Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Volume 1 of 7 - Draft Environmental Impact Report - EIR - Bo
1 City of Huntington Beach COPY Comment Regarding: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT prepared by the Orange County Environmental Management Agency with respect to The Bolsa Chica Project Local Coastal Program (County Project No. 551; State Clearinghouse No. 93-071064) Submitted by: ERVIN, COHEN & JESsup, as special counsel to the City of Huntington Beach j On Behalf of: THE CITY OF HuNTINGTON BEACH Volume I ' February 17, 19% ! E .I Ervin, Cohen&Jessup,9401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900, Beverly Hills, California 90212 LAW OFFICES w EOGwR JE SSUP.JR LINDA A XIAIOS JONN W.CRVIN BERTRAM X MASSING BARRY MACNAUGHTON E RV I N, CO H EN & J ES S U P '°""° MARVIN H LEWIS PENELOPE PARMES LEONARD COHEN HAROLD J.DELEVIEr STEVEN A P05EMAN A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS w.TIw.P GAR P REED v ELSA B 0 LICE S OARY J iREEDMANf JACOB O LCE NINTH FLOOR LEE SILVER SYLVIA D LAUTSCH DAMES A RICE DEBORAH A.BERTHEL 9401 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD ROGER J HOLT HOWARD Z BERMAN ALLAN B.COOPER NATALIE C ZIONTZ BEVERLY HILLS. CALIFORNIA 90212-2974 DAVIC R EANOI XELLY 0 SCOTT GARY0 MICHEL. LAYTON L.PACE TELEPHONE: (3101273-6333 WRITERS DIRECT DIAL' �1 GREGORY M MACGREGOR "ARM T X.A. WA THOMAS A.XIRSCHBAUM GAREE T GASPCRIAN FAX (310) 689-2325 ALBERT J TUMPSON STEVEN H PRICE JOAN B VCLAZOUCZ VICTORIA WORTH E A AS F 111 DARC L HONIG (310) 281-6309 THOMAS R I J.GAAVIN SAR COOPER ROBERT MICHAEL WAXMAN PAUL F LAWRENCE REEVE E-CHUOD USAE SOCRANSXY REF. OUR FILE NO. J RICHARD GRIGGS JULIANE E STONE KENNETH A.LUER CHUNG JAY WON RONALO M ST.MARIE ELLEN S NORNSLUM ,A P0019.5-011L CO.PORATION 8652-001 February 17, 1994 VIA HAND DELIVERY Orange County Environmental Management Agency Environmental Planning Division 300 North Flower Street; P.O. Box 4048 �I Santa Ana, California 92702-4048 ATTN: Mr. Paul Lanning, Environmental Planning Division Re: Comments of the City of Huntington Beach (the "City") on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (the "DEIR") prepared by the Orange County (the "County") Environmental Management Agency (County Project No. 551; State Clearinghouse No. 93-071064) with respect to The Bolsa Chica Project Local Coastal Program Gentlemen and Ladies: ' This firm represents the City of Huntington Beach in connection with its review and analysis of the above-referenced DEIR. After thorough analysis by the City's professional staff and the consultants noted in this letter, the City has concluded that the document fails to fulfill the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The implementation of the Bolsa Chica development as proposed by Koll Real Estate Group ("Koll"), therefore, cannot proceed until the County rectifies the many CEQA infirmities detailed in this letter, and the DEIR and all relevant technical data are thereafter recirculated for public review and comment. This letter represents the combined input and analysis of this firm, the professional and technical staff of the City, P&D Environmental Services, Noble Consultants, Inc. (with respect to coastal engineering and water quality issues), John Minch LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 2 & Associates (with respect to cultural resources issues), Public Economics (with respect to fiscal feasibility of mitigation measures and related issues), Albert Grover and Associates (with respect to traffic and circulation issues) and Edward Heath, C.E.G. (with respect to issues of seismicity and liquefaction). It is divided into four main sections. The first section is an introduction which provides a general overview of many of the areas in which the City finds the DEIR to be deficient. The second section examines particular violations of CEQA including the inadequacy of the project description and consideration of the environmental setting and the limited scope and analysis of the alternatives considered by the DEIR. The third section contains a chapter-by-chapter analysis of the DEIR, and the fourth and final section sets forth the City's conclusion and formal request for revision and recirculation of the DEIR. For the convenience of the reader, an index of the comments contained in this letter is attached as ANNEX No. 1 and a list of the documents submitted to the County with this letter, each of which is incorporated into this letter and made a part hereof by this reference, is attached as ANNEX No. 2. I. Introduction The City is justifiably concerned regarding the impacts of the proposed project on the City and its citizens. The majority of the project area (referred to in the DEIR as the LCP Area) is an unincorporated island of County which is surrounded by the City. The remainder of the project area is within the City. Accordingly, the impacts of the project will be felt most acutely by the residents and people of the City. As is noted in the DEIR, in 1992 the City cooperated with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the "Corps") in publishing and circulating a joint environmental impact report ("EIR")/environmental impact statement ("EIS") (the joint EIR/EIS circulated by the City and the Corps in 1992 is referred to as the "EIR/EIS") which considered the construction and operational impacts of a residential development project somewhat similar to the project described in the DEIR. The City received numerous responses to the EIR/EIS, including responses from members of the public, concerned environmental groups and various local, State and federal agencies. Those responses, and the concerns they raised, have heightened the City's appreciation and understanding of the impacts which the project will cause in the sensitive environmental setting of the proposed site. LA.W OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 3 A. THE PURPOSE OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IS TO INFORM DECISION-MAKERS AND THE PUBLIC OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF GOVERNMENTAL DECISIONS AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE STAGE. An environmental impact report must inform the public of "the basis on which its responsible officials either approve or reject environmentally significant action." Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n of San Francisco. Inc. v, Regents of the University of California, 47 Cal.3d 376, 392 (1988), opinion modified, 47 Cal. 3d 982 (1989)("Laurel Heights I"). Thus, an EIR is an "environmental `alarm bell' whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return." Id. The County's DEIR fails to sound the alarm required under CEQA. The structure, language and organization of the DEIR is confusing and the document does not fully identify or analyze the environmental impacts which could result from the proposed development. The DEIR incompletely describes the development and includes neither the depth of analysis nor the degree of scientific and technical investigation mandated for a project of this scale. It relies in many instances on technical studies not included within appendices to the document and not circulated or made available for public review. Without that supporting data, no independent analysis of the basis for the DEIR's conclusions is possible. The public is thus asked to accept the conclusions of the DEIR "on faith", in violation of CEQA's basic purpose of providing information to decision-makers and the public. B. AN EIR MUST EVALUATE A SPECIFIC PROGRAM OR PROJECT IN LIGHT OF THE PARTICULAR ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING. For an environmental impact report to fulfill its purpose, it must consider (i) the proposed governmental action, and (ii) its consequences, in light of (iii) the environmental setting in which the project (or program) will exist. See CEQA Guidelines (the "Guidelines") § 15125Y The project description must be consistent throughout the document and the scope of the project should be readily understandable. As is detailed in I/ The Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act are promulgated by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, pursuant to the authority granted under California Public Resources Code("PRC") §§ 21083,21087,and are codified at 14 California Code of Regulations ("CCR")§§ 15000-15387. LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency �. February 17, 1994 Page 4 Part ILA, below, the Count 's DEIR neither describes the setting in which the project will y g e p o�ect 11 exist nor provides an understandable and accurate project description which is applied consistently through the document. The DEIR does not analyze the difference between the current environmental setting and the environmental setting during and after the construction of the project, often comparing Koll's program to the program (the "1986 LCP") conditionally certified by the California Coastal Commission ("CCC") in 1986 (a copy of the 1986 LCP is attached to this letter as ANNEX No. 3) without considering the baseline condition of the current, undeveloped status of the land. Guidelines § 15125(c) expressly states, "Where a proposed project is compared with an adopted plan, the analysis shall examine the existing physical conditions as well as the potential future conditions discussed in the plan."!' Thus, as in the case of Koll's development of Bolsa Chica, where a proposed project is an agency decision changing planning or zoning policies or ordinances, the potential impacts must be compared with both (i) those which would ultimately occur under the existing plan and (ii) the eventual future conditions that would result under build-out under both the existing plan and the contemplated plan in light of a full analysis of the existing Physical conditions. S.� Environmental Planning and Information Council v. County of El Dorado, 131 �. Ca1.App.3d 350 (1982); City of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. Bd of Supervisors, 183 Ca1.App.3d 229, 246-7 (1986); Christward Ministry v. Superior Court, 184 Cal.App.3d 180, 190-91 (1986). The analysis of the DEIR regarding land use and other impacts is fundamentally flawed in that it continuously compares the current project to the formerly proposed marina/residential development and omits to consider the impact using the current conditions as the baseline. Ste, p,.&, DEIR § 4.1.3.1 at p. 4.1-35Y and 4.1-41. The 21 See also Environmental Planning and Information Council v. County of El Dorado, 131 Cal.App.3d 350 (1982) (in EIR prepared by County in connection with the adoption of a new general plan which permitted less growth than the old plan, the EIR is required to use the existing level of actual physical development within the county as the baseline for comparison). 31 Comparison to the 1986 LCP is not relevant. First, the 1986 LCP is not a fully adopted or effective planning document since it was only conditionally certified by the Coastal Commission. See, f.g.,DEIR at p. 4.1- 42, 14, noting that the CCC would require full review and approval of the wetlands restoration plan outlined in the LCP, and other issues,prior to certification of the 1986 LCP. Second, Page 7-30, In. 8-10 indicates that the staff of the CCC has expressly indicated that the 1986 LCP is no longer consistent with CCC goals and policies. See Comments of CCC on EIR/EIS included within ANNEX No. 10 to this letter. That passage concludes that, "although the LUP is still part of the County general plan, it is considered to have low feasibility form the (continued...) LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN IS JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 5 foregoing inadequacies must be corrected (and the corrected document recirculated), if the DEIR is to fulfill the requirements of CEQA. C. THE COUNTY ACTS AS THE LEAD AGENCY UNDER CEQA AND. AS SUCH, MUST TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE COMMENTS OF THE CITY BOTH AS ADVISORY AGENCY AND AS RESPONSIBLE AGENCY. The County was designated as the lead agency responsible for preparing the DEIR. This designation does not give the County free reign with respect to the document. CEQA requires the lead agency to consult with other local agencies, such as the City, which will have approval authority over or will suffer adverse impacts from the proposed project. On July 12, 1993, the City's then-acting director of Community Development commented on the County's notice of preparation (the "NOP"). A copy of that letter is attached to this letter as ANNEx No. 4. A comparison of that letter with the varying descriptions of the program contained in the DEIR reveals that the County largely ignored the comments of the City in preparing the DEIR and developing the proposed land use and facilities for the siteY Despite the listing of certain City officials in Appendix A to the DEIR, the County did not sufficiently consult with City officials while preparing the DEIR. The County has not adequately fulfilled its duties as lead agency to consult with and consider the needs of the City, the one jurisdiction wholly surrounding the project site and the jurisdiction most affected by the project. 3/(..continued) standpoint of implementation.' Yet, Chapter 4.1 of the DEIR bases its entire discussion of the consistency of the proposed project with Coastal Act policies and objectives and consistency of the proposed project with the County's general plan on a comparison of the project to the 1986 LCP. Given the DEIR's own analysis of the 1986 LCP as being inconsistent with the CCC's current interpretation of the Coastal Act, the comparison to the 1986 LCP is not valid. 41 ?he DEIR omits any summary of the comments received on the NOP and there is no discussion of areas of controversy surrounding the project. Although these items are not expressly required in the Guidelines,they are particularly helpful to the public and to decision-makers in understanding the import of the action which the decision-makers are considering. Given the extensive public interest and voluminous comments which the County received on the NOP, a table which lists the NOP respondents, the topics and alternatives they asked to be covered in the EIR, where those topics and alternatives are addressed in the document, and an explanation of why requests from those commenting on the NOP were not implemented is required to make this DEIR a complete informational document as required under CEQA. A similar table should also be included in the recirculated EIR so that the decision-makers and the public can assess how the County responded to the comments made to the DEIR. LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 ' Page 6 Guidelines § 15096 states the responsibility of the City as a responsible agency" under CEQA. In general, the guideline requires the responsible agency to be responsive to the requests and requirements of the lead agency. In addition, PRC § 21080.3 regluires the lead agency to consult with all responsible agencies. Further, the lead agency is required to respond to a responsible agency's request for a meeting to consult "regarding the scope and content of the environmental information which the responsible agency may require." See PRC §§ 21080.4(b), 21104(a) and 21153 (requiring a local lead agency to consult with both responsible agencies and any city which borders on the county within which the project is located); see also Guidelines § 15082(c). The County has not sufficiently consulted with the City in the manner and to the extent required to fulfill the foregoing requirements. D. THE COUNTY HAS SEGMENTED THE WHOLE OF THE PROJECT INTO A NUMBER OF SMALLER INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS IN VIOLATION OF CEQA. 1. Segmentation of Federal Approvals and Wetlands Restoration. As is noted in various places within the DEIR, the proposed program will require a number of federal approvals under different federal statutes. The most significant, but not the only, federal approvals will be permits issued by the Corps in connection with the proposed dredging, filling and development within the jurisdictional wetlands of the Corps and the wetlands restoration plan outlined in the DEIR (the "WRP"). The WRP is the sole justifying consideration for the acknowledged impacts (and, presumably the unacknowledged impacts as well) of the proposed development of this environmentally sensitive site. See, e.&, D. Haldane, Muddying the Waters Further; Lack of Hearing on Report Renews Bolsa Chica Debate, L.A. Times, January 22, 1994, Orange County Edition at Part B (Metro) p.1, col. 2, which expressly notes that Koll would receive permission to build 4,286 homes on 400 acres of the site in exchange for the $48 million restoration of the wetlands. In that same article Lucy Dunn, senior vice president of Koll, is quoted as saying that the Koll plan for development, "is the only alternative for saving wetlands that are dying". Thus, the wetlands restoration is relied upon by Koll, and is generally perceived, as the uid lZ guo for the development of Koll's project. However, without the completion and obtaining by Koll of federal approvals and the issuance of fill, restoration and other permits from the Corps, no restoration can occurY S/ As is noted in subpart II.D.3, below, correspondence from the affected State and federal agencies make the issuance of the federal permits required for implementation of the project a long shot, at best. LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROCESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 7 The DEIR expressly excludes consideration of the impact on Koll's proposed project of the federal permits required for its implementation. Both of the project scenarios seriously examined in the DEIR would permit the portions of the development not located on the wetlands to proceed wit the issuance of the federal permits required for implementation of the WRPY Since the DEIR appears to rely on the restoration of the wetlands as the justification for the impacts of the development (and since that restoration is expressly stated as a primary objective of the development), the DEIR implicitly assumes that the required federal and state permits would eventually be issued after the commencement of development in non-wetland areas. Such an unsupported assumption is not permitted under CEQA and, as is more fully detailed in Part II.C, below, is contradicted by the evidence in the record before the County. By ignoring the requirement for federal permits and allowing development on areas of the site not subject to federal jurisdiction to proceed without obtaining federal permits for the wetlands restoration, the DEIR segments the project into two projects; one consisting of the development of between 3,410 and 4,286 homes on areas of the site other than the Lowlands (representing 80% to 100% of the total project revenue) and the second, if ever constructed, consisting of the development of up to 1,100 single family homes (provided that the total number of all homes within the County could not exceed 4,286) in the Lowlands, conditioned on Koll's funding of some portion of the future restoration of the wetlands if, as and when oil operations were discontinued. The process employed by the County in preparing the DEIR without consultation or cooperation with the Corps and other affected federal agencies violates 61 The first step in implementing Koll's WRP will be the phased dedication of 767 acres of the lowland to the County. Section 3.2.2.6 and the WRP briefly consider the dedication; however, the DEIR does not analyze the impacts of the dedication or its phasing. Although the DEIR acknowledges in passing that the dedication would occur in stages, its analysis assumes a single bulk dedication. Further,page 3-28, In. 11-14 of the DEIR expressly conditions the conveyance of all but 82 of the 767 acres on the issuance of the Section 404 permits by the Corps. If no such permit is issued(as may be the ultimate outcome given the disputes among Koll,the County, the Corps, U.S. EPA, CDFG, USFWS and other affected State and federal agencies), the dedication and wetlands restoration would not occur but development of the Bolsa Mesa would nonetheless go forward. Page 3-27 of the DEIR specifically states, "the County has not reviewed, considered or agreed to any of the specific details of this proposed dedication program." Thus, the DEIR segments the dedication program and the wetlands restoration from the development of at least 3,410 dwelling units on the Bolsa Chica Mesa (the "Mesa")and the potential development of an additional 598 units on the MWD parcel, all of which may proceed, without restoration of any kind, under the program described in the DEIR. LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 6 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency r February 17, 1994 Page 8 7/ Guidelines § 15226 which mandates a joint NEPA and CEQA environmental review- and planning process "to the fullest extent possible.IT Even in those cases where a federal agency refuses to cooperate in the preparation of a joint document, Guidelines § 15228 requires the lead agency to persist in efforts to cooperate with the federal agency.9' In this case, however, the County appears to be the agency which refuses to participate in the joint State/federal planning and environmental review process mandated by CEQA. When the City prepared the EIR/EIS, a copy of which is attached to this letter as ANNEx No. 9, it recognized that cooperation with the Corps and other affected t 71 In the case of a project which will require both an EIR and an EIS, if the EIR will be considered prior to the preparation of an EIS(or a finding by the Federal agency of no significant impact), Guidelines§ 15222 requires either (i)that a lead agency 'should try to prepare a combined EIR-EIS. . ."or(ii)in order to avoid the need for the preparation of a wholly separate EIS, 'the lead agency must involve the federal agency in the preparation of the joint document . . . because federal law generally prohibits a federal agency from using an EIR prepared by a state agency unless the federal agency was involved in the preparation of the document." PRC § 21083.5 indicates that an EIS can be substituted for an EIR (in whole or in part)if and to the extent that the EIS fulfills the requirements of CEQA;however, DEIR §4.1.1.6 states that federal agency involvement in the DEIR process was "relatively limited." The failure of the County to publish a joint EIR/EIS and the failure to actively involve the Corps in the preparation of the DEIR makes the EIR inadequate under CEQA and the applicable Guidelines. See also 40 C.F.R. Part 1506. 81 DEIR § 4.1.1.6(page 4.1-28, In. 5) notes that the DEIR was prepared without significant input from the Corps or otherfederal agencies. Further, the September 13, 1993 letter to Koll from the Corps'District Engineer, a copy of which is attached to this letter as ANNEX No. 5, documents that,despite some consultation between Koll and the Corps, the parties have not reached agreement regarding the overall purpose of the project for purposes offederal law. The affected federal agencies must agree on this most basic requirement, as mandated by NEPA and the Clean Water Act,prior to the commencement of the process of the issuance of the requisite federal permits. As is noted at page 4.1-28,ln. 5-15,of the DEIR,federal law requires that wetlands development must be demonstrated to be either for restoration purposes, water dependent or otherwise satisfy the Corp's Section 404 requirements. The letter attached as ANNEX No. 5 indicates that the Corp believes that the proposed development of the Lowlands does not fuyill those requirements. 91 Because it can be expected that the federal process and federal mandates regarding wetlands and endangered species would have the potential to effect great changes in Koll's project and its phasing, the preparation of separate state and federal environmental clearance documentation will substantially complicate the process. If major changes are made on the plan footprint and phasing, or in the number of units allowed, a subsequent CEQA circulation would also be required,further lengthening the clearance process. Like state agencies under CEQA,federal agencies also generally encourage joint documents, especially for projects of this level of significance. The preparation of a separate DEIR for this project, without consultation or cooperation with the affected federal agencies is truly an anomaly. LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN rs JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 9 State and federal agencies was mandated both b law and b the inevitable need to consider g Y Y the coordination required among the local, State and federal permits for the project. The DEIR dismissed the need for such coordination with the simplistic statement that "a separate EIS for federal approvals would be required before federal permits could be issued to implement the Proposed project's proposed residential development and wetlands restoration in the Lowland portion of the County LCP Area." DEIR at page 2-2, In. 1-4. The DEIR states no requirement that the first development of the site must be concurrent with the commencement of restoration of the wetlands (or conditioned on the eventual restoration), even though the DEIR expressly states that reversal of the degradation of the wetlands and expansion of the size and quality of the wetlands is a primary objective of the project. DEIR p. 3-33, In. 27, 44-50. The DEIR only "anticipates" that modifications of the federal permit application would reflect the changes in the proposed project and Koll's business reorganization to comply with the requirements of pertinent federal legislation. DEIR at page 4.1-28, In. 35-39. However, there is no indication whether the WRP can be fulfilled or whether the County would require Koll to take any action to obtain federal permits prior to commencing the development of the Bolsa Mesa in 1995. The County's refusal to engage in a joint process with the affected federal agencies impairs the public's analysis of the DEIR. Given that the primary project objectives (as stated in Chapters 1 and 3 of the DEIR) include a series of actions (i.e., restoration/creation of wetlands and relocation of ESHAs) which must undergo federal environmental review, the omission of federal agency input makes the County's planning efforts largely moot since the County's plans may be significantly altered by the need to conform to the federal requirements. Further, as detailed in Part II.D, below, the current position of the federal agencies brings Koll's ability to obtain the federal permits into serious question. 2. Segmentation of County and City Portions of the Development. The DEIR also segments the project by defining the "project" under consideration as only the development within the County. This definition excludes from the DEIR's consid- eration the development of some 598 units within areas which are within the study area (i.e., the project site) but are not within the County LCP. This divides a portion of Koll's intended development into yet another segment which is not considered as part of the project under review. The County's limited view of its responsibility for review is bolstered by Thomas B. Matthews' letter of January 13, 1994 to Daryl D. Smith of the City, a copy of which is attached as ANNEX No. 6, in which Mr. Matthews, the County's Director of Planning, stated, "the County is responsible for ensuring that all issues for LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 10 which the County has jurisdiction, including those of local and State-wide importance, are adequately analyzed in the Draft EIR." Contrary to that assertion, the County is responsible for assessing the local and State-wide impacts of "the whole of an action which has the potential for resulting in a physical change in the environment," not 'Lust the portions within the County's jurisdiction.'—° By excluding the areas of the project within the City, the County has considered only the impact of a portion of the project, in violation of CEQA. The County should have considered the potential impacts of development of 4,884 units on 1,973.1 acres of the entire site, rather than considering the impact of construction of 4,286 dwelling units on 1,603.4 areas within the County jurisdiction.L" Cgmmpare Table 3.2-2 with Table 3.2-1. By excluding the 598 units proposed for the City areas from consideration in the DEIR, the County has split the total project into two separate parts, one in the County and the other in the City. This is a clear violation of CEQA, separate and apart from the violation arising from the segmentation of the federal 10/ Guidelines§ 15378(a)states that a 'project"analyzed under CEQA includes the, "whole of an action which has a potential for resulting in a physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately and that is . . . an activity involving the issuance. . . of a . . . permit. . . or other entitlement for use. . .from one or more public agencies." Further, Guidelines§ 15378(c)clarifies that the term "project"does not mean each separate government approval and,accordingly,the County cannot legally certify an EIR which purports to analyze only those issues over which the County has jurisdiction. All of the approvals and actions which have the potential for effecting a change in the environment are included within the project and must be analyzed in the DEIR if that document is to pass muster under CEQA. Ironically, the County appears to have confused its responsibility as the lead agency with the more limited responsibilities of a responsible agency under PRC § 21002.1(d), which provides, in pertinent pan: A public agency functioning as a lead agency shall have responsibility for considering the effects, both individual and collective, of all activities involved in the project. A public agency functioning as a responsible agency shall have responsibility for considering only the effects of those activities involved in a project, which it is required by law to carry out or approve. Since the County has taken the role of lead agency with respect to this project, the County is required to take all of the effects of the project into consideration. 11/ The DEIR's exclusion of the 598 units within the City is not clearly presented anywhere in the project description nor in the evaluation of the particular impacts of the project. This is only one of the many instances in which the DEIR fails to state critical information in a straightforward manner. Close examination of the impacts analysis does reveal that the impact of the total 4,884 units in the project is not considered. See, e.g., DEIR p. 4.8-25, lines 43-44 noting that the traffic impacts section analyzes only the impact of 4,286 units. Thus, the DEIR is inadequate under CEQA both because it segments the project and because it does not clearly indicate that it has done so and, therefore,fails to inform the public of the true impacts of the overall project. LAW OFFICE5 ERVIN. COHEN IS JESSUP A PARTNEPSNIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 11 approvals. The DEIR should be rewritten and recirculated so that the public is informed of PP the consequences of the entire 4,884 dwelling unit project. 3. Segmentation of Remediati n Actions. It also appears that the implementation of the project has been segmented from the process of making the site "clean" for the development to occur. The whole issue of hazardous materials has been sidestepped and left to the discretion of the property owners. The DEIR does not effectively address the activities necessary to clean up the site. Its prior use for oil extraction and as a gun club means that there are significant amounts of contaminants deposited in, on or under the entire site, some of which are known, but much of which may be buried beneath the silts and sands deposited across large portions of the site. The DEIR must be amended to include an accurate and complete description of the required investigation into the presence of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes and must include the results of that investigation. The DEIR must specify the nature, extent, and severity of existing contamination and establish adequate soil clean-up standards and protection measures to ensure maintenance of public health and safety of the residents of the existing 1 neighborhoods surrounding the site, the future residents of Koll's development of the site, and the workers performing the remediation and constructing the development. The DEIR must also specify measures for the protection of the local flora and fauna from the impacts of remediation activity, including but not limited to measures protecting vegetation, wildlife and other sensitive receptors from impacts which may result from upset conditions. Further, the DEIR must specify how site remediation will occur, where potential stockpiling and disposal of contaminated materials will occur, and provide a rough estimate of the volume of materials to be remediated. Estimates of the air quality implications of such clean up activities and their means of control must also be included.L" 121 The DEIR's discussion of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes is one of the many instances in which the DEIR depends on mitigation measures to be developed and spec f ed in the future, after the development of studies and standards not yet completed and after the close of the public comment period on the DEIR. The use of unspecified mitigation measures based on future studies and development of future plans is not permitted under CEQA. Attached to this letter as ANNEX No. 7 is a table which analyzes each of the Mitigation Measures listed in the DEIR and indicates that over 60% of the DEIR's Mitigation Measures are invalidated by this flaw taw which has been disapproved in a number of court decisions. For example, in Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal.App.3d 296(1988)the court disapproved a negative declaration which required the development of mitigation measures after the issuance of the negative declaration since such a deferral of environmental assessment violated CEQA's policy that specific impacts must be identified before the project progresses to a point where the agency responsible for approving the project has limited flexibility. In Sundstrom, the court found that a permit condition (continued...) LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSN1P INCLUDING PROresSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency , February 17, 1994 Page 12 THE DE IR EIR ABUSES THE CONCEPT OF TIERING BY USING A PROGRAM EIR TO EVADE THE MORE DETAILED PROJECT EIR ANALYSIS REQUIRED FOR APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF HOMES UPON THE BOLSA MESA. The DEIR expressly states at page 1-1, 1n.12-14, that it is a "program EIR" within the meaning of Guidelines §§ 15165 and 15168. A program EIR is one type of "tiered" environmental review13/ mandated under PRC § 21093. That section provides, in 121(...continued) regarding sludge disposal from the project was flawed in that the record showed that adequate disposal would be hard to achieve and since various departments within the County and the Coastal Commission recommended that the project be disapproved until(f ever) this problem could be resolved. In Oro Fino Mining Corp. v. County of El Dorado, 225 Cal.App.3d 872,884-5(1990),the court disapproved mitigation to be based upon the development of a full land reclamation plan in the future,since CEQA requires (i)that the environmental information presented in an environmental document must be complete and relevant, (ii)that mitigation measures must be timely set forth and (iii)that decision-makers must make environmental decisions in an accountable fashion. The court held that deferral of formulation of precise mitigation measures until after project approval improperly denied the public of their right to participate in environmental decision-making. In the case of Koll's proposed development, the DEIR defers investigation and analysis of the likely impacts from the required substantial remediation of hazardous materials/waste until some time in the future;however, the DEIR also contemplates that development on the Mesa will commence in 1995. There will,therefore be foreseeable adverse impacts to the new residents of the Mesa from the adjacent remediation activities. The degree and severity of those impacts will depend upon the project phasing, the phasing of the remediation activities and the scope and nature of the contamination. However, the DEIR gives no information on these items. Since the studies indicating the nature and scope of the problem have not been prepared, the methods of remediation have not been identified, and the timing of residential occupancy versus the phasing of the remediation have not been specified, the DEIR gives the reader no basis for determining the impact of remediation on the adjacent residents in particular and the environment in general. These facts alone indicate the grave deficiency in depending on the development of future studies for mitigation of known and foreseeable problems. It seems that Koll and the County intend to proceed with the development of the mitigation and remediation plans for the project without further environmental review or participation of(or information to) the public. If further environmental review were intended, the 1995 commencement of the project would be doubtful at best. By relying on the development of future plans for mitigation and remediation, the DEIR attempts to evade the public disclosure and discussion which lies at the heart of CEQA. See Parts LF and 111.V, below. 131 Public Resources Code ("PRC") § 21068.5 defines 'tiering"or "tier" to mean: the coverage of general matters and environmental effects in an environmental impact report prepared for a policy,plan, program,or ordinance followed by narrower or site- specflc environmental impact reports which incorporate by reference the discussion in (continued...) LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ' Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 13 art that tiering of EIRs should streamline environmental procedures, avoid repetitive part, g P � Pe discussions of environmental impacts in successive EIRs and ensure that EIRs for later projects which are consistent with previously approved policies concentrate on the particular environmental effects which may be mitigated or avoided in connection with the approval for the later projects. A program EIR is a first-tier EIR which is not generally required p g ge ral y equ ed to analyze the specific impacts of each specific aspect of the larger plan to be adopted in connection with the program EIR. Such review is reserved until consideration of each construction project occurring after the adoption of the plan or program. See Guidelines §§ 15146, 15152, 15168(c). In this case, however, the program EIR issued by the County is, in reality, a project EIR for the construction of the first phase of the project, a significant development of between 3,400 homes and 4,286 homes and the construction of roads and infrastructure which will set in place the development patterns for the remaining undeveloped parcels.14' The use of a program EIR to evaluate such a construction project may be permitted under CEQA Qnly if it adequately addressed, analyzed and, where possible, mitigated all of the potential impacts from the project in the same manner as if a project EIR were prepared in accordance with Guidelines § 15161; however, the DEIR circulated by the County does not do so. The DEIR cannot stand as the basic environmental review for the construction of a small city within the island of County area surrounded by the City. 1 J/(...continued) any prior environmental impact report and which concentrate on the environmental effects which (a) are capable of being mitigated or (b) were not analyzed as significant effects on the environment in the prior environmental impact report. 141 This conclusion becomes clear when one examines Koll's conditional commitment to perform the wetlands restoration, the improbability of issuance of federal permits for the wetlands restoration (see Part IL D,below)and Koll's express refusal to commit to any restoration of the wetlands in connection with mesa development. Attached to this letter as ANNEX No. 18,is a letterfrom Koll to the City's deputy administrator in which Koll expressly notes that, 'a portion of the wetlands would be restored by the developer only if lowland development is permitted,'and that, accordingly, 'there can be no presumption of Eny wetland restoration by the developer within a mesa-only alternative (emphasis in original). Based on the federal agencies' negative reactions to the proposed project, as detailed in Part ILD of this letter, and the above-quoted candid self-assessment by Koll of the limits of its commitment, it is clear that Koll's true intention is to develop the mesa without ever restoring the wetlands. The DEIR does not adequately disclose this intention. LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN a JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 14 F. THE DEIR IMPROPERLY RELIES ON TIIE DEVELOPMENT OF FUTURE STUDIES AND UNMONITORED PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES FOR MITIGATION. In many instances, detailed further in Section III of this letter, the DEIR relies on the preparation of future studies and analysis for its conclusion that a given potential impact will not be significant.'& This results in conclusions which are not supported by evidence since there is no technical or scientific data offered to support the contention that the future studies and mitigation measures to be derived therefrom will mitigate the potentially significant impacts to below a level of significance. Furthermore, reliance on unperformed and unpublished studies deprives the public of the opportunity to analyze the results and provide meaningful comments to the decision-makers, as is required under CEQA. Further, the DEIR for this project does not adopt objective criteria for performance and, therefore, the analysis of the DEIR violates CEQA's requirement that environmental documents develop feasible and effective mitigation measures at the earliest stages of planning for land use approvals. This requirement is particularly important in the context of a program EIR such as the DEIR which sets an overall policy for the development of the entire project site. The treatment of mitigation measures is unusual at best. The reference in the DEIR on page 2-6, lines 42-44, that: Only those PDFs [project design features] that do not completely remedy or mitigate a potential significant effect identified in the analysis will be included in the list of mitigation measures and will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program with other required mitigation measures. represents an approach that flies in the face of the intent of CEQA and its requirements for , mitigation monitoring. As a result, the EIR either does not address or barely touches on 151 For example,at page 1-35 in considering the residual im acts or Impact 4.11-2 the DEIR determines that P P 8 8 P f P residual impacts will be insignificant even though the applicable mitigation measure says only that the: "Area shall be evaluated for signficance by a quaked historical archaeologist and/or architectural historian." The same comment applies to Impacts 4.11-3 through 4.11-6. The DEIR assumes that the impact is not significant even though the study to assess the significance of the impact has not yet been performed nor its results analyzed. This is symptomatic of the effort the EIR makes to call potentially significant impacts "insignificant" throughout the document and symptomatic of the tendency of the DEIR to use future studies, not yet performed or completed, to support its contention that the impacts of the project are not significant. A table categorizing certain inadequacies of the mitigation measures listed in the DEIR is attached to this letter as ANNEX No. 7 LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNCPSNIP INCLUO1NG PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 15 potential impactsim acts which might result from project implementation if the Possible impact is supposedly addressed by a PDF. The public never gets to know what those impacts might have been, nor can they evaluate whether the unspecified PDF will actually mitigate the impactAY This approach severely impairs the DEIR and makes it a legally inadequate document in light of the "full public disclosure" mandates of CEQA. It also means that the Mitigation Monitoring Program will be incomplete. For example, the VW is supposed to be a PDF. It, by the above statement, would not be part of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. This exclusion is not in tune with current practice, and violates the express requirements of PRC § 21081.6. G. THE DEIR OMrrS ANALYSIS OF THE FISCAL FEASIBILrrY OF THE MITIGATION MEASURES ON WHICH IT RELIES AND ASSUMES THAT UNFUNDED MITIGATION PLANS WILL BE FUNDED WrrHOUT IDENTIFYING THE SOURCE OF THOSE FUNDS. If an EIR is to rely on a mitigation measure to reduce an adverse effect on the environment to a level of insignificance, the measure must be feasible. Guidelines § 15364 and PRC § 21061.1 both make it clear that a "feasible" mitigation measure is one which is capable of being carried out taking into account, among other things, economic and technical considerations. As detailed below, the schemes relied upon in the DEIR to mitigate the significant and adverse impacts of the proposed project appear to be infeasible within the meaning of CEQA and, accordingly, cannot lawfully be relied upon as a ' mitigation which reduces the impacts, as is assumed in the DEIR. Perhaps the most blatant example of improper reliance on potentially infeasible mitigation measures is the DEIR's dependence on the area traffic improvement program (the "ATIP") to mitigate the traffic impacts of the project. Even if one were to assume that the fully implemented ATIP were sufficient to mitigate the massive impacts from introduction of 4,286 homes into the area (a conclusion which is not accepted by the City and which ignores the 598 additional homes which would be built within the City as 161 For example, Chapter 9.4 of the DEIR relies on unspecified PDFs to mitigate water quality impacts, Chapter 9.5 relies on unspecified PDFs to mitigate coastal resources impacts, Chapter 9.7 relies on unspecified PDFs(including the WRP)to mitigate terrestrial biology impacts and the DEIR relies on the ATIP to mitigate traffic circulation impacts. Nowhere is the nexus between the PDFs and the mitigation adequately explained to the point where the public or the decision-makers could evaluate the efficacy of the PDF to mitigate the impact. Further, the DEIR does not impose the PDFs as an express condition of project implementation. LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PAFTNERSNIP INCLUDING PROEESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency , February 17, 1994 Page 16 part of the project), the DEIR fails to analyze how this exorbitantly expensive program would be funded. The mere development of the program will not mitigate the traffic impact. Its implementation requires a burdensome expenditure of funds. The DEIR does not consider the source of those funds nor does it appear to make the full funding of the ATIP a condition to the development of the proposed project at any stage of development.'—" Thus, the DEIR uses the development of the ATIP as the mitigation of the traffic impact without considering or providing analysis or information regarding whether implementation of the plan is economically feasible. Such mitigation is illusory at best and is not sufficient, as is assumed by the DEIR, to mitigate traffic impacts to a level of insignificance. During the construction and the operation of the project, there will be a significant and unmitigated adverse impact throughout the vicinity of the project (on PCH and elsewhere) at least until the ATIP is fully implemented (if ever), and perhaps beyond. The DEIR's illusory mitigation of traffic impacts is typical of the approach throughout the document. The defects of the mitigation measures are detailed in the table attached as ANNEx No. 7. Attached to this letter as A wEX No. 11 is a preliminary fiscal analysis prepared by Public Economics analyzing the fiscal impact of the project on the City. These fiscal impacts will cause indirect and direct environmental impacts due to the decrease in City public services and unreimbursed degradation of City capital facilities which will be caused by the project. As is noted in ANNEX No. 11, in order for the project to avoid a significant environmental impact due to the reduction of available City services, the final EIR must also mitigate the fiscal impact of the project on the City by requiring the ' developer to pay to the City impact fees prior to the issuance of any permits for development.W 171 As is noted in the discussion of consistency of the project with the County's general plan in Part 111.D of this letter, the County's general plan requires a project such as this to develop definite mitigation measures so that transportation planning and land use planning occur concurrently. The unfunded and inadequate ATIP does not fiutflll the general plan's policy of requiring adequate mitigation of circulation impacts prior to the commencement of development. 181 In a written response to the County's NOP,the County's own chief,HBP/Planning and Acquisition stated, "Prior to the issuance of building permits,the Local Park Code requirements for subdivision maps shall be satisfied through the payment of in-lieu fees." DEIR, Vol 1 Appendices at 59. The County must apply the same standard to all focal impacts (including those on the City) related to the project. 1 LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 17 H. THE DEIR DOES NOT CONSIDER KOLL'S ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD IN ASSESSING MITIGATION IMPLEMENTATION. A lead agencymust consider the record of the project proponent with respect P J P Po P to environmental matters. In Laurel Heights I, the California Supreme Court stated that, "[b]ecause an EIR cannot be meaningfully considered in a vacuum devoid of reality, a project proponent's prior environmental record is properly the subject of close consideration in determining the sufficiency of the proponent's promises in an EIR." 47 Cal.3d at 420. This is a particularly appropriate inquiry ryin a case, such as the proposed development of Bolsa Chica, where the project proponent is being relied upon to fund and perform long-term mitigation and environmental restoration programs which are not yet defined or funded. According to the DEIR, Koll will be relied upon to finance, fund and implement the WRP, the ATIP and the other mitigation measures and PDFs relied on by the DEIR for its determination that the project's impacts would not be significant adverse impacts on the environment. At the January 31, 1993 City Council hearing regarding the DEIR, a transcript of which was transmitted to the County under separate cover and which forms a part of the public comment on the DEIR, many citizens testified that Koll's record on environmental matters in general, and on the preservation of wetlands in particular, was not unblemished. Attached to this letter as ANNEx No. 27 are miscellaneous materials, received at the January 31, 1993 City Council hearing, which detail the allegations raised at the hearing. The City does not know the truth or falsity of the attached materials but brings these materials to the County's attention so that it can investigate. Since the attached 1 material does raise a question regarding whether Koll should be relied upon to proceed with the mitigation and PDFs as contemplated, the County must assess Koll's prior record in order to balance its "prior shortcomings and its promises for future action." Id. In doing so, the County should consider: the length, number and severity of prior environmental errors and the harm caused; whether the errors were intentional, negligent or unavoidable; whether the proponent's environmental record has improved or declined; whether he has attempted in good faith to LAW OFFICES t ERVIN, COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PRO/ESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 18 t correct prior problems; and whether the proposed activity will be regulated and monitored by a public entity. Id. at 420. The results of the County's investigation and its determination of the ' likelihood of implementation based on its independent review and analysis of the foregoing factors should appear in the recirculated DEIR. H. Particular CEQA Violations. A. TIM PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF THE DEIR IS INCONSISTENT AND INACCURATE. The DEIR contains a project description which is incomplete as to the project's environmental setting, phasing (particularly with regard to the phasing of grading and stockpiling of large amounts of dredged material during grading activities), and scope. Its inappropriate approach to the discussion and application of mitigation measures (noted in paragraph I.F above and in ANNEX No. 7) makes it impossible to understand the relationship between development and environmental mitigation as proposed by the DEIR. Individually, the deficiencies in the DEIR caused by these faults would warrant recirculation with new information added to the DEIR. Together they make recirculation of a thoroughly overhauled, complete and more clearly written document a clear and unavoidable requirement of well-established law. See Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n of San Francisco. Inc. v. The Regents of the University of California, 94 Daily Journal D.A.R. 70 (Cal. Sup. Ct. December 30, 1993) ("Laurel Heights III') (a new public comment period is required if the lead agency adds significant new information to the EIR after the close of the comment period but prior to certification -- such significant information includes substantial changes to the project). 1. Varying Descriptions of the "Project" Are Used. The DEIR is never satisfied with a single description of the project and it uses varying descriptions throughout the document. The description of the project in Chapter 1 of the document varies somewhat with the description in Chapter 3. The list of governmental actions required for approval and implementation of the project differs in each of those sections and both lists differ from the list given in Chapter 2 of the DEIR. Guidelines § 15124 requires LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ' Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 19 the project to be described in a way that will be meaningful to the public, to the other P J Y g reviewing agencies and to the decision-makers. See OPR Discussion following Guidelines § 15124. The project description is required so that a consistent point of departure is presented for the evaluation and analysis of the project's interim and ultimate effects on the environment. ' Chapter 1 of the DEIR describes the project b noting that it P P J Y g "addresses the scope of a series of actions and approvals that are considered part of the over overa Bolsa Chica project". DEIR p. 1-1, In. 13-14 (emphasis added).19' Guidelines § 15124(d)(2) requires the project description to include, at a minimum, a list of the approvals for which the EIR will be used. The DEIR includes a number of different lists of approvals required for the project, each of which set forth somewhat different approvals. The description in Chapter 1 of the DEIR states that the County "will eventually prepare an LCP for this area," and notes that the related approvals required for the project include (i) a general plan amendment, (ii) an amendment to the County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways (the "MPAH"), (iii) a zone change, (iv) a Community Profile Amendment2", (v) Coastal Development Permits ("CDP") from the County and (vi) CDPs from the City with respect to portions of the Bolsa Chica Street Extension ("BCSE") and tidal inlet. Chapter 2.5 sets forth a list of approvals required to implement the proposed project which is similar to the list set forth in Chapter 1; however, numerous other approvals are scattered among the other provisions of Chapter 2. The list of approvals distributed through Chapter 2 of the DEIR include the following: 191 This assertion is in direct conflict with the assertion of the County Director of Planning in the correspondence attached to this letter as ANNEX No. 6 and discussed in Part LD.2 above. 