-027-22 04-001 Roger' Andrews iuntington Breakers William L. Adams 9322 Leilani Dr . 611 Anton Blvd. Ste.970 10772 Mission Ln. Hunt . Beach, CA 92646 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 148-027-23 04-001 148-027-24 04-001 148-027-25 04-001 Jeannette Doum Margaret Bennett Robert C. Jugan 8071 Slater Ave. #120 8142 Pawtucket Dr . 8136 Pawtucket Cir . #'215 Hunt. Beach, CA 92647 Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 Hunt . Beach, CA 92646 148-027-26 04-001 148-027127 04-001 148-027-28 04-001 Dianna Johnston Charles Gebhart Azim Nassernia 8132 Pawtucket Dr . 3715 Brand Crest 8122 Pawtucket Dr. 5 Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 Encinitas, CA Hunt . Beach, CA 92646 148-027-29 04-001 148-127-30 04-001 148-027-31 04-001 Jim R. Mitchell Robert L. VanZandt Janet F . Fisher 8116 Pawtucket Dr . 1512 Ben Lomond Dr . 8111 Ridgefield Dr . Hunt . Beach, CA 92646 Glendale, CA Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 148-027-32 04-001 148-027-33 04-001 148-027-34 04-001 Frank G. Terry Anna Conan Nasser Khazanedar 20321 Adrian Cr . 8121 Ridgefield Dr . 8125 Ridgefield Dr . Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 148-027-35 04-001 148-027-36 04-001 148-027-37 04-001 Robert T. Lyon Donn LaVigne Moyer Pakpour 8131 Ridgefield Dr . -8135 Ridgefield Dr . 176 McKnight Dr . Apt .8 Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 Laguna Bch, CA 92651 148-027-38 04-001 _ 148-027-39/40 04-001 148-027-41 04-001 Craig Taylor Henry A. Bryan Rueben Guberman 8145 Ridgefield Dr . 8142 Ridgefield Dr. 8136 Ridgefield Dr. Hunt . Beach, CA 92646 Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 148-027-42 04-001 148-027-43 04-001 148-027-44 04-001 Roger A. Springer Arnold Kupetz Dyan M. Sullivan 3502 Carfax Ave. 22515 Crenshaw Blvd. 8122 Ridgefield Dr . Long Beach, CA 90808 Torrance, CA 90503 Hunt . Beach, CA 92646 148-027-45 04-001 148-027-46 04-001 148-027-47 04-001 Larry Guinn Robert B. Mello Charles B. Long .21272 Chesterbrook Ln. 2605 Delway #A 24678 Toledo Ln. Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 E1 Toro, CA 148-027-48 04-001 148-027-49 04-001 148-027-50 04-061 Pauline Stout Steven Sturm Leslie Drucker 21286 Chesterbrook Ln. 8145 Foxhall Dr ., 9215 Anson River Cr. Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 Ft. Valley, CA 149-371-18 04-001 149-371-19 04-001 149-371-20 04-001 James' A. Brink ,Iilson S. Ying Robert Belanger 22321 Harwich Ln. 22331 Harwich Ln. 22341 Harwich Ln. Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 Hunt . Beach, CA 92646 Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 149-371-21 04-001 149-371-22 04-001 149-371-23 04-001 William Malkin Ronald M. Wiles Terry Lee Harmon 22351 Harwich Ln. 22361 Harwich Ln. 22371 Harwich Ln. Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 Hunt . Beach, CA 92646 149-371-24 04-001 149-371-' 25 04-001 149-371-26 04-001 John M. Coleman David G. Hoffman Dale R. Holmsen 22381 Harwich Ln. 177-F Riverside Ave. P.O. Box 606 Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Cedar Glen, CA 92321 149-371-27 04-001 149-J71-28 04-001 149-371-29 04-001 Steven Peters Minod Malek Harvey Rudy 22411 Harwich Ln. 22421 Harwich Ln. P.O. Box 26134 Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 Santa Ana, CA 149-371- 30 04-001 114-495-01 04-001 114-495-02 04-001 R. Steven Peters Juanita C. Weir James Ibbotson 22412 Wallingford Ln. 8041 Newman Ave. 9262 Christine Dr . Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 Hunt . Beach, CA 92646 Hunt . Beach, CA 92646 .............................:..... . ... . ... 114-495-03 04-001 114-495-04 04-001 114-495-05 04-001 Guenter Steuer Albert Nadow Steven Jeff . Adams 9252 Christine Dr . P.O. Box 8747 9232 Christine Dr . Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 Anaheim, CA 92802 Hunt . Beach, CA 92646 114-495-06 04-001 114-495-07 04-001 114-495-08 04-001 Robert Simpson Lucille Bagnoli Herbert Ahn 9222 Christine Dr . 9562 Hightide Dr . 9202 Christine Dr . Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 Hunt . Beach, CA 92646 114-495-09 04-001 114-495-10 04-001 114-495-11 04-001 Farouk Sha'moo Elmer Wade Jack Buffa 9192 Christine Dr . 9182 Hightide Dr. 9172 Christine Dr . Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 Hunt . Beach, CA 92646 Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 114-495-12 04-001 114-495-13 04-001 114-495-14 04-001 Marshall Papke Edward Drews Gregory Brenner 9162 Christine Dr . 9152 Hightide Dr . 9142 Christine Dr . Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 Hunt. Beach, CA .92646 Hunt . Beach, CA 92646 114-495-15 04-001 114-513-09 04-001 114-513-10 04-001 Wayne Murry Raymond Courtenay _Anita Kohler 9132 Christine Dr . 22221 Malibu Ln. 9312 Leilani Dr. Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 149-041-02 04-001 149-041-03 04-001 149-041-04 04-001 Robert A. Havercroft John Oschman John F. Rall 9022 Niguel Cir. 9032 Niguel Cir. 9042 Niguel Cir . Hunt . Beach, CA 92646 Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 149-041-05 04-001 149-041-12 04-001 149-041-13 04-001 Bruce B. Mackenzie Darwin D._ Zirbel Ruby J. VanWie 9062 Niguel Cir . 9061 Adelia Cir . 9041 Adelia Cir . Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 Yf 149-041-14 04-001 149-041-15 04-001 149-041-16 04-001 Patrick Beachner Donald Churchward Donald Schweiger 9031 Adelia Cir . 9121 Adelia Cir . 9001 Adelia Cir . Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 Hunt . Beach, CA 92646 149-041-17 04-001 149-041-18 04-001 149-041-19 04-001 Joseph H. Johnson Clyde C. Clark James D. Kuns 9002 Adelia Cir . 9022 Adelia Cir . 9032 Adelia Cir . Hunt . Beach, CA 92646 Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 Hunt . Beach, CA 92646 149-041-20 04-001 149-041-21 04-001 149-041-28 04-001 Edward Moynagh Chetta Jira D. Bruce McDougall 9042 Adelia Cir . 9062 Adelia Cir . 9061 Rhodesia Dr . Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 Hunt . Beach, CA 92646 149-041-29 04-001 149-041-30 04-001 149-041-31 04-001 Ellis N.. Palmer = David Archibald John Knecht 9041 Rhodesia Dr . 9031 Rhodesia Dr ." 9021 Rhodesia Dr . Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 149-041-32 04-001 149-041-33 04-001 149-041-34 04-001 Richard Hipwell John M. Earley Fred I . Grimes 9001 Rhodesia Dr . 9002 Rhodesia Dr . 202-B 21st . St . Hunt . Beach, CA 92646 Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 149-041-35 04-001 149-041-36 04-001 149-041-37 04-001 John Montoya George Hutton-Potts Nathaniel Fuqua 9032 Rhodesia Dr . 90.42 Rhodesia Dr . 9062 Rhodesia Dr . Hunt . Beach, CA 92646 .Hunt . Beach, CA 92646 Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 149-371-12 04-001 149-371-13 04-001 149-371-14 04-001 Allen S. Gimenez Frank Chenelia Nagesh Shetty 9341 Gateshead Dr . 9331 Gateshead Dr . 9332 Gateshead Dr . Hunt. Beach, .CA 92646 Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 t , f. »403v E'i i..t.6 aaGiffi..• 41 .. ... t »S .)C <ilYzYi..ii.:lYia ............. 149-371-15 04-001 149-371-16 04-.001 149-371-1-7 04-001 Gerald P. Anderson Artemio R. Ramil James W. Brady 9342 Gateshead Dr. 22301 Harwich Ln. 22311 Harwich Ln. Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 Hunt . Beach, CA 92646 Hunt . Beach, CA 92646 4 . .l . .....nv f.Y.i f f..fait•y..4..L�a>• ...,.w r.x......u.t.�.�Ga.....t.• �.• � � �♦t c... 4 ..•.�.�.a.,...