201 The Community Profile Amendment is listed in Section 1 but not thereafter discussed in the consideration of land use impacts or approvals in Section 4.1-1. Accordingly, it is not possible to know what the impact of this approval or its consequences would be. LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN & JE55UP A PAiTNERSNIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency t February 17, 1994 Page 20 LIST OF REQUIRED APPROVALS rov &gnc-I ,Statutory Authority Local/State ' 1. LCP/LUP County Board of Supervisors. Pub. Res Code § 35000 Coastal Commission 2. EIR County Board of Supervisors Pub. Res Code § 21000 Pub. Res Code § 21100 3. General Plan Amendment County Board of Supervisors Gov't Code § 65300 4. Planned Community County Board of Supervisors Zoning 5. Wetlands Restoration County Board of Supervisors Program and Implemen- Army Corps 33 USC § 1344 (§ 404) tation Action Plan 33 USC §§ 403, 407 Coastal Commission Pub. Res. Code § 35000 6. Development Agreement County Board of Supervisors Gov't Code § 65864 7. Coastal Development City of Huntington Beach City LCP Permits Coastal Commission 8. Coastal Permit Coastal Commission Pub. Res. Code § 35000 9. Approval of LCP Coastal Commission Pub. Res. Code § 35000 et seq. , 10. Approval of EIR Coastal Commission Pub. Res. Code § 35000 et seq. 11. Approval of Development Coastal Commission Pub. Res. Code § 35000 et seq. Agreement 12. Approval of Permits Coastal Commsion Pub. Res. Code § 35000 et seq. (prior to cert. of LCP) Faderal 13. Permits under § 404 of Army Corps 33 USC § 1344 (§ 404) Clean Water Act and § 10 33 USC §§ 403, 407 of Rivers and Harbors Act LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN & JE55UP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 21 Aw—mveJ A ena Statutory Authority 14. Consistency under Coastal Army Corps 16 USC § 1456 Zone Management Act Coastal Commission 15. EIS preparation and Army Corps 42 USC § 4321 certification under NEPA. 16. Certification under § 401 Army Corps 33 USC § 1341 of Clean Water Act 17. Compliance with § 7 of Army Corps 16 USC § 1531-1544 Endangered Species Act USFWS NMFS 18. Compliance with Fish and USFWS 16 USC §§ 661-666 Wildlife Coordination Act EPA NMFS CDFG 19. Compliance with § 491 et US DOT 33 USC § 491 et seq. seq. of Bridge Act USCG 20. Compliance with § 106 of 16 USC § 470 NHPA 21. Compliance with § 208 of 33 USC § 1251 et seq. ' Federal Water Pollution (P.L. 92-500) Control Act of 1972 In addition to the foregoing approvals, Table 2.12-1 at page 2-8 sets forth yet a different list of State and local approvals required for project implementation and omits certain of the above-described local approvals and all of the required federal approvals. Section 2.12.1 (p.2-7) states that the approvals listed in Table 2.12-1, the approval of the LCP and the development agreement will rely on the DEIR. As is noted below, the program DEIR prepared by the County is not adequate environmental documentation for those approvals (which, collectively, authorize the construction of the development on the Mesa), and a more thorough project EIR for those approvals is required under CEQA. Further, given the length of the build-out and the protracted planning and LAW OF FiCES , ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 22 1 approval process required for the project, the program DEIR prepared by the County is not the appropriate vehicle for tiering the environmental review of Kell's project. As noted in part III.A of this letter, a staged EIR, requiring further review of each construction project, is required. The different project descriptions strewn through the first three sections of the DEIR do not even agree as to the number of dwelling units to be built within each portion of the site or within the project in total. Chapter 1.2.2 of the DEIR describes the project as including such "specific details" as the development of 3,410 residential units on approximately 212 acres on the Mesa and the County portion of the Metropolitan Water District Area, including residential densities ranging form 3.5 dwelling units per acre to 36 dwelling units per acre plus an additional 876 units in the Lowlands. Chapter 2.4 (p.2-2 , 1n.13-15) and Chapter 3.2.1 (p. 3-9, In. 11) state that the "project" refers to the development of 4,248 residential units in the County LCP Area. Table 3.2-3 (page 3-15) states that at least 3,256 and as many as 3,865 homes will be constructed within planning areas 5 through 13 (which appear to be the planning areas upon the Mesa although the DEIR does not make this clear).W Footnote (d) to that table notes that the total number of homes within the planning area will be limited to 4,286 homes. It is not 211 Neither the minimum nor the maximum figure for construction of homes within the planning areas atop the Mesa concur with the 3,410 home figure given at page 1-3, 1n.9 of the DEIR. In order to ascertain the true numbers for the proposed phases of the project (i.e., to learn how many homes would be constructed on the Mesa during phase I and how many would be constructed in the wetlands during phase III), one must ignore the general explanatory phrases and examine Table 3.2-3 and then total the development for each phase by separating the phase Iplanning areas from the phase III planning areas. Since the DEIR does not consider the additional approximately 598 units which would be built by Koll adjacent to the County LCP area and within the Study Area (phase H of the project) it is impossible to say with certainty how many units would be constructed within that area and when they would be constructed. The only manner to ascertain an approximate count of 598 units is to compare the 4,286 units proposed for the County LCP area with the 4,884 units proposed for the Study Area as a whole. In order for , an environmental impact report to comply with CEQ4, it must "be written in plain language. . . so that decision makers and the public can rapidly understand the documents." A legally adequate environmental impact report should not require the forensic examination essential to ferret out the most basic facts of Koll's proposed program from the scattered information strewn about the DEIR. Guidelines § 15151 states, in pan, that an environmental impact report must provide a decision-maker with "information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences." The difficulty of culling out the true facts from the DEIR prepared by the County makes it unlikely that the decision-makers (much less the lay public to whom an EIR is intended to be addressed) reviewing Koll's construction project will know for certain the number of homes to be constructed at particular times in the various areas of the site or the other most basic information regarding the implementation of the project. LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN 9 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 23 possible to determine from the DEIR how homes would be constructed within each Po many phase or planning area of the project. Table 3.2-3 states a minimum and maximum number aof dwelling units within each planning area; however there is never an express limitation of the number of homes. Thus, instead of constructing 3,410 homes on the Mesa (as stated in Chapter I of the DEIR), Chapter 3 of the DEIR indicates that Koll would have the option of constructing 3,865 homes in that section if the maximum dwelling unit number given in Table 3.2-3 is viewed as an absolute limit in each planning area, or up to 4,286 homes on the Mesa, if it is not.W Nowhere are these possibilities described in the text of the DEIR and the impacts of increasing the density of the Mesa development are not considered. The defects of the project description go to the very heart of the CEQA process and the opportunity for meaningful public review and comment. 2. Omission of Implementing Documents Frustrates Attempts at Worthwhile Public Review of the Program and the DEIR. The program which the DEIR attempts to analyze involves a vast and complex series of governmental and administrative actions and approvals, each of which bears upon the severity and nature of the various environmental impacts which CEQA requires the DEIR to consider thoroughly and mitigate (or override) before it can be certified and the approvals proceed. This complicated series of actions will be implemented through various local, State and federal documents (including the proposed development agreement, general plan amendment, wetlands permits and other documents, all of which are collectively referred to in this letter ' as the "implementing documents"), including the development and adoption by the County of a Local Costal Program (the "LCP") under the California Coastal Act, an amendment to the Land Use and Transportation elements of the County's general plan, a development ' agreement to be entered into between Koll and the County providing for Koll's conditional 221 The number of homes constructed on the Mesa becomes critical since the Mesa portion of the development is the first phase (see DEIR at p. 1-4, In. 17-23) and is permitted to proceed without implementation or funding of the WRP or full implementation of the A77P. It seems that up to the full complement of 4,286 homes (or is it 4,248 homes as stated in the project description set forth in Section 3?) can proceed on the Mesa without implementation of mitigation measures, nearly the entire impact of the project will occur without mitigation. However, since the development agreement and the other implementing documents relating to the program under consideration were not circulated with the DEIR and since the DEIR has no discussion of the phasing of the entitlements and the implementation of the A77P, WRP and other mitigation measures, it is not possible to be certain how the phasing will impact the community. This is but one of many examples where the vagueness of the DEIR project description and the failure to circulate proposed drafts of the implementing documentation make meaningful analysis by the public impossible. LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN 8 JESSUP , A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency , February 17, 1994 Page 24 commitment to dedicate wetlands to the County and to fund a portion of the cost of wetlands restoration,2" the State coastal permit and certification of the LCP, and various federal permits relating to the development and filling of the wetlands and the disruption of federally designated ESHAs. None of these documents have been developed or drafted and, therefore, none can be made available for public review during the public comment period. Because the implementing documents were not circulated with the DEIR, crucial information is lacking which is otherwise required to adequately assess the impacts of the project. As a result, the public must attempt to evaluate project impacts without data on the anticipated timing and phasing of the project, and without marketing information on anticipated sales values or even broad descriptions of anticipated residential dwelling unit types within defined planning areas. These documents are critical elements of the program under consideration, and it is not possible to dredge out sufficient information regarding the project and the content of the implementing documents from the vague and inconsistent descriptions of the DEIR.22" In a study session at the City, Thomas Matthews, the County's Director of Planning, stated that the public comment period on the DEIR would close and all comments would be collected &eLor the County embarked on the task of developing the first drafts of implementing documents. Mr. Matthews also indicated that the County would hold public hearings regarding the LCP as required under the Coastal Act but would , not receive comments on the DEIR after the close of the public comment period. Thus, the County has hidden the true form of its approvals until after the opportunity for comment on the impact of those approvals has passed. The public cannot adequately review the , proposed approvals during the public comment period because the project description in the DEIR is vague, incomplete and inconsistent, and the implementing documents specifying the scope and nature of the approvals to be considered as part of the program purportedly , analyzed in the DEIR are not available. Once the implementing documents are made available for comment, the County will refuse further comments on the DEIR. This is a "Catch-22" which precludes adequate public participation in the CEQA process and violates CEQA's intent and requirement for informed public participation and decision-making. 231 The DEIR indicates that Koll's commitment to wetland restoration and the dedication of land to the County are both conditioned on the issuance of the required federal permits. 241 Attached to this letter as ANNEX No. 31 is a draft of the development agreement which was proposed by Koll to the City as of March 24, 1992. The draft indicates that the form of Development Agreement was sufficiently evolved to permit a draft to be circulated with the DEIR, yet no draft was included. LAW OFFICES - ERVIN. COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ' Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 25 3. Project Description Omits Description of Project Phasing. The J P P J g ' DEIR does not contain a description of project phasing, aside from a numbering of the wetlands restoration areas and the development areas and approximate dates for the oil extraction shutdown and wetlands restoration activities shown on Figure 3.4-1 and Table 3.4-1 and the most general description stating that Mesa development would occur first commencing in 1995, followed by development of the MWD area and last development would occur in the Lowlands. The description of the phasing of the development does not indicate whether the phases will be constructed concurrently or whether different portions of each phase might be constructed at different times. The limited description of phasing gives the reader absolutely no information about how the site would be dredged and graded and how or specifically where on the site the dredged material from the tidal opening would be stockpiled or used on the site in a sequential fashion. A series of drawings which shows how the anticipated cuts and fills from each phase would affect the site should be prepared and inserted in the document. Since this project extends over such a long period of time, it is not expected that the phasing plan would be completely exact, but that it would conceptually represent the areas of the site which might undergo some form of disturbance during each phase of the project's implementation. As a timetable has already been sketched out in the DEIR, this should not be difficult to prepare, and would greatly assist those reviewing the project's physical impacts over time, particularly for biological issues. Furthermore, the DEIR's description of the phasing of the project should specify the relation between the entitlements to construct each portion of the residential development and the requirement for funding and implementing mitigation measures such as the ATIP and the WRP. Since the DEIR has no coherent discussion of these matters, it is not possible to determine whether, how or when each item of these measures will be implemented. There is also no description of the construction process and the types and numbers of equipment and personnel which would be involved. This is essential to address construction impacts, which may be substantial due to use of heavy equipment, transport of contaminated soil or dredge spoil, earthmoving, deep dynamic compaction and soil stockpiling, among other activities. It seems that the traffic analysis lacks a precise assessment of the earthmoving component of construction activities as well. This is a serious deficiency in the DEIR. i 1 LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency , February 17, 1994 Page 26 4. Project Description Omits City Portions of the Project. The DEIR describes the "project" as the development which will occur within the LCP area. , DEIR § 3.2.1, page 3-9 expressly states: Proposed Project: The Proposed Project refers to the land plan and proposed implementing actions referred described in this chapter and that provide for (1) the development of 4,248 residential units in the County LCP Area, including the Lowland; (2) the expansion of wetlands acreage in the Lowland through the construction of a tidal inlet, the creation of new wetlands and the restoration of existing degraded wetlands; and (3) the construction of project related and regional infrastructure. (emphasis added). Thus, the description of the "Project" expressly excludes the 598 dwelling units which will be constructed on the portions of the Bolsa Mesa within the City's jurisdiction even though the DEIR assumes (but only for certain purposes) that such development will occur. Comp Proposed Bolsa Chica Study Area Land Use Plan (DEIR page 3-10) with paragraph 9 of DEIR § 4.1.3 (page 4.1-43) which compares the development of a maximum of 5,700 units within the entire 1986 LCP area (i.e. both the City and County portions of the Study Area contemplated by the DEIR) with the development of 4,286 units in the project solely on the County portion of the Study Area and ignoring the 598 units which Koll intends to develop within the City -- thus comparing apples to oranges. B. THE DEIR INACCURATELY LABELS SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AS INSIGNIFICANT AND USES INAPPROPRIATE STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 1. The DEIR Uses Improper Standards of Significance. Each Chapter of the DEIR which assesses the significance of impacts states the standard of significance used by the DEIR to determine whether the adverse impacts on the environment from the project are "significant". Often, the stated standards are very close to the standards required under CEQA but are not quite adequate. For example, Chapter 4.2 does not consider excessive siltation or erosion to be significant unless detrimental to structures or slopes, but Guidelines Appendix G indicates that any project which could cause excessive LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ' Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 27 erosion or siltation will normallybe considered to be a significant effect on the environment g regardless of whether structures or slopes are affected. Here again, the DEIR comes close to the appropriate standard but misses in a significant fashion. The project does have the potential to cause significant erosion of the Huntington Mesa and is acknowledged to cause excessive siltation which is purportedly mitigated by a vaguely described and unfunded program of continual dredging. Further, the DEIR goes to great lengths in a somewhat tortured effort to conclude that the construction of a residential subdivision astride an active fault line does not cause a significant adverse impact. To the contrary, Guidelines § 15126(a) expressly states: [A]n EIR on a subdivision astride an active fault line should identify as a significant effect the seismic hazard to future occupants of the subdivision. The subdivision would have the effect of attracting people to the location and exposing them to the hazards found there. In the case of Bolsa Chica, the DEIR ignores the attraction of new and existing residents to the parks and residential development which will straddle known fault lines, some known to be active and others which may be active. Finally, Chapter 4.11 of the DEIR looks solely to Exhibit K of the Guidelines as the authority for determining whether the project has a significant effect on cultural, historic and architectural resources. This ignores the provisions of PRC §§ 21083.2 and 21084.1, both of which impose strict requirements for a project, such as the development of Bolsa Chica, which has the potential to disrupt non-unique archaeological resources. Further, it ignores the provisions of Appendix G to the ' Guidelines which speaks of disruption of resources of value to a particular community. The foregoing list is by no means exhaustive and is intended merely to illustrate the many instances in which the DEIR fails to state the appropriate standard for determining the significance of an impact on the environment. The County must re- examine each and every one of the standards in each impact area and substantially revise ' those standards in the recirculated DEIR and the final EIR. LAW OFFICES , ERVIN, COHEN b JESSUP A PARTNERSNIP INCLUDING PROIESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 28 2. The EIR/EIS Noted a Number of Significant Impacts which the DEER Identifies as Insignificant. The project considered by the DEIR is substantially , similar to the project considered under the EIR/EIS. The DEIR neither significantly reduces the scope of the project nor does it provide new information or mitigation measures which justify why impacts which formerly were identified as significant are now identified as insignificant. The following items were identified as unavoidable significant adverse impacts of the project considered in the 1992 EIR/EIS: 1. Permanent loss of open space. 2. Permanent loss of beach. 3. Filling of wetland in coastal zone. 4. Groundwater impacts. 5. Beach sand erosion. 6. Loss of upland foraging habitat for raptors. 7. Significant impact on burrowing owls if they are relocated offsite. 8.' PCH lane requirements cannot be implemented 9. Air quality - long term vehicle (mobile source) & energy (stationary source) emissions. 10.' Air quality secondary emissions. 11. Fugitive dust (PM10) during construction. , 12. Air quality impacts of use of heavy equipment etc. during construction. 13. Water demand will exceed City's Water System Master Plan. Projected water demands, plus contribution to cumulative water demands. ' 14. Cumulative demands for energy - (a) fossil fuels, (b) electricity (c) natural gas 15. Degraded views from public areas. 16. Cumulative consumption of non-renewable resources. Of the 16 significant adverse impacts identified in the 1992/1993 EIR/EIS, only the 5 impacts noted above with an asterisk (*) are noted as unavoidable impacts in the 1993 DEIRY" The reasons why each of the foregoing impacts (other than those noted with asterisks) are identified as insignificant in the DEIR must be explained in detail in the , recirculated DEIR. 251 The 1993 DEIR also notes one additional impact not identified in the 1992 EIR/EIS regarding the potential for breaks in utility lines crossing the earthquake faults on the site. , i LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS aOrange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 29 The documents in connection with the EIR/EIS indicate the prepared problems which the preparer had in obtaining sufficient detail for appropriate analysis. Attached to this letter as ANNEx No.19, ANNEx No. 20 and ANNEx No. 21 are miscellaneous memoranda regarding the preparation of the EIR/EIS which indicate the level of concern which the preparer (the same preparer as prepared the County's DEIR) had regarding the lack of detail in the AMP and the potential significant impacts of the project which were left unidentified in the EIR/EIS. ANNEx No. 22 is a letter, dated April 1, 1992 from the Chambers Group, the preparer of both the DEIR and the EIR/EIS, which notes certain inadequacies in the screen check draft of the EIR/EIS, inadequacies which are still not adequately addressed in the DEIR. Since the DEIR does not present the project in 1 more detail and since the project considered in the DEIR is substantially similar to the project considered in the EIR/EIS, the comments of the preparers of the EIR/EIS are relevant to the DEIR and the County must create more detailed plans as initially requested by the preparers of the DEIR. i i C. INCLUSION OF MODIFIED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE OBSCURES THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ANALYZED BY THE DEIR. The Count 's publication of a DEIR which purports to analyze two "co-equal Y P P � Y �l alternatives" (as originally denominated in the NOP) severely undercuts the value of the DEIR as an informational document for the public. In Laurel Heights I, the California Supreme Court noted that it Is the policy of the State to "take all action necessary to protect, rehabilitate, and enhance the environmental quality of the State," and, in that regard, the Court stated: The EIR is also intended "to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action." . . . [citations]. . . Because the EIR must be certified or rejected by public officials, it is a document of accountability. If CEQA is scrupulously followed, ' the public will know the basis on which its responsible officials either approve or reject environmentally significant action, and the public, being duly informed, can respond accordingly to action with which it disagrees. . . . [citations]. . . The EIR process protects i LAW OFFICES ' ERVIN, COHEN b JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency , February 17, 1994 Page 30 not only the environment but also informed self- government. , Laurel Heights I, 47 Cal.3d at 392. Thus, an EIR serves at least two functions, i.e., protection of the environment and disclosure to the public of the environmental decisions made by its elected representatives. In the case of the DEIR, a program EIR which covers a vast amount of information, the inclusion of the so-called modified project alternative or co-equal alternative makes an already unmanageable document even more confusing. The project description becomes muddled by the inclusion of the second alternative, as does the consideration and analysis of the feasibility of mitigation measures which might lessen significant environmental impacts. Further, it becomes difficult to assess whether feasible project alternatives exist which fulfill the objectives of the "project" because the definition of the project (much less its objectives) becomes unclear. It is not certain which alternative is the project being considered by the public decision-makers since two projects are labelled as "co-equal". Thus, the DEIR's consideration of two "co-equal alternatives" confuses the document to the ' point where it fails to fulfill its mission of providing the citizenry with clear information thereby protecting informed self-government. For example, when the DEIR describes the Modified Project Alternative, it , very briefly mentions that this alternative requires that all of the wetlands acquisition and restoration must occur via public funding or private contributions. This is a substantial ' difference from the proposed project and deserves to be a key focus of the discussion. It is unclear why this alternative does not include land dedication as a component. It may be reasonable to assume that the applicant could not afford to pursue the wetlands restoration ' without sufficient units to sell, but no justification is presented as to why the applicant cannot provide the land. Most document reviewers will miss this aspect of the alternative, because it is so buried in the discussion. Furthermore, the analysis of the modified project , or "co-equal" alternative is muddled and internally inconsistent. Since the co-equal alternative reduces the intensity of development, why is a more intensive road system included. Why require so much infrastructure and create additional wetlands impacts when , development is limited to that edge of the site which fronts Warner and Los Patos Avenues. No justification for these impacts is offered in the DEIR. i LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN 6 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUOING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 31 Finally, the inclusion of the modified project alternative appears to be P J PPS intended as a fallback position for Koll and the County which is intended to permit a Mesa- only development to go forward if the federal approvals are not forthcoming. The DEIR does not adequately describe or consider appropriate alternatives to the modified project alternative. The DEIR does not fulfill the requirements of CEQA for a project EIR considering the approval of a Mesa-only development. D. WETLANDS RESTORATION NOT TIED TO PROJECT DEVELOPMENT . The DEIR states that the Bolsa Chica Wetlands have been recognized as a degraded wetland.2" Although the DEIR acknowledges that wetlands development and restoration will require federal approvals, including approvals from the Corps under Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbor Act of 1899, it does not consider the potential impact of those reviews on the County's land use plans and other approvals. Even though the program considered by the DEIR must be subjected to a federal environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 USC § 4321 ("NEPA") the County has not worked in conjunction with the Corps to produce a joint document which attempts to fulfil the requirements of both CEQA and NEPA. 1. Federal Permits and Process. The Corps is the federal agency with primary regulatory authority over the wetlands, drawing its authority from Section 10 of the 261 See DEIR § 4.1.1.1,page 4.1-6 citing California Department of Fish and Game Report on Identification of Degraded Wetlands in Bolsa Chica, dated December 11, 1981. A copy of that report is attached to this letter as ANNEX No. 12. The DEIR neglects to mention that the report concluded that even though the wetlands as a whole were a degraded system, a significant portion comprising hundreds of acres were not degraded and were ' already fully restored and functioning wetlands. Further, the DEIR also fails to disclose that CDFG objected to the characterization of the wetlands as degraded in its comment (included within ANNEX No. 10)to the EIR/EIS. The DEIR's discussion of the CDFG report is one of a number of 'half-truths" in the document which makes it inaccurate and misleading. Finally, the DEIR omits any consideration of the Governor's new wetlands policy, 'California Wetlands Conservation Policy,' Executive Order W59-93(Aug. 23, 1993)which notes the significance of the Bolsa Chica wetlands and considers their restoration. A copy of the Governor's policy is attached to this letter as ANNEX No. 35. LAW OFFICES , ERVIN, COHEN b JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFE55IONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency ' February 17, 1994 Page 32 Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 33 U.S.C. §§ 402-403—nt and Sections 401 through 404 of the federal Clean Water Act 33 U.S.C. §§ 1341-1344 2Y The U.S. Environmental , Protection Agency ("USEPA") also is involved in wetlands regulation and possesses a veto power over the issuance of wetlands permitsAF In addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS"), National Marine Fisheries Service ("NMFS") and CDFG will become integrated into the permitting process.30t The permitting process for development, dredging and filling of the wetlands will also require certification from the Regional and State Water Quality Control Boards that the project is consistent with applicable State water quality standards under the applicable water quality control plan. For the convenience of the reader, a chart detailing the Corps' permitting process is attached to this letter as ANNEx No. 22 and a brief article describing the process as applicable in California is attached as ArnvEx NO. 23. 271 Under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, the Corps is responsible for regulating all work which , could interfere with navigation. A permit is needed to perform work in navigable waters, including excavation, dredging, and filling. Since 1966, this law has been interpreted and applied to include factors other than navigability of the waters, including protection offish and wildlife and avoiding pollution. 33 C.F.R. § 209.120. The Corp's definition of"navigable waters'subject to jurisdiction under the Rivers and Harbors Act includes waters , which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. See U.S. v. Moretti, 478 F.2d 418 (5th Cir. 1973). Under the foregoing definition, the waters of Inner and Outer Bolsa Bay and other waters within the Study Area are within the jurisdiction of the Rivers and Harbors Act. 281 The Clean Water Act was originally passed in 1972 as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. Section 301 of the Act prohibits the discharge of any pollutants into waters of the United States (a term defined at 33 C.F.R. Pan 328)except as permitted under Section 402 or 404 of the Act. Section 402 establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination("NPDES")program. Recently this program has focused on the discharge of urban runoff and its effects on water quality. It is possible that the project might require an NPDES permit for the proposed discharge of urban run-offfrom the East Garden Grove/Wintersburg ("EGGW") Channel into the tidal wetlands. Section 404 gives the Corps permission to regulate or prevent the discharge of dredged or fill material into the wetlands. Section 401 of the Act conditions that authority by requiring an applicant to receive State certification of consistency with clean water standards before a 404 permit can be issued. 33 U.S.C. § 1341. , 291 7his authority is granted to the USEPA under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act which permits that agency toprohibit disposal at any site if,after public hearing,the agency determines that the discharge of materials into the area would have an adverse affect on local water supplies, shellfish beds or fisheries. ' 301 See Section 2.2 of 1992 EIS/EIR attached to this letter as ANNEX No. 9, See also page ES-3 of EIR/EIS attached to this letter as ANNEX No. 9 AT§ S.1.2. i ' LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 ' Page 33 2. Restoration Is Not Required until Lon after Commencement of e9 g Mesa Development. The current DEIR defers consideration of the federal permits and the federal environmental review to a later time, yet to be determined.31 Accordingly, if the Corps or any other responsible federal agency refuses to issue the permits required for the restoration of the wetlands, a central feature of the program contemplated by the DEIR will fail to occur and, for this reason alone, the DEIR is fatally flawed under State law.321 As noted above, the restoration of the wetlands is commonly perceived as the sole justification for any development at the project site. The DEIR notes three areas of environmental impacts (certain air quality impacts, seismic disruption of utilities and aesthetics) which are conceded to remain significant adverse effects on the environment ' despite the mitigation measures considered in the DEIR. There are other impacts which are assumed to be insignificant which are, in fact, significant notwithstanding the mitigation measures suggested in the DEIR. Accordingly, the County Board of Supervisors must specifically find that the benefits of the project outweigh the potential adverse impacts in a statement of overriding considerations within the meaning of Guidelines § 15093.L" 311 Page 4.1-28 of the DEIR notes that the federal permits required for discharge into and filling of jurisdictional wetlands are still pending with the Corps but, "[mlodflcations of the federal permit application are anticipated to reflect those recent changes[i.e., the changes in Koll's business organization and the changes in the project since the publication of the EIRBIS] . . .". 321 See Part LD, above;see also Letter to Koll from the Los Angeles District Director of the Corps attached to this letter as ANNEX No. S in which the Corps expressly states, among other things(i)Koll's position is that no restoration of wetlands will occur unless the Corps permits Koll to fill wetlands in connection with the proposed residential development in the Lowlands, (ii)that the Corps believes that it is required to review the entirety of the 1 project, including the uplands,as part of its public interest and NEPA review process, (iii) the use of profits from the development of a residential community in the wetlands will fund the restoration of other wetlands does not make the development in the wetlands a restoration or water-dependent project entitled to Section 404 permits. This letter ' strongly indicates that the Corps may not issue the wetlands permits required for restoration or Lowlands development. Further, this letter indicates that the Corps may be less inclined to issue permits if the Mesa development has already commenced at the time the project is considered by the Corps. 331 Since the mitigation measures required by the DEIR are not sufficient to mitigate all of the potential impacts to a level of insignificance, the County must both adopt the findings required under PRC § 21081 regarding the infeasibility of mitigation measures and alternatives which would lower the potential impact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations as contemplated by Guidelines § 15093 stating the particular reasons (based on substantial evidence in the record) why the environmental impacts are acceptable in light of the benefits of the proposed project. The discussion following Guidelines § 15093 states, in this regard: (continued...) LAW OFFICE5 , ERVIN. COHEN F3 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency ' February 17, 1994 Page 34 Since the stated objectives of the project focus on the restoration and creation of significant wetlands and ESHAs, the overriding consideration in this case will likely include the planned wetlands restoration.31' In order for this consideration to justify the development of the entire project, the obligation to restore the wetlands must arise with the first development under the approvals considered in the DEIR. Although page 2-4 of the DEIR states that "Koll has committed to include a provision in the development agreement which will require Koll to fund the entire cost of the VW," the development agreement was not provided for public review. Therefore, it is not possible to determine the true level of Koll's commitment to restore the wetlands once the first development of the Mesa has commenced and, therefore, the nature and extent of actual mitigation remains a mystery.L" Further, there is no requirement for bonding of Koll's obligations nor any 331(...continued) The court in Citizens for Quality Growth v. Mount Shasta, 198 Cal.App.3d 433 (1988),held that when an agency approves a project that will significantly affect the environment, CEQA places the burden on the approving agency to affirmatively show that it has considered the identified means[mitigation and/or alternatives] of lessening or avoiding the project's sign(cant effects and to explain its decision allowing those adverse changes to occur. In other words, an agency may only get to overriding considerations after the agency has made the appropriate findings;then, and only then, may an agency go on to explain why a project may go forward notwithstanding its effects. 341 This conclusion is bolstered by DEIR§ 3.3,Page 3-33 which states that the objectives of the Project include (1) reversing 'the degradation of wetlands on the site and expand the size and quality of the wetlands through a , program of reconfiguration, consolidation, creation and restoration', (ii) conveying a portion of the Huntington Mesa to the County, (iii) conveying the portion of the Lowland not used for development to public agencies for wetlands restoration,flood control or other 'public uses" and (iv) coordinating the wetlands restoration with the phasing out of oil operations. Further, among the more specific goals to be achieved is to provide for the creation, , protection, restoration and maintenance of significant wetlands, ESHAs and marine resources, and to maintain restore and enhance the biological productivity and quality of coastal waters and wetlands to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms. This objective is often used by the DEIR as the reason for rejecting alternative , projects which do not 'fund"the restoration of the wetlands;however, as is demonstrated above, the Koll project proposal is not itself likely to restore the wetlands. Accordingly, it is not valid for the DEIR to reject alternative projects on the basis of the ability to fund restoration. 351 The DEIR estimates the cost of wetlands restoration at$48 Million. Newspaper articles from mid-1993 , estimate thefigure at close to$100 Million. The WRP was substantially revised to a more "cost-effective"plan once (continued...) i ' LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN b JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 ' Page 35 other device provided in the DEIR to ensure that Koll would have sufficient funds to implement the restoration plan. This is critically important given that the wetlands 1 restoration would not commence until after oil operations have ceased. The omission of funding security from Koll's commitment leaves open the very real possibility that Koll might not have the wherewithal to fund the implementation of the WRP if the cost of the WRP escalates during the 20 to 30 years over which it will be implemented or if Koll's fortunes decline over that extended period. ' The DEIR relies on the proposed land use plan included in the 1986 LCP as its baseline for determining the sufficiency of the current Koll proposal for wetlands restoration. That reliance is misplaced since (i) the 1986 LCP was conditionally approved and, thus, did not approve the proposed wetlands restoration plan, (ii) the DEIR acknowledges that the 1986 LCP is not in accord with current CCC policies and (iii) the 1986 LCP intended that development of the Mesa would be used, in part, to fund the wetland restoration.& 351(..continued) it became clear that funds would not be available from the expansion of the Long Beach harbor since that project had been scaled back and would not need to mitigate the elimination of wetlands in Long Beach by offsite restoration of wetlands at Bolsa Chica. Press coverage indicates that part of the reduction in the cost of restoration was obtained by phasing out the existing oil operations only as the reserves are depleted. Page 4.1-49 of the DEIR indicates that those reserves are expected to be depleted only over the next 20 years. Further, if the price of oil increases at any time during that period, it is likely that the time required to remove existing oil operations will be increased. 361 The current LCP was only conditionally certified by the Coastal Commission. Five specific portions of the ' development proposed in the LCP would require further approvals before implementation. See,e.je.,DEIR at page 4.1-23. The five issues requiring further study and review were: ' (1) feasibility of navigable ocean entrance; (2) feasibility of navigable connection to Huntington Harbor; (3) the Wetlands Restoration Plan; (4) alignment of BCSE and potential connection to Graham, Talbert and Springdale; and ' (5) "detailed issues related to the MWD property.' Thus, contrary to much of the land use discussion of the DEIR, the 1986 LCP was not fully approved and, even though it considered a combined marina and residential development, that approval was not fully effective until, among other things, the Coastal Commission approved the wetlands restoration plan and the circulation element of the new extension of Bolsa Chica Street. Further, as noted above in this letter, Chapter Z 2.4 of the DEIR (continued...) i LAW OFFICES H , ERVIN. COEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency ' February 17, 1994 Page 36 , 3. Federal Agency and Coastal Commission Appear to Be Opposed to the Koll Development in the Lowlands and The Issuance of Permits for Wetlands Development Is Highly Unlikely. Attached to this letter as AMEX NO. 10 are the comments received during the public comment period on the EIR/EIS. Included within those comments are various pieces of correspondence from the federal agencies whose approval is required before any permits for the development of the Lowlands residential units or the restoration of the wetlands can proceed. As noted earlier, the projects considered in the DEIR and the EIR/EIS are similar and raise the same regulatory concerns. Accordingly, the County must anticipate that the same comments will apply in the case of the project considered in the DEIR. To say the least, the letters received from federal agencies were not positive. r For example, the Office of Environmental Affairs of the U.S. Department of the Interior wrote, in its letter to the Corps dated December 3, 1992, the department noted that Section , 30233 of the Coastal Act would permit filling of wetlands only where there exists no feasible less damaging alternative. The letter concluded in this regard, "We find that the proposed project is clearly not the least damaging feasible alternative . . .'I. Further, this ' letter noted that the costs and type of restoration were not adequately documented in the 1992 EIR/EIS. The current DEIR addresses none of these concerns and its documentation of the WRP is no more specific than the EIR/EIS. 361(..continued) ' expressly notes that the 1986 LCP is not consistent with current CCC policies. Page 4.1-46 of the DEIR notes that the Coastal Commission made a number of findings in connection with the conditional certification of the County ' LCP in January 1986, including: Underlying the long HCP(Habitat Conservation Plan)and LCP planning efforts to date has been the expectation the increased value of upland/mesa lands , authorized for intensified development would be used in part to enable necessary wetland restoration . . . The LUP now before the Commission correctly identifies the necessary ' connection between development and restoration. Thus, the Coastal Commission's conditional approval of the 1986 LCP was based, in part, on a finding that the intensive development of the Bolsa Mesa would fund at least a portion of the wetlands restoration and that such a nexus was a critical part of the approval of the 1986 LCP. That nexus is conspicuously absent from the current proposal. LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROMS510NAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 ' Page 37 ' The foregoing letter also expressly noted that the peregrine falcon is listed as g g P Y Pe g an endangered species and that this bird has been noted at Bolsa Chica at all seasons and is potentially a local breeder. This situation and the impact of the loss of this raptor's habitat is similarly left unaddressed in the DEIR. The USEPA also submitted a written comment to the 1992 EIR/EIS, dated December 17, 1992. USEPA reiterated its previous position that residential and infrastructure development in the waters of the United States must be avoided and that the wetlands losses associated with the proposed project are unacceptable where those losses could be practically avoided. USEPA stated that the 1992 EIR/EIS did not address these concerns nor the other concerns communicated by USEPA in response to the NEPA Notice of Intent to prepare the EIR/EIS. The USEPA letter specifically noted that the WRP was insufficiently detailed and the commitment to fund the plan and the maintenance of the restored wetlands was too vague to permit meaningful analysis. Furthermore, USEPA noted that because of the presence of several federally listed endangered species, the project would have to clear the Section 7 consultation process required under the Clean Water Act and the Federal Endangered Species Act.0 USEPA concluded that the EIR/EIS was legally inadequateA' Finally, USEPA indicated that it might be forced to recommend denial of the permits for wetlands restoration. ' NMFS also responded negatively to the project as proposed in the EIR/EIS. In its letter of December 10, 1992, NMFS stated that the proposed development in the Lowlands could well violate the policies of the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines and, as such could not be approved. This letter stated, "the proposed project is inconsistent with the ' 371 The USEPA's detailed comments, attached to its letter, noted that the proposed project might adversely impact on the survivability of five federally-listed endangered bird species, one federally listed endangered plant ' species and numerous federal candidate and proposed species. Further the EIS/EIR indicates that the dredging activities could have potentially significant impacts on one endangered species, the California least tern and one candidate species, the California elegant tern, both of which nest at Bolsa Chica (FIRMS at p. 4-182) and required the draft EIS to be recirculated after the completion of the § 7 consultation process. The current Koll project considered under the DEIR is subject to the same infirmities as the project considered under the EIR/EIS and, therefore, it is likely that the USEPA would continue to be less than positive regarding project approval. 381 This rating means that the USEPA has determined that the draft EIS does not adequately assess potentially significant environmental impacts of the action or that there are new reasonably available alternatives not analyzed in the draft EIS which must be analyzed in order to reduce potentially significant environmental impacts. This rating also means that USEPA takes the position that a new draft EIS must be recirculated for public comment. LAW OFFICES ' ERVIN, COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROrESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency ' February 17, 1994 Page 38 , requirements of the 404(b)(1) Guidelines, the mitigation proposed is inadequate as described and the document does not support the stated purpose of the project." , The US Coast Guard also responded by noting that an additional approval would be required under Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act since the tidal inlet , (substantially identical to the inlet proposed in the DEIR) would be "navigable" within the meaning of that section. The USCG requested (but the DEIR does not provide) information on the systems which would render the tidal inlet "non-navigable". , CDFG recommended a "redirection of the applicant's planning efforts, away from the preferred alternative [i.e., a project substantially similar to Koll's project , proposal] toward certain of the other alternatives presented." In Section I of the appendix to the CDFG comment letter, the department stated that its 1981 Report (relied upon by the DEIR for purposes of labelling the wetlands as degraded as necessary to permit fill and dredge operations under the Coastal Act), "determined that the existing wetlands at Bolsa Chica were no 'so severely degraded nor were their natural processes so substantially impaired that they were not capable of recovering and maintaining a high level of biological ' productivity without major restoration efforts.' On the contrary, CDFG determined that the wetlands at Bolsa Chica were, and still are, demonstrably valuable to fish and wildlife resources (most especially to migratory and resident shorebirds, waterfowl and endangered birds)." Thus, CDFG expressly disputed the characterization of the wetlands as degraded. If the wetlands are not considered to be degraded by CDFG, as seems to be the case, the Coastal Act will preclude the filling of the wetlands. Further, CDFG indicated that in its ' opinion, the proposed project was not the least environmentally-damaging alternative, noting that the sole reason for dismissing many of the less damaging alternatives was the mere fact that "outside funding would be required" for the wetlands restoration.3" , Finally, CDFG opined that if the CCC were to approve the wetland residential development, then wetland restoration should be required at a 3:1 ratio. The California Coastal Commission also commented and found the EIR/EIS , to be deficient in numerous respects, including the failure of the EIR/EIS, a failure which is repeated in the DEIR, to adequately address the inconsistencies between the proposed , project and other State laws and policies. Further, the CCC expressly stated the following in its December 10, 1992 letter to the City and the Corps: 391 As noted in the comments regarding the inadequacies of the alternative projects analysis of Chapter 7 of the DEIR, the DEIR continues to suffer from this same flaw. LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN fi JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ' Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 ' Page 39 [T]he staff believes that the applicant's preferred alternative is not agyrovable under the Coastal Act policies . . . . ' Mhe proposed project does not achieve [the] objective of[restoring and preserving the wetlands]. In fact, the only activities that are assured in the lowlands are the placement of fill in the wetland to build housing and a road and a minimal amount of mitigation for that fill placement. . . . ['I']he applicant's stated project purpose is not achieved by the actual project ' proposal (preferred alternative)or by any of the alternatives analyzed . . . . The DEISIR fails to conduct a serious analysis of the consistency of the proposed proiect with the policies of the Coastal Act. Granted this determination will be made by the Coastal Commission in its review of the Local Coastal Program; however, the environmental review stage of a project is an opportunity to determine whether a project should undergo modification in order to conform to environmental laws. Section 15125(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) [sic] requires an EIR to discuss inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general plans and regional plans. . . . None of the deficiencies noted in the CCC's comments on the EIR/EIS have been corrected or addressed in the DEIR. The DEIR must be rewritten in light of these comments (all of which were available to the preparer at the time the DEIR was published) and the rewritten ' DEIR recirculated. The Southern California Association of Governments ("SCAG") also commented on the DEIR by its letter to the City Planning Department of January 20, 1993, a copy of which is attached to this letter as ANNEX No. 29. SCAG noted that the project was not consistent with State and federal policies and recommended further consistency ' with State, local and federal plans. SCAG further noted that the project was inconsistent with the transportation management requirements of the State Implementation Plan. Finally, the County itself commented on the EIR/EIS by its letter of December 9, 1992. Among the statements in that letter which are directly contrary to the DEIR are the following: ' "The BCPC was quite clear in adopting its concept plan that no development of any kind atop the Bolsa Chica mesa should exceed a maximum of 18 dwelling units per acre." 1 LAW OFFICES , ERVIN, COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency ' February 17, 1994 Page 40 , -- In contrast, Chapter 4.1 of the DEIR notes that the 18 dwelling unit per acre limit stated in the Bolsa Chica Planning Coalition Plan was not interpreted as a maximum limit for ' purposes of the DEIR. "Criteria to determine the "project fair share" of intersection improvements to meet , acceptable areawide LOS are not presented or discussed. Consideration of such a mitigation approach cannot be left to some future, unspecified basis for determination." -- In contrast, the DEIR often relies on future determination of mitigation measures and the funding for implementation of mitigation measures. See ANNEX No. 7. "Project traffic will impact a number of facilities on the CMP highway system including PCH, Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chica Road. The project's compliance with the LOS policies on the CMP highway system should be analyzed and included within the EIS/EIR." -- This analysis does not sufficiently appear in the DEIR. ' In order to implement the Growth Management Element requirement for a development phasing plan, ' the EIS/EIR should also include a development phasing plan which will ensure that infrastructure improvements are completed prior to or concurrent with project development so as to maintain adequate levels of service (LOS), especially on the roadway system. A development phasing plan would contribute to traffic congestion and air quality impact mitigations ensuring acceptable levels of service throughout development of the project. . . . The phasing plans usually function by authorizing a portion of building permits only after an identified infrastructure or public service improvement has been completed. ' No development phasing plan appears in the DEIR. Reference is made to the letter of September 24, 1991 from Joan Golding (by Kari A. , Rigoni, Senior Planner) of the County EMA addressed to the City Planning Department, a copy of which is attached as ANNEX NO. 28, and the letter of December 9, 1992 from ' Ronald Tippets of the County EMA, included within ANNEX No. 10, for further particulars. As stated previously in this letter, the recirculated DEIR and the final EIR must respond to the comments included in ANNEX No. 10 since they represent comments ' currently submitted by the City with respect to the County's DEIR. The affected federal agencies have not brightened their outlook on the , proposed development of units within the wetlands in the year since the above-described comments were received. Attached to this letter as ANNEX NO. 24 is a memorandum from ' LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 ' Page 41 ' the assistant Cityadministrator to the City Council detailing the comments from federal Y g agencies in a meeting regarding Bolsa Chica on March 11, 1993. The minutes of that meeting indicate the continuing resistance of the federal agencies to the issuance of permits in connection with a development which conditions wetland restoration on the development of a portion of the wetlands. Even if the Corps were to approve the permits (an unlikely prospect), the USEPA could well veto the permits. Attached to this letter as ANNEx No. 25 are letters from NMFS, USEPA, USFWS and CDFG, each of which strenuously objects to the Bolsa Chica Planning Coalition Plan's characterization of the respective agencies as "support members" for the plan. Each of the agencies denied supporting the plan and the NMFS expressly stated"to our knowledge, no public agency has yet approved or is likely to approve the `Koll Plan' which is often mistakenly referred to as the `Coalition Plan'." The clear indication from the federal agencies is that the proposed wetlands restoration will not proceed as currently proposed; yet, the DEIR makes no mention of the attitude of federal agencies toward the proposed project. Even though the DEIR does not purport to concern itself with the federal permitting process (an approach which is invalid under CEQA), since the issuance of those permits is so critical to the fulfillment of the project's objectives, the DEIR must inform the public and the decision-makers of the low probability that the Lowlands development or the wetlands restoration could ever proceed in the manner contemplated by the DEIR. The improbability of wetlands restoration and the omission of this information from the DEIR makes that document misleading and supports ' the conclusion that the supposed "program EIR" is, in fact, nothing more than a flawed project EIR for the construction of a large and unmitigated project atop the Mesa. E. THE DEIR's CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES IS INADEQUATE. 