�.4t.... .. ..... .. .. »».........f . t 49-013,-101 04-001 ' 49-0.13-02 04-001 149-013-03 04-001 redri,ck Fortier ilde Grantham Louis Kastorff 1771 Kiowa Ln. 21781 Kiowa Ln. 21801 Kiowa Ln. .unt. Beach, CA 92646 Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 .49-013-04 04-001 149-013-05 04-001 149-013-06 04-001 :hoda M. Englert Donald G. Holmes Charles E. Carter '.2574 Galilea 21821 Kiowa Ln. 21831 Kiowa Lri. :unt . Beach, CA 92646 Hunt . Beach, CA 92646 Hunt . Beach, CA . 92646 .49-014-01 04-001 149-014-02 04-001 . 149-021-01 04-001 'ohn Parker Gerard Gartland Arthur Ashley 1822 Kiowa Ln. 21832 Kiowa Ln. 21842 Kiowa Ln. [unt. Beach, CA 92646 Hunt . Beach, CA 92646 Hunt . Beach, CA 92646 .49-022-01 04-001 149-0212-02 0-4-001 149-022-03 04-001 ;uy Raymond Martin Charles Priddy David Nelson '.1882 Kiowa Ln. 2971 Brookstone Way 21862 Kiowa Ln. Punt . Beach, CA 92646 Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 Hunt . Beach, CA 92646 L49-023-01 04-001 149-023-02 04-001 149-023-03 04-001 tussell Brankov Vinton Marriott Isolde Wittman 21841 Kiowa Ln. 21851 Kiowa Ln. 21861 Kiowa Ln. aunt . Beach, CA 92646 Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 Hunt . Beach, CA 92646 L49-023-04 04-001 149-023-05 04-001 149-023-06 04-001 2ichard Svoboda Daniel Malloy James W: Simpson 21871 Kiowa Ln. 21881 Kiowa Ln. 21391 Kiowa Ln. aunt. Beach, CA 92646 ; Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 Hunt . Beach, CA 92646 149-023-07 04-001 149-023-08 04-001 149-023-09 04-001 Kenneth A. Lee Bette M. Boyd Paul S. Howard 1109 N. Evonda St . 21911 Kiowa Ln. 21931 Kiowa Ln. :aunt. Beach, CA 92646 Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 149-023-10 04-001 149-023-11 04-001 149-023-12 04-001 Fares Jahshan Donald J. McKinney Julius Paldi 21941 Kiowa Ln . 21961 Kiowa Ln. 21832 Windsong Cir . Hunt. Beach, CA 926.46 Hunt . Beach, CA 92646 Hunt . Beach, CA 92646 149-023-13 04-001 149-023-14 04-001 149-024-01 04-001 Kanuel Ur.zua Ralph L. Osterkamp Gerard A. Peters 3042 Aloha Dr . 9052 Aloha Dr . 21932 Windsong Cir . Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 Hunt. Beach, CA, _92646 Hunt . Beach, CA 92646 149-024-02 04-001 149-024-03 04-001 149-041-01 04-001. Richard W. Finlay Charles. W. Gant David T. Martin 21912 Kiowa Ln 21902 Kiowa Ln 9002 Niguel Cir . Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 Hunt. Beach, CA 92646 Hunt . Beach, CA 92646 Mr. Dick Yparraq` =re Ca. State Fish & Game Dept. 6061 Chinook Westminster, California 92683 Dept. of Fish & Game 1416 9th Street, 12th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 A4,, : '9A 12?.Je`r—, Assemblyman Frizzelle 17195 Newhope Street Suite 201 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 9 Troy Realty 5885 Warner Avenue CA 92646 Huntington Beach, Attn: Donald Troy Coastal Conservancy 1330 Broadway, - 'ite 1100 Oakland, CA 94L Attn: Reed Holderman Cabrillo Nlooi lehome Park Homeowners Association Ron Yocrum Sen a f140 or Ne e wport gCe°ner ��'Port 0 ht Drive At t n: each JUI ie Froberg 6p William Curtiss 1486 Briarglen Westlake Village, CA 91361 Carl Nelson, Director Public Works Environmental Management Agency 400 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 California Goasiai South Coast Area 245 W. Broadway., a 380 Long Beach, CA 90802 Attn: Chris Krol I U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2400 Av i 1 a Road Laguna Niguel , CA 92677 Attn: jack Fancher Calif. Dept. of Fish & Game Region 5 245 West Broadway, Ste. 350 Long Beach, CA 90802 Attn: Fred Worthy, Jr. Robert London Moore, Jr. President Mills Land & Water Company 1404 Shady Glen Road Glendale, CA 91208 P.O. Box 6202 Wiesa, Arizona 85206 148-081-05 Thomas Cowger 8532 Sandy Hook Drive Huntington Beach,- CA Department of the Army LA District, Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 2711 CA 90053-2325 Los Angeles, Cal trans/District 7 P.O. Box2304 Terminal Annex Los Angeles, Calif. 99051 Attn: Susan McCullough r. William Olson, Manager Environmental Analysis Section r-MA 12 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana. Calif. 92702-4048 _. _.. - - -" Ruth (rattan e P.O. Box 66494 Los Angeles, California 90066 14t3-Vts�-v7 Gay Boyer 21441 Antgua Lane Huntington Beach, Cal -ornia 148-081-08 Lawrence Ayers 8502 Sandy Hook Drive Huntington Beach, CA 148-081-07 Wayne Lewis 8512 Sandy Hook Drive Huntington Beach, California H rks, Edward 2321 Atel boro Circle Huntington Beach, CA 148-081-06 Carol KI ahr 19671 Ditmar Lane Huntington Beach, California 148-081-11 James Chewning 21421 Antigua Lane Huntington Beach, California 92646 148-081-12 . Thomas good 9311 La Jolla Cir. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 148-081-13 Ed Lidyoff 405 Crystal Place Seal Beach, CA 90740 Vyilliam Harris 21381 Antigua Huntington Beachne Ca. 92646 -148-081-1U John Hi I I 21431 Antigua Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 148-082-33 cdward Williams 8531 Milne Drive Huntington Beach, CA 148-082-13 James Hagan 17131 Erwin Lane Huntington Beach, Cal ifornia 148-082-11 Delmar De Mary 8521 Milne Drive Huntington Beach, California 148-081-16 John Luther 21361 Antigua Lane Huntington Beach, California 92646 148-081-15 David Bush 21371 Antigua Lane Huntington Beach, California 92646 148-121-18 Thomas Lenihan 22021 Hula Circle Huntington Beach, CA 148-086-22 Karl Reed 8522 Milne Drive Huntington Beach, CA 148-082-12 Don Pattinson 1450 N. Gibbs Street Pomona, California .148-086-21 Aline Schaum 8521Sandy Hook Drive Huntington Beach, CA 148-086-20 Steven wel Is 8531 Sandy Hook Drive Huntington Beach, CA 148=121-22 AAA Animal Clinic 21632 Newland Street . Huntington Beach, CA 92646 148-121-01 CJ Howe Construction Inc. 9281 Litchfield Drive A 92646 Huntington Beach, 148-121-21 Ken Brimlow 652 E. Culver Avenue Orange, California 92666 148-121-19 Paul Sandgren 8551 di son Avenue CA Huntington Beach, 146-U86-23 Michael Dangott 8532 Milne Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-012-01 Barry Miller 21802 Kiowa Lane Huntington Beach, Ca 92646 149-011-01 Victor Ziegler 9001 Bermuda Drive Huntington Beach, Calif. 149-011-04 Ashurst, Albert 9051 Bermuda Drive Huntington Beach, Ca 92646 148-121-23 County Sanitation District P.O. Box 5175 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 _ - 140-' a -v.. 7arnutzer, Byron P.O. Box 246 Costa Mesa, CA Bitterwater Lake 3perties Ninth Floor 611 Anton Blvd. - Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Attn: _Ronald J. DeFelice 149-011-03 Ronald Jett 9031 Bermuda Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-011-02 Adams, Guy Drive 9021 Bermuda CA 92646 Huntington Beach, 149-012-03 Richard Grbavac 21772 Kiowa Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-012-02. A. Battenfield 21782 Kiowa Lane Huntinton Beach, CA 92646 148-027-69 Thompson, Wi I I iz 21311 Attleboro C,, cle Huntington; Beach, CA 92646 148-027-72 21325 Attleboro Circle Huntington Beach, CA 148-027-70 O Grady, Nora 6 Hamlet Ct. #3 Rochester, NY Gary Gorman 9122 Christinen Beach, CA 92646 Dv Huntington Amigos De Bol sa Ch i ca P.O. Box 1563 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Attn: Lorraine Faber r 114-481-03 Jackson Reynolds 22031 Susan Lane Huntington Beach, California 92646 114-150-11 Ascon Properties Attn: Phil 2675 Irvine Ave. #2B-6. Costa Mesa, California 024-281-05 Huntington Beach Company Property Tax R-C• Box 7611 San Francisco, Ca 94122 Harry D. Howell 1815 Toyon Lane Newport Beach, California 92660 l 148-027-73 Michael Torres 21331 Attleboro Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114-481-06 Christopher 22081 valsamakis Susan Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114-481-05 Gerald