1. The Requirement for Alternatives Analysis. One of the stated objectives of CEQA is "to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which [the] significant effects [of the project] can be mitigated or avoided." See PRC § 21002.1(a). Further, CEQA requires that "each public agency shall mitigate or avoid the ' significant effects on the environment of projects it approves . . . whenever it is feasible to do so." See PRC § 21002.1(b). Based on this statutory authority, Guidelines § 15126(d) requires that a valid EIR must "describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project or to the location of the project which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." LAW OFFICESN , ERVIN, COHE 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency ' February 17, 1994 Page 42 ' In Laurel Heights I, supra, the California Supreme Court recognized that the evaluation of alternatives serves the same purpose as mitigation; i.e., the reduction of ' environmental impacts from the project to the extent feasible. CEQA does not require an evaluation of every conceivable alternative. It applies a "rule of reason" which limits the alternatives required to be analyzed to those alternatives which adequately represent the spectrum of reasonable alternatives. S,eo- Bowman v. Petaluma, 185 Cal.App.3d 1065 (1986). In Laurel Heights I, 47 Cal.3d at 406, the supreme court noted that, "numerous CEQA provisions require that an EIR adequately describe feasible alternatives." The court also held that, although a valid EIR's consideration of alternatives need not consider every variation of each alternative, the EIR must inform the public of all alternative sites considered by the project proponent and detail for the public why those alternatives were considered infeasible. Id. at 405. In sum, the alternatives analysis must produce "information sufficient to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned." Id. at 406. ' 2. Alternative Projects. Attached to this letter as ANNEX No. 8 is a table which (i) lists the on-site ' alternatives to the project which are identified in the DEIR, (ii) notes and comments on the reasons why those alternatives were dismissed by the DEIR and (iii) identifies flaws in the alternatives analysis and what further information, if any, is required to justify the conclusion in the DEIR that the alternative is infeasible. A review of the table shows that the DEIR inappropriately manipulates the alternatives to bolster the argument that no ' feasible alternative to the Koll project exists.40' The alternatives section must, therefore, be rewritten to address the comments and include the information noted on the table attached to this letter as ANNEX N0.8 and must also consider the following additional onsite ' alternatives (each of which is reasonable and feasible and may reduce or eliminate the 401 For example, no rationale is given for the rejection of the Alternative E, an alternative which would ' preserve the option for restoration of the wetlands in the future and would provide a better transition from the existing low density neighborhoods than is provided in the current proposal. Compare Figure Z 2-5 with Figure , 3.2-3. Furthermore, environmentally preferable alternatives are made to appear less attractive than they should by unilaterally excluding analysis of the potential for future restoration or the ATIP from the alternative without justification. ' LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PAPTNERSNIP INCLUOING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ' Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 ' Page 43 ' impacts of the proposed project while substantial) fulfilling the objectives of the P P Po P J Y g J project):41 ' ■ Low DensityAlternative (1,000 units coupled with a requirement for ( � ) P e9 implementation of the "Alternatives WRP"4Zt concurrently with the issuance of the ' first permit for development of the Mesa. ■ Commercial Resort Housing Alternative coupled with the Alternatives WRP. ' ■ No Project Alternative coupled with the Alternatives WRP. J P ■ Moderate Density Mesa Development Alternative (2,000 units) conditioned on (i) no density greater than 15 dwelling units/acre, (ii) annexation to the City prior to issuance of the first grading permit (to reduce adverse impacts on City public services), (iii) advance funding of the projects fair share of the ATIP and (iv) 411 The foregoing alternatives are suggested solely for purposes of enabling the DEIR to fulfill the requirements which CEQA imposes for a thorough discussion of alternatives which would mitigate the impacts of the project. The City does not endorse any or all of these alternatives but seeks to determine the environmental benefits and impacts which may occur from adoption of any of the alternative projects suggested. ' 421 For the purposes of the new alternative projects which should be considered in a recirculated DEIR, the term "Alternatives WRP"refers to a new wetlands restoration plan which provides for sequential restoration of each portion of the Lowlands on a parcel-by-parcel basis upon the latest to occur of(i)completion and abandonment of oil production activities on that portion of the land, (ii) acquisition of surface rights to that portion of the land by any one of(a) dedication for restoration purposes by the owner of the land, (b) eminent domain proceedings or (c) acquisition of the land by a conservation entity through public or private funding,and(iii)funding of restoration activities for that parcel by public or private funds. The Alternatives WRP would contemplate the same ultimate level of restoration as Koll's WRP. Since this alternative would permit more than one entity to acquire the land and since the acquisition would be staged,this alternative wouldpermit the required financial resources to be collected by a wide variety of parries from a wide variety of sources and would permit funds for restoration to be collected over the period of time required to phase out oil operations (a period conceded by Koll and the DEIR to be from 12-20 years, and which may in fact be longer). Given the long time period in which to collect funds and the flexibility in funding mechanism which may be available over that time period to acquire the requisite funds for acquisition and restoration on a parcel-by-parcel basis, the Alternatives WRP cannot be rejected out of hand by the ' Final EIR as infeasible. Further, since the timing of the implementation of this plan is potentially the same as that proposed for the WRP, the Final EIR cannot reject the Alternatives WRP as failing to full the timing objectives of the Koll proposal for the restoration of the wetlands. LAW OFFICES ' ERVIN. COHEN a JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PPOfESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency ' February 17, 1994 Page 44 ' advance funding and a commitment to implement either the WRP or the Alternatives WRP. ■ Lowest Density Feasible Alternative, fulfilling the CCC request for the EIR/EIS (and now the DEIR) to provide analysis of an option which is less environmentally , damaging and is still a viable alternative to the proposed project. As noted in the CCC's letter to the Corps and City dated December 10, 1992, "if a certain level of housing is necessary to make the project viable economically, the alternatives analysis should determine this level, and assess the feasibility of alternative configurations of housing densities and areas that would achieve this goal and avoid impacts to wetlands and ESHAs." The DEIR should identify the least dense housing alternative which would permit the project to be economically viable without wetlands or ESHAs development (including no development of ESHAs on the Mesa, such as the eucalyptus grove and Warner Pond). Further, the DEIR should detail ' the projected revenues from and costs of this development and detail the costs of restoration and implementation to permit the public to evaluate whether the alternative stated is truly the lowest density feasible. ' In addition, the DEIR should compare the project to each of the alternatives considered in the EIR/EIS attached to this letter as ANNEx No. 9 and in the comments which the City ' and the Corps received regarding the EIR/EIS, attached to this letter as ArNEx No. 10 and must include a simple declarative statement as to why each of the alternative projects is rejected in favor of the proposed project. The rejection of any alternative based upon the ' potential delay in the restoration of the wetlands is not valid given that the proposed project does not require restoration to be undertaken at any particular time. 3. Alternative Locations. The sole off-site alternatives examined by the DEIR are the potential relocation of the project to the current site of the Marine Corp Air Stations ("MCAS") in Tustin or El Toro. In many instances, the analysis of the potential ' impacts of development of the project at the MCAS improperly compares the impacts of the project to an undeveloped site rather than comparing the project impacts to the current use of the land as an active air facility housing jet aircraft (F-18s at El Toro) and helicopter operations (at Tustin). Further, the alternatives analysis assumes the historic significance of aircraft hangers constructed at the end of World War II, but assumes the insignificance of the gun bunkers constructed at Bolsa Chica at or about the same period. (See discussion of , Chapter 4.11 of the DEIR in Part II.N of this letter) 1 ' LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 45 Chapter 7.5.1.3 of the DEIR notes h h h p o es that the first phase of construction of e project is scheduled to take place over the next two years, but that the MCAS sites will not be available within that time and that there is no certainty regarding the availability of land use approvals for the sites nor regarding the ability of the applicant to acquire title to the MCAS sites from the federal government. Based on that uncertainty and the uncertainty of future land use planning for the MCAS sites, the DEIR concludes that development would not be possible until after the year 2000, a potential 5-year delay in a plan which would not ' be completed for 20-years. That delay (which could be no delay at all depending on the date on which oil operations are actually phased out) is characterized as being "well beyond the anticipated first development phase.Rai' Based on this characterization, the DEIR 1 dismisses as infeasible any alternative location for the project. This is not a valid reason for its rejection under these circumstances. Koll and the County must list all other sites which are suitable for the proposed development and are either owned by Koll or could be acquired by Koll for the development of the project. This is appropriate since a significant portion of the land ' within the Study Area is not currently owned by Koll nor subject to a binding commitment of the property owner to sell to Koll. There are any number of alternate locations for the project not considered by the DEIR which Koll could acquire, perhaps as easily as it could acquire the portions of the study area not currently owned by Koll. For example, in excess of 1,100 acres of property which is already planned for residential development under a specific plan may be available in the Talega Ranch area of San Clemente. If Koll could ' acquire this property from the current developer/owner, it could develop the same resi- dential community as it proposes for Bolsa Chica but at a less environmentally sensitive site.!V The Irvine Company owns many 1,000+ acre sites within the County which are suitable for residential development. For example, the East Orange Planning Area is ' 431 Further, given the position of the federal regulatory and State agencies regarding approval of the project (e.g.,the CCC has opined that the project is not approvable)the time delay for the project if located at Bolsa Chica could well exceed the time required for obtaining approvals at either MCAS location. ' 441 Obviously such a development would not effect a restoration of the wetlands at Bolsa Chica;however, it is not appropriate under CEQA to limit the consideration of alternate sites by evaluating the alternate locations for the project by a rigid adherence to project objectives which, by definition,limit the project to one site in particular. ' Thus,the recirculated DEIR must consider alternate locations in terms of their ability to create a development which fuolls Koll's objectives to develop a residential area with a mixture of densities and must not reject alternative locations because they would not permit that mix to be constructed in the Lowlands or the Mesa or because no restoration of the wetlands would occur. 1 LAW ClFrICES ' ERVIN, COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency ' February 17, 1994 Page 46 ' comprised of approximately 7,000 acres or more of land which could support a deve- lopment such as the one proposed by Koll for Bolsa Chica. , The DEIR must examine these and other feasible alternative sites45' and , compare Koll's ability to acquire those sites with its ability to complete the acquisition of the portions of the Study Area (comprising 40% of the total area and approximately 11% of the portion of the Study Area to be developed) which it does not presently own. ' The Supreme Court's last word on the requirement for analysis of alternative locations for a proposed project is Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, 52 Cal.3d 553 (1990)("Goleta II'). Goleta II denied a petitioner's claim that an EIR for the development of a 400-room Hyatt hotel on the beach in an unincorporated area of Santa Barbara County must include an alternatives analysis of seven different sites for the ' development which had been suggested by the petitioner after the close of the public comment period but during the public hearings regarding the approvals for the project. The Court based its decision, in part, on the prior environmental review which was embodied in , the County's LCP and general plan. Further, the Court indicated that the inability of the developer to acquire ownership of the alternative sites within a reasonable period of time is one factor to be considered when assessing the feasibility of an alternative location. ' The Court's holding in Goleta II generally limits the scope of alternatives location analysis required in the context of a program EIR considering approval of a project , consistent with applicable overall planning documents. However, in a case such as the Project, where the proposed development will require the amendment of the general plan and the adoption of an entirely new local coastal program, the limitations of Goleta II do ' not apply. Rather than requiring a duplicative analysis of land use decisions already embodied in prior land use and planning documents previously subjected to environmental review (as was the case in Goleta II), the DEIR considers the propriety and environmental ' impacts of an entirely new land use involving the most basic planning and land use 451 As was noted by the California Supreme Court in Laurel Heights I, CEQft does not require the public , commenting on the document to bring alternative locations to the attention of the lead agency. Rather it is the responsibility of the lead agency to determine feasible alternative locations which could substantially fulfill the , project objectives while mitigating or eliminating the adverse effects of the project on the environment. 47 Cal.3d at 406. Here, Koll and the County are both far better informed as to the alternative sites which are available and Koll's ability to acquire those sites. ' LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 47 ' decisions. Thus the DEIR must, based upon the reasoning in Goleta II, include a range of feasible alternative locations for the project. It fails to do so. Furthermore, it fails to properly assess the feasibility of the alternative locations considered in the DEIR. ' F. THE DEIR OMITS CONSIDERATION OF THE RISK OF UPSET AND RELATED DANGERS TO THE POTENTIAL RESIDENTS OF THE PROJECT. The potential for contamination in, on and under the site, the site's prior and ongoing use for oil extraction, and the natural characteristics of the site, including the presence of oil and gas resources, earthquake faults and liquefaction potential mandate that the DEIR include a discussion of risk of upset. Surprisingly, the DEIR does not even include a "Risk of Upset" section. Such an upset analysis must address risks due to continued oil company operations (i.e. fires, explosions and spills noted on page 6-1, ' line 32), site cleanup, risks of damage during major seismic events, effects of accidental spills on the marsh, accidental release of invasive plant or animal species, and other potential risks the project presents to the natural environment and to human inhabitants.°6' ' G. THE COUNTY'S PROCEDURES IN PROCESSING THE DEIR ARE DEFICIENT. ' 1. The DEIR and Technical Studies Related to the DEIR Were Not Filed in the Repository Noted in the DEIR Throughout the Public Review Period. ' The County only made three copies of the DEIR available to the City at the commencement of the public review period. The DEIR was not generally available for review and copying at the City as stated in the document. The City requested additional ' copies and an extension of the review period to reflect the County's delay in providing a sufficient number of copies for the City staff to analyze the document. A copy of the City's letter to the County, dated December 29, 1993, is attached to this letter as ANNEX ' No. 13. By Thomas Matthew's letter to Howard Zelefsky dated January 11, 1994, a copy of which is attached to this letter as ANNEX No. 14, the City's request for an extension of time to review the document was formally denied. The County's denial was stated in that ' letter to be justified, in part, by the City's decision to hire outside expertise to review the document and the City's former status as lead agency with respect to a previous project proposal which differs from Koll's current proposal in significant respects. 461 The severity of this sort of impact was amply demonstrated by the experience in the January 17, 1994 Northridge Earthquake in which many homes were lost due to eruption of natural gas lines. 1 LAW OFFICES ' ERVIN, COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency ' February 17, 1994 Page 48 ' Public review after the County's circulation of the DEIR was further impaired by the County's failure to include the address where copies may be obtained in the ' notice of completion prepared for the DEIR. Furthermore, Chapter 2.12.13 of the DEIR inaccurately states: The EIR and all related technical studies are also available for ' review and copying at the County of Orange and the City of Huntington Beach. These documents and materials are also , available for inspection at the Huntington Beach Central Library. Although two copies were available at the Central Library of the City, "all related technical studies" were not available. As is detailed at length in Section III of this letter, one of the prime flaws of the DEIR is its failure to include relevant technical data in the appendices to ' the DEIR. PRC § 21161 requires that a lead agency publish a notice of completion. , Guidelines § 15087 requires that public notice of the availability of the DEIR must be given to the public at the same time the notice of completion is delivered as required by statute. The inclusion of inaccurate data regarding the locations where the DEIR is available for , review improperly limited the opportunity for public review. The sum of the foregoing circumstances, when coupled with the County's ' failure to file a notice of completion which fulfilled all of the requirements of the Guidelines, indicates that the County's procedures had the effect of preventing full public analysis and informed participation in the planning and environmental review process as , required by CEQA. 2. Defective Notice of Completion. On January 24, 1994, the County ' transmitted a copy of the notice of completion filed with the State. A copy of that notice of completion is attached to this letter as ANNEX No. 15. The Notice of Completion does not contain the address where a copy of the DEIR is available as required by Guidelines , § 15085(b)(3). 3. No Public Hearing. The County has refused to conduct public , hearings during the public comment period on the DEIR. This impairs the ability of the public to hear the comments of others and synthesize the information from other members 1 ' LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ' Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 ' Page 49 ' of the public in formulating their own comments on the DEIR. Further, given the P g � infirmities noted in subparagraphs 1 and 2 above, a public hearing is required in this ' particular case, even though CEQA does not generally require public hearings. ' On January 31, 1994, a public hearing was held by the City regarding the DEIR. A copy of a letter which transmitted the transcript of that hearing to the County is attached to this letter as ANNEX No. 16. By letter from Supervisor Harriet Wieder, dated January 31, 1994, the County agreed to accept the annexed transcript as formal public ' comment on the DEIR. A copy of that letter is attached to this letter as ANNEX No. 17. Attached to this letter as ANNEX No. 46 are copies of certain of the written comments received by the City Council at that hearing (excluding only those comments which are otherwise noted in separate appendices herein). The recirculated DEIR and the final EIR must respond to each of the comments raised in the transcript of the January 31, 1994 hearing. H. DISCUSSION OF LONG TERM IMPACTS IN THE DEIR IS INADEQUATE. PRC § 21100 requires, among other things, that an EIR must assess both (i) the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity and (ii) any significant irreversible environmental changes which would be involved in the proposed project should it be implemented. PRC § 21100.1 makes it clear that a project such as Koll's development of Bolsa Chica and the County's alteration of its most basic land use and transportation planning documents requires a full discussion and analysis of those issues, yet the DEIR is relatively silent on both points. The two pages of consideration devoted to these impacts in ' Chapter 6 of the DEIR is far from sufficient. Chapter 6 does not even mention long term productivity and improperly relies on the Bolsa Chica Planning Coalition Concept Plan as a justification for the current project which, as discussed at length in Part III.B of this letter varies significantly from Koll's current proposal. Further, the DEIR omits any analysis of the substantial potential hazards associated with the risk of upset in a situation where ongoing oil operations will continue directly adjacent to medium to high density residential development. See Part III.T, below. 1 1 1 LAW OFFICES ' ERVIN. COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PRO/ESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency ' February 17, 1994 Page 50 , r I. THE DEIR DOES NOT ADEQUATELY CONSIDER THE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT r A valid environmental impact report must consider, in addition to the primary and secondary impacts of the project itself, the cumulative impact of the project taking other closely related past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects into account. Guidelines §§ 15130, 15355. The Guidelines expressly note that cumulative impacts "can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place r over a period of time." Guidelines § 15355. Although Chapter 3 of the DEIR does list a number of different projects which have taken place and will likely take place in the future and Chapter 4 of the document purports to analyze the cumulative impacts of the project when aggregated with Koll's proposed project, the DEIR nonetheless fails to provide the cumulative analysis required under CEQA. This failure extends not only to the permanent impacts but also to the interim impacts from the project and other projects in the region. To be valid, the DEIR must assess the impact of the project on the cumulative loss of wetlands when aggregated with other projects having an impact on ' wetlands. In this regard, the CCC commented in its response to the EIR/EIS: Mhe areas of historic wetland have regional importance as r areas for potential wetland restoration. Given the historic loss of 91% of California's wetlands, both the loss of wetland and the loss of potential restoration sites must be considered a r significant cumulative adverse impact of the proposed project. The DEIR does not ever consider the cumulative impact from the loss of wetlands which r would result from the Lowlands development and the construction of the related infrastructure.°—" Even if the WRP were fully implemented (and there is no assurance that it could be implemented at all or that if implemented it would restore the wetlands), there ' still would be a net loss of wetlands during the construction and implementation period. r r 471 See California Wetlands Conservation Policy, Executive Order W59-93 (Aug. 23, 1993) ' LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS rOrange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 51 In addition the DEIR does not adequately analyze the cumulative traffic air quality, eq Y Y � q Y, terrestrial biology or cultural impacts. For example, as detailed in this letter's discussion of Chapter 4.7, the loss of raptor roosting and foraging habitat is not considered in connection with other projects which may have the same effect. The DEIR must be revised and recirculated to appropriately address the cumulative impacts of the proposed project. III. Chapter-By-Chapter Analysis of the DEIR. A. CHAPTER 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. 1. Improper Use of Program EIR. a. A Program EIR Is Not a Substitute for a Project E11R. Guidelines § 15165 sets forth regulatory authority for the use of a tiered environmental review and states, among other things: Where individual projects are, or a phased project is, to be undertaken and where the total undertaking comprises a project with significant environmental effect, the lead agency shall prepare a single program EIR for the ultimate project as described in Section 15168. Where an individual project is a necessary precedent for action on a larger project, or commits the lead agency to a larger project, with significant environmental effect, an EIR must address itself to the ' scope of the larger project. . . . Further, Guidelines § 15168(c) states, among other things: Subsequent activities in the program must be examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. (1) If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR, a new initial study would need to be prepared leading to either an EIR or a negative declaration. LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN 8 JE55UP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 52 (2) If the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162 no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures would be required, the ' agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required. I (3) An agency shall incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the program EIR into subsequent activities in the program. (4) Where the subsequent activities involve site specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to , document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were covered in the program EIR. (5) A program EIR will be most helpful in dealing with subsequent activities if it deals with the effects of the program as specifically and comprehensively as possible. With a good and detailed analysis of the program, many subsequent activities could be found to be within the scope of the project described in the program EIR and no further environmental documents would be required. Thus, a program EIR will generally address only the broad environmental implications of the program without the full specific data and analysis required for a project EIR under Guidelines § 15161.L" The use of a program EIR must contemplate further environmental review in the future. See Guidelines § 15168(c)(1). However, it seems likely in this case that no further environmental review will be required. Guidelines § 15168(c)(5) states that a program EIR will be most helpful if it specifically addresses the effects of the program. 481 f Guidelines § 15146(b) which acknowledges that an EIR contemplating the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive zoning ordinance or a local general plan 'need not be as detailed as an EIR on the specific construction projects that might follow"but such an EIR must focus on the secondary effects which can be expected to follow the adoption of the plan. Thus, in the case of the DEIR, to the extent that the document is not specific, the DEIR is simply not adequate to serve as the environmental documentation for the prospective construction projects upon the Mesa and all future construction must require further environmental review. However, the need for further review is not clearly contemplated by the DEIR and this ambiguity renders the document ambiguous and invalid under CEQA. r LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROIESSIONAL CORPORATI0N5 Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 53 Although there is no requirement for an ordinary program EIR to contain the specific environmental information required of a project EIR, as is noted above, the DEIR in this case appears to serve as the project EIR for the construction of between 3,400 and 4,286 homes on the Mesa, with construction scheduled to start next yearAl Thus, impacts which would be fully analyzed in a project EIR will likely "slip through the cracks" under the program EIR prepared by the County. b. Propriety of a Program EIR. In order for a program EIR to be appropriate, the project must be viewed as an integrated undertaking comprising a single project which will commence construction within two years of the date of the first required approval, otherwise a program EIR is = appropriate under the CEQA Guidelines and a staged EIR (described below) is requiredAT Even if the program EIR were the appropriate environmental document for the project, the omission from the project description (and hence the omission from the DEIR's analysis) of the dedication of 767 privately held acres to a conservation entity, the omission of any analysis of the additions to the "linear park" on the southeastern boundary of the project site and the omission from the project description of the proposed development within the portion of the study area located in the City, render the program EIR incomplete. Further, the omission of the construction and phasing information required to inform the public of the impacts of the first phase of construction makes the DEIR wholly insufficient as a project EIR for the first phase of the development. Phasing information is critical for understanding the interim impacts on the 491 As noted in Part LD, above,the improbability of obtaining federal permits makes it extremely unlikely that Koll would ever be permitted to develop the Lowlands. Based on Koll's assertions(as noted in Part LD,above)and the program described in the DEIR, it is likely (f not inevitable), that the only action which will occur is the ' development of the Mesa, a development which will be implemented without the restoration of the wetlands or the mitigation of significant impacts. This development appears likely to be approved by the County on the basis of the program EIR, without further environmental review. The DEIR is simply not an adequate environmental document for the assessment of the impacts of the build-out of 4,286 homes (much less the 4,884 homes which are actually contemplated) on the Mesa and MWD portions of the Study Area. 501 For the purpose of this inquiry, it is possible that the first permit required for the implementation of the project was the demolition permit issued by the County in June or July 1991 for the demolition of the World War H era bunkers. Although demolition permits are often viewed as ministerial,numerous cases hold that a demolition permit which is part of a larger discretionary project is not ministerial for purposes of CEQA. See, e.g., Orinda Association v. Bd. of Supervisors, 182 Cal.App.3d 1145(1986). Demolition of the bunkers did not commence until 1993 and the "construction' will not commence until at least 1995. Thus, the construction of the Project contemplated in the program EIR will commence at least two years after the first approval required for the implementation of the project. LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN 8 JES5UP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PRO►CSSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 54 wetlands and the surrounding communities as well as the impacts on new residents of the project. Without that crucial information, both the public and the decision-makers are not informed of the true construction period impacts of the development on the Mesa. Guidelines § 15168(b) expressly states that a program EIR is intended to provide the opportunity for "a more exhaustive consideration of effects and alternatives than would be practical in an EIR on an individual action." Further the program EIR is supposed to "ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case- by-case analysis," and to "allow the lead agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program wide mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts." In the case of this project, however, the use of the program EIR in lieu of a staged EIR under Guidelines § 15167 will minimize the lead agency's review of impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives and, therefore, the use of a program EIR is impermissible. C. Comparison of Program EIRs Versus Staged EIRs. If (i) the project is best understood as a series of projects and the impacts are understated by viewing the project as a single integrated project (as is true in the DEIR), or, (ii) the project is viewed as a large capital project which will require numerous discretionary approvals, will be developed over a long period of time and will commence construction more than two years after the issuance of the first approval required for the project, the use of a program EIR is a violation under CEQA, since either a staged EIR or a project EIR is required. A staged EIR contemplates that further environmental review will be required for future project approvals, as opposed to the more permissive case-by-case analysis required once a program EIR is prepared. Guidelines §§ 15167(a) and (b) regarding "staged EIRs" provide: (a) Where a large capital project will require a number of discretionary approvals from government agencies and one of the approvals will occur more than two years before construction will begin, a staged EIR may be prepared covering the entire project in a general form. The staged EIR shall evaluate the proposal in light of current and contemplated plans and produce an informed estimate of the environmental consequences of the entire project. The aspect of the project before the LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 55 public agency for approval shall be discussed with a greater degree of specificity. When a staged EIR has been prepared, a sup- plement P P � P plement to the EIR shall be prepared when a later approval is required for the project and the information available at the time of the later approval would permit consideration of additional environmental impacts, mitigation measures, or reasonable alternatives to the project. As noted above, the first approval for the program contemplated by the DEIR was granted by the County in mid-1991. Accordingly, the approval is at least two years prior to the commencement of construction and a staged EIR would be appropriate for the project. If the DEIR were characterized as a staged EIR, further environmental review of each approval for the project would be required. This would eliminate the potential for an inadequately analyzed project impact to slip through the cracks inherent in the procedures for further environmental documentation once a program EIR is certified. 2. Misleading Project Description. A significant flaw of Chapter 1 of the DEIR is its misleading description of the project. Review of this Chapter would reasonably lead the reader to conclude that only 3,410 units would be constructed on the Mesa; however, as noted in Part II. of this letter, a more detailed analysis shows that as many as 3,800 to 4286 homes may in fact be developed on this part of the sites" 3. Professional Endorsements. Guidelines § 15149 provides an EIR is not intended to be a technical document which can only be prepared by a registered professional such as a registered engineer or geologist. However, where, as in the case of this DEIR, required technical and complex analysis of many technical issues which are within the practice of, among other professions, Civil Engineering as defined in Government Code § 6731 (including the consideration of such items as drainage, water supply, flood control, municipal improvements, highways and sewerage), it becomes necessary to review the original reports of the registered professionals on which the 511 Further, the units to be constructed on the Cityportion o the Mesa are excluded om the number o units P .f Ir f in the DEIR and, accordingly, the number of units on the Mesa is actually likely to be larger. r r LAW OFF ICES N I� ERVIN. COHE 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency r February 17, 1994 Page 56 I preparer of the DEIR relied in preparing the discussion of those items.—szi As noted above, the document does not include the reports on which it relies and, accordingly, it does not show the signatures of the responsible individual, or individuals or of the responsible, registered civil engineers. Without review of the underlying reports bearing the appropriate endorsements there is no assurance that the document accurately represents the professional opinion of the individuals (assuming they are qualified) who provided the technical input. The DEIR should include in appendices the reports bearing the appropriate endorsements of the registered civil engineers responsible for the technical content of the report and should be recirculated for review. Further, the list of persons preparing the DEIR in Exhibit A to the document should include the professional credentials of those persons preparing and assisting in the preparation of the document. 4. Miscellaneous. a. Lowland Development Description. Page 1-3, lines 16-19: r This brief description of the proposed development of the inland edge of the Lowlands should include the acreage of each parcel, not just the Fieldstone property, and should also discuss the way it will be developed, i.e., how much fill and to what elevation. There is no discussion on how it will be separated from the wetlands. — b. Geological Effects Found to Be Insignificant. The summary of Section 4.2 at Table 1.5 indicates that project impacts on MWD and Lowlands residential are insignificant. This two line summary includes fault surface rupture and tsunami hazards as insignificant impacts. These statements are not justified in the DEIR, i.e., the proposed development on the MWD property is not defined, especially where it crosses the Newport- Inglewood Fault Zone and the lowland development is not defined as to final elevations or to its exposure to tsunami runup. Further, under "Effects Found to be Significant" in Table 1.5, there is no mention of the potential for surface fault rupture on the Mesa areas. This is a significant impact. According to the DEIR, this impact can and will be mitigated by establishing an exclusionary setback zone, but this concern should be listed as a significant impact along with specific mitigation measures specifying the precise location of the 521 Under the provisions of Government Code § 6730, "any person - --who practices civil engineering - - - shall be registered as a civil engineer---". And, under Government Code§ 6735, a report prepared by, or under the direction of, a registered civil engineer must be signed by the responsible individual, or individuals. LAW OFFICES ERVIN , COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUOING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 57 I exclusionary zone. See discussion of Chapter 4.2 of the DEIR in Part III.E of this letter."' C. Water and Wastewater Impacts Are N Insignificant. s pacts e o _ Delivering a reasonably reliable water supply to the project, using either the City, an independent water agency or another supplier will have significant adverse impacts. The existing City system is already considerably overtaxed. Necessary mitigation measures, such as an additional 9-million gallon reservoir, at least one more well, a booster pump station and transmission mains could prove quite costly. Infrastructure aside, no one can guaranty an adequate supply. Replacement, combining and upsizing of sewer lift stations in Warner Avenue will require detailed studies. The discussion should include nominal sizes of pumps, length and size of connection to the system and associated costs. No significant impacts should be expected only i the mitigation measures require the developer to construct and fund all necessary improvements, and the developer will have the capacity to do so. B. CHAPTER 2 - INTRODUCTION. 1. The Stated Reliance on the BCPC Concept Plan is Inaccurate and Misleading. Chapter 2.8 of the DEIR states that the objective of the current project proposal is to implement the Bolsa Chica Planning Coalition Concept Plan ("BCPC Plan"), a copy of which is attached to this letter as ANNEX No. 26. This statement is misleading since the proposed project appears to differ in significant respects from the BCPC Plan. The BCPC Plan does provide for a restoration of a minimum of 1,000 acres of wetlands and Koll's proposed project would provide 1,004 acres of ESHAs and restored wetlands (including the existing State ecological reserve). The BCPC Plan is nonetheless significantly different from the Koll proposal in at least the following respects: a. Mesa development would not proceed under the BCPC Plan until the Wetlands Restoration Plan and Implementation Plan had been approved by the County, the CCC, CDFG and the State Lands Commission (in consultation with the 531 Reference should also be made to the Report entitled Geotechnical Inputs,dated February 1974,prepared by Leighton-Yen and Associates and the Huntington Beach Planning Department, a copy of which is included as ANNEX No. 32, LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN B JESSUP A PI.RTNERSNIP INCLUDING PROrESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 58 sat Amigos de Bolsa Chica}— and a sufficient financing mechanism for implementation was in place. No such restriction on Mesa development is included in the current proposal. b. The BCPC Plan recognized that local, State and federal laws apply to the plan and the approval process and, accordingly, it contemplated concurrent CEQA and NEPA review and a pre-application review under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act concurrently with the LCP land use planning process. The current proposal ignores federal requirements and would permit development to take place before it was certain that the required federal approvals for Lowland development and wetlands restoration could be obtained. C. The BCPC Plan contemplated that the area would be annexed to the City prior to development, thus eliminating many of the impacts in areas of public safety and police and fire services. d. The BCPC Plan required that ESHAs equivalent in size, character and quality would be created gr4d functioning prior to commencement of development with any adverse impact on any existing ESHA. The Koll proposal would relocate Warner Pond and disturb other ESHAs as part of the Mesa development without conditioning the development on the creation of such new and functioning ESHAs. e. The BCPC Plan limits the intensity of development in the three basic residential areas to a maximum of up to 6.5 units per acre in the Lowlands, up to 12.5 on the MWD property and up to 18 maximum, reflecting a mix of densities on the Mesa. The Koll proposal appears to permit up to 36 units per acre on the Mesa, using open space to reduce the average density to below the 18 unit per acre limitation. f. The BCPC Plan requires the wetlands restoration plan to provide for funding sources and for the formation of a Bolsa Chica Conservancy to monitor the restoration of the wetlands. The plan specifically requires phasing of the urban development and the restoration and requires the identification of funding sources for 541 The BCPC Plan noted that issuance of the federal permits for the Lowlands was not a condition to the development of the Mesa but noted that all requirements of the components of the BCPC Plan did govern the development. The necessity for satisfying federal requirements is noted throughout the various components of the BCPC Plan, and, unlike the current Koll proposal, the BCPC Plan intended that development would proceed in accordance with federal permitting policies. See BCPC Plan, Component D,p. 5,par.9.h. LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 59 restoration operation, maintenance and the monitoring program. These elements are Pe gP g omitted from the Koll proposal. Furthermore, under the BCPC Plan, the developer is required to establish a mechanism which identifies financial resources sufficient to assure the restoration of all Bolsa Chica Wetlands, ESHAs and open space in the Lowlands and requires that the legal mechanism for their receipt must be in place pfior to the commencement of grading or construction on the Mesa. The intent of the BCPC plan was to allow the developer flexibility while insuring "that the financial and legal mechanisms [are in place] prior to the development of the Mesa so that restoration of all of the wetland and ESHA acres is assured to happen in the future." BCPC Plan, Component E, p.1. Although the intent of the BCPC Plan is expressly stated not to make the developer the sole funding source of the restoration plan (see Id. at p.2), the DEIR nonetheless differs from the BCPC Plan in that no funding sources or mechanisms whatsoever are required prior to the commencement of the Mesa development. The BCPC Plan contemplated the potential for instituting Mello-Roos bonding or other public financing and funding to insure that sufficient funds were in place for the restoration and creation of the wetlands and ESHAs prior to the commencement of the development. No such assurance appears in the DEIR or the Koll proposal. g. The BCPC Plan required the oil operations to cease as expeditiously as possible and the wetlands restoration to proceed as expeditiously as possible. The DEIR sets out no mandatory schedule of phasing out the existing oil operations or for implementing the proposed WRP. h. The BCPC Plan required interim offsite replacement of wetlands under specified circumstances and required the off-site replacement at a rate of two acres of offsite wetlands/ESHA for every onsite acre of wetland/ESHA lost, with the offsite property to be maintained and protected permanently, even after the onsite restoration had been completed. The DEIR indicates (at p. 4.1-43) that no such replacement or restoration is contemplated under the current proposal. i. The BCPC Plan required that title to the wetlands and ESHA areas owned by the developer must be conveyed to a public agency or similar organization capable of protection and/or enhancement of fish, wildlife and other environment values riD or to the commencement of grading or construction on the Mesa. No such condition on Mesa development is set forth in the Koll proposal. Furthermore, the BCPC Plan required that restoration of an area equal to the size of any proposed Lowlands development I LAW OFCICE5 ERVIN. COHEN & JE55UP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 60 (including the MWD portion of the Lowlands) p7ior to the commencement of construction on the Lowlands. The foregoing is not by any means an exhaustive list of the differences between the BCPC Plan and the current Koll proposal. The foregoing list merely illustrates the many degrees of separation between the intent of the BCPC Plan and the Koll proposal analyzed by the DEIR. To state that the proposal considered in the DEIR in any manner "meets the requirements of" the BCPC Plan (DEIR p. 2-4, In. 7-8) or is somehow intended to "implement" that plan (Id.) is inaccurate and highly misleading. 2. Comments on NOP. As noted above, Chapter 2.12.1 (page 2-7, In. 38-44) should include a table showing the identity of each person commenting on the NOP, where their comments were accommodated by the DEIR and the reasons why the County did not accommodate any comments which were not accommodated in the DEIR. 3. Availability of DEIR. As noted above, DEIR Chapter 2.12.3 is in error when it states that all technical studies related to the DEIR were available at the City library. C. CHAPTER 3 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Project Description is Misleading, Inaccurate and Inadequate. As is discussed at length in Part ll.A of this letter, the project description in the DEIR is not adequate under CEQA and the relevant case law authority. 2. Envirommental Setting. The DEIR never provides a single coherent statement of the project. Although Chapter 3.1.2 provides a "overview of physical environment", that section of the DEIR does not fulfill the requirements for a brief but thorough description of the environmental setting of the proposed projectA` The DEIR concedes that Chapter 3.1.2 does not fulfill this requirement, as is evident from Table 2.12- 2 which notes that the description of the environmental setting required under Guidelines 551 Not only does the description of the County LCP area fail to fulfill the requirements of CEQA, but it also omits any meaningful description of the City neighborhoods surrounding the project area or the portions of the project area which fall within the City. These omissions alone make the description in the DEIR legally inadequate. The description fails in other respects as well. LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page bl § 15125 is dispersed among the hundreds of pages of analysis in Chapter 4.1 of the DEIR. Pe g P g Y P Guidelines § 15125 states, in relevant part: An EIR must include a description of the environment in the vicinity Y of the project, as is exists before the commencement of the project, from both a local and regional perspective. The description shall be no longer than is necessary to an understanding of the significant effects of the proposed project and its alternatives. [1 (a)] Knowledge of the regional setting is critical to the assessment of environmental impacts. Special emphasis should be placed on environmental resources that are rare or unique to that region and would be affected by the project. The discussion following the foregoing Guideline further explains, "Because the concept of a significant effect on the environment focuses on changes in the environment, this section requires an EIR to describe the environmental setting of the project so that the changes can be seen in context. . . The description of the pre-existing environment also helps reviewers to check the Lead Agency's identification of significant effects." The major components of the proposed project are purported to include the development of residential units coupled with wetlands restoration, re-routing of surface water flood channel and construction of a new tidal inlet to divert exchange of ocean water from Huntington Harbor to the southern limit of the project site. Consequently, the EIR should provide a complete baseline description of the oceanographical, surface water, and water quality aspects of the existing conditions in addition to the description of the topography and general location of the site, yet the DEIR fails to do so. Since the DEIR does not provide a single, simple and short narrative of the environmental setting of the project describing the unique features (such as the many different ESHAs and endangered or candidate species) within the study or LCP area, it is not always possible to determine from the DEIR whether the County's identification of significant impacts is accurate or complete. This is a direct violation of the above-quoted Guideline and CEQA. 3. Grading Plan is Megible. The "Proposed Wetlands Grading Plan", Figure 3.2-9, has apparently been photographically reduced ten times from its original size and is, consequently, not legible. It is, therefore, not possible to review and evaluate i LAW OFFICES ERVIN . COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 62 r proposed grading. This figure should be replaced with afull-size legible exhibit and recirculated with a revised DEIR for review. 4. Inadequate Information to Assess Certain Impacts. A review of the project description indicates that there is information missing from the DEIR that would assist the reader in determining the magnitude of certain impacts and provide for a better understanding of the project. The WRP provides limited insight into some of these issues but the information must be summarized (or at the very least referred to) within the project description. ■ How much dredge material will be excavated to create and restore wetlands? ■ Where will the material be disposed - onsite/offsite? ■ What dredging material disposal options were considered? ■ Is construction staging considered in impact analysis? ■ Are there any dredge dewatering techniques? ■ Is there beach nourishment? ■ Upland disposal? ■ Offshore dumping? ■ Is there channel armoring? ■ What about maintenance dredging? The DEIR is inadequate in its description and analysis of the foregoing impacts, both in the DEIR's project description and in the particular chapters which purport to analyze the impacts. 5. Miscellaneous. The following list sets forth specific issues raised in Chapter 3 of the DEIR which must be more thoroughly addressed by the document: a. Page 3-12, line 11: Who will construct the lift stations? Who will pay for their construction? i LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN Fi JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 63 b. Page 3-12, line 18: This paragraph attempts to describe development of the inland edge of the Lowlands. It should include acreage of all parcels to be developed, elevation of the fill to bring it above the adjacent Lowlands and a description of the interface with the Lowlands. C. Page 3-13, lines 25-42: 1. OCWD is not a "wholesale domestic water supplier" as quoted in the DEIR but rather is a groundwater management agency. This makes a difference because OCWD does not sell water, but simply manages the underground water basin. As such, it does not directly control how much water a retail agency takes, but does cause financial impacts to the agency to occur if the agency decides not to cooperate with the policies of OCWD. 2. The City will not be the retail domestic water supplier as proposed, but rather a wholesale agency, based on the suggested structure in Section 4.14. This is because the City will not be serving the customers directly but rather through the service agreement mentioned in Section 4.14. The explanation in this section is inconsistent with other explanations of similar subject in the DEIR. 3. The 9 million gallon reservoir will not be built by the City. The reservoir will be built by the developer of the Holly-Seacliff property as part of a development agreement to mitigate the impacts of that development and only that development. The reservoir is not designed to mitigate the impacts of the Bolsa Chica project. The developer of the Bolsa Chica project will need to mitigate the storage deficiencies caused by the project as outlined in the City's 1988 Water Master Plan. These deficiencies amount to nine million gallons of water storage. It is anticipated that this additional water storage would be built in another part of the City, perhaps far removed from the immediate local of the project. The Southeast Complex, as discussed in the 1988 Water Master Plan (a copy of which is attached to this letter as AWEx No. 36) and its 1993 Update (a copy of which is attached to this letter as AmEx No. 37), appears to be the obvious facility that could be constructed to mitigate the impacts of the project. The DEIR does not discuss this necessary mitigation. 4. Since the design review of the 9 million gallon reservoir has not commenced, it is unknown if the reservoir will be below the surface. Early conceptual planning discussed three options: above ground, below ground, or a LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROIESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency i February 17, 1994 Page 64 combination. N finite conclusionsy r com ode were e e ever stated in the DEIR. The impacts of each would need to be addressed. Additionally, the instability of the site due to potential seismic activity, may render it undesirable for a critical facility such as a water storage reservoir to be located there. 