Clover 22061 Susan Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114-481-01 Betty E. Hyatt 22001 Susan Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114-481-04 Carol R. Cagle 22041 Susan Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 County Sanitation District P.O. Box 5175 10844 Ellis Ave. Fountain Valley, CA 92705 114-481-10 Gerald Riley 22042 Hula Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114-481-07 Ernest Reason 22091 Susan Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114-481-11 Kathleen Mooney 22022 Hula Circle Huntington Beach, California 9264( 114-481-08 Robert White 22072 Hula Circle Huntington Beach, Ca. 92646 114-481-12 Michael Hunter 21691 Milaria Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114-481-15 Thomas Len i han 22021 Hula Circle CA 92646 Huntington Beach, 114-481-18 CVel yn Wilcox 22071 Hula Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114-481-14 Szekula, Frank 22011 Hula Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114-481-09 Raymond Jones 22052 Hula Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114-481-13 Marcel Lourtie 22001 Hula Circle Huntington Beach, Ca. 92646 114-481-17 Robert Overby 22051 Hula Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114-481-19 Franklin Goodenough 9002 Christine Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114-481-16 John Andor 9591 Onset Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114-481-20 Don Brunk 9012 Christine Drive Huntington- Beach, Calif. 92646 114-481-21 Sally Vincenti 7 Land Fall Court 92663 Newport Beach, CA 114-481-Zb Edward Loranger 9092 Christine Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114-481-23 William Burke 9042 Christine Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114-481-27 Donald West 9082 Christine Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114-481-26 l(,arl `Rysocki ,rive 9072 Christine CA 92646 Huntington $ePch, 114-481-22 William Keller 22332 Wallingford Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114-481-25 Harvey Her ,son 9062 Christine Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 ---------- - 148-027-56 Ralph Gumberg 8112 Foxhall Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114-481-30 Marion Golfos 22161 Wood Island Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114-481-29 Floyd Patrick 9102 Christine Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114-481-24 William Poage 9052 Christine Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 148-027-57 Donald Dickerson 8116 Foxhall Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 148-027-53 Berg, Russell 8125 Foxhall Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 148-027-59 cdward Notyka 8126 Foxhall Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 148-027-54 Randolph Kramer 8121 Foxhall Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 148-027-55 5tanley Viet J)rive 8122 FoXnnl$each� CA 92646 148-02�-65 . 5 t r1oYd \ji11ie horn fti C CA 10374 POW Valley, 92708 Fountain 148-027-61 John Brehm P.O. Box 981 Lower Lake, Cal if. 94547 148-027-68 Catherine Wells 21312 Ashburton Circle Huntington Beach, CA 148-027-60 Ceofrey Hartsta►l 8132 Poxhall Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 148-027-55 Roy Lothringer 8115 roxhall Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 148-027-67 Mark Pynchon 21316 Ashburton Circle. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 148-027-62 Richard Barnes 8142 roxhall Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 148-027-64 John Bruccheri 20861 Sparkman Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 148-027-66 H. OI ivera 21322 Ashburton Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 148-027-63 David Hass 601 Avienda Vaquero San Clemente, CA 92672 City of Huntington Beach P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 Southern California Edison 7333 Bolsa Avenue Westminster, California 92683 Attn: Michael Martin Publish 9Co NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING COASTAL ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO`.