5. Twelve and 16 inch water transmission facilities identified in the DEIR to serve the project are undersized to meet _he City's criteria for water transmission planning for that section of the City. The reservoir serves only to shave peak water demands of the City system; it does not provide a source of water. The water supply plan as shown in Figure 3.2-4 has not been approved by the City. Should the project be serviced by the City, this plan would need to be approved by the Water Division. In order to effectively integrate this project into the existing City water system would require larger sized transmission mains in the Bolsa Chica Street extension to connect with the 42 inch transmission main at the intersection of Garfield Avenue and Edwards Street and with the 24 inch pipe located at the existing terminus of Springdale Street. This work would be done to provide a more reliable system by effectively "looping" the transmission system to provide redundancy in the event of a maintenance outage or an earthquake. 6. The explanation provided in this section is less than clear. The layman will have difficulty in understanding the total presentation. The explanation should be expanded with more detail. The map (Figure 3.2-4) should be located adjacent to the explanation so that one can easily track the author's points. The issue of water supply in this locale is a complex subject. The explanation provided does not delineate connections to the existing City system, where the water sources are located, or just how water travels from its sources to the customers. Again, the reservoir shown in Figure 3.2-4 is not a water source; it is a facility used strictly to handle the peak flows typically encountered during the operation of a water supply system. All of these details must be explained in order for the layman to receive a clear and comprehensive understanding of the water supply situation in this project. d. Page 3-13, lines 44-50: The availability of reclaimed water from the Green Acres Project (GAP) is an unknown at this time. The DEIR does not state the purpose, amount or necessity for reclaimed water in this project. Project funding and economic viability have not been solidified. The project may not be built. If it is not built, the DEIR does not state what will happen. It appears that reclaimed water is to be used for supplemental water to avoid penalties that would be imposed by the Orange County Water District. If no reclaimed water becomes available, what will happen? The DEIR should LAW .".c:.S ERVIN . COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 65 discuss this. If it is not built it would have ove um in impacts related to of the Santa P rP P g Ana River groundwater basin and the inability of OCWD to manage the basin to maximum effectiveness. The DEIR needs to discuss the options and impacts on water supply should the GAP not be constructed. As the DEIR is written, this section is inadequate because of this important issue. Additionally, the pipe sizing has not been verified by any agency other than the developer. OCWD will need to approve the pipe sizing, as will the City should it become the water supplier for the project. ie. Page 3-16, Figure 3.2-4: The pipelines labeled "to be constructed by the City of Huntington Beach" are in error. A portion of this pipeline will be constructed by the developer of the Holly-Seacliff property as part of the mitigation measures for that development. The "Sunset Heights Reservoir" is not a "source" of water but merely a holding facility for satisfying peak demands. Reclaimed water lines shown to be built by the Orange County Water District may not be constructed. All of this means that the foundation that these lines provide as a basis of supplying water in the DEIR are very inadequate because they are based on assumption of the author and not fact. None of the pipelines in question are definitely to be constructed. All are strictly conceptual in nature at this time. f. The conservation category of Table 3.2-3 (page 3-15) includes 306+ acres already owned by State, and which are totaled in the open space resulting in an approximate 30% "inflation" of the project's open space. g. Page 3-17, lines 7-15: The narrative states that proposed local sewer lines will be 6" to 10" in diameter. However, Figure 3.2-5 indicates proposed 6" to 12" lines. What are the correct pipe sizes? Have these facilities been correctly analyzed and sized? h. Page 3-17, line 20: Utilities will be located underground, "when possible." What is meant by the phrase - "when possible"? How will Koll determine when and how to construct utilities below ground so as to minimize aesthetic and other impacts. i. Page 3-17, line 44: Pedestrian access on top of the jetty seems ill advised as it may create a public safety hazard. LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSNIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency ' February 17, 1994 Page 66 P -24 n 1�. age 3 , line 32: Clarify that the proposed plan will isolate Outer Bolsa Bay from the remainder of the restoration area. k. Page 3-29, Fig. 3.2-10: Shoreline access indicated atop both jetties. This is a potential safety hazard which requires further study and, depending on the results of the study, mitigation of the hazard. 1. Page 3-24, lines 28-29: Where will the sand go? Can this be shown on a phasing exhibit? How will this material be transported? What impacts will result from its transport and deposition? What if some of the material dredged from RPA 1A is incompatible with its proposed use? M. Page 3-27, line 22: Is cost for long term maintenance and monitoring provided for in perpetuity? n. Page 3-27, lines 24-27: Why aren't these costs at least represented as a contingency? Isn't it expected that some offsite mitigation will be required to adhere to federal "No Net Loss" requirements for wetlands and endangered species during project phasing? o. Page 3-33, line 27: The use of the word "reverse" implies that degradation is proceeding today and that current property owners are not properly conducting their current business to avoid further damage to biological resources. The project actually implements a wetlands restoration plan which is only intended to improve the biological productivity of the site. There is no actual guarantee of its success. P. Section 3.5: Is any loss of wetlands associated with these cumulative projects? Please note in the project description of each and identify relevant phasing considerations. q. Section 3.5.9: Please include associated natural resource and habitat displacement. D. CHAPTER 4.1 - LAND USE AND RELATED PLANNING IMPACTS 1. Environmental Impact Significance Criteria. The DEIR at page 4.1-29, lines 38-39, indicates that a change in an interim or holding zone to a more LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN is JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 67 intensive land use is not a significant impact on the environment. There is no support cited g P PPo for this conclusion. This conclusion is crucial to the DEIR's determination that the County's change in zoning from an Al(0) base zone to a more intense planned community development district is not a significant land use impact. This conclusion undercuts one of the basic tenets of CEQA since it permits the commencement of more intense development rwithout appropriate environmental review. 2. Compatibility with Adjacent Neighborhoods. The City's comment to the NOP noted its concern regarding the compatibility of the project with the neighboring single family residential neighborhood. The proposed LUP would place high density ' residential uses directly adjacent to existing low density residential development. The DEIR assumes this to be an insignificant impact based on the buffer provided by the 40 foot wide roadway,S6' a 34 foot wide landscaped parkway and a minimum 15 foot setback from a "theme wall" coupled with a height restriction of 35 feet (no guidance is given for determining the point of grade from which this height limit is to be measured) for buildings within 150 feet of the theme wall. Set- pages 4.1-32 through 4.1-34 of the DEIR.2' Furthermore, the design of the buffers, etc. is a PDF which is presumed to mitigate any impact due to conflicting residential densities to below a level of significance. However, 561 The DEIR states that Los Palos is 40 feet wide, however, although the right-of-way may be that wide, the actual road is currently far narrower. The DEIR never considers the impact of building out Los Patos as a wider road which fills the existing right-of-way. No analysis appears to be made of the intersection of Los Patos and Warner Avenue after the build out of the Project and widening of Los Patos (See DEIR § 4.8- Table-3). 571 The DEIR relies heavily on the theme wall, yet no description of the height or design of this wall is included. Section 4.12 of the DEIR, regarding aesthetics, completely omits any mention of the wall or its impact. Further, DEIR § 4.12.1 (page 4.12-41,42) characterizes the view from Los Patos (a view which is conceded to extend to the waterfront from some vantage points)to be a private" viewshed, even though Los Patos is a public street and DEIR page 4.12-62 acknowledges that the Bolsa Mesa development would completely dominate the viewshed from Warner/Los Patos. These impacts should be listed and analyzed as unavoidable significant impacts. Also,page 4.1-50 of the DEIR acknowledges that the preservation of scenic views is an important policy objective of the Coastal Act and for that reason all residential development is to be "screened'from PCH with landscaping; however, no assessment of the impact of that screening on views of the coastline from the existing neighborhoods is included. LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN 9 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 68 since the DEIR does not include such PDFs as mitigation measures, there is no requirement that the PDF be formally monitored for proper enforcementAl' 3. Remediation of Oil and Related Operations. The DEIR notes, at page 4.1-8, that there are 217 active oil wells, 114 inactive wells and 32 water injector wells in the County LCP area. Further, this passage notes that the primary oil operator (SWEPI) is in the process of remediating drill mud, tank waste disposal site and is removing unused tanks. The DEIR notes that SWEPI is in the process of developing plans for the economic remediation of the soils. There appears to be no analysis of the impacts of these operations. 4. Consistency with County's General Plan. DEIR § 4.1.1.4 appears ' to assume that the current agricultural/oil production zoning is consistent with the adopted 1986 LUP which expressly provides for residential and marina development.59' The DEIR ignores the numerous inconsistencies between the program considered in the DEIR and the requirements of the County's General Plan,60' including the following:b" 581 In contrast to the treatment o this issue in Chat .1 Chapter 7 o the DEIR consistently treats the f per 4 , Cap f y incompatibility of the proposed project with adjacent land uses as a significant impact of the project which is reduced by certain of the alternative projects. 591 As noted in numerous places in this letter, the DEIR's reliance on the 1986 LCP and the LUP contained therein (see, E.g.,page 4.1-46) is in error. The 1986 LCP was never fully certified and the CCC has expressly stated on the record (in its December 10, 1992 comment to the EIR/EIS) that the 1986 LCP is not an approvable plan as it conflicts with the policies and objectives of the Coastal Act. The DEIR never analyzes the impact on the project of the CCC position,nor does it concede that the conflict of the currently proposed project with the Coastal Act(the CCC appears to take the position that the currently proposed project is likewise in conflict with the Coastal Act) is a significant land use impact under the standards stated in Chapter 4.1.2, which states that a conflict with applicable state policies or goals applicable to the site should be considered a significant adverse effect of the project. 601 Copies of the Land Use Element and Resources Element of Component 11 of the County's general plan are annexed to this letter as ANNEX No. 33 AND 34, respectively. 611 This is yet another instance in which the DEIR is misleading to the public and the decision-makers. The discussion and figures in the DEIR make it appear as if the proposed project is wholly consistent with the County's general plan. The DEIR concludes, based on that purported consistency, that there is no significant land use conflict or impact created by implementing the Kollproject. The reader cannot divine the conflicts with the County's (continued...J LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROfESSIOMAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 69 a. Page LU-2-16 of the Count General Plan Land Use Element Y notes that the major capital cost of constructing sufficient road facilities for existing and ' future development will create a cumulative funding deficit. Accordingly, and in order to "ensure that transportation planning is assimilated into the land use planning process," Major Land Use Policy 4 of the plan (at page LU-5-2 of the plan) requires that when circulation links would not be in balance (locally Qr regionally) with a proposed land use, "development should be deferred until appropriate improvements to the circulation can be provided or mitigation measures can be developed. . .". In the case of the proposed project, the ATIP is conceptually presented but is not a mitigation measure which is fully funded or developed and, accordingly, will not ensure that appropriate improvements will be made to the circulation system of the County as required by its general plan. b. Page LU-5-2 states Major Land Use Policy 3 which requires phasing of development consistent with the adequacy of public services. As is demonstrated in the discussion of Chapter 4.14 of the DEIR at Section III.Q of this letter, the County has not fulfilled this requirement of its general plan. The DEIR provides no description of the phasing of the project. Further, the project at build out would not be adequately serviced and would overload the County facilities even with the improvements contemplated by the DEIR. C. Page LU-5-3 states Major Land Use Policy 6 which requires "sensitive treatment" where "one urban use transitions to another and where an urban use is introduced into an essentially undeveloped area." As noted below in this letter, the buffers and theme wall proposed for the sudden transition from single family residential low density uses to high density residential on the Mesa along Los Patos does not fulfill this requirement of the general plan. d. Appendix G to the Land Use Element of General Plan Component II is a map (current through Amendment 93-1) which depicts Bolsa Chica as falling within two land use categories; (i) the area proposed in the 1986 LCP for residential 614..continued) general plan until he or she reviews the plan and compares it to the discussion in the DEIR. If one undertakes that exercise, as is demonstrated in the test following this footnote,the conflicts become readily apparent. Under CEQA, the County is required to bring those conflicts to the attention of the layperson reading the document. The DEIR not only fails to raise the conflicts, it affirmatively finds that no such conflict (and consequently no significant impact) exists. This is both misleading to the reader and clear error on the part of the County. I LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 70 development is within category 1B (Suburban Residential Communities) -- an area which permits .5 - 18 dwelling units per acre gply and (ii) the remainder of the area (including portions of the Lowlands slated for development under Koll's proposed project) is designated as open space. The DEIR ignores the conflict between the current general plan _ land use limitation of 18 dwelling units per acre by averaging the total units to arrive at a figure of no more than 18 units per acre on average over the Mesa without noting the general plan's restriction of any land use exceeding the 18 unit per acre density on the Mesa. e. Open space conservation is an important part of the County's general plan policies. The goals and policies which are required to guide governmental actions with respect to open space state at page RES-8-4 that the County is "to retain the character and natural beauty of the environment through the preservation of open space." In furtherance of that policy, the general plan states the specific objective to "designate open space areas that preserve, conserve, maintain and enhance the significant natural resources and physical features of unincorporated Orange County. Id. The open space portion of the Resources Element of Component II of the County's General Plan states at page RES-8-3: Not all undeveloped land is to be considered for open space protection. In accordance with the State Government Code definition of open space it is obvious that the objective is for local agencies to take the necessary measures that preserve and protect resource areas from incompatible development or use and to protect the public from potential development or use hazards. As noted above, the County land use element designates a portion of the Lowlands which Koll proposes to develop as open space. The proposed project, therefore, conflicts with both the land use element of the general plan and the resources element as well. The proposed project exposes its inhabitants to seismic and hazardous materials/wastes conditions as detailed in this letter. Further, the development of the Lowlands has been determined by the Corps, CDFG, NMFS, CCC and other government agencies to be incompatible with the proposed development. Even if one were to take Koll's disagreement with those agencies into account, the conflict with the agencies and the open space objectives of the County's General Plan as well as the proposed resolution thereof must be LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 71 detailed and discussed in the recirculated DEIR if that document is to fulfill the mandates of CEQA. 1 f. The proposed plan is also in conflict with the historic and cultural resources component at Chapter 9 of the Resources Element. The historic component requires identification of archaeological, paleontological and historical resources, "at the earliest stage of project planning and requires [that the County] review such as general plan amendment or zone change." As noted in Section III.N of this letter and in Arrrt>EX No. 7 to this letter, the studies which will identify the archaeological and other related resources on the project site have not been completed. Nonetheless, the County has steamed ahead with its planning process. This is a violation of the County's General Plan which must be noted and explained in the recirculated DEIR. g. Attached to this letter as AKNExEs No. 52-55 are the Transportation, Safety, Noise and Housing Elements of the County's General Plan. Review of those elements reveals further inconsistencies between the project and the general plan. 5. Consistency with City's General Plan. Chapter 4.1 should address the compatibility of the project with the City's General Plan and issues associated with its sphere of influence. The County has done this on other EIRs they have prepared in the past and, given the nexus of the City to the project, such an analysis is required in this instance. The cursory treatment given this issue at page 4.1-13 is wholly inadequate and does not permit the reader to judge whether the proposed land use is consistent with the City's general plan LUP and compatible with the surrounding land use. Further, as is noted below in this letter, if annexed, the design of the project would not meet the City's requirements. See p. 4.1-48, line 4; regarding use of the County standard for parks; see also Part III.R of this letter considering Chapter 4.15 of the DEIR. 6. Substantial Induced Urban Growth. DEIR § 4.1.2 states that induced urban growth in excess of SCAG projections and County growth projections is presumed significant. The DEIR does not state these projections nor compare the proposed project to the projections and therefore, there is no way to assess the analysis of the DEIR. The only further reference to growth management appears in DEIR § 4.1.3.1 which states (without support) that the development of the project in an urban area adjacent to existing residential uses is consistent with the Coastal Act policies and furthers the policies of the 1991 AQMD/SCAG Growth Management Plan (%W"). There is an implicit assumption made in this analysis that because the project is less intense than the 1986 LCP (which, per i LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN & JESSUP A W.RINEPSNIP INCLUDING PROfESS10NAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 72 the DEIR provided for the addition of a maximum of 7 p 5, 00 dwelling units and is reflected in the LUE of the County General Plan), there are no impacts due to induced urban growth despite the addition of 4,286 new dwelling units.0 7. Human Intrusion Due to New Trails. When considering the compatibility of the proposed residential development adjacent to sensitive habitat areas, the DEIR assumes that buffers, fences and open space areas will be sufficient to prevent any impact due to the intrusion of regular hiking, equestrian and other recreational activities within the wetlands; however, the precise nature and locations of the trails, buffer systems and fences are not described in any detail nor is there any description of how these measures will work nor how they will be maintained or patrolled. Further, since this is ' assumed to mitigate any impact, the fences and buffers are improperly excluded as a mitigation measure and the maintenance of the fences and buffers will not be monitored under the required mitigation monitoring and reporting program required under PRC § 21081.6. 8. Traffic Impacts from Elimination of Exit Drive. The installation of the tidal inlet will force the removal of a southbound only egress from the State beach parking lot to PCH. This is assumed to have no significant traffic impact due to the presence of other egress. (page 4.1-31). The DEIR wholly lacks substantial evidence in support of its conclusion of insignificant impact and omits the data necessary to evaluate the this conclusion. 9. Beneficial Impact of Improved Hydraulic Circulation. DEIR at i page 4.1-31 assumes, without support or rationale, that there will be no negative impact from increased circulation due to implementation of the proposed project. 621 The DEIR is misleading in its analysis of growth impacts from the Project since the Project description excludes the 598 units which are proposed to be constructed on the portion of the MWD property within the City. Further, although the Table of Impacts (Table 1.5-1) indicates that detailed analysis shows that no significant impacts will occur from amending the LUE, the analysis focuses on a comparison of the 1986 LCP with the current proposal rather than focusing on a comparison of the current condition versus the proposed development, in direct violation of CEQA and the applicable Guidelines cited above in this letter. 1 LAW OFFICES ERVIN . COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 73 10. Impact on Visual Resources. The DEIR states at page 4.1-31 In. P Pg 43-45 that visual resources will be maintained with "only limited exceptions."LP These exceptions are not adequately detailed. Moreover, there will be significant loss of views of the ocean and of the wetlands from homes located at Warner and Los Patos. This impact is not properly considered or analyzed. 11 -Construction of 9 Million Gallon Reservoir. Page 4.1 32 notes that a 9 million gallon below surface reservoir will be constructed in planning area 4B, adjacent to the existing single family residential neighborhood along Los Patos Boulevard and in the middle of the medium density development proposed in planning area 11. If this structure is installed below ground (as is contemplated by the DEIR) construction will require the excavation and removal of approximately 45,000 cubic yards of earth directly across from the residences. There appears to be no analysis of the direct and/or indirect impacts of this activity.64` It can be anticipated that the movement of the required amount of earth would likely cause air quality, noise, erosion, and other potentially significant impacts, all of which should be studied and considered in the DEIR. 12. Characterization of Wetlands as Degraded. Page 4.1-6, In. 13-15 of the DEIR bases its characterization of the wetlands as degraded on the 1981 report of the CDFG; however, as noted above in this letter, the DEIR omits to mention the objections of the CDFG to that characterization of its findings. 13. Consistency of Wetlands Maintenance with 1986 LUP. Page 4.1- 43 of the DEIR notes that the 1986 LUP required that a minimum of 852 acres of wetlands be maintained at all times during the implementation of the LUP. Further, the DEIR acknowledges that the phasing of the project would permit a "temporary condition where ' the 852 acre minimum would not be met." The length of this "temporary" condition is not discussed; however, a comparison of the project phasing with the wetlands restoration phasing (and an examination of the conditions to the commencement of the restoration such 631 2"his must be contrasted with the DEIR's conclusion that the aesthetic impact of the project is one of the few which will constitute a significant impact. The DEIR is inconsistent on this point and never attempts to harmonize its findings in Chapter 9.12 (Impact 4.12-1) with the statement that visual resources are generally maintained. The analysis of visual/aesthetic resources must be clarified in the recirculated DEIR. 641 Where will the excavated material be deposited? What route would the excavation haul trucks use? These questions must be answered in the DEIR. LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFE55IONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 74 as the depletion of existing oil reserves -- anticipated to occur over a 20 year period -- and the issuance of federal permits) reveals that this temporary condition will be at least 5 to 10 years in duration and may extend indefinitely if the federal permitting agencies, CCC and CDFG continue to hold to their current views of the project. The DEIR concludes, at p. 4.1-43, that "the Applicant would be forced to provide offsite replacement at a 2:1 ratio or negotiate directly with the CDFG to resolve any concerns regarding interim wetlands maintenance," however, the DEIR never analyzes where the offsite replacement could be obtained nor what other arrangement might be made with the CDFG. In short, it is not demonstrated that the project can resolve the concerns, noted at page 4.1-43, of CDFG or, for that matter, USFWS.i5' 14. Impact of Failure to Build Cross-Gap Connector. The DEIR notes at page 4.1-44 that the proposed project is "consistent with " the BCPC Plan;' however there is no analysis of the planning impact which may arise due to the failure to connect the proposed BCSE to Garfield. 15. Effect of Relocation of Tidal Inlet from BCPC Plan Location. There appears to be no analysis of the relocation of the tidal inlet from the northwest quadrant of the shoreline (as in the BCPC plan) to the southern end of the property. The DEIR merely notes that since the BCPC plan was only conceptual (i.e., did not rely on technical studies) the relocation of the inlet is viewed as a "refinement" to the plan. Similarly, other elements of the plan were modified due to technical and cost concerns, including the wetlands restoration "element"; however, as is noted above, the DEIR , assumes that these alterations are not a "substantial variance from the BCPC [P]Ian." The changes in the phasing of the restoration is a critical difference between the BCPC Plan and the project which is not discussed in the DEIR.Q' 651 Further, Chapter 7.2.4.2 of the DEIR expressly notes that the 1986LUP is no longer consistent with CCC goals or policies;yet,pages 4.1-46 through 47 of the DEIR relies on the CCC's findings. The DEIR is not consistent in its analysis. 661 As is noted in Part IILB, above, the BCPC Plan differs significantly from the Proposed Project. These discrepancies are not noted in the DEIR and, therefore, the claim of 'consistency" with the BCPC Plan is misleading at best. 671 As was noted in Part III.B of this letter, in instances such as this the DEIR relies on the BCPC Plan when it supports the proposed project,yet ignores or dismisses as inapplicable significant portions of the BCPC Plan when it would impose undesirable restrictions on Koll's development proposal. See Part IILB, above. LAW OFFICES ERVIN . COHEN 6 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 75 16. Increases in Residential Density. g Although the DEIR claims that residential densities are consistent with County and other planning documents which require a maximum density on the Mesa of 18 d.u./acre, page 4.1-44 of the DEIR notes that this maximum density is achieved only by averaging the high density areas over the entirety of the Mesa and that in certain areas (not delineated) the density will exceed 18 d.u./acre. The DEIR notes that the 18 d.u./acre limit of the BCPC plan was not interpreted as a maximum density limit.E' This position appears to be without support and there is no reason or rationale given for this determination.6" Since the Mesa includes recreational open space and lower density uses including a 2 acre site for the reservoir and a much larger site (the size of which is not delineated in the DEIR) for recreation (planning areas 3A and 3B) and low density (planning area 6) and medium low density development, it seems likely that the highest densities could reach as high as the 36 d.u./acre noted on the proposed planned community development map (Figure 3.2-3).70' 17. Consistency with Existing Zoning. Page 4.1-44 of the DEIR notes that the current County base zone for the project area (A 1(0)) is intended to also be used as ' an interim zone for future "more intensive urban uses." Accordingly, the DEIR concludes that the proposed zoning change to a planned community district would be consistent with the prior zoning. However, the DEIR omits any discussion of the difference in the flood 681 This statement is inconsistent with the statement at p. 2-3, In. 49-50 of the DEIR which states that the objective of the project is to implement the BCPC Plan. 691 Presumably, the purpose of such a limit was to ensure that there would not be an inappropriate mix of urban density housing interposed in the midst of the existing single family residential neighborhood within the City. 701 This information also calls into question the accuracy and completeness of the analysis at DEIR page 4.1-32, 34 regarding the buffer between the existing single family residential neighborhood adjacent to Los Patos and the new high density development. Although,figure 4.1-12 presents a pretty picture of a three story apartment building across the street from an existing home, the picture may be misleading. The Figure does not state where the depicted cross-section is located. Thus, the new development shown may represent only the boundary between the existing homes and the new medium-low density development proposed in planning area]]. It is possible,given the density conceded by the DEIR, that the interface between the existing homes and the high density urban residential of planning area 10 would appear quite different. Page 4.2-26(lines 33-4)of the DEIR indicates that some buildings in the Project will exceed four stories in height. The problem is that the DEIR does not specify what the picture represents and, therefore, is too vague for any meaningful analysis. The maximum density of 36 d.u./acre suggested in the various plans proposed by the Applicant indicates that much taller and more inappropriate buildings maybe constructed just past the 150 foot wide 35 foot maximum height limit. No information is given regarding the heights of those structures. LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 76 plain district designations. The new proposed zoning would remove a significant portion of the Lowlands (i.e., the portion which is to be developed under the Proposed project) from the current flood zone district. There is no mention and no analysis of this revision nor any consideration of whether this change represents a change in the County's policy which would constitute a significant effect on the environment within the meaning of CEQA. 18. Consistency with Coastal Act. Page 4.1-46 of the DEIR assumes consistency of the project with the Coastal Act because "the essence of the LUP remains the same: restoration of the wetlands made possible, in part, through the financial return from the development components."W This analysis ignores the Coastal Commission's refusal to certify the wetlands restoration plan or the failure of the DEIR to specify the ' precise nexus between development and the restoration of the wetlands. Further, this analysis ignores the stated position of the CCC in its December 10, 1992 letter (commenting on the EIR/EIS and included in ANNEx No. 10) that the proposed project is not in accord with CCC policies or the requirements of the Coastal Act.'.'—" The DEIR states that the proposed development is consistent with County standards for the amount of parks/recreation areas (2 acres per 1,000 population), but this is inconsistent with the City's , standards and requirements (5 acres per 1,000 population). 19. Requirement for Affordable Housing. Government Code § 65590(d) requires that new housing developments, such as the project considered by the DEIR, constructed within the Coastal Zone must include low or moderate income housing units. The DEIR omits any discussion of this requirement and fails to consider whether the required units would be provided as part of the 4,286 units to be provided onsite or would be built offsite. The DEIR must be revised to address this issue and recirculated for public review and comment. 20. Loss of State Beach. The insertion of the proposed tidal inlet will cause a loss, at high tide, of approximately 2 acres of the State beach. 71/ Since the DEIR deems the 1986 LCP to be the operative land use designation for the site, the DEIR should state why the County didn't change its zoning designations to make them compatible with the land use planning designations, as required by law. 72/ Here again,the DEIR misleads the reader into thinking that the project is consistent with existing policies and requires the reader to undertake an independent investigation of the available material in order to ascertain the truth. This is a basic flaw in the DEIR which is continual throughout the document. ' LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 77 21. Filling of Wetlands under the Coastal Act. The DEIR takes the position that filling of 6 acres in EGGW Channel and 108 acres of "degraded wetland" meets the requirements of PRC §§ 30233(a)(3) and 30411 because "the wetland restoration is dependent on the residential development in the Lowland." (emphasis added). This indicates Koll's intention is to tie the wetlands restoration to the development of the rLowland alone (in contravention of the findings of the Coastal Commission in conditionally certifying the LCP in 1986).L33` 22. Sand Bypassing Operation. The tidal inlet will trap sand which will have to be placed, "on a downcoast beach." The impact of this operation appears not to be discussed. 23. Relocation of Warner Avenue Pond. Warner Avenue Pond i e ue e s identified as an ESHA (DEIR at page 4.1-50); however, this ESHA will be "relocated" from the Mesa to the opposite side of the property, i.e., the base of the Huntington Mesa. There is no specific plan provided for the relocation of the ESHA nor does there appear to ' be any requirement that the "replacement" pond at the Huntington Mesa must be functioning adequately as a replacement similar in kind and quality to the ESHA which is being removed. This is in violation of the BCPC Plan and, assuming that the development on the Mesa will proceed without requirement for creation of a functioning replacement of the ESHA at Warner Pond, represents a significant environmental impact which is not identified by the DEIR. 24. Future Mitigation Plans Intended to Address Current Impacts. The following items are examples of the studies and mitigation plans/measures to be ' developed in the future but which are currently relied upon by the DEIR for mitigation of significant adverse land use impacts from the project: 1 a. Design of Theme Wall and Landscape Buffer. The DEIR relies on the theme wall and landscape buffer as a PDF which mitigates the potential conflict in residential densities at the project boundary to a level of insignificance, yet no design for this buffer is presented nor are any objective criteria provided. 7.31 As noted above, Koll's characterization o the wetlands as degraded and its linkage o the restoration and I g g f development in the wetlands has been challenged and rejected by the Corps and the CDFG. LAW OFFICES ' ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 78 b. Remediation of Oil and Related Qperations. The DEIR notes, at page 4.1-8, that SWEPI is in the process of developing plans for the economic remediation of the soils and notes at page 4.8-31 that plans will need to be developed for i remediation of present and former areas of hazardous materials use and for the identification and removal of abandoned hydrocarbon transmission lines and related facilities. Since this area has been used for oil and gas exploration and extraction for over 70 years, there are a number of facilities in the ground which have been abandoned and forgotten. There appears to be no comprehensive analysis of the current conditions in the ground despite the statement at DEIR § 4.2.1.3 that over 90% of the site was studied in four different investigations from 1987-1991. The discussion of these investigations reveal that there were only minimal samples taken and that accessibility was often hampered by inundation and other circumstances which prevented the more thorough investigation (including sampling sufficient in number and scope to provide results representative of site conditions) which is required by CEQA. The grading and other restoration operations, therefore, pose a substantial risk of significant harm to ecologically sensitive areas if these facilities are disturbed carelessly and without a thorough study of their location and potential hazardous material or hydrocarbon content. C. Screening of Ongoiny, Oil Production. Plans will be developed to screen and buffer oil operations from wetlands and ESHAs. d. Contingency Plan to Protect Residents and Habitants. A plan will be developed to protect wildlife and residents from adverse impacts from oil spills, etc.L' The City's experience indicates that the oil spill prevention and control 741 Note that the WRP purports to cover certain of the oil operation related impacts on the Wetlands;however, much of that information is absent from the DEIR and was not made available for public review and comment. For example, WRP § 5.6.2 states: The WRP incorporates requirements for an Oil Spill Prevention Control , & Countermeasure Plan (OSCCP and an Oil Spill Contingency Plan (OSCP) which have been developed by the current oil operator, SWEPI, and have been approved by the California State Land Commission,the Department of Oil Spill Prevention and response, and the California Department of Fish and Game. (continued...) t 1 LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROiESSiONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 ' Page 79 countermeasures are not effective and that the boom catch system would likely proposed Y Y cause beach contamination. e. Sand Bypassing tion. The tidal inlet will trap sand ra p which will have to be placed, "on a downcoast beach." The development of precise plans for this operation is not discussed. 25. Mitigation Measures which Are Erroneously Assumed to Mitigate Significant Impacts. The following lists those land use related impacts which the DEIR assumes to be mitigated to below a level of significance by mitigation measures which do not appear to do so or the effect of which is not supported or documented: a. Buffer between Conflicting Residential Densities. The buffer ' between the existing single family neighborhood along the northern boundary of the project site (along Los Patos) and the proposed high density urban residential development is assumed to mitigate any conflict between the land uses; however, no criteria or rationale ' for this determination is stated. b. Risks to Potential Homeowners. The risks to new residents of ' the project from ongoing oil operations and from hazardous materials is presumed to be mitigated by mitigation measures 4.1-1a (requiring the continuation of oil spill contingency plans as otherwise required by state law), 4.1-1b (requiring that legally mandated DRE ' disclosures include a disclosure regarding the risks of the ongoing oil operation, as is already required under the California Subdivided Lands Act), 4.2-9 and 4.2-10 (requiring hazardous waste to be handled in accordance with State and federal law). Thus, the DEIR 1 assumes that the disclosure of the risks to buyers and the handling of omnipresent hazardous materials within and immediately adjacent to the newly developed residential neighborhoods will result in no adverse impact. This conclusion is reached without any ' meaningful discussion of the risk of upset, whether from seismic events or disruption of unknown underground facilities or otherwise. Further, the DEIR permits plans for investigation and manifesting of the materials existing onsite to be performed in the future 74/(..continued) These plans are not appended to the WRP or the DEIR. Further, the DEIR does not state whether these contingency plans were adopted based upon the current environmental setting of a purportedly degraded wetland with no adjacent human habitation or based on the phased restoration/creation of the wetlands as contemplated by the DEIR. LAW OFFICES , ERVIN. COHEN 6 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLVDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 80 , without specifying the objective performance criteria or parameters for the onsite investigation of the nature and amount of hazardous material on the project site. , 26. Miscellaneous. The following list sets forth specific issues raised in Chapter 4.1 of the DEIR which must be more thoroughly addressed by the document: a. Page 4.1-13, line 6: The DEIR should indicate why the landowner didn't pursue the previously approved plan. b. Page 4.1-28, line 5: Federal involvement in a project of this type and magnitude cannot be "relatively limited" due to the essential resources involved. Wetlands and endangered species on the site mean that strict federal mandates must be S followed before any project can be approved. These mandates will have major implications for the project's plans and phasing. ' C. Page 4.1-31, line 14: Use of the word "adopted" implies that the WRP was approved and adopted by the wildlife agencies; however the DEIR never ' states that this is the case. In some instances, the DEIR strongly implies that the restoration was never approved by any local, State or federal agency. The DEIR should specify the precise status of the plan. d. Page 4.1-32, line 3: The referenced oil spill scenario needs to be described and addressed more fully in a newly prepared Risk of Upset section. ' e. Page 4.1-32, last paragraph: The project description does not include draft planned community regulations and, therefore, no substantive analysis of their land use impacts. The DEIR should be recirculated with these regulations attached as an appendix. Typically plans produced at this level of analysis include some general regulations which govern the quality and character of the community being proposed. If , this is not done at this stage of analysis, then a further much more detailed environmental review will be required under CEQA prior to the approval of maps and initiation of construction. The DEIR should so state. f. Page 4.1-39, lines 21-23: The conclusion that there will be no adverse impacts from the alteration of the County's general plan and MPAH is not supported by the discussion. Since the ATIP is not well described in the body of the ' LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN £3 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 81 ' report, the reader cannot draw a reasonable conclusion as to the adequacy of the analysis, Po � Y even if he or she refers to Chapter 4.8.3.4. ' g• Page e 4.1-43: The DEIR omits the required discussion of Housing Element consistency. No consideration is included regarding whether any ' affordable housing will be provided or how the project will meet the affordable housing requirements of the County's general plan (or, as noted above, Government Code § 65590). h. Page 4.1-49: Conclusions drawn about consistency with Coastal Act provisions on this page will only be valid if supported by the wildlife agencies. E. CHAPTER 4.2 - GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY ' 1. Definition of Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Wastes. The definition of "hazardous waste" and "hazardous materials" in the DEIR's discussion at page 4.2-2 must include as "hazardous materials" methane, hydrogen sulfide gas, petroleum, and 1 its constituents and by-products. The DEIR is not clear regarding this issue. Individual constituents of petroleum such as benzene and xylene are well-known to adversely affect human health and the environment under certain circumstances.L" Further, page 4.2-20 of the DEIR states that insufficient information exists to determine the extent of corrosive soils. Thus, further sampling and investigation is required to assess whether and how much of the soils on the site might fall within the proffered definition of hazardous material or hazardous waste.L" 751 The DEIR at page 4.2-2 indicates that the terms "hazardous materials'and "hazardous wastes" are used as defined in Title 22 of the CCR. Title 22 of the CCR uses of variety of testing methods and protocols to determine whether a "waste" (as defined in and subject to the exclusions of 22 CFR § 22621.2)is a "hazardous waste" (within the meaning of 22 CCR § 22621.3). Furthermore, there is a broad list of regulatory exceptions and exclusions to the term "hazardous waste", including the exclusions set forth in 22 CCR § 2261.4 (which exempts point source discharges under Section 402 of the Federal Clean Water Act and all materials which are exempted or excluded from such classification under 40 CFR § 261.4). The lay reader cannot determine whether the definition of hazardous wastes and hazardous materials used in the DEIR is appropriate. ' 761 Would buyers of homes in the Project be required to receive a warning similar to the now familiar Proposition 65 warning regarding the presence of hazardous materials and/or materials identified by the State of California as carcinogenic or causing reproductive toxicity. If such a warning is required, the feasibility of the ' Project (and therefore of the WRP, ATTP and other mitigation plans) would clearly be called into question. LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 82 ' 2. General Comments Re: Hazardous Materials/Wastes. Among the greatest problems with the DEIR analysis with respect to hazardous materials are that: , ■ It presents no history of the location, extent and duration of oil and gas related activities in the area. , ■ No plan is provided to address accidental discoveries and releases of oil or other contaminants. ■ No testing has been done for the presence of heavy metals in onsite soils nor adequate testing for methane or hydrogen sulfide gas.2" The following items consider more specific instances of the foregoing inadequacies in the DEIR's discussion of the potential impacts from the presence on site and the likely disruption of hazardous materials on the site: a. On page 4.2-2, lines 26 and 27, the DEIR states that its use of the terms "hazardous materials" and "hazardous waste" are as per 22 CCR. This may exclude crude oil. Although California DTSC is more aggressive than USEPA in defining the crude oil exemption, much of the "waste" will be exempt from direct regulatory control. Because of the current and prior use of this site, and the contamination problems which exist for residential uses developed on property previously used for oil extraction, a broader definition which includes the discussion of oil and related oil extraction contamination is necessary in the DEIR. Certainly the responses to the NOP saw this type of contamination as a concern for the Bolsa Chica site. b. The City also has specific standards regarding cleanup (or residual) levels for soil on sites being converted from crude oil production, while the County does not. According to the OCHCA, the County's procedure regarding such matters is to look at depth to groundwater, background quality of groundwater, mass and distribution of contaminants and the practicality of cleanup technology. The County looks at initial levels of contamination, compares that to current levels (and whether the rate of 771 The DEIR completely ignores comments in response the NOP which appear at pages 53, 158, 163 and 164 , of the Technical Appendices to the DEIR, Volume L The comments raise significant concerns regarding the presence of methane and hydrogen suyide gas based on recent, documented experience in the West Newport Oil Field, only 7 miles from Bolsa Chica. ' LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ' Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 1 Page 83 ' an decrease in levels is leveling off). If the rate of change is flattening, the Count Y g fl g g� Y assumes that the toxins have been removed to a safe level. ' C. Pages 4.2-2 to 4.2-10: The DEIR states that approximately g PP Y 90% (page 4.2-2, line 43) of the study area has been covered by various studies and that 1 Areas of Concern total only 19 acres and Areas of Potential Concern another 13 acres (pages 4.2-5, 4.2-6). The method of defining these was based on two factors: visible oil and organic vapor analyzer (OVA) readings. However, lack of accessibility was a problem for many areas (page 4.2-6). Also, there is no direct correlation between OVA readings and residual levels of organic compounds in soil (two different things are being measured). d. Page 4.2-2 lines 42-44: It is not clear from the DEIR how thorough the historical studies were. Do we know where all of the no longer present oil ' wells, dry holes, mud pits, sumps, tank batteries and pipelines were? If yes, how was this information developed and why was it omitted from the DEIR? ' e. Page 4.2-5: One pipeline is discussed and 650 feet out of 840 feet total length is contaminated. Most (if not all) of the pipelines in the field are old, going back to the 1930s and 1940s. A brackish, tidal environment is extremely corrosive. ' These pipelines predate concrete jacketing. It is probable that most or all of the pipelines in the field resemble the one discussed. The oil field operators are the responsible parties for these contamination problems. A potentially substantial risk to the project is ' accidentally uncovering a problem area (or object, e.g., pipeline) and causing a release. This is not adequately addressed in the DEIR. There is no Risk of Upset analysis. ' f. Page 4.2-23: According to the DEIR, Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORMs) (including radon) are not a background problem in most of the region. However, NORMs are often associated with oil fields. The report's basis for assuming no NORMs problem is based on general survey of lithography/geology of area, not site specific study. A site specific analysis must be conducted and included in the EIR. g. Section 4.2.3.1:(page 4.2-24) Abandonment of oil wells is the responsibility of the operators and on the mesas are scheduled to be done prior to project construction. Items may have to be removed to facilitate construction that might be better abandoned in place, i.e., removal may cause more environmental damage than leaving in place. (This is a possibility on the mesas, but not considered likely. It is a greater possibility in the Lowlands and wetlands.) Unknown sumps, mud pipelines, pits, etc., may LAW OFFICES ' ERVIN, COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency r February 17, 1994 Page 84 be uncovered, with resultant release of contaminants. This potential and its possible consequences are not addressed in the EIR and must be. , h. Page 4.2-24, last paragraph: ". . . .no hydrocarbon-containing soils are expected. . . and thus no adverse levels of BTXE or VOCs are expected." If sites , are cleaned up to County "standard" (even if cleaned up to City's), there will be some level of hydrocarbon contamination. i. Impact 4.2-9 (page 4.2-30) and Mitigation Measure r (page 4.2-35): With the mention of removal of contaminated materials to licensed landfills or treatment facilities there is no discussion of hauler impacts on roads/neighborhoods, e.g., the McColl dumpsite. j. Section 4.2.3.4: Many of the required mitigation measures are , erroneously labelled as PDFs. They should, however, be addressed as mitigation measures and not as project components, and should be included in a legally adequate plan requiring ongoing monitoring and reporting. ' k. Page 4.4-10, Sediments: There is discussion of metals and DDD/DDT in sediments, but no discussion in the DEIR text of how these are to be dealt with during dredging, construction, etc. 1. The presence of heavy metals due to oil extraction activities is , not addressed anywhere in the DEIR. Heavy metals and solvents are additives in drilling muds and other chemical mixtures used in oil field activities. There has apparently not been any prior sampling of mud pits, sumps, etc., nor is any planned for the future. , CEQA mandates that a thorough baseline be created through site sampling in order for the potential environmental impacts of the project to be understood, let alone addressed by purported mitigation measures. 