__�86`-1 (White Hole Study) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE: June 2 , 1986 TIME: 7 : 30 P . M. S_U-B;J,,E;CT , Goasta_1Element Amendment No . 86-1 (White Hole Study) •r 3- he r APPLICANT : City of Huntington Beach LOCATION: Between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River , generally south of the flood control channel . PROPOSAL: A public hearing to consider an amendment to the Coastal Element of the General Plan addressing the 231 . 5 acre White Hole area . generally located on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River. The Planning Commission recommendation is for 5 . 0 acres of Visitor Serving Commercial , 83 acres of Industrial Energy Production and 143 . 5 acres of Conservation . The staff recommendation is for 14 acres of Visitor Serving Commercial , 2 acres of Medium High Density Res- identia1 , 17 acres of Conservation/Industrial Energy Production , , �- -83ac�res_of Industrial Energy Production , 0 . 5 acres of Oil Productior and ' 115 acres of Conservation. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS : Exempt pursuant to Section 1526.5 of the California Environmental Quality. Act Guidelines ON ' FILE : A copy of the proposed amendment is on file in the Department of Development Services , - Jeanine Frank , Senior Planner - ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express ( 536-52 71 ) opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. All applications, exhibits, and descriptions of this proposal are on file with the Office of the, City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, for inspection by the public. HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk Phone (714) 536-5405 Publish NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING COASTAL ELEMENT .AMENDMENT NO .` 86-1 ('White Hole Study) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE: June 2 , 1986 TIME: 7 : 30 P . M. SUBJECT : Coastal -Element Amendment No . 86-1 (White Hole Study) APPLICANT : City of Huntington Beach LOCATION: Between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River , generally south of the flood control channel . PROPOSAL: A public hearing to consider an amendment to the Coastal Element of the General Plan addressing the 231 . 5 acre White Hole area generally located on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River. The Planning Commission recommendation is for 5 . 0 acres of Visitor Serving Commercial , 83 acres of Industrial Energy Production and 143 . 5 acres of Conservation . The staff recommendation is for 14 acres of Visitor Serving Commercial , 2 acres of Medium High Density Res- idential , 17 acres of Conservation/Industrial Energy Production , 83acres of Industrial Energy Production , 0 . 5 acres of Oil Production and 115 acres of Conservation . ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS : Exempt pursuant to Section 15265 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines 5 ON FILE : A copy of the proposed amendment is on file in the Department of Development Services - Jeanine Frank , Senior Planner - AL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express ( 536-5271 ) opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. All applications, exhibits, and descriptions of this proposal are on file with the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, for inspection by the public. HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk Phone (714) 536-5405