3. Hazardous Materials/Wastes Regulation and Related Issues. a. Page 1-9, Table 1.5-1, IMPACT 4.1-1, OILFIELD , FACILITIES. The oil spill prevention and contingency plan is not sufficient to mitigate the impact of developed residential property in an oil field. The threat to health and safety as , well as public concern is increased as residential development encroaches on oil fields. Recent development of abandoned oil islands within the City indicate that citizens are very i 1 LAW OFFICES ' ERVIN. COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 ' Page 85 ' concerned about development on these sites. Citizens are articular) concerned with dust P particularly contamination, noise impacts, and possible health impacts resulting from contaminated soil and on site soil remediation. In addition, a number of residential areas within the City have been plagued with methane gas leaking up through cracks in streets, sidewalks, lawns, and in and around old abandoned oil wells. There are two (2) ways the gas reaches the surface: 1) The gas migrates up through an abandoned oil well, to the surface. This would occur in an oil well that may not meet the current Division of Oil and ' Gas ("DOG") standards or has not been abandoned properly; or 2) Gas may migrate horizontally until it finds a conduit to reach the surface or where the production of large quantities of gas migrate naturally to the surface. Two (2) areas in the City where oil well related gas problems have occurred are at the intersection of Kite and Sparkman and at 9162 Bermuda. These were improperly abandoned oil wells that were leaking gas. Re-abandonment was done at both sites and ' methane gas mitigation systems were installed, all remediation work was done under the supervision of the DOG. Another area where large quantities of gas are being produced is at 9062 Christine, this gas is biogenic in nature and is currently being mitigated through a passive venting system. This area not only produced large quantities of methane gas, but also Hydrogen Sulfide gas. The City also has a location were measures were taken to mitigate potential gas problems in an entire residential tract. This area, located south of Atlanta between Magnolia and Bushard QM Peters Development), was a producing oil field. Prior to construction of the property, oil well reviews were required, and on those lots where homes were to be built over abandoned oil wells, venting systems and methane barriers were required. ' Any of these situations could occur in an abandoned oil field. This is why it is necessary to have a good baseline study of conditions as they currently exist (at the minimum, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment) prior to any type action taking place on the site. Unless the plan calls for the abandonment, removal and cleanup of all oil operations prior to any development, the residential impacts will be significant and not insignificant as LAIN OFFICES , ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency i February 17, 1994 Page 86 , concluded in the DEIR. With oil facilities being left in production in certain areas of the project, there is the potential for fire or other associated hazards related to this operation. ' Noise, dust, odor and visual impacts of oil support facilities may have an even greater impact on surrounding areas. Appropriate mitigation measures must be taken to assure this compatibility. The DEIR does not address what the oil operator's needs may be with respect to adequate access for oil service vehicles, setbacks, or other required items necessary for continued oil production. ' b. Page 1-12, Table 1.5-1, IMPACT 4.2-9, REMOVAL OF CONTAMINATED MATERIALS: The DEIR does not provide or address the need for a removal plan for contaminated soils, nor the Phase I and Phase II environmental site assessments which are necessary to quantify , the clean up area. As development occurs and cleanup continues public health and safety risks increase. As noted above, oil cleanup standards are not specified within the DEIR.W If the project is developed in the County, future annexation to the City would be strenuously objected to by the City unless soils are cleaned up to City Soil , Standard #431-92 (a copy of which is attached as AMEX No. 38) and methane barriers and venting system are installed in all buildings and structures within 100 feet of an active or abandoned oil well or as required. Oil well reviews by a registered petroleum geologist ' would be required to allow any type of construction over an abandoned oil well. Investigation for the presence of methane gas anomalies are not included in the DEIR. A site specific plan should be developed to locate sources of fugitive methane gas. ' Areas contaminated with heavy metals are not adequately identified nor are clean up impacts discussed. It is a known that soil remediation and farming has occurred near the heliport site. This fact was not identified or discussed in the DEIR. 781 See subparagraph 2.b above. ' 1 ' LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS iOrange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 87 C. Page 1-12 Table 1.5-1 IMPACT 4.2-10 UNKNOWN WELL g , HEADS, SUMPS, AND PIPING: ' Providinga hazardous material assessment and disclosure statement does not mitigate the g impact of uncovering or releasing hazardous chemicals. The residual impact is significant, especially to the removal and restoration of the wetlands. A particularly vulnerable period occurs during excavation where physical/mechanical accidents generate great potential for ' the release and exposure to hazardous materials such as liquids and gases. The DEIR needs to detail the mitigation measures necessary to ensure worker safety and the health and safety of the surrounding community. ' 4. Presence of Organic Vapor. Pages 4.2-2 through 5 of the DEIR indicate that some of the prior investigation noted the presence of organic vapors in the airspace immediately above the taking of a soil sample in concentrations as high as 500 ppm. The DEIR does not state a threshold of significance for such an occurrence nor are the technical studies referenced in the DEIR appended to the DEIR or circulated for public review. The DEIR dismisses the presence of the organic vapor as originating in "naturally occurring methane at levels that are not dangerous, as opposed to representing a source of hydrocarbon contamination." This conclusion appears to be quoted from the 1988 The ' Earth Technology Corporation investigation which Figure 4.2-2 depicts as investigating a relatively small portion of the Lowlands. The DEIR does not specify the scope of investigation or the methods used to investigate the presence of dangerous constituents such ' as methane or other organic vapors in or around the project site. Therefore, it is not possible to determine whether the scope of investigation or analysis was adequate to support the County's conclusion that the presence of these vapors is not significant. ' 5. Methane and Oil Feld Gases. Page 4.2-26 of the DEIR states that the potential for leakage of methane or other oil field gases from "properly abandoned ' wells" exists but is remote. This statement is flawed in that it assumes all oil wells were properly abandoned (and given the long-term oil production at the site it is not possible to say whether older wells were properly abandoned or abandoned in a manner consistent with modern and presumably safer standards unless the situation is physically investigated). Moreover, the remoteness of a potential impact is only one of many factors affecting the significance of that impact. Since methane and oil field gases are potentially explosive, and since long term exposure to those gasses can cause human health hazards, the degree of harm and potential danger to human life is very significant. Since this potential impact could cause a great degree of harm and since the assumption on which it is based (i.e., that , i i LAW OFFICES ' ERVIN. COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFCSSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency ' February 17, 1994 Page 88 ' all oil wells were properly abandoned in accordance with current requirements regardless of i how long ago the well was abandoned) is made without support of any substantial evidence, , the DEIR improperly determined that the impact is insignificant. 6. Mitigating Impact of Corrosive Soils. With respect to Page 1-13, Impact 4.2-12 and Mitigation Measure 4.2-12a, the mitigation measure is not complete. The mitigation measure should be revised by adding, "in accordance with the utility or agency having jurisdiction." This is necessary since each utility owner may accept different mitigation measures to deal with corrosion of their facilities. Further, the DEIR states that information on corrosive soils is limited and that in the tests that were performed, the soils tested are highly corrosive to buried metal utilities. Could oil have been released into the , groundwater or estuaries as a result? Additionally, since no water system can be constructed underground without buried metal equipment, further study is needed in this area. The DEIR is inadequate in addressing the needs of any water supply purveyor for the area. , Corrosion can cost the residents of the project substantial sums of money and the chemical reactions involved can possibly introduce undesirable elements into the soil. As reported on page 4 in the publication by the American Water Works Association entitled, External ' Corrosion - Introduction to Chemistry and Control (AWWA M27, 1987), the National Bureau of Standards reported that the total annual cost of corrosion in the United States was on the order of $70 billion in 1975. Furthermore, it states that the health of water , consumers is threatened whenever extensive corrosion breaches the sanitary integrity of the water system. Uncontrolled corrosion can be major contributor to the problems of unreliable or inadequate fire-control systems. It concludes by saying that "it is evident that ' the ability to control corrosion in water utility systems can contribite greatly to dollar savings, public health protection, and safety of the public." The DEIR should discuss options for dealing with corrosion, the impacts of the options on the environment and what , process should be utilized to monitor the expected corrosion within the project. 7. Testing for VOCs and other Contamination in Soils. The DEIR ' indicates the limited nature of soils testing for VOCs. No testing was performed on the Mesa and no testing was performed in the vicinity of oil wells, valves or pipelines unless a "significant" leak was observed.791 Even with these exclusions, 19 acres were listed as ' areas of concern exhibiting visibly oily soils and "headspace" VOCs in excess of 50 ppm, 791 No standard is indicated in the DEIR for determining which petroleum leaks were 'insigniftcant'such that there was no further investigation of potential contamination. This failure makes the discussion in the DEIR too vague for worthwhile analysis. ' LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS iOrange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 89 plus an additional 13 acres of "potential concern." The presence of such widespread P Po P � P contamination, coupled with the history of the site, demands a more thorough investigation ' prior to approval of a land use plan which could place a significant number of new residences on potentially contaminated land. Mitigation Measure 4.1-lb (requiring all potential buyers of residences to be informed of the risks from onsite oil production activities) indicates that the County is aware of the potential hazards from the contamination of the project site but no effective mitigation measure is proposed. The impact remaining ' from the placement of new residential development on contaminated soil is a potential public health hazard and Appendix G, paragraph (v) of the Guidelines states that such a hazard and any activity involving the production or disposal of materials posing a hazard to human populations is "normally a significant effect on the environment. However, the DEIR assumes, without adequate support or explanation, that the impact of planning for residential development on contaminated soils is not a significant impact, presumably based on the statement (at page 4.2-10) that the oil operator will remediate all oil impacted soil and bring any spills into compliance with applicable regulations prior to "the release of the property for any subsequent land use.nB0' No plan, schedule, cleanup standards or ' analysis of the remediation is provided. Further, the DEIR does not require any coordination with the City. Page 4.2-10, In, 9-11 does not indicate that the property will be brought up to City standards. This requirement is appropriate and necessary since the property lies within the City's sphere of influence, is surrounded by the City, could be annexed in the future and will, in part, rely on City emergency response services in the event of upset conditions. ' 8. TPH Contamination. The DEIR concedes that investigation (the scope of which was not delineated) revealed TPH concentrations in the soil seven feet ' below the surface were in excess of levels which would constitute contamination. Given the broad scope of petroleum activities and the discovery of contamination, the DEIR must provide more specific information regarding the testing performed onsite (including boring locations and results) to determine the scope of the TPH (and any other) contamination and the plan for remediation of this contamination prior to any approvals for the construction of dwelling units or the restoration of the wetlands. Further, if soils lying seven feet below ' the surface are to be remediated, significant additional excavation and earth movement impacts (together with excavation related noise and air quality impacts) should be anticipated, and the DEIR should analyze and consider those impacts. 80/ See also Mitigation Measures 4.2-9, 4.2-10a and 4.2-10b which attempt to imply mitigation of the hazardous conditions merely by requiring compliance with mandatory State regulations. LAW OFFICES ' ERVIN, COHEN b JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency i February 17, 1994 Page 90 9. Soil/Groundwater Contamination from SWEPI Pipeline. Page 4.2- 5 of the DEIR notes that the soil/groundwater interface along the SWEPI pipeline was ' severely contaminated, including TPH, benzene and toluene contamination. The DEIR notes that the operator is in the process of cleaning the spill but no further information regarding the process or progress of the remediation is provided. Page 4.2-5, lines 17-26 notes the presence of a particular spill discovered in 1989 but provides no information regarding the size or extent of the spill, its cause or whether it still being remediated. All records of the cause, extent and nature of the soil clean up status should be circulated with , the DEIR so that the public and decision makers can obtain further information regarding the risks of the ongoing oil operations adjacent to the proposed residential neighborhood. 10. VOCs in Mesa Soils. The DEIR concedes that no testing was ' performed to ascertain the presence of VOCs in soils on the Mesa (unless a "significant" leak was detected). The DEIR assumes at page 4.2-24 that there will be no VOCs on the , Mesa because the existing oil and gas facilities will be removed prior to grading. Here again the DEIR ignores the possibility that further grading and construction will be required to remediate a hazardous condition prior to the commencement of the mass excavation and , grading required to prepare the ground for the proposed development. The DEIR's assumption that no hazardous materials will occur in soils on the Mesa is unwarranted in light of the lack of adequate investigation, the presence of hazardous materials from petroleum and gas operations in the immediate vicinity and the acknowledged potential for unknown and improperly abandoned facilities to exist in the area.g" The DEIR should explain in clear language why no toluene, benzene, xylene, ethylbenzene or other VOCs are ' anticipated to be encountered during all of the construction (including the activity related to the removal of oil and gas facilities) on the Mesa.W 811 The DEIR notes that only three wells are anticipated to be encountered on the Mesa, only one of which ' produced any oil. This information appears to be at odds with other records as noted in Part 111.1) of this letter. Furthermore, oil exploration has occurred on the site from the 1920s forward. Records regarding operations in the early period of oil production are slim (and none is presented for consideration with the DEIR). Tire DEIR notes , that the Mesa was the subject of a general investigation in 1987 but no borings or other samples from the Mesa appear to have been taken or tested. Under these circumstances, there is simply noway to know what the potential for encountering hazardous materials or wastes in the Mesa soils might be. 821 See also Line 16 and 17 of page 4.2-26 which states that the potential for leaking of oiheld gasses is , remote and therefore insignificant;however, this is not adequate analysis under CEQA. Even a remote possibility which imposes a significant peril to humans or habitat may be a significant impact. ' ' LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ' Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 ' Page 91 ' 11. Flammable Soils. The last of page e 4.2-24 states paragraph "Flammable soils are also not expected to occur onsite." No explanation or support is given for this statement. 12. Lead Concentrations from Bird Hunting. The DEIR states at page 4.2-2 that recreational bird hunting activities prior to the 1950s "are not considered to have contributed measurable level of lead bird shot to the site." This statement is not supported by any data whatsoever and there appears to have been no investigation into this issue. The informational sign at the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve indicates that the area was used extensively for gun club and related purposes and, therefore, further investigation into the presence and extent of lead deposits in the Bolsa Chica area from decades of gun club activities is required by CEQA. ' 13. Effect of Military Activities. DEIR page 4.2-2, In. 34 also assumes, without support, that the military construction and other activities in the project area have not in any manner brought contamination onto the site. This requires further investigation by the County and more specific discussion in the DEIR. At a minimum, the DEIR should present evidence of consultation with the military in the form of correspondence or reports from the military. The mere statement that military activities (including the construction of two large gun emplacements, a water cistern and related grading and other improvements) have not brought contamination onto the site is not sufficient under CEQA. ' 14. Phase I and Phase H Investigation of the Site is Required to Assess the Scope of the Potential Harm from Hazardous Materials/Wastes. The DEIR does not include any Phase I or Phase II site assessment for the project area. Data generated from a current Phase I assessment (and if indicated by the results of the Phase I assessment a Phase II assessment) covering the entire site must be included in the DEIR. ' a. Phase I Assessment. A Phase I site assessment should include all of the following: ' 1. Conduct library research to determine past uses. Also, search for leak spill reports or previous site investigations. Review existing records, aerial photographs, maps facilities drawings, and public agency records such as; a. Title reports/tax assessor records which might show past uses. LAW OFFICES , ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency ' February 17, 1994 Page 92 ' b. Any oil and gas records (including those of the State Division of Oil and Gas) if previous use involved oil and gas production. ' C. State and local water agency documents for existing on-site and near off-site hydrological and water quality data. ' d. State or local health department records to determine proximity of known or suspected public health risk sites, including locations of ' CERCLA (Superfund) and CERCLIS sites. e. Current or previous environmental permits or site listings. ' f. USGS open files for geological and soil conditions. g. Local water supply agency records to determine groundwater use in i the area. 2. Walk the site and map observed areas of previous use and potential , contamination, including sumps, catch basins, pipelines, storage areas, electrical transformers, tanks, odors, vapors, drum storage areas, discolored/oily dirt, and vegetated ' land which contains obvious base areas which need further investigation. 3. Produce report incorporating above information and recommendations as to ' the necessity to complete Phase II work. 4. If required by the findings in the Phase I site assessment, a Phase II site ' investigation would be conducted with limited testing of soils, soil gas vapors, and water (surface and groundwater) to determine the level of contaminants (but not the quantity). b. Phase II Assessment. Listed below are the procedures for ' formulating the Phase II: 1. Establish a sampling plan using the statistical model recommended by USEPA and endorsed by California DOHS, Appendix B to USEPA's "Permit Writer's Guidance for Land Treatment Demonstrations EPA/530-SW-86-032." The number of , samples to be collected in Phase II will be determined by this statistical model. The number of samples to be collected and tested in Phase III, if any, will be determined using ' LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ' Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 ' Page 93 the statistical model and the deviation in test results of the Phase II test program. Locations ' should be selected based on historical land uses. 2. Samples should be gathered in accordance with an approved QA/QC program utilizing guidance in USEPA's "Methods for Evaluation Solid Wastes: Physical and Chemical Methods, SW-846 3rd Nov. 1986, Chapter 1, Table 1-1," as appropriate. Site sampling plan and health and safety plan should be developed prior to fieldwork. ' 3. Phase II soil sampling should utilize hand augers, shovels, and/or back hoes. Drilling equipment should be used in Phase III sampling only after Phase 11 sampling has demonstrated the contamination has vertical penetrations deeper than the reach of conventional back hoe trenches with shoring. 4. Groundwater sampling should be completed utilizing wells existing on or near the site. Drilling new groundwater wells for most site investigations, if required, should occur in Phase III. Surface water samples should be taken from on site drainage ' areas. 5. Soil gas vapor samples should be taken from shallow probes (5-10 feet deep). ' Locations should be selected based on known or suspected sources of soil vapors described in historical land use documentation or previous soil sampling. In addition, gas samples should be taken from existing enclosed vaults, manholes, valve boxes, if any exist, to ' determine actual near surface conditions. 6. Samples should be tested utilizing the following appropriate analytical methods: Visually observed characteristics of all samples should be recorded. Those soil samples exhibiting oily characteristics through sight, feel, and/or smell should be tested for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon concentrations (TPH). Also, an indication of volatility of the ' petroleum hydrocarbon concentration should be recorded using and Organic Vapor Analyzer (OVA) and sampling the head space in sample containers which appears "oily." OVA readings can also be used to select soil samples for laboratory analysis. The remaining ' analytical methods should be performed on a percentage of the samples as determined by the Phase I results and the statistical model. 7. Produce report summarizing the Phase II sampling plan and the results. LAW OFFICES ' ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency ' February 17, 1994 Page 94 , 1 8. If the Phase II results satisfy the statistical model for obtaining a satisfactory confidence level and groundwater concerns have been addressed, then further testing may not be required. 9. Develop a remedial action plan for site clean-up utilizing all Phases I, 11, and III information. All areas of investigation need to be discussed; i.e., soil, soil gas vapors, surface water, and subsurface water. Depending on the size of the area to be remediated and test results, clean-up alternatives should be discussed. ' / / / ' LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ' Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 ' Page 95 SUGGESTED ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR SOIL SAMPLES Parameter Method 1. Visual Observation 2. pH EPA 9045 3. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon EPA 418.1/EPA 8015(M) 4. Metals:Barium,Chromium,Lead,Molybdenum,Nickel,Zinc,Mercury,Arsenic, EPA 6010 Selenium 5. Total Lead EPA 7420 OR 7421 ' 6. Soluble Lead W.E.T./239.1 7. Flammability 8. Halogenated Volatile Organics(EDB,EDC) EPA 8010 9. Aromatic Volatile Organics(BTX&E) EPA 8020 10. Volatile Organics EPA 8240 ' 11. Semivolatile Organics EPA 8270 12. Cyanide Reactivity EPA 9010 13. Sulfide Reactivity EPA 376.1 14. Acute Aquatic Toxicity aid.Method 810 ' 15. Polychlorinated Biphenyl's(PCB's) EPA 8080 16. Organophosphorus+ Organochlorine Pesticides 17. Chlorophenoxy and Phenolic Herbicides EPA 615 ' SUGGESTED ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR SOIL VAPOR SAMPLES Parameter Method 1. OVA 2. THC,TNMHC,Methane,BTX GC (Speciate for 02 determination) 1 LAW OFFICES ' ERVIN, COHEN 8 JESSUP A PI.RTNERSNIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency ' February 17, 1994 Page 96 ' ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR GROUNDWATER SAMPLES Parameter Method 1. PH EPA 150.1 2. Conductance EPA 00120.1 3. Halogenated Volatile Organics(EDB,EDC) EPA 8010 4. Aromatic Volatile Organics(BTX Bs E) EPA 8020 5. Halogenated and Aromatic Volatile Organic& 6. Semi-Volatile Organics EPA 8270 When contaminated areas are found under the Phase I and Phase H assessments, a Phase III assessment should be prepared as follows: ' 1. Collect and analyze additional samples using the analytical methods in Phase II investigation to satisfy the statistical model sample requirements as calculated using ' Phase II results. 2. Conduct a groundwater survey and water quality test program to ' determine groundwater levels, deep and shallow aquifers, gradients, recharge rates, soil porosity, and water quality. A hydrogeologist experienced in groundwater surveys should be used in conducting this program. ' 3. Develop a remedial action plan as described in Phase II, Item 7 above. 15. Construction and Use of 9 Million Gallon Reservoir. Page 4.2-32, ' lines 18-31 of the DEIR state that water service to the project will involve distribution from a proposed 9 million gallon reservoir. That is not an accurate statement since the reservoir proposed for the site is intended as mitigation for the Holly-Seacliff project, not the Bolsa ' Chica project. The reservoir, if constructed, may not be constructed underground because no design details have been completed or reviewed by any agency having jurisdiction. Statements referencing this reservoir as a solid project are premature. Line 21 states that , water from the reservoir will be devoted to extensive domestic and landscape use. Elsewhere in the report, it states that landscape irrigation will utilize reclaimed water. This 1 ' LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ' Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 ' Page 97 is confusing and needs to be clarified. Lines 24-26 are confusing and it is difficult to determine what the author meant to say. The construction of a facility designed to meet the UBC Standards for an essential facility is no assurance that the facility will survive an earthquake caused by the Newport-Inglewood fault in this area. To say that no significant adverse impacts are anticipated is a conclusion which is not supported in the DEIR. The ' DEIR goes on to state in lines 32-35 on this page that the proposed reservoir site may potentially be unsuitable for a water reservoir of this size, but offers no alternative to the facility. The report is inadequate in this regard. Judging from the DEIR, it appears to the City's Water Division that this may not be a preferred site for locating such a structure. According to Special Report 114, A Review of the Geology and Earthquake History of the ' Newport-Inglewood Structural Zone, Southern California (California Division of mines, 1974): Disruption of the ground surface, not necessarily along known faults, will probably occur during any future local shock of the magnitude and duration of the Long Beach earthquake. The extensive cracking of the ground in the vicinity of the mouth ' of the Santa Ana River, in Sunset Gap, near Seal Beach, and around Compton as the result of inelastic response of unconsolidated materials to shaking may actually represent a major cause of damage during future shocks. Unless they are specifically designed to withstand ground-surface disruption - a solution which is considered economically infeasible - single-family residences built on 'Ibottomland" may sustain damage representing a significant proportion of their total value. A loss of water for fire-fighting is a significant adverse impact that needs to be mitigated. This project should offer a stronger mitigation measure than that shown in the report by ' discussion of alternatives to this site and how the reservoir construction might be accomplished. Mitigation measures might include locating the reservoir further away from the area of seismicity or eliminating the reservoir. 16. Rupture of 9 Million Gallon Reservoir in Residential Neighborhood. Impact 4.2-13 notes the potential for a seismic event to cause a surface ' rupture at the site of the proposed 9 million gallon reservoir on the Mesa. The mitigation measure proposed suggests that the performance of a geologic investigation will prevent the rupture of the 9 million gallon water reservoir. The loss of the reservoir in the event of an earthquake would create a significant adverse impact on fire protection and would represent a significant impact and the potential for this to happen must be analyzed as a significant risk of upset. A geologic investigation will not in itself mitigate the potential rupture of the LAW OFFICES , ERVIN, COHEN Fs JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency ' February 17, 1994 Page 98 ' reservoir structure. The data uncovered in the investigation may provide direction to the designers and planners of the reservoir. It appears, however, that the DEIR suggests strong ' evidence that construction of a water reservoir on this site may not be recommended. Since the DEIR is not specific in this regard, however, the mitigation measure proposed will in essence not do anything to change the existing condition or make the existing condition ' satisfactory for construction of an acceptable water reservoir. Thus, the "Residual Impact After Mitigation" is not "insignificant" as shown. More research and discussion is needed in the report to determine if this site should contain a water reservoir of this size from a ' geologic standpoint. In addition, the DEIR states that the City would be the authority to issue a grading permit; however, since the proposed reservoir site is located within County jurisdiction, the City would not issue a grading permit. , 17. Fault Locations. Figure 4.2-5 shows numerous fault lines traversing the Mesa from northwest to southeast.S" Although no scale is provided on this Figure ' nor on Figure 4.2-6, it appears that only certain of the faults have been taken into account in defining the zones where habitable structures are prohibited. Further, if one overlays the planned community development plan of Figure 3.2-3 over figure 4.2-6, it appears that ' some development (planning areas 8 and 9) may in fact intrude into the exclusionary zone. Also, Figure 4.2-5 ignores offshore faults and incompletely describes other faults which also could contribute significantly to seismic dangers in the area. Page 4.2-10, In. 37-40 ' briefly describes the North Branch of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, however, it does not mention that it is an active fault, having caused the destructive 1933 Long Beach earthquake, and represents a severe surface rupture hazard to the proposed development. ' Page 4.2-10, In. 45-50 discusses the Offshore Palos Verdes fault and page 4.2-14, In. 1-5, discuss the Pitas-Point Ventura Faults, but in neither paragraph does the DEIR discuss the offshore San Clemente Escarpment Fault that may represent an equally high seismic hazard ' especially from the viewpoint of tsunami generation. This fault should be included in the discussion. These inconsistencies and omissions require further analysis, correction and 831 Usually, an EIR will include a table showing the active faults which may affect j`ect the site, their distance from ' the site, the maximum credible earthquake value they could produce, and the potential g forces which might be experienced on the site. Ais type of table is critical to an understanding by the public of the complicated geology of the area. Its omission obfuscates the analysis of the DEIR in violation of CEQA. ' ' LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 99 recirculation of the DEIR prior to certification.8' The DEIR at pages 4.2-14 through 15 indicates that there have been no studies confirming whether the Bolsa Fairview fault is ' potentially active and that fault has been assumed to be potentially active. The DEIR states on page 4.2-15 that the Bolsa Fairview Fault and the South Branch Fault have been interpretedgs' as not being active faults; however, the DEIR also states that until 1986 both ' faults were shown on the applicable Alquist-Priolo maps but were deleted based on further work from the owner's consultants.86' All of the studies and conclusions of the consultants must be produced for this discussion to be meaningful and to permit informed public review of the DEIR. Impact 4.2-13 indicates a concern that the existence of splay faults around the location of the 9 million gallon reservoir (planning area 4B) could cause ' surface rupture during a seismic event. This is inconsistent with the analysis in Figures 4.2-6 and 4.2-7 and the accompanying text which indicate that no potentially active faults with the potential to cause surface rupture exist in the area of the proposed reservoir. The 841 The description of the seismic setting of the Project is somewhat technical and requires further explanation. For example, the potential of a seismic event along the Palos Verdes Fault is described as "6.4<M8>7" with a 'reference interval of 35 years.' In contrast,the potential for a seismic event along the Pitas Point-Ventura Fault is described as "M7 to 7.5'and no "reference interval'is described. No information is provided to enable the lay public (or the County's Board of Supervisors) to decipher these references. For example, what is the difference between magnitudes measured on the 'M.'scale versus the 'M' scale? What is the meaning of a "reference interval'?Why is a reference interval given in the case of one measurement and not in the others? This is in direct violation of Guidelines § 15140 which mandates, "EIRs shall be written in plain language and may use appropriate ' graphics so the decision-makers and the public can rapidly understand the documents." &5/ The DEIR avoids affirmatively stating who has interpreted the faults to be pre-Holocene (i.e.,not currently active). The parenthetical following each determination -- '(WCC- 1984a)" -- indicates that Woodward Clyde Consultants ("WCC")had performed the study on which this interpretation is based;however, the study was not appended to the DEIR and was not made available for public review and,therefore no critical analysis of the WCC ,findings or methods is possible. This is a violation of CEQA. 861 This statement reveals two further potential flaws in the County's analysis. First, it may indicate the County's failure to independently review and analyze this issue as is required by PRC § 21801.2. Further, the DEIR's analysis of seismic impacts on the local residences and the potential disruption to the planned residential neighborhoods on the Mesa appears limited to the potential for surface rupture. However, as the January 17, 1994 Northridge earthquake demonstrates,seismic events can be deadly even where no significant surface rupture occurs. Are there thrust faults known to exist in the Bolsa Chica area? How would the presence of these faults affect the conclusions of the DEIR with respect to ground acceleration, shaking and surface rupture. The seismic shaking analysis is 10 years old and there have been new discoveries made in other areas regarding previously undiscovered potential for seismic danger. What investigation has been made regarding the potential for similar discoveries with respect to the Project site? LAW OF FiCES ' ERVIN, COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency ' February 17, 1994 Page 100 ' concern noted (and assumed to be mitigated by the performance of further geological study in the future) by Impact 4.2-13 indicates that there is reason to be concerned regarding the ' placement of medium and high density residential areas (Planning Areas 11 and 12) immediately adjacent to the reservoir, both due to the potential for water damage/injury in the event of rupture of the reservoir during a seismic event and also due to the potential for ' splay fault ruptures under the residences themselves. 18. Fault Movement. Page 4.2-14 and the following section provides a , discussion of the surface rupture potential of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone through the proposed project site but the Active Fault Zone Map, Figure 4.2-6 and Figure 4.2-7 should be referenced on lines 21, 32, 37 and 43 on page 4.2-15. The potential for surface , rupture along this fault represents a major environmental impact which cannot be completely mitigated, although higher design standards would substantially reduce potential impacts. Page 4.2-26, lines 44-47 discusses the potential for fault rupture. It apparently is , listed as "found not to be significant" because it is being mitigated by use of an exclusionary zone for habitable structures. Why is it not listed in Section 4.2.3.2, Significant Impacts of Project Prior to Mitigation, with the "Mitigating" exclusionary zone listed as a mitigation in Section 4.2.3.4 Mitigation Measures? Also, as is noted above, the planned exclusionary zone may not be a sufficient mitigation in light of recent earthquake experience. Page 4.2-31, In. 43-47 also mentions the potential for fault rupture but dismisses it because of an exclusionary zone. Again, it should be listed as a significant impact and then the exclusionary zone listed as a mitigation measure in Section 4.2.3.4. Finally, the letter from Chambers Group submitted with this letter as ANNEX No. 30 ' indicates that recent studies of the Newport-Inglewood fault show that an average of 7 km of right lateral displacement has occurred along the fault since early Pliocene time. 19. Seismic Shaking. The DEIR states, at page 4.2-14, that WCC presented "methods of analysis and results" to the California Diwsion of Mines and Geology ("CDMG") and that by letter of February 22, 1985, CDMG notified WCC that its analysis and results were accepted by the CDMG as "suitably conservative" for the Bolsa Chica project. Neither the WCC studies not the CDMG letter were made available for review or comment. The studies should both be summarized more fully and copies should ' be made available to EIR reviewers. This is particularly important with issues of this level of importance for public safety. Further, the DEIR states, without support, that the WCC 1 1 LAW OFFICES ERVIN . COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 1 Page 101 method f i till represents th t f ev n though it is over ten ears et od o analysis sa State o the art, a oug y old.87 No explanation is offered regarding whether the assumptions which were suitably 1 conservative for the projects under consideration in 1985 and before are still considered appropriate under today's standards and for the project which is currently under consideration. Is the .25g ground acceleration figure still considered the appropriate ceiling? Is there further study of the area which should be performed to determine whether the .25g ground acceleration figure is still accurate in light of advances in seismology which have occurred during the past 10 years? The DEIR also states that the .25g ground acceleration figure is "not expected to be exceeded." Under what conditions would it be exceeded? What is the probability of such an event? What would the potential consequences be to human life, wildlife and property if such an event were to occur and how would those consequences compare to an event which caused ground acceleration at a maximum of .25g? The ground acceleration of 0.25g apparently was determined using a probabilistic model for a number of faults in Southern California for a design life of 200 years, however, the discussion in the DEIR does not state the probability of exceeding the 0.25g figure. These probabilities should be spelled out very clearly so that the County, City and public know what risk they are taking assuming that ground shaking will not exceed the 0.259 figure used in the DEIR. The UBC uses a much higher value of 0.4g as spelled out on line 29-31, page 4.2-26. Also a deterministic evaluation should be included for the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, should it produce a major 6.5-7.0 magnitude event sometime during the next 200 years. Such an earthquake could produce higher ground accelerations than the 0.25g assumed by the DEIR. 871 In its letter to the Corps, dated April 1, 1992, The Chambers Group stated. Actual strong ground motion observed during recent California earthquakes at close to moderate distances from causative fault rupture generally exceed the peak acceleration value presented in the WCC report for a wide range of magnitudes, (from about M5.0 to 7.1). In many cases, and, in fact,for relatively small magnitude events (about M5.0 to 5.5)these recorded peak acceleration values are more than 100% greater than the WCC "approved" value. [References Omitted] As has repeatedly been the case.formerly "approved levels of seismic shaking are soon discovered ' to be inadeguate as the seismological community gains more strong motion data with each new earthquake. For the Loma Prieta earthquake 'soft'bayshore sites had peak ground acceleration values that greatly exceeded the values predicted from the attenuation relationships." The preparer of the DEIR itself had significant misgivings regarding the reliance on the WCC ground shaking data especially with respect to the potential for increased ground shaking in the soft soils associated with approximately 1,600 of the dwelling units to be developed as part of the project within the Study Area. LAW OFF ICES N ERVIN. COHE 8 JESSUP A FARTNERSNIP INCLUDING PROFCSSIONAL CORPORATION5 Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 102 ' 20. Seismic Impacts During Construction. Page 4.2-24 of the DEIR states that seismic activity and associated hazards can not be averted but concludes that with the application of standard safety precautions no significant impact will occur. This implicitly assumes that standard safety precautions will eliminate the potential for major impacts if seismic activity occurs during sensitive operations such as the removal of the . existing oil and gas pipelines across the Mesa.L" The DEIR also assumes that no impact will occur from grading or other construction operations on the Mesa since the oil operations will be removed prior to grading and, therefore, are not anticipated to create significant impacts during construction. This ignores that part of the project construction include the removal of the oil and gas facilities, many of which are very old and are likely to have experience significant corrosion rendering them more susceptible to releasing materials into the environment when disrupted by construction or seismic event. Thus, even though the facilities will have been removed once construction progresses to the point where grading can commence, the DEIR should consider the construction period impacts of removing the oil and gas equipment (including but not limited to any soils removal required due to hydrocarbon, heavy metal or other contamination which may be anticipated in a site which has had a 70 year history of oil and gas exploration and production). Further, page 4.2-26, line 26 states that mitigation work will reduce the potential impact of hazardous materials to a level of insignificance; however, the type of mitigation work is unspecified and, therefore, the statement that impacts will be insignificant is wholly conclusory. Such mitigation must be more fully explained and, for the reasons stated in paragraph 7 above, must meet the applicable City standards. 21. Slope Stability/Change in Topography at MWD Parcel. Page 4.2- ' 25 of the DEIR considers the import of 800,000 cubic yards of fill and the elevation of the area an averse of 11 feet of fill and dismisses the impact as insignificant since slope instability is unlikely due to the currently flat topography. Even if slope stability is not a concern with such a massive earth movement and fill operation,89' the change of 881 The January 17, 1994 earthquake in Northridge provides an example of the potential harm which can result from seismic shaking of oil facilities. As a consequence of the earthquake, an oil pipeline operated by the Atlantic Richfield Company ruptured, spoiling ESHAs connected with the Santa Clara River with over 200,000 gallons of crude oil. This is the type of harm which can occur in the project area, yet the DEIR does not detail any manner for mitigating this potentially disastrous situation. The DEIR is legally deficient in this regard. 891 The conclusion that no slope stability problems are anticipated should be verified with a licensed soils engineer familiar with similar filling and grading operations. Are there particular mitigation measures or (continued...) LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN Fi JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 103 topographyma be a si significant impact in and of itself. The DEIR undertakes no analysis Y g P Y of this issue and ignores a change of topography as a potentially significant impact. 22. Tsunamis and Seiches. The DEIR dismisses the potential for significant "direct" effects on the Mesa from tsunami and seiches to be remote because "proposed development and public facilities will be over +10 feet MSL and insulated by Inner Bolsa Bay and a muted tidal area from Bolsa State beach;" however, planning areas 5-9 are directly adjacent to RPA 1D which is a full tidal area. Also, the conceptual grading plan shows that there will be a sudden 20 to 30 foot drop between the western end of the elevated planning areas (i.e., areas 5, 6 and 7) and RPA 1D and Inner Bolsa Bay. It is not clear what impact a potential tsunami would have on this slope or wall.90' Further, there is no discussion regarding how the presence of this wall or steep slope would affect the energy of the tsunami or seiche.91 The Corps (Houston and Garcia, 1974 and a revised study by Houston) predicts tsunami runup elevations of 5-6.5 feet for a 100-year recurrence interval and 7-10 feet of a 500-year recurrence interval along the West CoastA What does this mean for the Bolsa Chica Lowlands and proposed Lowlands development? The discussion in the DEIR does not say. Also, some offshore faults are discussed but not all. How about the San Clemente Escarpment Fault? What would happen to the Lowlands should a 13.1-19.7 foot tsunami occur as they say is possible in the Santa Barbara Channel? Several faults and studies are referenced but none are related or addressed to the Bolsa i 891(...continued) requirements with respect to the fill and compaction of the 800,000 cu. yds. of soil which should be implemented and have been omitted? How does the 800,000 cu. yds noted here relate to the figure of approximately 1,906,000 cu. yds. of import required for the site as shown in Figure 4.12-26? 901 It is not clear from the DEIR whether the 20 to 30 foot drop would be in the form of a slope or some son of wall (perhaps a retaining wall). If this drop is merely a slope, it may be steep and in that case the pressure of a tsunami or similar event could cause some failure in the slope. If it is a wall,the viewshed impacts of that wall should be assessed and the means and methods of constructing the wall to withstand tsunami or seiche should be set forth in the DEIR. 911 It is possible that the 30 foot vertical (or nearly vertical) surface might act to focus the energy of the tsunami toward the project or increase the potential energy of the wave. This should be studied further. 921 In the letter from the Chambers Group annexed to this letter as ANNEX No. 30,indicates that certain faults capable of generating tsunami hazards may not have been considered in the Houston and Garcia report. Chambers Group expressly stated that the potential for tsunami should be reevaluated in detail and an analysis of the potential for tsunami runup must be included. LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN £3 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 104 Chica Lowlands. Analysis of the effect of tsunami generated by offshore faults should be included in the EIR. Page 4.2-27, lines 8-12 of the DEIR discusses the potential for tsunami as "found not to be significant." This discussion in the DEIR has the same problems as discussed under construction impacts and the same comments apply. Tsunami potential is simply not adequately handled. The maximum design tsunami needs to be identified and maximum runup maps prepared. This needs to be done before it can be determined what the impact on the Lowlands development will be, or what mitigation might be required. Page 4.2-32 considers seismic impacts on the development of the Lowlands but tsunami hazard is not mentioned here. It is not covered well in the prior sections, and it has not been determined whether or not it is a "Significant Impact," but it cannot be ignored as currently is true under the DEIR. 23. Operational Impacts from Wetlands Restoration. The DEIR states at page 4.2-27, In. 31 that seismic shaking is "not expected" to adversely impact dikes, beams or the inlet structure. This statement must be supported by more detailed data regarding the construction and design of these facilities. The DEIR notes the potential for liquefaction in the sheet piling behind the tidal inlet but assumes, without support, that the temporary nature of the problem would prevent permanent impact. Yet, the DEIR recognizes that permanent post-liquefaction settlement of up to 2 inches is possible in other structures. This discrepancy is confusing to the lay reader and must be more fully explained if the document is to serve its function under CEQA. 24. Liquefaction. Page 4.2-18 discusses liquefaction and indicates that TETC has made several investigations and determined that some liquefaction is possible in some areas. It does not say where this liquefiable material is located, what design earthquake was used or what the results of such liquefaction would be. Did they use their recommended ground acceleration of 0.25g, the U.B.C. guideline of 0.4g, or some other figure? Because of this lack of specificity and the possible use of inadequate acceleration values, this discussion does not adequately define or quantify the potential hazard of liquefaction. Page 4.2-29, line 37 of the DEIR concedes that liquefaction could cause residential structures in the Lowlands to settle by as much as 2 inches. Although a post liquefaction settlement of up to 2 inches may be seen as insignificant by the County, it is doubtful than a property owner would be happy with any level of settlement exceeding a mere fraction of an inch, particularly if differential settlement occurs.93' The DEIR 931 Differential settlement (i.e., when one portion of the structure settles and is displaced to a greater extent than other portions) is damaging to structures and can easily render a residence unhabitable. LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN b JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 105 provides no support which indicates the 2 inches criterion relied upon by the County is acceptable. At a minimum, homebuyers must be informed that their homes could sink up to 2 inches. Further, the potential for di rential settlement due to liquefaction is nowhere considered. Severe and sudden differential settlement will cause severe damage to structures and could rupture gas and utility lines, causing further damage and danger to project residents. Page 4.3-15 of the DEIR states that the effectiveness of the proposed cut- off wall to mitigate a rise in groundwater in the residential development of the Lowlands has not been proven. Many of the impacts noted in Chapter 4.2 (including potential liquefaction, sloughing and other soils/geology impacts) may be affected by the failure to mitigate the rise in groundwater as is conceded to be possible in Chapter 4.3 of the document. Further study regarding there potential impacts is required. The problems raised by the DEIR warrant extensive studies relating to liquefaction and the necessary mitigation. A complete soil classification study is necessary. 25. No Consideration of Impact of Rolling Surcharge Method. The DEIR proposes to reduce the impacts of liquefaction by the use of either DDC compaction or a rolling surcharge method with dewatering. Neither method is adequately analyzed for the impacts. The discussion of the rolling surcharge method is particularly deficient. Where will the surcharge material come from? How will it be emplaced? The recirculated DEIR must more fully describe both methods and must analyze the impacts of using them. 26. Inadequate Discussion of Soil Import Activities. Chapter 4.2 does not consider the significant amounts of earth which will be imported into the site in connection with the proposed development and restoration. Based solely on a reading of the chapter devoted to soils and geological (i.e., earth) impacts, the reader cannot understand the mountainous amount of the earth to be imported to the site. Only in the recesses of the aesthetics chapter lies a diagram and table (Figure 4.12-26) which indicates that 1,906,233 cubic yards of earth will be required to complete the grading needed for the proposed development of the Mesa and for the filling and development of the wetlands. For purposes of understanding the scope of that earthmoving operation, the largest double bottom-dump earth hauling truck can hold approximately 17 cubic yards of uncompacted earth. Thus, in excess of 112,000 round truck trips will be required to haul the required import of earth from offsite. If a jobsite operates 8-hours per day, 5 days per week, 51 weeks per year and a truck can be off-loaded in two minutes, the earth import operation, if conducted continuously (i.e., 240 trucks over an 8-hour day over 93.33 consecutive weeks of import) would require nearly 22 months to complete before taking the required onsite M L^VY OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 106 earthwork into account.44' The obvious alteration to natural landforms within the coastal zone, movement of earth, potential slope and earth instability is dismissed by the DEIR without adequate discussion. The placement of the relevant information within the aesthetics chapter of the DEIR makes it virtually impossible for the lay public or the decision-makers to glean the significance of the earth import operations. The DEIR must be rewritten and recirculated with a clearer explanation and full assessment of this impact, including the earth, air quality, traffic and water quality impacts as well as the potential inconsistency with Coastal Act policies arising from the substantial transformation of the contour of the western face of the Mesa. 27. Future Mitigation Plans Intended to Address Current Impacts. The following items are examples of the future studies and mitigation plans/measures to be developed in the future but which are currently relied upon by the DEIR for mitigation of significant adverse seismic/geology impacts from the project: a. Investigation and Remediation of Hazardous Wastes. The DEIR permits plans for investigation and manifesting of the materials existing onsite to be performed in the future without specifying the objective performance criteria or parameters for the onsite investigation of the nature and amount of hazardous material on the project site. 941 Of course, it may be possible to empty more than one truck at a time depending on the area being disrupted by import,grading and compaction operations and the phasing of the work The problem with the DEIR is that no information is given regarding these matters. Accordingly, the lay reader must examine the issue based upon the conservative assumptions set forth in this letter. These assumptions and the calculation of the time required for import of soil are as follows: 1,906,233 cu. yds offsite import amount 17 cu. vds per truck minutes/day 8 hours/day = 4 112,131 Total JJ of Trucks 80 1 truck emptied every 2 minutes 240 Trucks emptied per work day 112,000 Total Trucks ®5 work days per week =1.200 Trucks per work week = 1,200 trucks per week 93.33 Total Required Work Weeks 93.33 work weeks _ 51 weeks/year = 1.83 years = 1 year 10 months required for import only LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ' Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 107 b. Seismic PDFs. Page 4.2-26 of the DEIR indicates that project design standard shall minimize the effect horizontal ground shaking by using ground response data to be "compiled to the satisfaction of the County and the State" prior to the issuance of building permits but no criteria for such satisfaction is provided. In addition, Koll's geotechnical consultant is to provide future data regarding the area potentially prone to bluff or slope failures. The methods and standards for making such a determination are not stated in the DEIR. C. Instability of Slopgs. Mitigation Measures 4.2-1 through 4.2-5 all presume that the investigation and report of a registered geologist will eliminate the potential slope instability which the extensive earth moving, grading and filling operations on the site will require. Since there is no geotechnical report appended to the DEIR and since there are no minimum grading requirements included in the mitigation measure, it is not possible to evaluate the DEIR's assumption that these mitigation measures would reduce the impacts of slope instability to an insignificant level. d. Collapsible Soils. Mitigation Measure No. 4.2-6 relies on the future report of a geotechnical consultant to avoid the disruption which will occur if infrastructure or improvements are constructed on or about over-saturated or collapsible soils. There are no parameters in the DEIR for the scope of this report nor for the criteria which will determine when soils are acceptable. Further, this mitigation measure ignores the issues noted at Page 4.3-15 of the DEIR regarding the potential for continued elevation of groundwater levels despite the proposed cut off wall. Are these impacts related? The DEIR should address these problems in a more straightforward and coherent manner. 28. Mitigation Measures which Are Erroneously Assumed to Mitigate Significant Impacts. The following lists those geology/seismicity related impacts which the DEIR assumes to be mitigated to below a level of significance by mitigation measures which do not appear to do so or the effect of which is not supported or documented: a. Compliance with UBC Standards Is Not Sufficient. UBC Building Standards and Alquist-Priolo Compliance as presumed to mitigate the impacts of the known faults in the vicinity to a level of insignificance Set p.4.2-26. Given recent experience with fatalities in residential structures in the Northridge Earthquake, this assumption should be re-evaluated. LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIOMAI CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 108 b. Additional Protection of Water Lines Crossing Fault Areas. Page 4.2-37, In. 1-9 set forth the mitigation measures intended to protect utilities in the immediate vicinity of fault areas. Due to the severity of disruption caused when the Newport-Inglewood Fault should cause surface rupture, more than manual valving is needed for water lines crossing this fault. The currently proposed mitigation measure 4.2-14 is conceded not to be sufficient to mitigate the impact of potential disruption from utilities crossing a fault line. However, there are indeed methods that can be employed to handle this problem. Methods that should be discussed include automatic valving and flexible pipelines. More analysis and discussion is needed in this area as the DEIR is inadequate in presenting all of the feasible possibilities for mitigation of the danger to the public. Other possibilities may not be desirable by the water utility; nonetheless, they should be explored both from an engineering standpoint as well as from the viewpoint of the water utility. The same is true for all utilities needed in the same location. Coordination with the affected utility should be included. 29. Miscellaneous. a. 1991 UBC. The DEIR does not indicate whether the reference to Section 2312 of the Uniform Building Code ("UBC") appears to be a reference to the standards of the 1988 edition of the UBC. The UBC has been revised in the 1991 California Building Code and the DEIR should note any additional restrictions. b. Grading and Fill in Lowlands. Page 4.2-25, In. 17-21 discusses the MWD parcel and states that it will be filled to an elevation as high as +28 feet MSL and that the average fill will be 11.0 feet. It does not discuss or say what will happen on the other lowland parcels to be developed. It also does not describe the interface with the adjacent Lowlands and wetlands or adequately describe how liquefaction of soils beneath residences constructed on the fill would be reduced to an insignificant impact as claimed by the DEIR. This information must be provided in the recirculated DEIR. C. Underground Utilities. Impact 4.2-14, on page 4.2-37, indicates that underground utilities would be disrupted by fault rupture in the exclusionary zone. This "unavoidable impact" could be partially mitigated with proper planning, especially in the area of safety and immediate repair. Utilities should be placed or designed to minimize damage in the event of rupture or displacement and for ease of quick repair. This would not eliminate the impact but would mitigate the impact better than the current DEIR. LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ' Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 109 n - - i i d. Subside ce. Page 4.2 19, 4.2 15: Current subsidence data s approximately 25 years old. The EIR needs to review the current subsidence rate and identify if mitigation, i.e. water pressurization, is adequate. e. Page 4.2-23: #2 Ground movement due to earthquakes and subsidence will occur and cannot be mitigated. #6 The EIR does not adequately address the volume of contaminated soil that needs to be removed and the impacts on landfills. #7 During remediation and excavation the general public will be exposed to hazardous materials. The EIR does not discuss this impact or mitigation. #8 Currently, heavy metal contamination exceeds State standards. According to the DEIR the only areas tested for heavy metals were within the water bodies. Water contamination is likely the result of run off from the surrounding soils and, accordingly, the DEIR should have assessed the heavy metal content within both the soils and the water bodies. Table 4.4-8 shows the analytical data for tests conducted in water areas, but no test results are shown with respect to the surrounding land. State standards for metals are not included in the DEIR nor is documentation discussing hazardous constituents of crude oil. f. Page 4.2-24. Line 35-37: A personal communication is not an adequate site assessment. Complete Phase I and, very likely, Phase II environmental site assessments must be completed and included in the EIR. g. Page 4.2-24. Line 44: Removing oil operations and equipment before grading and construction does not in itself eliminate the adverse impacts of contaminated soils. Abandoned areas or oil areas that are not in current use must be evaluated through a site assessment. A total of fourteen (14) drill sites exist on the Mesa which are shown in Figure 3, attached to this letter as ANNEX No. 50. Four (4) of the drill sites are active oil wells. However, as of December 1993 permits were pulled in order to abandon two (2) of the four (4) wells. Five (5) of the drill sites are plugged and abandoned oil wells with no other details. The remaining five (5) drill sites are plugged and abandoned dry holes which were drilled between 1923 and 1926 to depths ranging from LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN Fti JESSUP A PAVTNERSNIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency , February 17, 1994 Page 110 4,034 feet to 6,680 feet. All of these drill sites have potentially contributed to heavy metal contamination either through drilling mud or through heavy metals removed from the drill holes themselves. Before development of the Mesa occurs, all of these drill sites need to be evaluated and analyzed. It is very likely that the nine (9) oil wells also involved oil sumps which have not been located. h. Page 4.2-25. Line 4: This does not meet City Soil Specification 431-92 and has an adverse impact if City annexation is ultimately desired by Koll or the residents of the development after build-out. i. Page 4.2-26, Line 25: Impacts of undiscovered oil lines, sumps and pockets of contamination have not been reviewed nor has a testing and mitigation plan been discussed. j. Page 4.2-35, Line 38: Mitigation measure 4.2-10a does not adequately mitigate undocumented pipelines sumps or contaminated soil pockets that will be discovered during construction. k. Page 4.2-35. Line 44: Mitigation 4.2-10b: As written the DEIR prohibits on-site remediation. The DEIR needs to address what materials are contaminated and can be remediated on site, and what materials must be disposed of in a landfill. F. CHAPTER 4.3 - SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY 'I 1. Potential For Flooding. Additional emphasis and analysis should be given to, not only the undersized sections of the EGGW Channel, but detailed locations of flooding experienced in 1967, 1974 and 1983 in addition to details relating to the undersizing, age and condition of existing pumping facilities. It should also be noted that local funds are unavailable for needed improvements. It should be noted that, for example, on March 1, 1983, the EGGW system experienced a storm greatly in excess of 100 year. Parts of the system received as much as a 1000 year storm. 2. Use of 100-year Flood Event Understates the Impacts. Page 4.3- 11, In. 30-32 states that construction within the MWD property will eliminate flood storage capacity, and as shown in Table 4.3-2, this could result in flood depths of 8.3 feet at the intersection of Graham and Kenilworth in the event of a breach of the Santa Ana River. LAW OFFICES ERVIN . COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSMIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 111 The indicated mitigation measure is to delay construction in this area until after construction of the Santa Ana River Project which will increase the flood protection capacity of the Santa Ana River to a 100 year level of protection. The 100 year level of flood protection is an arbitrary threshold established by FEMA for purposes of insuring property. However, an 8.3 foot depth of flooding should also raise concerns about the threat to human life. It may not be acceptable to allow such a threat to occur at the arbitrary limit of the "100 year event"? When the Corps evaluates improvements that could threaten human life the higher standard of "Standard Project Flood" is used. The "Standard Project Flood" is the maximum credible event, and this is the appropriate flood event to consider in this case. Furthermore it is not acceptable to subject surrounding properties to an increased flood threat in any event, including an event greater than the arbitrary 100 year event. The project must be designed to prevent obstructing drainage of upstream properties in the event of a breach of the Santa Ana River during the maximum credible event, which is usually considered to be the "Standard Project Flood". 3. Flooding of Pacific Coast Highway. There is a section of Pacific Coast Highway in the vicinity of the proposed tidal inlet which is low-lying and often floods during storms. As a result, the highway is shut down to traffic - sometimes for days at a time. This has a direct detrimental effect upon the capacity of the arterial r highway system in the study area. Until this problem is mitigated, the traffic capacity of Pacific Coast Highway may be considered unreliable. We would, therefore, consider this mitigation measure to be the responsibility of the developer, since even more traffic will be generated on Pacific Coast Highway as a result of the proposed development. 4. Inundation and Flooding During Construction Period. Page 4.3-15 of the document considers that a major storm might occur during the portion of the construction period when the levees of the EGGW channels have been removed but prior to the construction of the tidal inlet. The DEIR concludes that the runoff could overflow the wetlands, flood Pacific Coast Highway, damage berms and flood the residential development in the Lowlands. Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 purports to address this impact by phasing the proposed construction so that this potentially dangerous period will be limited to April 15 and October 15 of the same year. This mitigation measure does not discuss the possibility of a major storm during construction between April 15 and October 15 nor does it address the substantial possibility that construction could be delayed so that, despite the phasing plan, the tidal inlet is not operational prior to October 15 as planned. If the EGGW Channel levies are down and the tidal inlet construction is underway, tremendous LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 112 erosion could be experienced in a very short time, e.g., Pacific Coast Highway could be undercut. 5. New Pump Station for EGGW Channel. Page 4.3-11, lines 37-50 of the DEIR indicates that a new pump station will be constructed to convey water to the EGGW Channel. The DEIR is silent regarding who will own, operate and maintain the new pump station and who will inspect and monitor for siltation. Further, the DEIR does not consider who will have responsibility to clean out silt buildup which will occur. The financing for the facility and its ongoing costs of operation are likewise not discussed. Page 4.3-12, lines 11-18 of the document indicate that if siltation builds up (especially during site grading operations) the new pump stations may malfunction and, in that event, flooding of the residential neighborhood in the vicinity of the pump station will occur. Page 4.3-14, lines 1-20 indicate that a power failure during a storm would cause flooding which should be considered a significant impact. The primary source of power for the pump station is not mentioned. This is inadequate. It suggests the ability to handle a 100 year storm with an alternative power source such as natural gas. The discussion of the DEIR at this point is confusing. Must two stations be operating, or will one station carry the 100 year discharge if an alternative power source is used? Why not use natural gas as the primary source as it is more reliable and liquefied petroleum gas can be used as a backup fuel source? The mitigation of the significant flooding impact is not convincing. There may be no acceptable mitigation measure in this regard. Use of a standby pump is typically a risky situation unless the pump receives regular exercise and maintenance. Natural gas powered pumps are notorious for requiring large amounts of both. Without this, they may be more unreliable than the primary pump(s). Finally, is the "Springdale pump station" referring to the City's existing Bolsa Chica flood control pump station? If not, what and where is the Springdale facility? If this is to be constructed, how much will it cost and who will pay for it? Finally, since the pump station will only operate as well as it is maintained, who will do so? What training or special qualifications must they have? Who will pay the ongoing cost? A major problem found early on in the operation of the existing City storm drain pump stations is that they must be tested regularly under normal loads or they cannot be expected to perform adequately under the conditions for which it will be called upon. What special conditions/training/precautions will be included in this project to ensure their reliable operation? 6. Flooding of Residential Neighborhoods Due to Rerouting of Bolsa Chica Pump Station. Page 4.3-15, lines 1-I I (Impact 4.3-1) notes that the re-routing of the existing pump station could result in an ineffective, discontinuous path for water LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP I"CLU1I14G PNOIESSIONAL COAPO"ATI045 Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 113 discharge. This re-routing is part of the proposed grading and drainage plan described at page 4.3-14 through 15. That plan indicates that, in addition to the existing pump station, two new stations, at "opposing ends" of the residential development area, would operate in conjunction with the re-routed existing station. Who would construct, operate and maintain the northwesterly and southeasterly pump stations? The impacts on the Bolsa Chica pump station as a result of rerouting the discharge are not discussed. This is important because the existing pump performance may be affected, causing its tributary properties to flood during a storm. The mitigation measure (Mitigation Measure 4.3-1) which is supposed to make the impact of potential flooding insignificant does nothing more than require a grading plan providing for a route of discharge without disruption. In order for that to be acceptable as a mitigation measure, further information regarding the parameters and criteria for such a design must be presented in the DEIR. Otherwise, the public will not know the flooding dangers associated with the development or how this future mitigation would propose to eliminate those dangers. 7. New Well for Edwards Thumb Area. Page 4.3-16, lines 4-11 indicate that seasonal pumping of groundwater will be required to maintain the seasonal pond water at Edwards Thumb. The DEIR concludes that there would be no significant impact from the well pumping but no support is offered for this statement. Subsidence is not expected but can't be confirmed until designs are completed. Mitigation Measure 4.3-5 would require further study of this matter in the future, including the installation of monitoring wells, drains, etc. It may be too late to alter the plans which Koll has for the property if construction commences on the Mesa while this investigation is ongoing. More study is needed now, before the project proceeds any further. The results of that study should be explained in the DEIR. 8. Incomplete Analysis of Heavy Metal Contamination. Contrary to the implication in the DEIR, heavy metal contaminants are not confined to water areas only. Significant heavy metals exist as a result of oil field production and related area uses. How will the presence of heavy metals contamination affect the implementation and success of the WRP? Heavy metal contaminated run off is a significant impact and is not adequately addressed by the DEIR. j LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PRO/ESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 114 9. Future Mitigation Plans Intended to Address Current Impacts. The following items are examples of the future studies and mitigation plans/measures to be developed in the future but which are currently relied upon by the DEIR for mitigation of significant adverse hydrology impacts from the project: a. Uninterrupted Discharge. Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 requires development of a grading plan providing for uninterrupted disruption of the discharge from the existing Bolsa Chica pump station. How can this grading be accomplished? What degree of disruption is permissible? Is it feasible given the geology, soils and topography of the area? How would this affect the wetlands and ESHAs in the Lowlands? These questions must be addressed and the specific performance criteria for the grading plan must be set forth in the DEIR. b. Study of Aquifers. Mitigation Measure 4.3-3 requires the applicant's (i.e., Koll's) geotechnical consultant to provide a detailed study evaluating the impact of tidal inundation on the aquifers in the area. This is not stated as a condition to the commencement of grading or construction nor to the start of the WRP. What happens if the study shows that tidal inundation is a significant impact such that construction of a tidal area should not be constructed as contemplated? The unexplored possibilities are numerous and the probable impacts of the likely scenarios should be investigated and documented as part of the DEIR. If a scenario is rejected as unlikely or speculative, the DEIR should say so and state the reasons why. 10. Miscellaneous. a. Page 4.3-2, line 16: Language understandable by the lay public should be used instead of a word such as "nonorographic". b. Page 4.3-8, line 38: Where is Lake Huntington? What is the groundwater elevation in the Edwards Thumb? Is there a map in the report which specifically identifies which part of the of the eastern corner of the project site is Edwards Thumb and where the border of this area is located? C. Page 4.3-11. line 30: Where will the 800,000 cubic yards of fill come from? According to page 4.3-16, line 18, the project will only provide 600,000 cubic yards of fill. From what location will the additional fill be imported? What will be LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PRO/ESSIONAL CORPORATIONS I Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 115 the impacts at the source. What are the impacts of fill transport, such as air quality, traffic, etc.? d. Page 4.3-11, line 32: When are the mainstem projects scheduled for completion? How might delays to those projects affect phasing at Bolsa Chica, including implementation of the WRP? How would any such delays affect the project's financial feasibility? e. Page 4.3-15, line 34: Where will monitoring wells be placed? What impacts will well emplacement have? Are there alternative locations for the emplacement of the wells which would have a greater or lesser impact? f. Page 4.3-18, line 36: Please provide supporting data to justify the conclusion that the impacts to runoff and from the anticipated increased volume and velocity of the runoff, reduced groundwater recharge and sea water intrusion are insignificant in light of their potentially significant adverse impact on the biologically sensitive project site. g. Page 4.3-8. line 3: Discussion indicates that shoaling will increase or decrease. What is estimate at this time? What is existing shoal pattern and composition of material? h. Pie 4.3-10. line 47: What is the volume of estimated sediment load increase? �j i. Page 4.3-12. line 47: Justify the statement that 3 feet of dike s freeboard is sufficient for stated 100-year scenario. Are flood flows computed for high tide backwater effects? The DEIR should present this information so that the adequacy of the 1 design to withstand both the 100 year flood event and the standard project flood is demonstrated (or, if the design proves to be inadequate, the significant impact is identified and dealt with as required by CEQA). j. See Discussion of water related impacts discussed above in Part III.0 of this letter. i 1 r LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 116 G. CHAPTER 4.4 - WATER QUALITY. 1. Insufficient Data Made Available to the Public. Impact analysis for the water-related aspects of the project relies heavily upon previous reports and model studies which are not described in the EIR nor supplied in the appendices. Consequently, the reader must accept their results on faith. Numerical models can suffer from over simplification, insufficient verification to the existing prototype, or questionable assumptions. The DEIR must include additional appendices to describe the referenced technical studies, the data on which they rely and the means of collecting that data in sufficient detail so one can comment on their adequacy or lack thereof. Furthermore, more discussion concerning the sensitivity of the technical analysis is necessary for the public and decision makers to better assess the predictions claimed by the results of the studies. 2. Insufficient Analysis of Impact of Tidal Inlet and Rerouting of EGGW Channel. The EIR indicates that impacts associated with the tidal inlet construction, wetlands restoration and flood channel re-routing will either be insignificant or beneficial. Insufficient evidence is given to support the contention that enhanced water quality within the restored wetlands will occur. Furthermore, the stated ability of the inlet to remain open to support its intended tidal exchange volumes, and the project's impact analysis on future shoreline change scenarios is presented with an unusually high level of confidence. The water quality analysis seems to rely on a simplistic residence time analysis as opposed to more sophisticated simulations of dissolved oxygen concentrations over time. The new inlet is unique because of its relatively short jetty structures and shallow draft channel in relation to the open coast environs. More discussion on inlet stability is warranted given the fact that the success of the wetlands restoration critically depends on it. The majority of impacts identified in the DEIR are construction related items having to do with turbidity or short-term exposures to flood flows during the project's phased construction. Impacts associated with the tidal inlet, for example, are dismissed with uncharacteristic assuredness given the state-of-the-art of the coastal engineering profession. Although further elaboration and/or presentation of previous studies might fully justify the conclusions, experience in coastal projects indicates that this is not anything approaching a certainty. More discussion on risks, uncertainties, and safety factors is warranted. For example, what happens if the system or adjacent areas are impacted different from that expected? Is the system design too sensitive and limited to a narrow range of operating criteria or is it relatively forgiving and accommodating over a wider range of sediment loadings, tidal flows, wave climate variation, etc.? None of this information is provided in r LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 117 the DEIR i f it i required for anunderstandingf and al o s equ ed o o the potential impacts from the project. . Potential for Invasion f Perched 3 o erc ed Saline Water Beyond Impermeable Zone of Sediments. Page 4.4-4 notes that the Bolsa aquifer, an important regional aquifer, underlies the project site. Line 9 notes that the fresh water aquifer is generally protected from infiltration of the perched saline water table at Bolsa Chica by an impermeable zone of sediments. At what depth is the "impermeable zone of sediments?" This may be important from a groundwater protection standpoint. The evaluation cannot be made from the information presented. Past studies by the California Department of Water Resources, the California Division of Mines and Geology, and the OCWD should be used to study this "concept" and prove that it is true. The report does not reference any authority by which its statements can be documented. What if there does not exist an "impermeable zone of sediments?" The report does not answer this question and a full understanding of the potential for impact (and the substantive requirements of CEQA) requires that it must. In the Orange County Water District Groundwater Management Plan (February, 1989, p. 23), it is stated: "Although the Orange County ground-water basin is in hydraulic continuity with the ocean along the coastline, the Newport-Inglewood fault is located adjacent to the coastline and effectively seals the deeper aquifers from seawater intrusion. Nevertheless, the basin is vulnerable in four coastal geologic gaps (Talbert, Bolsa, Sunset and Alamitos) created by the ancestral Santa Ana and San Gabriel Rivers. These gaps contain a recent alluvial aquifer of 100 to 300 feet in depth which is [in] hydraulic continuity with the ocean. First observed in municipal supply wells during the early 1930's, seawater intrusion was a consequence of basin overdraft that continued into the 1950's. To counter this encroachment, seawater intrusion control facilities were constructed in the Alamitos and Talbert gaps. To date, no significant intrusion of seawater has been observed in either the Bolsa or Sunset gaps. However, studies have indicated that intrusion through these gaps could be expected if a substantial dewatering (1,500,000 acre-feet) of the Orange County groundwater reservoir were to occur during a long- term drought." LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 118 From this reference, the DEIR should document this fact, and discuss what effects the development of the project (including the various wells, the dewatering and compaction activities as well as the excavation for and construction of the tidal inlet) will have on this potential intrusion of seawater. This study should be done in conjunction with the Orange County Water District in order to provide an acceptable, coordinated effort. 4. Hazardous Concentrations of Metals. Page 4.4-8, lines 11-17 note that the high concentrations of metals such as lead, arsenic, mercury, zinc, cadmium and copper all exceed applicable California standards. Urban runoff into the wetlands would be increased by the diversion of the EGGW Channel and line 21-22 of page 4.4-8 notes that such runoff contains higher concentrations of trace metals. Accordingly, the DEIR seems to concede that the project will take an existing situation which is not in compliance with State standards and potentially make it worse by adding further polluted discharge into the system. The impacts in this area are not fully described and must be further analyzed and discussed. The DEIR's conclusion that because "the mean concentrations of these three metals [i.e., arsenic, mercury and zinc] were within objectives, exceedances are probably rare" is an opinion unsupported by data or logic. The DEIR offers no studies or scientific evidence to support its conclusion. What samples are included in the "mean concentration"? What sampling methods were used? When were the high concentrations noted? Without these and the other pertinent facts, the DEIR's discussion of this issue becomes meaningless. 5. Contamination of Waters from Urban Runoff. Page 4.4-35, In. 36 of the DEIR assumes that methodologies exist to prevent the increase in contaminated urban runoff from the project from increasing the pollution of the wetlands and to prevent urban runoff contamination from affecting Huntington Harbor or the ocean beyond. The DEIR concedes that pollutant loads would be a significant impact on the wetlands and Huntington Harbor but concludes that the EPA's program to reduce non-point discharges would result in a reduction of pollutant load. How was this conclusion (and the consequential and unsupported conclusion that the project as mitigated would not cause a significant adverse impact on the environment) reached? Were the increased volumes of pollutants compared with the anticipated reduction in the concentration of pollutants which the DEIR seems to assume? The DEIR also relies on the availability of other methodologies to reduce pollutant loads in storm channels. What methodologies are available for decreasing contamination from urban runoff? The DEIR must include specific technical or scientific , support for this conclusion. What has been the experience in implementing such mitigation measures in practice? Have they proven successful or feasible? To what document is the LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 1 Page 119 parenthetical "(EPA 1993 " referring? Fuller explanation and description of this entire P ( ) g P issue is required for the DEIR to be legally adequate. 6. Insecticide Contamination. Page 4.4-14, lines 6-16 of the DEIR discuss the numerical figures presented in Table 4.4-10 regarding the concentration (ppb) of pesticides and PCBs in sediments of the Lowlands. What significance are the numerical values presented? Although detection limits are given in the table, the significance of exceeding those levels is not explained. What is an unacceptable concentration of these hazardous materials in this environmental setting? The DEIR should discuss this at length, giving particular attention to the potential harm to plant, animal and human populations as well as the impact on the restoration of the wetlands in general. Is the data sufficiently representative of areas to be impacted by development or the WRP? No information is given regarding the sampling method used nor other evidence of the relation of the samples to the proposed WRP and its likelihood of successful implementation. The DEIR offers no explanation for its conclusion that no mitigation measures are necessary even though many of the contaminants listed in the Table exceed the stated detection limit. The DEIR must provide the rationale for this determination. Does the County intend to state that the levels of all the compounds listed are at a level acceptable to all authorities having jurisdiction? 7. Decrease in Circulation/Water Quality in Huntington Harbor. The document indicates at 4.4-29, In. 37-40, that diversion of the EGGW Channel from Outer Bolsa Bay to the new tidal bay would cause a slight decrease in the circulation of some portions of Huntington Harbor. That is a very broad statement. What portions of Huntington Harbor will experience reduced circulation? Huntington Harbor already has very poor circulation which results in sediment buildup and water quality deterioration. Any further reduction in circulation would likely result in the destruction or significant impairment of the ecosystem. Aquatic/plant life would die. Pollution from waterfowl would increase. Obnoxious odors would increase. These impacts are significant, yet the DEIR dismisses them as insignificant. 8. Response to Potential Oil Spill Infiltration into Wetlands. Page 4.4-32; In. 10 of the DEIR notes, with respect to the potential for offshore oil spill, that "The oil spill response plan provides for a boom that will be stored near the Tidal Inlet." Such a provision is not acceptable. Chances are that, when there is an oil spill, either the boom will have disappeared, or there will be no one assigned to man it, or the people who do man it will not have received the necessary training to operate it. A much more comprehensive plan should be developed. LAW OFFICES E►RVIN, COHEN b JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PRorrssIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 120 9. Inadequacy of Mitigation Measures. Implementation of the water- related mitigation measures in the project are discussed in Chapter 8 and the WRP. Most of the plans are described as to be implemented on an "as needed basis." Funding mech- anisms for maintenance are also not well defined at this point and criteria for initiation of action may be too vague. The DEIR must provide more specific quantitative information on estimated required commitments such as dredging volumes, frequency, and responsible Pay- 10. No Determination of Maintenance and Monitoring Costs. The restored wetlands are planned for transfer to public ownership after construction. Monitoring and maintenance costs are indicated to be determined "during the public review process". This unresolved condition is critical to the entire project success as disagreements between competing interests could compromise the technical requirements of the project. Accordingly, better estimates of maintenance liabilities must be provided up front for review prior to the certification of the DEIR. r 11. Miscellaneous. a. Page 4.4-4. lines 45-46: On what authority is it stated that "there are no comparable set of numerical standards or criteria for the protection of aquatic life from contaminated sediments?" b. Page 4.4-4: A series of cross-sections diagramming the groundwater conditions beneath various locations of the site (especially at the proposed location of the tidal inlet and the full tidal areas) should be provided. Without the cross- section, it is not possible to assess the potential impact of the proposed project at the key areas of the site. C. Page 4.4-7. line 18: What is the significance of the statement, "Nutrient levels were high compared to typical open ocean values?" What are typical ocean values? What values are present in the project? d. Page 4.4-8. lines 6-7: Why were oxygen levels lower in the tests performed in Inner and Outer Bolsa Bay in 1987? A conclusion should be noted as a result of this information. What is the anticipated effect of the project on those levels? LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 121 e. Page 4.4-8. lines 10-11: References to pH levels should be more specific. What is the significance of the exceedances of the pH objective range? By how much were the metal concentrations exceeded at the South Bolsa Slough? f. Page 4 4- : The DEIR does not discuss the watershed contamination that is contributing to excessive water contamination. Especially the runoff near the heliport which is known to be a soil farming remediation area. g. Page 4.4-8. line 4-8: The DEIR must amplify the discussion and analysis of the frequency and probable cause(s) of low dissolved oxygen levels that have been measured to date. h. P C4.4- lines 18-40: What experience demonstrates that the proposed oil/water separators work effectively? The DEIR does not examine whether any data or documentation regarding past experience with this equipment/methodology is available. By providing that data, the DEIR would enable the public and decision-makers to analyze the probability that the proposed mitigation would resolve the impact. i. Page 4.4-30. line 4 -47: The DEIR must define "as needed basis" for the dredging requirements. The current information is too vague for meaningful assessment. j. Page 4.4-31: In general, urban flood channels are notorious as potential sources of floating debris and jetsam. The DEIR must discuss probable loads and impacts to site. It is currently silent on this issue. k. Page 4.4-31. lines 6-7: Isn't the site a better sump to keep contaminants from the ocean as an enclosed wetland with its only outlet to Huntington Harbor? 1. Page 4.4-33. line 9: What is the effect of tidal fluctuations on water quality? Why did the model omit to consider this effect?In.. Page 4.4-33. line 20: Define as needed basis, . Provide estimate of volume and nature of shoal(s). LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 122 n. Page 4.4-34, line 19: What is the potential for inlet closure and what would the associated impact be to wetlands and environs? o. Page 4.4-35, line 29: On what scientific basis does the DEIR assume that a ten percent increase in pollution not considered to be significant? p. Figures 4.4-1. 4.4-2 and 4.6-2: These are confusing since the symbols on Figures 4.4-1 and 4.6-2 are not completely described in the legend. They look like duplicate exhibits. Further, the tidal flow controls in the exhibits seem to be placed in slightly different locations. Is this intentional? If so, why are the tidal controls different? H. CHAPTER 4.5 - COASTAL RESOURCES. 1. Requirement for Further Background and Analysis. Additional background and descriptive information must be provided to familiarize the reader with the existing tidal hydraulics of the Bolsa Chica environs and the pertinent shoreline processes. The first issue pertains to a more detailed description of existing water circulation in the Bolsa Chica wetlands, its relationship to Huntington Harbor, and seasonal variations in water quality parameters throughout the system. The coastal processes area of background discussion should more fully describe the shoreline changes, alongshore transport rates, cross-shore transport, and beach profile changes and existing shoaling rates to better quantify the existing baseline within the wetlands and open coast segment. In general, Chapter 4.5 is weak in its summation of sediment transport, long-term and short-term shoreline changes and associated processes that are germane to the creation of a new tidal inlet. For example, review of the project in light of the recently completed Corps' "Existing State of Orange County Coast" report is appropriate. 2. Potential Erosion of Huntington Cliffs. The DEIR does not provide sufficient support for its conclusion that the proposed project will not significantly increase the ongoing erosion at the toe of Huntington Cliffs. The document does not adequately describe it or provide alternative methods for alleviating the erosion problems which will be caused by the tidal inlet.95' Further study is required. It appears that little or no studies 951 This impact was expressly noted as significant by the CCC in its response to the EIR/EIS. Furthermore, the CCC noted that if a revetment were used to protect bluffs from tidal erosion caused by the new tidal inlet, the inlet and revetment would be in conflict with PRC§ 30253 which prohibits activities which alter natural landforms (continued...) LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFE55IONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 1 Page 123 have been done since the are not furnished. This appears to be pure conjecture. Actual Y PPS P J littoral drift records from the Corps in addition to model studies should be appended to the document. 3. Sediment Increase at Huntington Harbor. There is no mention of possible sediment increase in the harbor adjacent to the Percy and Warner Docks. While increased tidal flow should have a beneficial effect on water quality, it may have an adverse effect on sediment build-up which would require additional dredging. This area already requires periodic dredging. The mitigation plan should include frequency of dredging as well as funding methods. 4. Shoreline Impacts. Mitigation method proposes compensation for increased maintenance costs associated with the sand replenishment program, but no funding method is identified. This should be resolved prior to certification of the DEIR. 5. Impacts to Surfing/Swimming. Proposed mitigation for ebb bar and increased current or riptide action is proposed by providing additional lifeguards and signs but is not considered significant. This proposal presents significant financial impact with regard to providing lifeguard services Liability exposure is significant as the potential for accidents has significant impact on public safety. Any change in current configuration of the existing shoreline would have significant impact on swimming, surfing, and public safety in the area, and requires further study than initially proposed on required lifeguard services, potential for swift water rescues, controlling public access, and public safety response plan. 6. Miscellaneous. a. Page 4.5-4, lines 24-26: Littoral Processes section is weak. Provide: more complete discussion of shoreline processes including shoreline changes, alongshore transport, cross-shore transport and dependency on periodic renourishment. ' 951(...continued) along bluffs and cliffs(Impact 4-12.3 notes an inconsistency with Coastal Act§ 30251 regarding blockage of coastal viewsheds but no notice is taken of the violation of PRC§ 30253). The CCC concluded that further information and evaluation of the need for a downcoast revetment, an analysis of alternatives, and an analysis of the conflict with the Cowtal Act must be included in the revised EIR/EIS and the same analysis should be included in the revised DEIR. LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 124 b. Page 4.5-5, line 15ff: What numerical model was used? Was it verified to existing conditions? Discuss existing tidal currents and velocities. C. Page 4.5-6, lines 8-9: Has channel erosion occurred in past to support estimate? d. Page 4.5-8, lines 24-26: What assumptions were made in running GENESIS model? Were a range of variables tested? How was wave climate simulated? Was model verified to site? e. Page 4.5-8, line 30: Clarify that rubble at base of Huntington Cliffs does not provide adequate erosion protection to bluffs. f. Page 4.5-8, line 33: The word "ensure" implies utmost confidence in numerical methods. Can such confidence be assured given the inherent uncertainties and variables that exist? g. Page 4.5-8, lines 41-44: Describe the model studies that were performed. An added appendix setting forth the model studies is required for the DEIR to fulfill the requirements of CEQA. h. Page 4.5-8, line 48: Describe the extent of adverse impacts associated with 1-week inlet closure. i. Page 4.5-9, line 10: Summarize study in appendix. Did it consider cross-shore transport? j. Page 4.5-9, Table 4.5-6: Explain 5 to 25 year closure criteria. k. Page 4.5-9, line 13: Is this configuration the same as No. (1) , listed in Line 2? 1. Page 4.5-13, Figure 4.5-4: Discuss significance of April 1982 profile in relation to proposed inlet. M. Page 4.5-14, lines 1-3: Explain how computed. LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 1 Page 125 n. Page 4.5-14 lines 4-18: What assumptions were used in g � P GENESIS model? How do results compare to measured data? Define "modicum of sensitivity". What are confidence limits of analysis? o. Page 4.5-14, lines 28-31: How were erosion limits to PCH determined? What is chance that longer revetments may be needed? P. Page 4.5-14, lines 33-42: Discuss confidence limits of estimates. q. Page 4.5-14, lines 44-46: What is velocity increase and channel deepening effect? r. Page 4.5-16, Figure 4.5-6: Data more meaningful if shown in plan view. Show plan enlargement at site. S. Page 4.5-18, lines 1-4: It seems that worst case scenario is complete closure of inlet. Discuss. t. Page 4.5-18, line 13: Define "as-needed" dredging and "immediate" dredging. Is the project sensitive to partial shoaling of inlet, and can equipment be mobilized within stated timeframe of immediacy? U. Page 4.5-18, line 24: Tide range decrease of 0.25 feet implies that the environment is very sensitive to the impacts of the project. Does this mean that neap tides produce adverse conditions? Over what timeframe is 0.25-foot range measured? V. Page 4.5-18, line 17: What is "minor hydraulic dredge operation?" Can equipment be placed in shallow tide channels? How will tidal inlet be dredged when required? W. Page 4.5-18, line 40: How frequent is revetment expected to be exposed? Will PCH be impacted by overtopping during such conditions? X. Page 4.5-21, Figure 4.5-10: Clarify datum as MSL. LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 126 P 4 -2 lines 1-Y. age .5 2, i es 3: Discuss inlet velocities during neap, mean and spring tide conditions. What is probability of partial closure of inlet? Z. Page 4.5-22, lines 22-24: Is wave convergence the only criterion for good surfing? aa. Page 4.5-22, lines 32-33: Do structures pose a body surfing hazard? ab. Page 4.5-22, lines 42-44: Signage will not relieve the agency of potential liability. Will lifeguards be required year-round to patrol inlet? Will hazardous standing waves form at mouth similar to Aliso Creek problem? Will deepened channel pose an unsuspecting hazard to unknowing pedestrians who walk across mouth at low tide? ac. Page 4.5-24, lines 39-42: Is this statement true? Will potential safety hazards pose significant impacts? ad. Page 4.15-9, line 31: Launch ramp is four lanes wide. ae. Page 4.15-30, line 22: Review public safety hazards j associated with jetty access and inlet channel. Will lifeguards be on duty year-round? af. Page 9-1, lines 49-50: Does this statement apply if the tidal inlet closes repeatedly or actually operates in a reduced flow mode due to unforeseen shoaling problems? Accordingly, would it be appropriate to include a fail-safe backup channel into Outer Bay which could be activated if the inlet does not perform as intended? ag. Page 8-6, line 8: It appears that the proposed revetment that is intended to protect PCH is a mitigation requirement to offset local beach erosion caused by the inlet's construction. Are there other measures that may have been overlooked? ah. Page C-4, lines 41-42: What equipment would be required? Can it be mobilized on an immediate basis? This implies someone will be on 24-hour watch to monitor conditions. Is this the actual intent? How rapid a response is anticipated? LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 iPage 127 ai. Page C-4, lines 44-48: Describe how the shallow depth inlet will be dredged. Will special equipment be required that is not available in Southern California? Define "minor hydraulic dredge operation". aj. See comments regarding Chapter 4.15 - Recreation. I. CHAPTER 4.6 - MARWE/AOUATIC BIOLOGY. 1. Difficult to Evaluate Information. It is difficult to evaluate the relative importance of different areas throughout the wetlands (existing and proposed) for 1 threatened, endangered, and other sensitive species. Figure 4.7-3 only shows locations of unspecified observations for these species, and it is unclear whether these represent nesting individuals. The DEIR's Impacts section is difficult to follow and contains some unconvincing (and unsupported) interpretations and assumptions. For example, in the definition of significance, the potential for locally significant impacts is not addressed. The definition of "sensitive species" includes species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which in essence affords some protection to all bird species, aside from some pest species such as starlings and crows. Conclusions of insignificance based upon the legal (listing) status of species are also noted frequently; however, the significance of impacts should be based instead upon biological, rather than legal, information. Most importantly, per Guidelines § 15126, "direct and indirect significant effects of the project on the environment shall be clearly identified and described, giving due consideration to both short-term and long-term effects". The DEIR fails to fully discuss short-term versus long-term effects on vegetation communities (only net losses and gains are provided) and on threatened, endangered, and other sensitive species. The alternatives analysis also fails to disclose impact acreages due to short-term losses. 2. Federal and State Permits and Regulatory Requirements Are Ignored. The regulatory requirements that will have to be met for the project, such as a Section 404 permit (federal Clean Water Act), Section 1600 Agreement (California Fish and Game Code), Section 7 consultation (federal Endangered Species Act) regarding ' impacts on federally listed endangered and threatened species, and Section 2081 permit (California Endangered Species Act) are not addressed. As noted in Part II.D above, the required permits may never be obtained. Even if the agencies were to change their current I 1 LAW OFFICES , ERVIN, COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 128 thinking and issue permits for a project inthe Lowlands or affecting the ESHAs within the site, it is more than likely that the plan proposed in the DEIR would have to be significantly changed. The DEIR discussion omits to consider the potential impact of the unavailability of the required permits or the effect of those permits on the proposed project. The DEIR is, therefore, inadequate. 3. Toxic Material Spill. The DEIR assumes that the spill of toxic material into Bolsa Bay or Huntington Harbor during construction will be mitigated by the construction monitoring program. This program needs to be analyzed before this assumption can be made and the impact is considered insignificant. Since toxic spills during construction are possible and could have significant impact on the water quality in the harbor, review of the construction monitoring program should be performed before the impact is deemed insignificant. 4. Inlet Boom. The applicant's commitment to placing an inflatable boom in the tidal inlet to contain oil spills needs to be further studied for its viability. Given tidal velocities indicated, a boom would not work in any situation during a ten year flood flow. Consequently, an oil spill with a major storm would render a boom catch operation ineffective. Based on the City's experience with the American Trader oil spill, we know that booms can be ineffective and clean up can be costly. Also, as noted above, if the boom were successful, there would be a negative impact on the beach area. Therefore, alternatives for containing oil spills during flood episodes must be developed. 5. Omission and Improper Analysis of Significant Impacts. A number of significant adverse impacts are not fully addressed or are not adequately mitigated to a level of less than significant. Examples are discussed further below. These should have been identified, as required by CEQA, as unavoidable adverse impacts of the project; however, the DEIR identifies no such unavoidable adverse impacts. The impact analysis also includes conclusions regarding significance unsupported by sufficient data. 6. Oil Spills Remain a Significant Impact. The DEIR proposed project construction monitoring program is the only mitigation discussed for reducing spill impacts ' to an insignificant level. Because of the historical site uses and the general lack of documentation and design safety features, the risk of a spill is high. The corrosive soils make existing production lines more vulnerable to leakage. Unknown lines, sumps and well heads add significant risks to any type of operation conducted in this area. Monitoring r LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 129 is not an adequate mitigation m r k eqmeasure and the risk remains significant. The DEIR needs to provide more detail. J. CHAPTER 4.7 - TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGY. 1. Impact of Phasing of Construction on Habitats. Section 4.7 of the DEIR fails to include any discussion of the phasing of construction and the impacts which the developer's choice of phasing will have on habitats and endangered species. This is a critical shortcoming in a document which purports to examine the ecological and environmental effects of a program which will set the stage for all land use and development in the affected region for the next 20 years and beyond. To be legally adequate, a full consideration of the impact of phasing and of the interim construction impacts (together with alternatives for that phasing which might limit or eliminate some of those impacts) must be included as part of the discussion of all potential effects analyzed in �. the DEIR. 2. Treatment of Environmentally Sensitive Areas. The DEIR provides no indication of all areas of the LCP Area or Study area which are designated by the State or the federal government as an environmentally sensitive habitat area. Annexed to this letter as ANNEx No. 39 is a report dated June 3, 1982 prepared by CDFG and submitted to the CCC entitled "Environmentally Sensitive Areas at Bolsa Chica." Pursuant to that report, CDFG determined that the following four areas within the LCP Area were "environmentally sensitive" within the meaning of PRC §§ 30107.5 (defining environmentally sensitive area for purposes of the Coastal Act) and 30240 (pronouncing a policy against significant disruption, and development of adjacent areas must be designed to prevent disruption): (i) coastal dunes along PCH, (ii) the eucalyptus grove adjacent to and on the Mesa, (iii) Rabbit Island and (iv) the Warner Pond on the Mesa. These areas were determined to be sensitive due to "their significant wildlife resources, rare habitat or wetland status." a. Eucalyptus Grove. The eucalyptus grove is noted in the report as a significant wildlife habitat and ecotone between the uplands and the wetlands. The report notes that this grove is "essential habitat" for raptors and is especially valuable for owls and that 58 species were recorded within the grove in the surveys noted in the report. Further, the report noted that raptors using the grove are either endangered or are species of special concern whose populations are declining, are vulnerable to extirpation and are LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PAPTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency , February 17, 1994 Page 130 therefore the "next candidates for the rare or endangered lists." Pages 9-10 of the report states: The osprey, sharp-shinned hawk, Cooper's hawk and march hawk are species of special concern utilizing the eucalyptus grove. The endangered American peregrine falcon frequents the grove in winter as well as the wetlands . . . [citation]. The eucalyptus grove provides the only potential nesting_sites for ospreys. white-tailed kites, sharp-shinned and Cooper's hawks. . . [1 ] The eucalyptus grove provides an important area for those species using the wetlands. Several raptors hunt in the wetlands such as osprey, peregrine falcon, barn owl, American kestrel, red-tailed hawk and white tailed kite but return to the eucalyptus grove to rest and consume their prey. Notwithstanding these findings of CDFG, the DEIR finds that the loss of the eucalyptus grove would not constitute a significant impact on the environment, focusing on the non- native status of the trees and their declining value as vegetation (page 4.7-8 lines 41-49). The DEIR notes the decline in acreage and foliage (page 4.7-20) and notes the loss of habitat (page 4.7-27 1n. 8-22) but concludes that the loss of habitat is not significant because the red-tailed hawk is not endangered, the sharp-shinned hawk and the Cooper's hawk are "uncommon visitors" and "are not resident on the site" (page 4.7-53, 1n.9-12). The discussion of the impact of the loss of the eucalyptus grove in the DEIR is not sufficient to address the conflict with the 1982 CDFG report. Further, the declining nature of the eucalyptus grove does not justify its total eradication; rather, its conservation and enhancement is required to preserve the ecosystem at Bolsa Chica. b. Warner Avenue Pond. The other Mesa habitat area which was singled out for "special recognition" in the 1982 CDFG report is the Warner Avenue Pond, which was expressly noted as = degraded for purposes of the Coastal Act. The 1982 report noted that both the endangered brown pelican and the least tern occasionally use this particular area of the wetlands. The DEIR proposes to fill these wetlands and replace them with a new pond located across the site; yet, no significant impact is identified for this disruption to a sensitive habitat area. The DEIR never sets forth in one place the location of the ESHAs which will be removed by the project, the species which will be affected and the mitigation offered for that effect. r LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 131 Such information would best be presented in a table which would be far more understandable to the public than the discussion presently in the DEIR. 3. Short Term and Permanent Impacts of Grading and Dredging Activities. There is no discussion or quantification of impacts disclosed for the grading limits. The restoration program is represented in the numbers reflected in Table 4.7-5 and provides a net loss or net gain in specific habitat types. However, there is no analysis provided that identifies the short-term or temporary losses associated with the grading and dredging activities to assist in creating the restoration program. This is an important consideration for a project of this extended duration and should be addressed in the DEIR, otherwise a reasonable assessment of impacts is not possible. Also, if there is excess dredge spoil, where is it disposed of and what are the biological impacts? 4. Impact from Loss of Grassland as Foraging Habitat. Does the loss of 318 acres of non-native grassland translate into the extirpation of locally important habitat? The document cites upland preservation in the Irvine Coast (12 miles away) as a contingency to this type of habitat remaining. If the Irvine Coast is the nearest substantial block of contiguous habitat, then the 318-acre loss at Bolsa must be the last substantive block of upland habitat in the vicinity. This finding may affect the determination of significance. 5. Mandatory Finding of Significant Impact is Required. The conclusion of a mandatory finding of significance per CEQA would also arise in this case, as the project would "threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community". Impacts on the wintering red-tail hawk population could also be construed as "substantially reducing habitat of a fish and wildlife species" on a local basis, another "mandatory finding of significance" per CEQA; however, the definition of impacts provided in the DEIR only considers regional and statewide populations and does not consider impacts on local populations. This is a violation of CEQA. 6. Increased Predation on Birds. It is acknowledged at Page 4.7-49, line 4-6 that the development may result in increased predation on ground-nesting birds by ravens. Residential development typically also encourages the expansion of existing populations of crows, as these developments provide additional nesting and roosting habitat. Crows have been a major problem during the past few years at least tern nesting sites in suburban areas, frequently resulting in significant losses in productivity. This potential I LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 132 impact should be addressed, and measures to minimize this impact should be included in the mitigation measure that provides for coordination with CDFG for predator management. In addition, if palm trees are allowed in the development, nesting populations of kestrels will increase in the area, resulting in potential increases in predation on least terns and snowy plovers. This impact should also be addressed. 7. Comments on Faunal Species List. The list provided in the DEIR is inaccurate. Bird families are frequently not in the taxonomic order that is currently used. Also, individuals within genera are also frequently split up. A few scientific names are , either in error or are ones that are currently not accepted by the general scientific community. Several of the birds included on the avifaunal list are species that would be extremely rare or accidental at Bolsa Chica. A footnote, however, states that all sightings of single individuals, those regarded as "vagrants/accidentals", are excluded from the list. Only the two rare subspecies of savannah sparrow are included; not the common one. 8. Salvage of Disrupted Pickleweed. Page 3-24 assumes that disrupted areas of Pickleweed can be salvaged for restoration at other locations if wetland restoration grading and other activities disturb Pickleweed habitat. The BCPC Plan requires (in accordance with PRC § 30232) that at least 200 acres of undisrupted high pickleweed saltmarsh must be maintained at all times, but this requirement is not described in this ' section of the DEIR. 9. Detailed Analysis of Terrestrial Biology Impacts. a. Review of Section 4.7 reveals that the County ignored the comment of CDFG to the County's NOP (DEIR Technical Appendices Vol. I, pp. 146, 147, 150-151). In summary, CDFG called for a complete assessment of flora and fauna within and adjacent to the project area, consistent with CDFG guidelines, to be included in the DEIR. b. Page 4.7-2 to 4.7-8: Descriptions of vegetation communities should include a brief discussion of the existing quality of the habitat (i.e., how much is currently degraded and how much is high quality). C. Page 4.7-9: Was a species list requested from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure their specific "sensitive species" issues were addressed? USFWS is not listed as a contact in Appendix A. LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ' Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 iPage 133 d. Page 4.7-1: The title was confusingof Sensitive Plant - us i s might be better title. e. Page 4.7-12 line 47: Two candidate species are noted. One g � is the saltmarsh skipper, what is the other one? f. Figure 4.7-3: Does this figure s ure show all recorded sightings, g g g g , sightings from one study, several studies, several years, or a specific year? Page 4.7-21: The DEIR must define "Target g• gSpecies." Furthermore, the definition of endangered used by the DEIR is not consistent and must be clarified. Cqm e page 4.7-21, In. 24-28 with page 4.7-39, 1n.9. h. Page 4.7-28, lines 34-35: dates should be 1987 and 1988, not 1977 and 1978. i. Page 4.7-30: What are "Other Sensitive Species?" j. Pages 4.7-38 and 4.7-39: No provision for the identification of significant local effects is presented. Why not? The EIR should be amended to address this concern. k. Page 4.7-39, lines 5-7: "Substantially Affect/[SIC]." Why aren't local considerations part of the definition? The EIR should be amended to address these considerations. 1. Page 4.7-39: Why isn't habitat fragmentation and loss of locally important habitat a part of the definition of adverse and significant? M. Page 4.7-43: Why isn't the potential loss of vegetation due to failure of the WRP considered a significant impact? This conclusion seems unusual since 1 the Bolsa Chica wetlands is such a significant regional resource. The explanation provided at the bottom of page 4.7-43 and at the top of page 4-7.44 anticipates some failure and mentions contingencies. It should be made clear that the magnitude of plant losses is not anticipated to be significant due to the contingencies, remedial actions and alternative strategies, and then list some examples. Some limited temporary loss is clearly not i LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 134 , significant but falling substantially short of performance criteria might become significant. Clarification on this point is warranted. n. Page 4.7-44, line 7: Construction monitoring provides for a botanist to monitor grading activities. An ornithologist should also be present during grading activities when they are with 500 feet of nesting sites. o. Page 4.7-44: Why is mitigation discussed on lines 3-33 in the , impact analysis? Wouldn't this be better shown in the mitigation section or is it viewed as part of the project description? P. Page 4.7-44 and 45: The DEIR should discuss at least candidate locations for the southern tarplant mitigation to demonstrate areas that are indeed suitable. Without this map or location discussion, support is lacking for a non-significant finding in light of the magnitude of impacts. q. Page 4.7-46: It appears there is substantial focus on the legal status if the saltmarsh shrew when considering the significance of impacts. Impact significance should also consider the magnitude of impacts from a biological perspective. This comment also applies to conclusions regarding significance of impacts on the red-tailed hawk and black-shouldered kite. r. Page 4.7-46, lines 11-15: This paragraph states "the black- tailed jackrabbit will potentially suffer a significant loss of upland habitat from the proposed development and wetlands restoration." The paragraph also cites Rabbit Island being retained and there would remain 40 square miles of habitat. The conclusion is that due to remaining open space the impact is adverse, not significant. The report also mentioned that there is another black-tailed jackrabbit population in Laguna Laurel. To clarify the significance of the impact, the analysis should state and support conclusions about whether this black-tailed jackrabbit population is the last within the vicinity, disclose whether this is a locally important population, and state whether Rabbit Island will support enough rabbits to reduce their chances of being extirpated from the site. S. Why is "Sensitive Mammal Species" listed at the top of page 4.7-47? LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 ' Page 135 t. Page 4.7-47: The Mesa is identified as an important raptor � Po P foraging area, and the nearest location for a similar resource is 12 miles distant in the area ' of Crystal Cove State Park. Most biologists would conclude, given this information, that the loss of raptor foraging habitat at the Mesa constitutes a locally significant impact. The loss of raptor foraging habitat would thus be an unavoidable adverse impact of the project, as may be the short-term loss of foraging habitat for the California least tern (not possible, as described above, to evaluate this), and as would be the short-term loss of occupied habitat for the Belding's savannah sparrow. However, as stated above, no short-term ' impacts are addressed, and all identified impacts are stated to be mitigated to a level below significance. U. Page 4.7-47, line 32: "If cats are present in relatively low numbers, the impacts on birds is expected to be adverse, but not significant". No data supporting this statement is provided, and the DEIR ignores existing evidence to the contrary. V. Page 4.7-48, line 8: It is stated that impacts on foraging habitat for birds would be short-term because conditions should return to normal following completion of construction. The WRP is phased to occur over 20 years; thus, is this impact due to turbidity expected to potentially occur throughout the 20-year construction period? CEQA requires that short-term impacts must also be considered and analyzed to determine whether they are significant. An impact cannot be assumed to be insignificant merely because it is temporary. W. Page 4.7-48, line 9: Data supporting the conclusion that abundant foraging habitat is available in Huntington Harbor is not presented. Anecdotal information suggests that the Harbor generally provides marginal foraging opportunities for these species. X. Page 4.7-48, line 46: Per CEQA, the verb "encourage" as part of a mitigation measure may deem that measure inadequate in assisting with the other 1 measures presented here to reduce impacts to insignificance. y. Page 4.7-49, line 17: The loss of foraging habitat may be offset by increases in open bay habitat. This needs clarification, and a determination of significance for this impact is not provided. LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROIESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 136 Z. Page 4.7-49, lines 27-29: Is it reasonable to conclude from this statement that if habitat enhancement is not conducted prior to removal of nest sites, , and/or if construction activities do not avoid the nesting season, that the loss of seasonal pond habitat would be significant? aa. Page 4.7-49, line 36: Are long-term losses to beach habitat east of the proposed jetty due to a reduction in expected sand replenishment? ab. Page 4.7-49, line 47: Entries to nest boxes should discourage , use by kestrels in order to avoid an additional potential additional project impact on least terns and snowy plovers. ac. Page 4.7-51: No figure or data is presented or referenced that shows or evaluates the importance of the least tern foraging areas that will be adversely affected during construction of the WRP. Thus, a reviewing biologist (much less a member of the public) cannot evaluate whether or not this temporary loss would be a significant impact. Also, how will monitoring be used to reduce impacts to less than significant? ad. Page 4.7-53, line 1: Regarding the Belding's savannah sparrow, the DEIR discusses the preservation of 200 acres of pickleweed will be maintained ' throughout completion of the WRP and that this "potentially [emphasis added] reduces this significant impact to an adverse level rather than significant". This should be clarified. Also, how much of this 200 acres of pickleweed is suitable habitat? Comparison of Figures 4.7-2 and 4.7-3 indicates that there are areas of pickleweed just east of the northern portion of the Mesa where no Belding's savannah sparrows are reported. Where are the 200-acre areas that will remain available and are they or will they be in a condition to support sparrows? Also, inclusion of impact maps showing the RPA locations discussed in this section would allow the reader to independently evaluate the impacts. Without that information, the DEIR fails to inform the public adequately as required by CEQA. ' ae. Page 4.7-52, lines 20-22: The significance of the loss of known roosting sites for the peregrine falcon is not addressed. af. Page 4.7-53, lines 23-24: Loss of foraging habitat for the loggerhead shrike may increase the potential for shrike predation on least terns and snowy plovers. LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUOINO PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 137 a . Page 4.7-54 lines 8-9: The loss of occupied habitat for the g g � P burrowing owl should be considered on a regional basis to be significant, due to the status ' of its existing population in Orange County and coastal Southern California. ah. Page 4.7-54, lines 41-44: The discussion acknowledges rsaltmarsh contributions to the ecosystem but the discussion is very brief considering this is such a major restoration program. It would seem that a project such as this would add measurably to the benefit of a wide variety of wildlife. For example, projects such as this, coupled with the plans for Batiquitos Lagoon, San Dieguito wetlands and Tijuana Estuary should help to continue to provide some form of a "safety net" for waterfowl and shorebirds. However, the text discusses the cumulative loss of upland habitat only. ai. Page 4.7-58: The Wetland Restoration Plan should be summarized in the mitigation section - particularly the construction monitoring and maintenance, the 5-year post-construction monitoring and long-term surveys. These items were discussed on page 4.7-44. Also, if the WRP is truly a part of the project why not ' discuss it in summary fashion within the project description? This comment is applicable to all PDFs. aj. Page 4.7-58 and 4.7-59: "Significant Effects and Related Mitigation". It is unclear why this is presented in a separate section, as impacts previously presented are reiterated here, with proposed mitigation for each. The mitigation measures should have been presented following each impact where initially addressed on pages 54-56. ak. Page 4.7-59, line 16: We recommend the impact be worded as follows: "The loss of raptor foraging habitat in the uplands, in addition to potential increases in nesting kestrels due to the planting of palm trees in residential areas, may cause an increase in raptor predation on nesting birds in the wetlands." al. Page 4.7-59, line 20: The phrase "shall consult with" makes the mitigation measure inadequate per CEQA. In addition, as relocation programs for raptors are not always successful, this measure may not adequately mitigate the impact to less than significant, even if a plan acceptable to all of the affected public agencies were formulated. 1 LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN 8 JESSUP A PAiTNERSNIP INCLUDING PROMSSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 138 , am. Page 4.7-59, line 27: We recommend that this measure include a provision to ensure that use of the new sites by the snowy plovers be documented prior to destruction of existing nesting sites. 10. Wetlands Restoration Plan Is Not Sufficiently Detailed. The WRP requires significantly more detail before its implementation and feasibility can be assured. For example, additional detail is needed to create construction documents and specifications for implementation. Some of the major issues that need resolution include a thorough staging plan for removal of pipelines, tanks and other associated infrastructure area associated with the petroleum activities. Also, there is no substantive discussion on the native/quality of the substrate which may contain oils and other chemical residue. There is no formal planting plan nor is there a maintenance and monitoring plan to help ensure performance criteria are satisfied. This plan is not sufficiently detailed to be able to obtain needed permits to implement. It is also not sufficiently detailed to be able to identify project impacts, particularly those impacts which are associated with project phasing. 11. Detailed Comments on Wetlands Restoration Plan. The following are specific comments on the Wetlands Restoration Plan included as Appendix E to the DEIR: a. Paragraph 1, page 1: What does "consolidate" mean? Will i these areas be restored, revegetated with native vegetation or preserved? b. Paragraph 4, page 2: What are the buffers to be established? , Will existing native vegetation be used? C. Page 1-1, paragraph 1: What project is the mitigation for? Is r this for the whole project or for a part of it? d. Page 1-7, paragraph 1: Explain what is meant by "extensive planning efforts". Does this refer to development planning or planning for wetland preservation? e. Figure 1.5: The symbol used for "Severely Degraded Wetland (Restorable -below +5' MSL)" and "Environmentally Sensitive Area (Above +5' MSL)" , are too similar; therefore, it is difficult to determine which is which. Please provide a revised figure. LAW OF PICES ERVIN, COHEN a JE55UP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 ' Page 139 f. Page 1-8 paragraph 3: The statement "...not severely g � P g P Y degraded, [the acre] wetlands system..." seems to be missing a number or "acre" should be omitted. g. Page 4-4, paragraph 1: What are habitats that could be enhanced/expanded? ' h. Page 4-4, paragraph 3: What are the sources for knowing that these endangered birds are present at Bolsa Chica? Also, by whom and when was the least tern sighted at Bolsa Chica? i. Page 4-5, paragraph 1: How many acres are required to develop for the site to be considered "sufficient" to support an active clapper rail nest program? j. Page 4-7, paragraph 1: Efforts should also include ecological 1 and physical characteristics required to support each species. k. Figure 15.1: Add location of "Edward's Thumb." Add location of tide dam, and new tidal inlet. Add location of EGGW Channel outfall. Add location of Outer Bolsa Bay. Add indicating arrow and text describing where it will be plugged. 1. Page 5-5, paragraph 5: How will creation of three additional acres of full tidal wetlands be accomplished? M. Page 5-5, paragraph 6: How are tidal flows into Outer Bolsa Bay constricted currently? n. Page 5-6, paragraph 3: Define "target species." o. Page 5-6, paragraph 3: Reference needed for cordgrass increase. P. Page 5-10, paragraph 1: Muted tidal areas are not isolated in Figure 5-1. LAW OFFICE5 ER.VIN. COHEN F3 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 140 q. Page 5-10, paragraph 2: How will the oil production area be converted to muted tidal? By excavation of all contaminated soil or bacteria treatment? This can be very costly (millions). r. Page 5-10, paragraph 4: What will the IOU Guide buffer consist of? What plant species will be used? Will fences be used? S. Page 5-14, paragraph 5: The word "significant" can be , omitted since the sentence above states no loss at all. t. Page 5-18, paragraph 3: The footnote states that trees will require irrigation. Also, high salinities may inhibit the survival and stunt the growth of many of these tree species. Therefore, soil testing should be conducted prior to planting and recommendations by a soil consultant should be provided. , U. Page 5-19, paragraph 3: Typically it may take several years for riparian trees to become established and developed; however, oak trees can take decades. V. Page 5-19, paragraph 3: Planting more mature trees (assuming 5 or 15 gallon compared to 1 gallon) doesn't necessarily speed up the development of the canopy, thus often smaller containers stock, sycamore for example, catch up to the 15 gallon due to the more even root/ vegetative material ratio. W. Page 5-19, paragraph 3: Are they planning on transplanting the eucalyptus trees in another location? Why? Eucalyptus trees are non-native. They also grow rapidly from nursery stock. The cost to transplant large trees is costly and often results in a low survival rate. X. Page 5-19, paragraph 6: In reference to the 100-foot wide buffer, Figure 5.5 denotes a bicycle trail approximately 40 feet into the buffer area. Is this still considered buffer if human activity is allowed? There should be a definition of buffer types and what sort of activities are allowed, purpose, etc. Y. Page 5-22, paragraph 1: Referencing the 800 foot long slope , of Outer Bolsa Bay, (buffer will be landscaped fill slope), landscaping should be specified 1 LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PNOICSSIONAL CORPORATIONS ' Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 ' Page 141 and referenced in a document in what species n their e stating spec scan and can't be used, based o t e invasive nature. Z. Page 5-22, paragraph 4: The first sentence references an 18.0 acre buffer, then the second sentence says "this 100 acre buffer." What is correct? aa. Page 5-25, paragraph 4: Will permanent levees be continuous so they completely separate habitat types? This is not natural in that most habitats ' gradually transition without "hard" breaks. A figure would be helpful. ab. Who is responsible for implementing the Plan? ac. How feasible is planting in previous oil use areas? ' ad. Page 5-45, paragraph 9: What is a fillet and how much dredged material can it hold? What if they are filled up, where will the excess material be taken? ae. Page 5-51, paragraph 4: Ecological requirements, including germination and growth requirements, of the southern tar plant should be investigated prior to seed collection and transplantation. ' af. Page 6-2, paragraph 3 and page 6-6, paragraph 5 (2b): The plan should also discuss the need for a hazardous materials assessment for soils surrounding oil facilities to be removed. ag. Page 7-4, paragraph 3 (7.3,2): Why are performance criteria only provided for creation and restoration of cordgrass but not the other habitats being ' revegetated/created/restored? ah. When will a planting plan be developed for the project? ai. Remedial actions should be discussed if performance criteria are not met. If problems are foreseen in the first two years of monitoring, remediation may be recommended by the biological monitor. LAW OFFICES , ERVIN, COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 142 ' aj. A detailed monitoring plan must be developed prior to implementation and prior to certification of the DEIR. In order for the public to be able to assess the thoroughness and compliance of the overall mitigation monitoring and reporting plan with the requirements of CEQA, the monitoring plan should be appended to the revised DEIR and the entire DEIR, including the monitoring plan, must be recirculated for public comment. ak. A detailed maintenance plan should be developed prior to ' implementation. The same comments as in 1 aj. apply here with equal force. al. WRP. Page 5-11. second paragraph: Where is the Springdale , pump station? Who will own, operate and maintain it? A water well is mentioned here and nowhere else. The impacts of this well must be discussed as it could be significant in impacts on seawater intrusion and/or water quality of the groundwater basin. am. WRP. Page 5-11. third paragraph: Last sentence - What are "Some water control and drainage structures?" What are their impacts? Who adds them, , and what is their cost? an. WRP. Page 5-28. first paragraph, second sentence: "Sufficient freeboard" needs to be defined. Flooding can occur without adequate freeboard. Sufficient freeboard depends on the design flow and structure shape. ao. WRP. Page 5-43, Section 5.6.1. No. 5: A more detailed description is needed to describe the standby pump and alternative power source. Who will own, operate and maintain this facility? How much will it cost and who will pay to construct and operate it? K. CHAPTER 4.8- TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC CIRCULATION. 1. Proposition 111 and Congestion Management Plans. In June 1990, Proposition 111 was approved by the voters of California. One requirement of Proposition 111 was the development of a Congestion Management Program (CMP) by the designated Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for each county. In the case of Orange County, the designated CMA is the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). OCTA has established a CMP for Orange County. The goals of Orange County's CMP are "to reduce s ' LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNER$NIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ' Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 1 Page 143 traffic congestion and to provide a mechanism for coordinating land use development and g P g P transportation improvement decisions" (Congestion Management Program Preparation Manual, OCTA, 1994). Included in the CMP Preparation Manual are requirements relative to what information needs to be included in any Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) that is prepared. The City also has established Traffic Impact Assessment Preparation Guidelines r (City of Huntington Beach, July 1993). One of the stated objectives in these Guidelines is "to provide a means to identify specific short term circulation, operational and access needs" (Id., p.4). Pursuant to those requirements, the TIA and the DEIR must discuss anticipated traffic impacts not only for the Year 2010, but also for opening day and at each phase of development. The DEIR states that project construction will begin in 1995, yet no analyses were conducted for any year other than 2010. One cannot assume that no impacts will occur until 2010. Therefore, short term phase-related analyses must be conducted. 2. Construction Period Truck Traffic. It is not clear whether the 1,200 round truck trips per week (i.e., 2,400 total weekly truck trips) which will be required over nearly two years of the construction period in order to import the fill required per Figure 4.12-26 of the DEIR has been taken into account in assessing the construction traffic. 3. Requirement for Cost Analysis as Part of Traffic Impact Analysis. Also pursuant to CMP requirements, a TIA must contain a cost analysis. Page 11 of the "CMP Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines" for Orange County states (in part) that "This element is at the heart of the CMP process; that is, to identify the costs of mitigating a land use decision on the CMP System". No cost data is presented in the TIA. Since the TIA is inadequate (i.e., incomplete), it cannot be used as the basis of the DEIR. r4. Freeway Impacts. Pursuant to CMP requirements, there must be a discussion of impacts (if any) to the freeways in the area. This was not done in the TIA or DEIR. 5. Traffic Improvements as PDFs. The DEIR refers to required ' intersection and link improvements, shown by analysis to be necessary, as PDFs and not as Mitigation Measures. Although not clear from the discussion in the DEIR (and this ambiguity makes the DEIR inadequate under CEQA) a PDF, therefore, seems to be part of ' the project description, and therefore part of what is proposed by Koll as a part of its project. If so, Koll should be responsible for implementing and funding all PDFs, including LAW OFFICES ER.VIN. COHEN & JESSUP A PAR-NERSNIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency , February 17, 1994 Page 144 , all link and intersection improvements and that funding should be in place prior to the commencement of construction. 6. ATIP Implementation. The DEIR refers to the future implementation of the ATIP as a PDF. The DEIR must discuss the prospects or likelihood of funding the ATIP; the timing of funding the ATIP; and a commitment as to who will fund the ATIP. The future implementation of a currently unfunded plan is not an adequate mitigation measure. 7. Omission of TSM/TDM Measures. Specific Transportation System Management (TSM) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Measures for the , proposed project have not been identified. Pursuant to City Traffic Impact Assessment Preparation Guidelines (p. 21), specific measures must be identified to be proposed as mitigation measures. 8. Map of other Developments. A map detailing "Other Developments" assumed to be in place in 2010 should be provided. , 9. Omission of Signal Warrant Analysis. The DEIR indicates that additional City intersections will need to be signalized in the future. The Signal Warrant Analyses that serve as the basis for this conclusion have not been provided in the DEIR or the TIA. 10. Widening of PCH and Construction of Cross-Gap Connector. The developer does not assume appropriate responsibility for the widening of Pacific Coast Highway and/or the development of the Cross-Gap Connector, since the development ' contributes greatly to associated traffic generation. The developer must either widen sections of Pacific Coast Highway and develop a full cross-gap connector or fully fund alternative mitigation measures. There are sections of Pacific Coast Highway that cannot , feasibly be widened. The portion of PCH in the Sunset Beach Area already operates at a level of service of "F". Koll must fund and develop the solution to this deficiency if it uses this section of PCH in the traffic circulation plan. Further, the City will be unable to ' complete the widening of PCH between Goldenwest Street and Beach Boulevard to the required six lanes, until 485 parking spaces are developed to replace on-street parking. The solution to that problem is unclear at this point. If the applicant expects to make use ' of Pacific Coast Highway for increased traffic volumes, he should provide this parking in a manner acceptable to the City and the Coastal Commission. ' LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ' Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 ' Page 145 ' 11. Financial Responsibility for Widening of PCH. Page 4.8-34 of the DEIR assumes that the developer has no responsibility to widen Pacific Coast Highway as a result of the project. The comments on page 4.8-36, lines 45 through 48 and page 4.8-37, lines 1 and 2, tend to compound this disparity. r12. Flooding of PCH. Page 4.2-1, In. 27-30 discusses Bolsa Chica State Beach, "where it narrows to a small strip which is often inundated by higher tides." This is adjacent to a section of Pacific Coast Highway which is also often inundated. This problem should be mitigated by the developer if Pacific Coast Highway is expected to be a reliable traffic conduit for the proposed project. 13. Emergency Services Impacts from Traffic a. Page 4.8-1, Line 11: Roadways, links, and intersection volumes are only reviewed from the perspective of traffic volumes and not from the perspective of the impacts on emergency vehicles response time and delays. The project will significantly impact existing City intersections and City public safety service delivery. The DEIR needs to discuss, evaluate, and mitigate traffic circulation impacts on City public safety response as well as impacts on citizen egress. This should include a review of the ' project impacts on the City Circulation Element, Growth Management Plan Element, and the Fire Master Plan Element. ' b. Page 4.8-38, IMPACT 4.8.2, TRAFFIC ON PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY: The DEIR does not discuss the fact that Pacific Coast Highway frequently floods and significantly impacts general circulation and public safety response. The periodic closing of Pacific Coast Highway currently impacts public safety services and citizen egress and access. If the project is built, the impacts on public safety and citizen access and egress must be mitigated. 14. Miscellaneous. ' a. Page 4.8-20. bottom: Why is a better scenario used as the "Base Case?" LAW OFFICES ' ERVIN. COHEN F3 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency ' February 17, 1994 Page 146 ' 1 b. Page 4.8-38. line 4: Where will this haul road be located? What impacts will it have? Will it affect any habitat? How long will it be in place?9Y ' C. Page 4.8-39. Impact 4.8-4: What if CMP objectives cannot be achieved and development must be stopped? How will implementation and long term maintenance of the WRP be affected? 15. Detailed Analysis of DEIR. ' (1) Page 1-27, Table 1.5-1, Section 4.8: "Because of the [implementation of the] ATIP, the Proposed Project will not have a significant adverse impact in the long term." This statement assumes that the ATIP is fully funded and that all required intersection improvements are fully funded. This is not the case. The ATIP is very speculative in nature. If the ATIP is not fully funded, what actual mitigation ' measures will need to be in place to reduce impacts to a level of insignificance? (2) Page 4.8-1, Lines 21-22: The DEIR states that , scheduling of project phasing and construction is not currently available. When will such a schedule be available? The City requires specific scheduling of construction, including the opening year, for this project. Even though the project is primarily located within the , unincorporated area in the County, it is surrounded by the City, and the vast majority of the project generated traffic will be utilizing the existing City road network. Therefore, the City requires the study to be revised with opening day analysis and subsequent phasing of the project. For a project of this magnitude and importance to the City, it is not acceptable to state that the project is phased over an approximate 12 to 22 year period (page 4.8-34, Lines 20 and 21). , (3) Page 4.8-1, Lines 31-32: The entire DEIR traffic impact analysis focuses on the Post 2010 conditions with numerous assumptions with regard ' to the roadway network. The City requires an opening day traffic analysis per County CMP and City TIA guidelines. 961 As noted in Part III.D the import of earth will likely take 22 months to complete even if one ignores the , grading and compaction which would be undertaken after imported soils are brought onsite. A further discussion of the phasing of import, compaction and grading would enable the reader to understand the time required for hauling and compaction operations and the use of the haul road. ' LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 ' Page 147 ' (4) Page 4.8-1, Lines 31-34: The HOCTAM Model was utilized for all traffic analyses conducted for the TIA/DEIR. While this was the appropriate ' model several years ago, recent developments have resulted in the development of the Santa Ana River Area (SARA) Model, which more accurately presents traffic and infrastructure conditions anticipated to be present in the City Area for future analyses. Therefore, all rtraffic modelling should be redone utilizing SARA. The current City General Plan Update Circulation Element is utilizing SARA (please see attached letter dated November 1, 1993). ' It should be emphasized that SARA is an Orange County Model! (5) Page 4.8-2, Lines 35-36: Clarify "assumed capacities" used in volume to capacity calculations. Additionally, the segment of Pacific Coast Highway from Bolsa Avenue to the Orange County Line has not been included in the listing of links where volumes currently exceed capacity. The section of Beach Boulevard from ' McFadden Street north has been improved to eight lanes, and does not experience volume in excess of capacity. ' (6) Page 4.8-3, Figure 4.8-1: Several errors are present in this Figure. For example, the Ellis/Edwards intersection is an all-way stop, not a one-way stop as shown. Seapoint/Garfield is an all-way stop, not a traffic signal as shown. Seapoint/Palm is an all-way stop, not an uncontrolled intersection as shown. Warner Avenue is six lanes from Graham Street to Bolsa Chica street, and from Bolsa Chica Street to Algonquin Street, not four lanes as shown. The signalized intersections of Seal Beach Boulevard with Forrestal Lane, Road A, Road C, St. Andrews Drive and Golden Rain are not even included on the figure. These revisions should be made prior to remodelling for the revised DEIR. Additionally, the entire figure is unnecessarily complicated and misleading and could be substantially simplified, resulting in a more comprehensible exhibit for the lay reader. On the roadway segments shown in the figure, there are no intersections that are not all-way stops or signalized. The legend should be clarified and the figure redone in the revised DEIR. (7) Page 4.8-5, Line 2: Magnolia Street from Adams ' Avenue to Indianapolis Avenue currently operates at LOS "A" during the a.m. and midday peak periods, and at LOS "B" during the a.m. peak hour. Volumes do not exceed capacity on this link. ' (8) Page 4.8-5, Lines 16-19: The DEIR states that the ICU analysis is consistent with the requirements of GMP. The GMP analysis omits the 5- LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency , February 17, 1994 Page 148 ' percent loss of intersection capacity during peak hour. The City Traffic Impact Study Guidelines and the Orange County CMP require the use of 5-percent loss of intersection , capacity for ICU Calculations. Since over 30 intersections are impacted by the project in the City, the DEIR should revise the ICU calculations using the 5-percent loss of intersection capacity. (9) The DEIR uses the CMP criteria for selection of study area (page 4.8-1, lines 38 and 39), whereas the ICU analysis is conducted per GMP ' requirements. The CMP analysis procedure for ICU calculations requires the use of 5- percent loss of intersection capacity during peak hour operations. Also, the DEIR states that the CMP designated roadways must be examined in light of traffic flow, capacity and , planning objectives contained within the CMP (page 4.8-10, lines 30 and 31). The study ignores the above statement by conducting level of service analysis of CMP intersections per GMP guidelines. Therefore, the entire analysis must be redone, as the existing analysis ' was conducted pursuant to a mixture of requirements chosen as most convenient by County staff to utilize, but not totally consistent with any requirements. (10) Page 4.8-5, Line 29: Revise the results of the peak ' hour intersection analysis contained in Table 4.8-1 per City Traffic Impact Assessment Preparation Guidelines/CMP ICU Analysis Methodology requirements for reasons stated in ' (8) above. (11) Page 4.8-10, Lines 30-31: "Designated roadways must be examined in light of traffic flow, capacity and planning objectives contained within the CMP." This statement reiterates the point (discussed above) that because CMP requirements were not adhered to, the entire TIA needs to be redone. ' (12) Page 4.8-12, Lines 45-48: The DEIR states that the future transportation conditions without the project have been evaluated using the HOCTAM model. When a better modelling tool, the Santa Ana River Area (SARA) model, was available during the preparation of the traffic study, why wasn't the new model used? The City has gone on record stating that they feel that the "SARA" model is much ' more detailed and accurate in forecasting the future traffic in the study area than the "HOCTAM" model used (See letter dated November 1, 1993 attached to this letter as ANNEX No. 41). Also, the validity of using the current general plans and the assumption , of the roadway system links to full MPAH standards in the model are not acceptable, as the full MPAH network is not fully funded. Currently, the City is amending the general plan LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN b JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ' Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 149 land use, and expects the revised General Plan to be completed by April 1994. Such an assumption will lead to erroneous conclusions with respect to available future capacities on the roadway system. (13) Page 4.8-19, Line 2: The DEIR states that "traffic demands will require six lanes on Pacific Coast Highway". Does this refer to PCH north of Warner, or PCH throughout the study area? (14) Page 4.8-19, Lines 4-35: The links listed are identified as projected to carry daily traffic volumes in excess of their LOS ,E capacities. Pursuant ' to City policy, roadway segments must achieve LOS "C". A listing should be prepared showing all segments projected to carry volumes in excess of LOS "C" capacities, as the vast majority of the roadway links listed are within the City. (15) Page 4.8-19, Lines 38-40: The twenty intersections listed are projected to experience "operations deficiencies." What LOS was utilized as the basis of this analysis? City guidelines utilize LOS I'D" as the threshold for determining operational deficiencies at intersections. (16) Page 4.8-19, Lines 38-40: Based on our review of the model Post 2010 analyses (for all alternatives used), we feel that turning movement counts at some key intersections need to be verified or post processed. Post processing is the engineering adjustment of computer modelling data. For example, at the intersection of Beach Boulevard (N/S) and Warner Avenue (E/W), for alternative 21, Year 2010 - with PCH upsizing, the model forecasts 7 and 21 as the North Bound Left (NBL) turning ' movements during a.m. and p.m. peak periods respectively, whereas the existing turning movement counts taken on 2-25-92 indicate that the existing volumes are 277 and 269 during a.m. and p.m. peak periods respectively. Similarly, at the intersection of Beach ' Boulevard and Garfield Avenue for alternative 22 for the same scenario as above, the model forecasts large turning movement volumes during p.m. peak period, except the South Bound Right (SBR) turning movement is just 3 vehicles. The existing turning movement count indicates that the SBR is 146 vehicles during p.m. peak period. The question to be asked is, does this make sense? Why would the traffic volumes be reduced in the Year 2010, knowing very well that Beach Boulevard is going to be a Smart Street and carry ' substantially more traffic in 2010 than it does now? Has the model been properly calibrated? Some inconsistencies in turning movement counts are expected during modelling, but it is necessary to take a careful look at the model results and compare to the LAW OFF ICES N , ERVIN. COHE 9 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency ' February 17, 1994 Page 150 , existing field conditions. Irrespective of the changes in future land use and road network, the above modelling deficiency is not acceptable. In light of these errors occurring ' throughout the report with various alternatives used for analysis, the City suggests that the latest available modelling tool, SARA, be used for the required analysis, and that all analysis be done pursuant to Caiy guidelines.z" (17) Page 4.8-19, Lines 38-40: As existing turning movement counts and average daily traffic (ADT) data have not been provided for all , intersections and links, it is not possible to compare or verify the model results. Please provide the above data with the revised DEIR. (18) Page 4.8-20, Line 6: There is no intersection of , Garfield Avenue at Garfield Avenue. It appears that the intersection in question is Magnolia Street and Garfield Avenue. Please verify. , (19) Page 4.8-20, Lines 47-51: Due to inherent modelling errors with respect to turning movement counts at several intersections, the model results cannot be accepted as 'Base Case" conditions. (20) Page 4.8-22, Lines 11-18: As previously discussed, no , analysis of impacts to freeways was conducted. Pursuant to CMP requirements, all freeways are CMP roadways and must be analyzed for impacts (Orange County CMP Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, 1994). , (21) Page 4.8-22, Lines 11-18: The DEIR "mixes and matches" criteria to be utilized in determining significance of impacts, sometimes utilizing CMP criteria and sometimes utilizing GMP criteria. This is only acceptable if the most stringent criteria are utilized. The County has selected criteria which are not the most stringent. For example, the CMP assumes a 5% loss of intersection capacity during peak ' hours. This assumption was not utilized in the analysis. Similarly, City TIA Guidelines are not satisfied. The project study area has been established using the CMP criteria. Yet, the study does not follow the guidelines provided for preparation of the CMP traffic impact , analysis methodology. For a project of this magnitude and impact, the report provides only the capacity analysis of intersections and links. It does not provide the "impact costs and 971 As noted above in this letter, the use of the City guidelines is appropriate in this case since most of the tragic and circulation impacts from the project would occur within the City. , LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ' Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 ' Page 151 ' mitigation" required due to the project, as the CMP requires. As mentioned earlier, even ' though the project primarily is within unincorporated County area, the majority of the traffic generated by the project uses the City roadway network. In light of this, the City requires the roadway improvement costs for each phase of the project, including opening day. These costs could be substantial. For example, upgrades of existing signalized intersections can approach $75,000 while new signalization of existing intersections with only minor roadwork can approach $250,000. Street widening costs (12' wide, pavement Qnly) can approach $180,000 per mile without additional right-of-way, while adding one additional lane, including earthwork, drainage modifications and shoulders can cost as much as $1,000,000 per mile, exclusive of additional right-of-way. Right-of-way costs in the ' City for commercial frontage average $35.00 per square foot for land only, and can approach $100 per square foot if severance and utility relocations are included. Without details of specific improvements required at each intersection and along each link, it is impossible to estimate costs of all required improvements. However, a preliminary estimate by the City indicates that total required improvement costs in the City could well approach tens of millions of dollars.L" The study simply states that funding will be provided for all mitigation under ATIP. This assumption is not acceptable to the City as the City roadway system will be heavily impacted by the project generated traffic. For example, the construction of the Gap Connector Road with different alternatives is estimated to cost millions of dollars. It is essential that the City know where and when the funds will be available for such major improvements in the study area. (22) Page 4.8-22, Lines 31-36: Please explain the difference between "Applicant funding" and "ATIP Fees". If the Applicant will not commit to funding 100% of all required improvements, exactly how will the remainder of the required funds be obtained? (23) Page 4.8-22, Lines 44-45: "All improvements shall be fully funded by the Applicant to which the project contributes significant traffic..." What is the definition of "significant"? 981 These costs do not include the additional costs of obtaining environmental clearance, costs of design and other costs which may be incurred in implementation. Further, the DEIR does not consider the outcome if public ' opposition in the areas affected impedes or precludes the proposed street and intersection improvements. LAW OFFICES ' ERVIN. COHEN Fs JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency , February 17, 1994 Page 152 ' (24) Page 4.8-22, Lines 48-50: "The commitments outlined in Table 4.8-2 together with their monitoring have been incorporated into the Proposed Project as a PDF by the Applicant." If the Applicant is stating that these improvements, i.e., alterations to public roadways and intersections in the City and other cities, are a part of the project, than the Applicant must commit to fully fund these improvements. Additionally, any Development Agreement between the Applicant and the County should be subject to prior approval of the City. (25) Page 4.8-25, Lines 4-6: Table 4.8-3 will require , revisions considering the need for verifying the model results. (26) Page 4.8-25, Lines 43-45: The DEIR states that the , proposed project consists of 4,286 units, at ultimate build out. The proposed project should include 4,884 units and the appropriate number of generated trips. Please clarify whether ' modelling and analyses were conducted utilizing 4,286 units or 4,884 units. (27) Page 4.8-28, Lines 1-5: As recommended earlier, the ' SARA model should be used to evaluate the future conditions in the study area. (28) Page 4.8-29, Lines 7-14: The project traffic ' distribution forecasts that nearly 85% of the project traffic will be distributed within a four mile radius of the project site, with a very small percentage reaching the freeways surrounding the project. This estimate seems to be very low, in light of the statement made ' in the report that work-related trips represent approximately 26% of the project average daily traffic (page 4.8-29, Lines 1 to 4). As the majority of the traffic will be using the City roadway network, from the projected project distribution it is implied that nearly all ' work-related trips will end within the City. Please identify the facilities in Huntington Beach that will provide this large number of future jobs. (29) Page 4.8-29, Lines 35-37: The DEIR states that the , improvements were then modeled to quantify that LOS was improved to acceptable levels. The CMP traffic impact methodology requires that impact costs be estimated. Please ' provide overall project impact costs and costs for City improvements for all recommended mitigations. (30) Page 4.8-29, Lines 37-39: "The traffic report in Appendix G provides additional detail on financing and implementation of the ATIP which 1 LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ' Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 ' Page 153 will represent a formal agreement between the Applicant and the County of Orange.II In ' fact, Appendix G provides very little detail on funding and implementation and contains no cost estimates. Pursuant to CMP requirements, cost data must be provided. Additionally, any agreement regarding facilities in the City must be an agreement between the Applicant and the City, and must be a separate instrument apart from the DEIR. (31) Page 4.8-29, Lines 41-42: "Because the Proposed Project will include ATIP as a PDF, the Proposed Project will not have a significant adverse impact on these existing and potential deficient conditions in the long term." This statement assumes that full funding for all required improvements is available. This is not ' the case - no specific funding has been identified for any required capital improvements or for any ensuing operational and maintenance costs. With overall traffic improvements potentially costing tens of millions of dollars, not including long term operational and ' maintenance costs, specific funding commitments must be identified. (32) Page 4.8-29, Lines 41-42: The statement that the ' proposed project, due to the implementation of ATIP as a PDF, will not have a significant adverse impact on existing and future conditions is erroneous and misleading. Roadway and intersection PDF's are nothing but mitigation measures required by the project to ' achieve acceptable levels of service in the study area, and should be identified as such and included in the CEQA-required Mitigation Monitoring Program. ' (33) Page 4.8-29, Lines 42-45: "In the short term...compliance with the County GMP has not yet been demonstrated. Such compliance must be ensured in order to ensure consistency with the County General Plan and, 1 therefore, such compliance forms the basis for mitigation of these impacts." The DEIR cannot be considered adequate if it does not even discuss short term impacts and required mitigation measures, including costs. Additionally, as most traffic impacts occur in the ' City, there should be consistency, both long and short term, with City policies, procedures, and plans. This has not been discussed in the DEIR. (34) Page 4.8-34, Lines 17-19: "The transportation analysis for this project...utilizes the existing MPAH network for a basis of analysis and evaluation of proposed project transportation impacts." This statement is misleading. The ultimate ' MPAH network, as it is currently planned, is utilized as the basis of all analyses. To assume the ultimate MPAH network is in place ignores the question of who provides the substantial funding required to complete the MPAH network as it is currently designed. LAW OFF ICES N ' ERVIN. COHE & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency , February 17, 1994 Page 154 , (35) Page 4.8-34, Lines 21-23: "Should such changes (e.g., Santa Ana River bridge crossings, and so forth) occur, a revised traffic analysis and ' appropriate mitigation measures would be required..." Because of this very point, it is necessary that a revised traffic impact analysis utilizing SARA be conducted to present decision makers with the currently available information. (36) Page 4.8-35, Lines 27-28: "...Mhere remains a need to analyze impacts on the short term at each distinct phase of development." We ' completely agree that short term impacts need to be analyzed for the proposed project. They must be analyzed prior to making any decisions on the proposed project, to give decision makers the best currently available information. Therefore, they must be analyzed , now in the DEIR. Without this analysis, there are too many unknowns for decision makers to make informed decisions. (37) Page 4.8-35, Lines 38-43: The traffic study states that ' the project generates over 25,000 trip ends per day. The proposed Gross Cap Connector is one of the major access roads (if built) to the project area. The study forecasts only 3,000 ' to 4,000 of the project trips to use this road. This estimate seems to be low, as the Cross Gap Connector acts as the only access to many north-south streets intersecting this roadway. Please clarify. ' (38) Page 4.8-36, Lines 17-19: There appears to be a line (or lines) of text missing here. The statement does not make sense. ' (39) Page 4.8-36, Lines 19-20: "...the effects are not so significant that mitigation cannot be properly developed under an effective ATIP program." , Are the effects significant or not? What is the significance criteria utilized? To assume that a currently unfunded ATIP Program can mitigate these "not so significant" impacts, when no cost estimates of required improvements have been presented, is not logical. ' (40) Page 4.8-37, Lines 7-9: "Short term GMP and CMP objectives may not be achieved as a result of roadway improvements proposed by the , ATIP, which have not been analyzed at various increments of proposed development phasing." In fact, nothing was analyzed at any phase of development except 2010. Short term impacts must be identified and mitigation measures developed for all phases of , development. If GMP and CMP objectives are not being met until project build-out, if at all, decision makers must have this information prior to acting on this project. It must be LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 ' Page 155 ' known whether r not intersections and links will acceptable level of service at o ks operate ats all times during all phases of project construction, not just at Year 2010. (41) Page 4.8-37, Lines 25-26: "All PDFs described in this chapter shall be implemented as part of project development." If the Applicant is proposing to implement roadway and intersection improvements, estimated to cost as much as tens of millions of dollars, and to And them, please indicate so. If the Applicant will not commit to total funding, then the PDFs are not actually Project Design Features. All PDFs must be treated as mitigation measures and, as such, must be subject to a legally adequate mitigation monitoring and reporting program under CEQA. (42) Page 4.8-37, Lines 30-32: "The OCEMA shall ensure compliance...through the mitigation monitoring process." Nowhere are specifics of the mitigation monitoring process identified, as is required. CEQA specifically delineates what is required relative to mitigation monitoring programs. ' (43) Page 4.8-37, Lines 49-50: "...obtain County approval of a construction traffic routing plan/construction access plan." As all construction traffic will utilize City roadways, the City approve the plan. ' (44) Page 4.8-39, Lines 1-5: This discussion of easements and right-of-way only applies to property owned by the Applicant. What are the plans for ' obtaining easements and right-of-way for the large number of intersections where additional land not owned by the Applicant is required? The PDFs identified require that significant additional right-of-way be obtained to enable construction of the improvements. ' At a cost of up to $35.00 per square foot (land value only, not including any severance costs) for right-of-way at key developed intersections, acquisition of all required additional right-of-way will be a multi-million dollar cost. Estimated costs for right-of-way and construction should be prepared for all impacted intersections and roadway segments, as part of the DEIR review process, and should be subject to further review by the City. ' (45) Page 4.8-39, Lines 29-30: The standards for evaluation for intersections and roadway links in the City should be City criteria. LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN 13 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency ' February 17, 1994 Page 156 ' (46) Page 4.8-39, Lines 42-43: What is the actual project impact on Pacific Coast Highway? Please include this in the revised DEIR, including a calculation of the "fair share" cost of improvements. Specific Comments on TIA (Appendix G) (47) Page S-1: "The study area for the traffic impact analysis has been determined based on CMP criteria.." If the study area is based on CMP criteria, all CMP criteria should be utilized, including reducing intersection capacities by 5% during peak hours. This was not done. (48) Page S-20: "The project's fair share contribution to improvements, however, is proportional only to the future new traffic , which has previously been shown to be only 20% of total future traffic." While this may be true for ' 2010 conditions,n' it may very well not be true for short term conditions. Per CMP requirements, short term conditions also must be analyzed, and short term costs must be estimated. The City requests that costs and funding sources be identified for each phase of ' development. (49) Page S-27: "The ATIP includes a variety of , improvements throughout a broad geographical study area. Implementation is dependent on a number of factors, including the cooperation of public agencies within a broad area of benefit. It may not be possible, therefore, to implement all the roadway improvements ' identified in the ATIP. Where necessary for reasons other than the landowner's failure to provide funding, substitute improvements may be provided if they (1) are satisfactory to the Director of EMA, (2) cost no more than the original improvements, and (3) do not , unreasonably delay the landowner's proposed occupancy date. Substitute improvements may include alternative physical improvements or travel demand management (TDM)/transportation system management (TSM) measures." What is the "broad area of ' benefit" referred to in this section? How can it be referred to as an "area of benefit" if adverse traffic impacts from the project are imposed upon current residents of the City? What is the City's incentive to cooperate if there is no assurance that all project impacts ' will be fully mitigated at no cost to the City? This section implies that if the landowner 991 Even the projection for 2010 may be inadequate to the extent it does not consider the impact of the Mesa ' development of up to 4,286 homes or the potential for MPAH improvements (including the cross-gap connector to remain unconstructed). ' 1 1 LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN b JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PPOFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ' Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 157 ' provides his "fair share" of required funding for a specific intersection improvement, but P � g P� the local agency cannot provide their share of funding, that the Director of EMA could ' allow substitute improvements, e.g., allow residential development to occur without the implementation of appropriate PDFs (intersection improvements) and instead require the landowner to urge future residents to carpool during peak hours. This treatment renders an already legally inadequate traffic impact mitigation scheme even less effective and less appropriate. ' (50) Page 143: "The program shall fully fund all improvements by the Applicant to which the project contributes significant traffic." What is the definition of significant traffic? "The project shall provide traffic impact analysis and comply with all applicable CMP and ' GMP requirements prior to the time of Local Coastal Program and/or development agreement approval, unless the County and the affected landowner mutually agree to operate according to later developed GMP, CMP or similar requirements." The project ' should provide a complete and thorough traffic impact analysis now, prior to any action by the County on the project. This includes an analysis of short term traffic impacts and mitigation, including costs and funding sources for all improvements identified as needed in the short and long term. (51) Page 148: "The County of Orange will be the Lead ' Agency with respect to running the Technical Advisory Committee..." Because project traffic impacts primarily affect the City, the City should be the Lead Agency for the Technical Advisory Committee. (52) Page 149: "...City of Huntington Beach...will be responsible for construction of roadway improvements included in their jurisdiction." Will the County/Applicant provide all required funding, including funding for City staff time, required for roadway improvements in the City? The DEIR must provide a cost estimate for each and every improvement required. ' L. CHAPTER 4.9 - AIR OUALrrY. 1. Mitigation of Construction Period Air Quality Impacts. Page 4.9- 18, lines 11-40 states that all the elements of Mitigation Measure 4.9-1 (requiring that "to the extent feasible" the contractor must control exhaust emissions in a manner consistent 1 LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN b JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency , February 17, 1994 Page 158 ' with her requirements of the SCA MD will be verified b the n during normal 't t eq Q ) y e County g construction site inspections. In practice, this is rarely done because the typical inspector is ' neither educated nor qualified to make these inspections. Additionally, the inspector is rarely empowered nor inclined to cause these measures to be put into place should the inspector find otherwise. These measures should be checked and inspected by a qualified entity acceptable to the SCAQMD and certified as being in place on a weekly basis by that entity. Unless this is practiced, the Mitigation Measure holds no merit and renders the DEIR inadequate in this regard. ' 2. Presence of Sensitive Receptors. CEQA requires that the significance of an impact must be evaluated in light of its environmental setting. The air , quality analysis does not evaluate the impacts in light of the sensitive environmental setting of the project or its proximity to environmentally sensitive habitat and residential populations. The DEIR's analysis is limited to basin wide impacts and a consideration of ' consistency with regional planning documents only. Further analysis of the impacts in light of the particularly sensitive setting of the project is required. 3. Non-Attainment Area. The DEIR does note at page 4.9-17, lines ' 36-40 that the project would have a cumulative impact on air quality and the air basin's ability to achieve attainment with applicable standards; however, the DEIR does not find ' this impact to be significantYm— The DEIR does not describe why the cumulative impact on the South Coast Air Basin as a non-attainment area is insignificant nor does it adequately assess the cumulative impact of the project and other projects on the ability of the air basin to attain federal and State air quality standards. 4. Omitted Information on CO Concentrations. The air quality , analysis omits CO levels at key intersections. A table which lists 1-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations for all intersections substantially affected by the project should be included in the recirculated DEIR. Further, although the text repeatedly refers to the air quality handbook and the sources for its emission factors, it must also reference its surface transportation assumptions. 100/ The fact that the South Coast Air Basin is designated as a non-attainment area is buried within the text of the DEIR and the consequences of that designation are not discussed in the DEIR. ' 1 LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS rOrange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 159 5. Construction Emissions. Construction emissions are not d uatel a eq y documented, especially in light of the Air Quality analysis' treatment of the 1,200 round truck trips per week (i.e., 2,400 total weekly truck trips) which will be required over nearly two yeas of the construction period in order to import the fill required per Figure 4.12-26 of the DEIR. Page 4.9-10, lines 37-38 states that "very few offsite truck hauls are anticipated during infrastructure development." How does this square with the 1,906,233 cubic yards of earth which will be imported to the site according to Figure 4.12-26? The recirculated DEIR must clarify the air impacts of the earth import operation. It will also need to include more detail regarding the phasing of construction, the types of construction activity to be undertaken, the types of equipment to be used, etc. in order for the DEIR to give the reader adequate information regarding the potentially significant air quality impacts during construction. Further, in order to give the reader comfort regarding whether PM,o emissions are significant, the DEIR (and the project approval) should limit the total surface area of earth which may be disturbed in a single day. Without such limitations, the proposed mitigation measures will not be sufficient to assure that no significant impact will occur due to increased levels of particulates and fugitive dust. ' 6. Significance of Site Remediation. The remediation of the site will also have significant air quality impacts which are not adequately examined in the DEIR. The DEIR notes that ROG and NO2 impacts would be significant during construction and ROG, CO and NO2 impacts would be significant impacts of operation but does not consider other air emissions to be significant.— This is not supported by the facts of the DEIR, especially in light of the scope of earth import and compaction activities which will be required. Further, the DEIR does not consider the potential hazard to human health from the remediation of the contaminated soils onsite. The site is adjacent to sensitive human, plant and animal receptors and the site is significantly contaminated. There will be a massive earth movement operation which will launch a significant mass of particulate matter into the atmosphere. What assurance can be obtained regarding the potential for that particulate matter to contain hazardous materials or substances? The DEIR does not adequately analyze this potential hazard. 101/ There is no adequate explanation of why the DEIR omits consideration of NO and SO contamination. For example, usually all oxides of nitrogen and sulfer are analyzed(e.g.,both NO and NO,)in the aggregate. Why does this DEIR take a different approach? r LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency , February 17, 1994 Page 160 7. Omission of Summary Table of Significant Intersections. It is typical for EIRs to provide at least a summary table of the significant intersections depicting existing, projected future conditions, without the project, projected future conditions with the project, and oftentimes comparison with the build alternatives. In this manner, even if the project does not show a significant impact, it can be compared with other relevant scenarios. The omission of such a table makes it very difficult for the reader to assess the conclusion that air quality (and traffic circulation) impacts are not significant. 8. Consistency with AQMP/General Plan Elements. The air quality section does not specifically mention which set of land use assumptions were used within the existing AQMP, yet it mentions on Page 4.9-5 that "New or amended General Plan elements, Specific Plans, and projects with potentially significant air quality impacts need to undergo a consistency review. In this case, the proposed project will require a General Plan Amendment; therefore, a consistency determination is necessary" The question is, what is the current "reigning" General Plan land use element? Based upon review of the General Plan section of the EIR, it appears the document is assuming that the County of Orange Local Coastal Program/Land Use Plan (1986) represents the current planning scenario to the site. As noted previously in this letter, although it is apparent that the development of the applicant's proposed project is somewhat downsized from the 1986 land use plan - a consistency review still must consider whether the project is consistent with the Land Use Element and other elements of the County's General Plan. As detailed above, the proposed project is inconsistent with the plan in many respectsAY The arterial circulation system of the proposed project is not consistent with the adopted County Transportation Element (a copy of which is attached to this letter as ANNEX No. 52) and MPAH because Bolsa Chica Street will not connect with Garfield (page 4.1-39, line 13). The proposed project proposes additional bike routes through Bolsa Chica which are not currently reflected in the MPAH or County Wide Bikeways (page 4.1-39, line 17). The proposed project, therefore, requires an amendment to the County General Plan (Transportation Element) the traffic impact of which is anticipated to be mitigated through implementation of an ATIP and subsequent traffic analysis (page 4.1-39, line 20). It is unclear from the analysis whether these changes in the traffic network will adversely affect air quality. 1021 Since the 1986 LCP land use plan was only conditionally cenfied, it is not a fully approved planning ' document. The DEIR does not clearly state and support that the densities of development permitted under the 1986 LCP included in the assumptions for the AQMP. Fuller discussion and clarification of this issue is required in the recirculated DEIR. r LAW OFFICES III ERVIN . COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSNI INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Oran;e County Environmental Management Agency Febr iary 17, 1994 Page 161 9. Miscellaneous. a. Page 4.9-7. top: Site remediation would impact local air qual ty. An estimate of this impact should be prepared and included in the EIR. b. Page 4.9-9. Line 22-24: Only four selected model runs are press :nted. Further, they are presented without explanation and the format is such that no persI in other than the preparer can decipher the data. The DEIR must include a table deta ling the model result at all affected intersections, otherwise the public and the decision- mak ;rs cannot evaluate the significance of the impact. C. Page 4.9-13. line 33: Won't parking areas use asphalt too? Hove about asphalt roofing materials? d. Page 4.9-7. line 28: "Based on the simultaneous use of 41 pies ss of heavy equipment -- Please clarify on how 41 pieces of heavy equipment was arri, ed at. e. Page 4.9-7. line 32: Clarify what the 70 trucks and 40 mile rout dtrip was based on. f. Paee 4.9-7. line 40: Clarify how the 400 workers traveling 21.f miles per day was derived. g. Page 4.9-9. line 5: Similar to previous comment, how was the 10.1 mile average one-way trip derived, versus the 3.59 miles for buses and trucks. h. Page 4.9-9. lines 36-46: The assumptions used for the 8-hour stan lard are discussed as well as the results. However, it is not specifically mentioned whi :h intersection the results are for, presumably - Golden West Street and Edinger Ave nue. It is the only intersection where the 8-hour standard was exceeded? i. Page 4.9-9. lines 44-50: The text suggests the air quality imr ict at Golden West Street and Edinger Avenue is not significant because the No Project Alti rnative actually generates an additional 47 vehicles during the PM peak period. The refore, the text concludes that this CO hot spot is actually reduced by 0.1 ppm and woi Id not be significant. On line 49 there is assumed a "minor redistribution of traffic," -- LAW OFF ICES ERVIN. COHEN Fs JESSUP A PARTVERSNIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 162 but it is unclear what this means. Also, the text does not explain why there are 47 more vehicles entering the intersection without the proposed project. It would be useful to clarify in the air quality section why there are more vehicles entering this intersection under the No Project Condition. Page 7-51 indicates in lines 10 and 11 that Alternative H: No Project, proposes no housing. M. CHAPTER 4.10 - NOISE. 1. General Comment. This section would be more readable and understandable if some of the data provided in the technical appendices were pulled forward in summary fashion into the EIR. This would provide some explanation for the conclusions reached in the text. Also, there are a number of statements that require clarification and statements that appear wrong or are simply worded in a confusing manner. The community infield noise measurements are inappropriate. 2. Lack of Construction Phasing Information Hampers Analysis. The construction phasing will determine the significance of the impacts on existing residents of the area and on project residents occupying the earlier phases of development. However, the DEIR provides nothing more than a general outline of phasing which states that the development would commence in the Mesa, proceed to the MWD property and conclude in the Lowlands. This is not sufficient information to perform any meaningful analysis of construction noise (or air, traffic or other) impacts.103' 3. No Data on Event-Level Noise Is Presented. The noise analysis ignores the peak noise levels which will be experienced by residents as measured by one- hour equalized noise measurements (L�), a better descriptor of the nuisance and discomfort which would be experienced due to construction activities during the day. Instead, the DEIR's acoustical analysis relies on the use of averaging measurements such as CNEL and Lam„ both of which measure average noise experienced at a location, giving particular weight to evening and night hours when construction activities do not occur. This understates the noise impact on residents. An example of the different results obtained 1031 This is but one of the many examples noted in this letter of the reasons why the purported program DEIR would not be a sufficient project EIR for the construction of the Mesa. Because construction impacts are not adequately analyzed in the DEIR, any development project in the LCP Area will require a further environmental impact report regarding the impacts of construction; however, the DEIR appears to contemplate that no further environmental review would be required by the County. r i LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 163 from L.q versus L,,. analysis is provided by comparing the location of the 60dBA Lq contour for noise from compaction activities (estimated to occur at 1,410 feet from the source of the noise) with the 60 dBA Ld�, contour (estimated to occur at 792 feet from the source). See page 4.10-6, lines 35-44. Thus, by using the L� descriptor, the DEIR omits the daytime impact of noise levels in excess of 60 dBA on those noise receptors (e.g. the residents of the nearby homes and the wildlife and birds in the wetlands) which are located at a distance between 792 feet and 1,410 feet from the noise source. Depending on the phasing of the project and the location of the activity, Lq measurements may reveal a significant noise impact which is not analyzed in the DEIR. The DEIR simply does not provide sufficient analysis, data or other information to inform the reader of what the actual construction period noise impacts would be. When dealing with construction noise, which is conceded by the DEIR to be particularly intense and annoying to the human listener, it is vital for the analysis to include both the average noise levels (as in CNEL and L,, analysis) and the more temporally-focused analysis provided by one-hour Le. measurements. 4. Vibration Impacts Are Ignored. The acoustical analysis ignores the impact of vibration on the surrounding area. DDC activities in particular may generate a significant vibration impact.1O" 5. Failure to Obtain Information on Current Ambient Condition. Noise monitoring in the local community should have been conducted to establish an existing ambient beyond the site, since construction noise and traffic noise from the land development can then be compared to the existing ambient in the community.1010" The DEIR at Figure 4.10-1, notes 8 sampling locations used to assess "vehicle generated noise".106' The DEIR does not describe the method used for obtaining the information nor does it present the raw data from which the stated range of 51.3 dBA to 56.1 dBA was derived. Further, it does not state whether those figures represent CNEL, Ld., or Lw 1041 See Page 4.10-6 which ignores the noise and vibration generated be Dynamic Deep Compaction equipment. 1051 Here again,as in the case of hazardous materials,planning impacts and many other impacts noted above in this letter, the County has failed to obtain and circulate appropriate baseline data to show the current environmental condition. Without that data, it is dicult for a person reviewing the DEIR to understand whether the DEIR analysis of the significance of impacts is accurate, complete or adequate. 1061 Throughout its analysis,the DEIR assumes that construction equipment and traffic are the only significant noise impacts of creating 4,286 homes on undeveloped land. That assertion is not supported. LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN a JESSUP A PARTUERSNIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 164 measurements. In order for the noise analysis to have meaning, a better presentation of the currently existing conditions must be provided, including a table which states measured hourly one-hour L, values for the six receptor locations noted at Figure 4.10-1 and a description of the manner in which those values were obtained in the field. In addition, the sampling should be expanded by adding more sampling locations so that more than vehicle- generated noise is measured. The recirculated DEIR should focus on describing the existing noise conditions as measured throughout the proposed LCP Area and compare those conditions against the projected noise conditions which would exist during each phase of construction (and for this purpose, among others, the construction phasing would have to be more thoroughly described than at present) and at project completion. 6. Incomplete Modelling of Projected Noise Conditions. The noise analysis ignores the effect of the contours of the existing terrain on noise attenu- ation/transmission. It also ignores the impact of the modified terrain on noise/attenuation during each phase of project construction and at project build out. For example, the western portion of the Mesa will be raised by fill and will generate far more noise than at present. How much noise will be generated (both by vehicles and residential activities such as lawnmowers, etc.) into the wetlands and the surrounding communities by the new residences overlooking the area? The DEIR never adequately considers this issue. See page 4.10-5 and 4.10-6. 7. Construction Noise Will Be Significant. Page 4.10-10, lines 37-38: It is doubtful that the impacts of compaction equipment could be fully mitigated to a level which was not deemed significant be surrounding land uses. 8. Noise Impact on Wetlands and FSHAs. The DEIR never considers the potential impacts on wildlife and birds within the wetlands. Will the DDC and other high noise producing activities impact the ability of the endangered, threatened and candidate species in the area to breed and thrive? The reader cannot know because the DEIR does not compare the existing conditions in the wetlands with the projected conditions during each phase of construction and after project build-out.107 Further, the 1071 The failure of the DEIR to include noise measurements at the noise sampling locations noted in Figure 4.10-1 further hampers the analysis. What is the current noise condition at each location noted on the figure, and at location NS-6 (the one location within the wetlands) in particular? What is the noise projected to be at each phase of construction? What mitigation measures are available to reduce the impact of construction/project noise (continued...) LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PAPTNER$NIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS �I Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 165 DEIR only considers the impact on human listeners. Although the use of the A-weighted decibel scale (i.e., dBA) may be appropriate for measuring the impact on humans, it may ' be that other descriptors, weighing different frequencies of sound more heavily than the A- weighted scale would be more appropriate. A more thorough analysis of all of the environmental impacts of the noise generated by the construction and occupancy of the project is required in the DEIR. 9. Peak Hour Traffic Noise Levels. Please explain how peak-hour noise levels can be less. It is assumed that what is meant is that the peak-hour traffic- related noise is less (i.e. 6 to 9 AM and 4 to 7 PM), not the peak-hour noise. The text should clarify if this is due to reduced vehicle speeds due to a poorer level of service. This needs clarification. Next, if the remainder of the days session (school day) 9 AM to 3 PM is an additional 2 to 3 dBA less, than noise levels are between 5 and 6 dBA less than predicted. How can this occur? If the peak-hour traffic-related noise is 2 to 3 dBA less than predicted (i.e., between 6 to 9 AM and 4 to 7 PM), than one would assume the intervening hours must be louder not quieter, otherwise what is the peak-hour traffic-related noise less than? The remaining hours are between 7 PM and 5 AM when little traffic noise is generated. Please clarify. 10. Future Mitigation Plans Intended to Address Current Impacts. t. The following items are examples of the future studies and mitigation plans/measures to be developed in the future but which are currently relied upon by the DEIR for mitigation of significant adverse hydrology impacts from the project: a. Noise from DDC Compacting of Lowlands. Mitigation Measure 4.2-8b notes that DDC compaction will be designed so that the construction does not produce unacceptable noise levels;10-' however, this mitigation measure does not describe the acceptable levels of noise for the existing single family homeowners nor does it consider the vibration impacts of this activities. The impact on nesting bird populations is 107/(...continued) in the wetlands,both at location NS-6 and at the additional locations which must be included in the sample? Should DDC or other heavy construction be prohibited during the nesting season of threatened species or species of special concern? The recirculated DEIR must answer these questions. 10g/ Compare Chart at page 4-285 of EIR/EIS. LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 166 likewise ignored and should be considered in detail. What is the effect of 96 dBA of pile driving on the breeding ability of the endangered and candidate species known to exist and breed in the area? 11. Miscellaneous. a. Page 4.10-1, line 48: It is assumed that the noise monitor location N-7 is the subject of the discussion pertaining to the Pacific Coast Highway. Please confirm. b. Page 4.10-3, lines 1-6: It is assumed that the noise monitor location N-8 is the subject of the discussion pertaining to Warner Avenue. Please confirm. C. Page 4.10-4, lines 1-10: It is assumed that for this discussion the referenced Ldn values are at a distance of 50 feet. Please confirm. d. Page 4.10-4, lines 12-17: The accepted California noise metric is CNEL, not Ldn, albeit the differences between the metrics are minimal. It is assumed that Lines 26-30 provides the rationale for using Ldn. Were the City, County and State consulted prior to the decision to use Ldn? Why are no one-hour L". measurements also provided. Please elaborate. e. Table 4.10-1: The purpose of this table is unclear since it is not related to any of the local streets. f. Page 4.10-6, lines 1-2: Construction equipment associated with wetland restoration (i.e. dredging) is very loud and could produce noise levels that exceed noise standards. The text should be revised to reflect construction-related noise. g. Page 4.10-6, lines 4-17: This discussion is confusing and warrants some clarification. Specifically, Line 8 states that "The peak-hour noise levels are approximately 2 to 3 dBA less than the modified Ld. values while the remainder of the day's sessions would be an additional 2 to 3 dBA less." h. Why is there no discussion about residential uses and noise exposure. Are the impacts significant? Please explain. LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 6 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 167 i. Pages 4.10-4 and 4.10-6: It would be helpful if at least a summary table was shown in the DEIR text that addresses noise exposure for those major roadway segments that have residential, schools, or other sensitive receptors adjacent to them. Even if there are no significant impacts, the reader would be able to see the assumptions for ADT and the respective Ldn values without referring to another technical volume. The lack of mention of traffic noise in Section 4.10.3.1 is surprising since only one roadway segment (Bolsa Chica Street at Warren Avenue to Bolsa Chica Street Extension) was determined to have a significant adverse impact. j. Page 4.10-6: To provide a clearer understanding of construction related noise impacts, the document should identify where in the local community construction noise is likely to exceed the 60 Ldn identified on Page 4.10-7, Line 18. Only then can the true impact be understood. For example, assuming the method employed on Page 4.10-6 -- which sensitive receivers on select streets around the site fall within those distances cited and how much does traffic noise mask that impact? k. Page 4.10-7 and 4.10-8: It would be helpful to discuss why not "upsizing" PCH provides a greater contrast for noise. Theoretically, if PCH is not widened then traffic level of service would be reduced and so would vehicle speeds. If vehicle speeds are lower overall, then noise levels would likely be also. If the analysis assumes the same vehicle speed for all scenarios, then the applicant's project would contribute more substantially to the total noise energy along PCH since it would probably contribute a greater percentage of the traffic. Was there any consideration for reducing vehicle speeds along PCH or on the network without PCH improvements? Please clarify. 1. Page 4.10-9, lines 46-49: This measure helps to quantify the real noise impact for this roadway segment and provides for a noise reduction recommendation. However, to ensure the recommendation is followed up on and implemented, the text should be amended to include provisions for implementation. N. CHAPTER 4.11 - CULTURAL RESOURCES. 1. Misidentification of Gun Emplacements. The DEIR states that the gun emplacements on the Mesa were constructed by the Corps during the early years of I WWII. See p. 4.11-5, 1n.47. In contrast, the documentation supplied to the County in connection with Koll's 1990 applications for demolition permits indicated that the emplacements were constructed in 1944 and were not completed or fitted with weapons. i� LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN & JE55UP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 168 This was the basis for permitting the demolition to proceed and now is brought into question by this DEIR. What is the true history and potential significance of these historical assets? 2. Deferred Study. The DEIR states that a research study of the Bolsa Chica region is currently in preparation; consequently, impact cannot be deemed insignificant until completed. Mitigation also indicates that there will be data recovery excavations but does not address extent of area to be evaluated or what will be done with the excavations. 3. Discovery of Human Remains. The Los Angeles Times reported on January 25, 1994 that allegations have been raised regarding the presence of 8,000 year-old human remains in the archaeologically significant sites within the project site at CA-ORA-83. A copy of that article is attached to this letter as ANNEX No. 42. The article cites a letter from Judy Myers Suchey identifying the remains. A copy of that letter is attached to this letter as ANNEX NO. 43. There appears to be significant disagreement as to the facts in this matter. The letter, dated January 31, 1994, from Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. (the consultant performing the excavations) to the City Council (a copy of which is attached to this letter as ANNEx NO. 44) states that concentrations of bone fragments were found at the site in summer of 1993; however, testimony at the January 31, 1994 City Council hearing (the transcript of which has been transmitted to you directly from the City) indicated that significant bone fragments were discovered and transmitted to UCLA for analysis as much as 12 months earlier. Attached to this letter as ANNEx No. 45 is a package of documents received from Pat Ware at the January 31, 1994 hearing, including attachments which indicate that a number of qualified professionals in the area are concerned over the treatment of the site and that the site known to contain human remains has been determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Further, the oral testimony memorialized by the transcript of the hearing indicated that many of the most likely descendants are both concerned and upset regarding the treatment of their ancestral burial site on the Mesa. Since a portion of the property has been determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register, the removal of the resource must be considered a significant impact on the environment and the recirculated DEIR must so state. In the meantime, no approvals should be granted and no further grading or excavation should be permitted on the site until the truth of the matter of human remains on the site can be ascertained by the County. LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN b JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 169 4. Consultation with State Historic Preservation Officer; California Re ister Criteria. PRC §§ 21084, 21084.1 define a project which would adversely affect a 1 storic resource as including resources eligible for listing in tether the National Register gr ne newly-created California Register of Historic Places. The DEIR improperly relies on a c :termination made prior to the creation of the California Register. Furthermore, there arf other determinants of whether a resource is of significance to a particular community or rel esents an example of a period of CaA ornia history. Mere adherence to the National Re ister standards for eligibility for listing is clearly not the CEQA definition of an impact to historic resource under PRC § 21084.1. Further analysis and study of the remaining gu bunker and related improvements (radio bunkers and other facilities were purportedly I(x .ted on the site as well) should be undertaken prior to certification of the DEIR. Why w2 a formal opinion not sought from the SHPO? See Page 4.11-24, line 20. Consultation wi i the SHPO would be invaluable in determining the site's eligibility for listing in the C2 :fornia Register. That determination must be made before the DEIR can be considered co iplete under CEQA.109' 5. Evaluation of Specific Archaeological Sites. a. ORA-78: The applicant's consultant states that the pre-historic co iponent of this site was determined to be "insignificant" by prior studies (page 4.11-12, �. lir, s 10-11 of the DEIR Cultural Resources section). However, they note that the marine in, -rtebrate Donax sp. is the predominant faunal species present. Indeed, they state that thi marine invertebrate remains are "...almost entirely of Donax..." Donax is a small clam fo 1d on open coast with shallow sandy surf zones. This species is rarely encountered as a pr iominant species at archaeological sites, indicating that it was not a preferred food so rce. An explanation for the predominance of an undesirable food was not provided. Ft ther, no acceptable dating scheme has been offered for this site (See Table 4.11-2 of the D] 1R Cultural Resources section). Unless these questions are addressed, the de ;rminations that ORA-78 is not scientifically significant cannot be made. It and su sequent determinations of no negative impact by the proponent's preferred alternative on th site may be unwarranted. Mitigation Measure 4.11-2, Table 1.5-1, page 1-35 only ad resses the historic resources represented at this site and is therefore inadequate. The 10 The SHPO is concerned regarding this site. Attached to this letter as ANNEX No. 56 are various items of co espondence from SHPO to the Corps, CCC and to Koll's counsel, noting SHPO's concern regarding the overly im uive and potentially destructive manner in which "important archaeological properties" were being treated, ur ng that a more comprehensive and sensitive approach be taken. LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN a JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 170 mitigation measures should be amended to address pre-historic resources, too. The significance of historic resources at this site have not been documented (Table 1.5-1, 1-35, Impact 4.11-2). The significance of historic resources at this site must be determined and evaluated by the DEIR. b. ORA-82: On page 4.11-16, line 27 to 4.11-17, line 47 of the DEIR's Cultural Resources section reported that none of portion of the site within the LCP study area has been tested, excavated or subjected to data recovery and analysis (DEIR Chapter 1, Executive Summary). "Most of the site within the LCP area has not been subject to either test excavations or data recovery." (page 4.11-16). It is presented as an assumption that the County will test, assess, excavate if necessary and mitigate all negative impacts to this site (Table 1.5-1, 1-35). Without more complete information, the accuracy of this assumption cannot be evaluated. Unless a major amount of excavation and analysis is underway, covering the apparently unstudied portion of this very important site within the LCP study area, is very unlikely that the negative impacts of the LCP study area development plan will have been adequately mitigated. No objective criteria have been provided for the assessment of whether proposed or on-going work (e.g., data recovery, significance testing, excavation, etc.) will be or are adequate or are or will mitigate project impacts to cultural resources. This will be a county responsibility under the conditions of the Applicant's preferred plan. Is their responsibility guaranteed in some way (e.g., by a bond, contract, etc.)? The DEIR should address the result of testing/data recovery activities conducted within the LCP area rather than exclusively the results of work conducted outside the LCP area. ORA-83: The significance of historic resources at this site have not been documented (Table 1.5-1, 1-35, Impact 4.11-2). The significance of historic resources at this site should be determined and evaluated by the DEIR. C. ORA-84: This site was judged not significant based on Schroth et al 1989 (page 4.11-15, lines 22-24 of the DEIR Cultural Resources section). What was the assessment by McKenna 1986b:47 (page 4.11-15, lines 19-21) and if different from Schroth et al, Why? Will McKenna's data affect the determination of significance? d. ORA-85: This site was judged significant. Adverse impacts will supposedly be mitigated by completion of an on-going research program. Without any information about the content, scope or methodology of this on-going work (data recovery �. excavations), the assertion that negative impacts will be mitigated cannot be evaluated. No LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 171 objective criteria have been provided for the assessment of whether proposed or on-going J P P Po g g work (e.g., data recovery, significance testing, excavation, etc.) will be or are adequate or are or will mitigate project impacts to cultural resources. Someone will eventually become responsible for any non-mitigated negative impacts. Will this be the County or the City? The significance of historic resources at this site have not been documented (Table 1.5-1, 1-35, Impact 4.11-2). The significance of historic resources at this site should be determined and evaluated by the DEIR. e. ORA-86: The Effects Found To Be Significant portion of Table 1.5-1, pg. 1-34, reports that this site was "found not to be important" and that "impacts [to this site] will be reduced to insignificant." (Table 1.5-1, 1-34). However Impact 4.11-5 (Table 1.5-1, 1-35) states that "wetlands restoration activities and lowland urban development activities may impact three potential lowland sites" one of which is the pre-historic component of ORA-86. This apparent contradiction must be addressed. No carbon dating has been performed for this site (Table 4.11-2 of the Cultural Resources section of the DEIR. Testing of the lowland portion of this site has not been completed and mitigation measures shall be implemented for sites determined significant. Inadequate data are presented in the DEIR documents reviewed to determine whether mitigation measures for this site are required. Other supporting reports were not readily available from the County, although several days were spent trying to obtain them. No objective criteria have been provided for the assessment of whether proposed or on-going work (e.g., data recovery, significance testing, excavation, etc.) will be or are adequate or are or will mitigate project impacts to cultural resources. Prior to approval of the DEIR, Mitigation Measure 4.11-5, Table 1.5-1, pg. 1-35, of the DEIR Executive Summary should be rewritten by a qualified archaeologist, to eliminate apparent contradictions. The significance of untested/ excavated sites must be determined and addressed by the DEIR. Mitigation Measure 4.11-5, Table 1.5-1, pages 1-35 states that future work will be conducted "at the expense of the Applicant." Is the Applicant's financial responsibility guaranteed in some way (e.g., by a bond, contract, etc.)? Who will fund the work if the Applicant can not? f. ORA-88: As a result of the review, JMA has determined that ORA-88 is a significant prehistoric site with potentially significant historic features. The accuracy of the assertion that the current excavations will mitigate the negative impacts to this site (Table 1.5-1, 1-35, DEIR Chapter 1, Executive Summary) cannot be adequately evaluated due to inadequate information. The historic features are noted, in the DEIR's Cultural Resources section 4.11 (page 18, lines 13-18) but not evaluated. It is indicated LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN & JESSUP A PARTIIERSNIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 172 that this additional work is to be completed by the county. Is the DEIR responsibility guaranteed in some way (e.g., by a bond, contract, etc.)? No objective criteria have been provided for the assessment of whether proposed or on-going work (e.g., data recovery, significance testing, excavation, etc.) will be or are adequate or are or will mitigate project impacts to cultural resources. g. ORA-288, 291, 292, 1308, 1309: No carbon dating has been performed for these sites (Table 4.11-2). h. ORA-290: The information presented for ORA-290 is inconsistent within the various sections of the DEIR. For example, The site is said "to be totally destroyed" (Table 4.11-2, page 4.11-9 and page 4.11-27, line 47 of the DEIR's Cultural Resources section) and elsewhere that a remnant of the site exists (page 4.11-18, lines 25 to 27 of the DEIR's Cultural Resources section). No dating study has been conducted for this site. i. ORA-291, -292, -293/294, -365, -366, 1308, 1309: If properly studied, these sites have the potential to yield significant scientific data. Most of these sites have been inadequately studied so that an accurate assessment of their significance and the required mitigation measures is impossible. Such work must be completed and evaluated by the DEIR document. j. The research designs referred to and used to evaluate site significance (Mason, 1987, SRS in preparation) 4.11.2, page 4.11-22, lines 38-40 of the DEIR's Cultural Resources section, are not presented. Consequently the criteria used for Table 4.11-3, page 4.11-23 of the DEIR's Cultural Resources section are unknown. For example, the "finding" that ORA-78 is not significant calls into question the DEIR use of significance criteria. No objective criteria have been provided for the assessment of whether proposed or on-going work (e.g., data recovery, significance testing, excavation, etc.) will be or are adequate or are or will mitigate project impacts to cultural resources. 6. Miscellaneous. a. Table 1.5-1: It is concluded in Table 1.5-1 that "cumulative impacts to the regional resource base may occur from cumulative projects if not properly mitigated." However, no regional study comparing LCP study area resources to regional resources has been conducted or is proposed in the DEIR. The DEIR does assert that LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 173 [t]he Proposed Projects contribution to cumulative impacts will be reduced to insignificant with implementation of the proposed mitigation measures." This assumption needs to be supported by data. A regional study plan should be developed and implemented. The regional study plan would minimally seek to obtain the age of all known LCP study area sites and compare the significance of LCP sites to regional and cultural resources. The "significance" of a site, as an isolated example of prehistoric activity, may be lower than if the site is viewed part of a group of sites in the region. For example, the findings that five prehistoric sites are not important, four of which have not been dated, fails to consider these sites as part of a regional system of sites and ignores the DEIR contribution to the cumulative impacts of the proposed project (page 4.11-24 paragraph 1 of the DEIR's Cultural Resources section). b. Section 4.11.3.4 e 4.11-26 paragraph 1: The mitigation TaPg � P g P g measures fail to present any alternative to data recovery/excavation. The scope of work for jdata recovery is yet to be determined and consequently can not be adequately evaluated, 4.11-27, lines 2-4, 4.11-27, lines 29-32, 4.11-26 lines 46-49 of the DEIR's Cultural Resources section. C. Table 1.5-1, pages 1-34, 4.11 Cultural Resources (Impact 4.11-4): Several cultural resources sites "may be directly impacted by grading for the proposed project." d. Page 4.11-28, line 38: The mitigation proposed for Impact 4.11-6 fails to include monitoring of grading activities (page 4.11-28, lines 40-45). The monitoring of construction grading by a qualified archaeologist is omitted in all mitigation measures in Section 4.11.3.4 and could result in the loss of buried sites. e. Impact 4.11-3: This impact states that "park development activities may impact cultural resources on prehistoric sites [and historic resources] located on the Huntington Mesa." The proposed mitigation measures appear to assume impacts will be mitigated by future completion of evaluation and work in progress or to be done. No objective criteria have been provided for the assessment of whether the work (e.g., data recovery, significance testing, excavation, etc.) will be adequate or mitigate project impacts to known or yet to be discovered resources. f. Impact 4.11-6: This impact states that undocumented site may be impacted by wetlands restoration activities. Mitigation Measure 4.11-6 (PDF) states that LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 174 surveys will be conducted to determine the presence of significant resources, and that mitigation measures shall be implemented for significant sites "at the expense of the Applicant." The Applicant's financial responsibility is not guaranteed in any way (e.g., by a bond, contract, etc.). Who will fund the work if the Applicant can not? Surveys should be conducted to locate all resources within the wetlands restoration areas of the LCP study area, their significance should be determined, appropriate mitigation measures must be developed, and addressed in the DEER. A re-burial agreement has been developed, - negotiated and addressed in the DEIR. Mitigation Measure 4.11-7 states that re-burial agreement shall be implemented "at the Applicant's expense." Is the Applicant's financial responsibility guaranteed in some way (e.g., by a bond, contract, etc.)? Who will fund the work if the Applicant chooses not to do so? 7. Specific Recommendations. The following recommendations are based on information presented in the preceding sections of this letter regarding Chapter , 4.11. ■ All technical reports used to prepare the cultural resources sections and mitigation measures of the DEIR should be made available to allow reviewers to determine if they are complete and accurate. ■ All technical reports used to prepare the cultural resources section of the DEIR should be included in a technical appendix to the DEIR which is made available only to archaeologists. ■ A more in-depth review of the DEIR Cultural Resources sections and technical reports is warranted. ■ Further cultural resources studies are required and should be evaluated by the EIR (e.g., carbon dating of all sites, determinations of significance for all sites, surveys of restoration areas to determine the presence or absence of resources, testing and as appropriate excavations of significant un-excavated sites, etc.). ■ Additional scientific study/analysis is required to enable determination of potential impacts to cultural resources within the LCP study area. LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUOMG PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 175 Additional mitigation measures must be developed and to address all potentially significant cultural resources sites or sites for which the significance has not been determined. ■ Several cultural resources sites determined insignificant appear to be significant and therefore should be reevaluated. ■ All LCP study area cultural resources/sites should be age dated, tested, excavated and their significance in relation to regional cultural resources should be determined and addressed in the DEIR. ■ The significance of pre-historic components of ORA-78 must be re-evaluated and mitigation measures developed as appropriate. ■ The portion of ORA-82, within the LCP area, must be tested and evaluated by the DEIR. ■ Carbon dating and testing of the lowland portion of ORA-86 must be conducted and mitigation measures developed as appropriate. ■ Carbon dating must be conducted for all undated sites. ■ The significance of ORA-84 may need to be re-evaluated based on a review of McKenna, 1986. ■ The content, scope and methodology of on-going research program for ORA-85 and ORA-82 must be provided and described by the DEIR in order to enable an assessment of the adequacy of proposed mitigation measures for these two sites. ■ Re-evaluate the significance of ORA-88 and evaluate the significance of associated historical features. ■ Re-evaluate the significance of ORA 291, 292, 293/294, 365, 366, 1308, 1309: provide the research designs referred to and used to evaluate these sites; list the criteria used to evaluate the significance of these sites; present an alternative to data recovery/excavation; present and evaluate scope of work and criteria to measure success for data recovery work to be conducted, etc. LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 176 ■ A majority of the cultural resources sites to be mitigated are left to the responsibility of the County Department of Harbors, Beaches and Parks. These sites must be professionally tested at a level adequate to evaluate the DEIR potential importance. ■ Make information regarding ORA-290 consistent throughout the DEIR. ■ All untested sites must be tested at a level adequate to evaluate the DEIR potential impacts. ■ The vicinity of all known sites must be monitored during grading by a qualified archaeologist. ■ Apply (include) all comments regarding cultural resources in Chapter 4 to Chapters 5 and 8. ■ Re-evaluate the magnitude of project impacts to cultural resources in Chapter 7 and make it consistent with all DEIR text. ■ Develop a plan to monitor for and deal with cultural resources during dredging of the tidal inlet. ■ The DEIR states that "several prehistoric archaeological sites may be directly impacted by grading", therefore, 1. All construction grading/dredging activities associated with the LCP must be monitored on a full-time basis. 2. If cultural resources are encountered, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity must stop until a testing program is developed and conducted. 3. Sites determined significant will be excavated to mitigate impacts. LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 177 O. CHAPTER 4.12 - AESTHETICS. 1. Viewshed Impacts. The impact on the view corridor from Huntington Harbor toward Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve has not been analyzed. Current harbor residents have views looking south and west from Huntington Harbor. View corridors have been analyzed from other areas; however, no analysis has been done from the Huntington Harbor area toward the ocean and the proposed Bolsa Chica development. The DEIR does not consider the viewshed impacts on residents of the area inland of the proposed Lowlands development. Se & Figure 4.12-1 showing analytical views does not include views from existing neighborhoods at Talbert and Springdale. 2. Miscellaneous. a. Figure 4,12-26: This figure should have been the subject of discussion and analysis in the Chapter 4.2 (geology and soils) and Chapters 4.6 and 4.7 (biology) as well. It should also show depths of cut and fills and depths of onsite dredging. What does "Development Earthwork" refer to? Is this for residential, parks, and infrastructure only? Is it for the entire site including the wetlands? Include a table which shows all earthmoving for the entire site, including dredge material and use of it as fill, otherwise it is impossible to determine what is going on during construction. b. Figures Depicting, Artist Conceptions of Views: The various artist's conceptions showing the view impact of the proposed development appear designed t to understate the impacts."-0/ For example, in Figure 4.12-20 the homes are all light blue and white against a light blue and white background. This causes the houses to fade against the sky. Also, the mature vegetation will not look as presented for ten to twenty years. What would the impacts be in the meantime? If the view were recreated with the houses shown in a tone which contrasts with the background sky shown in the drawing, and the vegetation were more accurately presented, the impacts on aesthetics would become far clearer to the reader and the decision-makers. C. S= Comments re: aesthetic impact of theme wall on adjacent single-family homes in discussion of Chapter 4.1 above. 110/ Thephotographs included in the discussion o aesthetic impacts make it clear that the proposed development f P P P P would be far more intrusive than is indicated in the artist's renderings. j LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 178 P. CHAPTER 4.1 - SOCIOECONOMICS. 1. Lack of Information on Financial Feasibility of Development. While under normal conditions assessment of the financial feasibility of development is outside the scope of an EIR, the proposed project includes unique considerations which make this type of assessment crucial for the evaluation of the project and its potential environmental impacts. On page 4.1-24, the DEIR refers to the 1986 Coastal Commission certification of the Land Use Plan and Local Coastal Program for Bolsa Chica which stated: "Increased density of development on the mesa and the developable lowland were to be allowed in order to make restoration of wetlands and ESHA's feasible." Also on the same page of the EIR the point is again made that a primary justification for Coastal Commission approval of the 1986 LUP was the necessary linkage between wetlands restoration and development.DY As stated in the EIR with regard to the reasons for certification of the 1986 County LCP, "the substantial funding necessary to restore the site can be best achieved through development." Applying the same reasoning to the public review process currently under way, meaningful public review requires an analysis of the financial feasibility of the development project must be part of the CEQA review. The level/intensity of development necessary to economically support the environmental restoration features of the project can only be justified when the financial feasibility of project development is addressed. Barring outside sources of funding for wetlands restoration, Koll and future project residents, will presumably pay for the costs associated with the environmental reconfiguration of Bolsa Chica. Project sales revenues, homeowner association dues, property taxes, plus other assessments, fees, and special taxes are sources of funding available to pay for project development costs, to offset project impacts on public facilities and government services, and to finance and maintain the proposed environmental benefits of the project. The type and intensity of development must be justified based on evidence that demonstrates that the permitted development will enable Koll to finance restoration. The County must review both the project and DEIR in light of the trade-offs between development (and the concomitant fundable wetlands restoration) and financial feasibility of development. Entitling an unnecessarily high level of development as a means of allegedly funding maximum wetlands restoration on the one hand, versus failure of the project due to 111/ This point is made without reference to the express condition on the approval that the Coastal Commission review and approve the wetlands restoration plan and other matters prior to the commencement of development. LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN £3 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 179 the weight of public financing and mitigation burdens on the other hand are both extreme g P g and undesirable alternatives with very significant environmental impacts on the project and on local governments. The DEIR does not consider the impact of a partly completed project which cannot proceed with further development or with wetlands restoration due to the economic failure of the project. The DEIR must include analysis of the financial feasibility of development taking the financial burdens of restoration and mitigation into full account. At a minimum, the DEIR should provide enough project financial information to enable the reviewing public and decision-makers to estimate independently the feasibility of development and the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. 1 2. Lack of Project Information Re: Phasing and Feasibility. Because information is not available in the DEIR and because the implementing documents were not circulated with the DEIR, crucial information is lacking which is otherwise required to adequately assess the impacts of the project. As a result, the public must attempt to evaluate project impacts without data on the anticipated timing and phasing of the project, and without marketing information on anticipated sales values or even broad descriptions of anticipated residential dwelling unit types within defined planning areas. As noted above, this information is required to support the contention, implied in the DEIR, that implementation of the various mitigation measures and project design features (which should be included as mitigation measures) is economically feasible. No information is presented in the DEIR on anticipated rates and timing of construction, sales/absorption rates, and expected occupancy of the residential development areas of the project. Project timing and phasing information included on page 1-4 of the Executive Summary and repeated on page 3-34 in the project description consists only of general statements that the overall project is anticipated to be built out over 12 to 22 years; that initial construction is anticipated to occur in 1995; and that the Bolsa Mesa will be developed first, with the MWD area second, and the Lowlands area third and last. This amount of phasing and project timing information is inadequate to assess impacts for a project of the magnitude of Bolsa Chica. At a minimum, the DEIR or an implementing document should present information on the phasing and schedule of project development and the relationship between timing of residential development and provision of mitigation, public facilities and infrastructure to support such development. Also notably lacking in the DEIR is information on the one-time and recurring costs of public facilities, services, and appropriate mitigation measures, project design features, and programs such as the Area Traffic Improvement Program proposed for the project. (The only cost data provided is the LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PAPTNCRSNIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 180 statement in numerous places in the DEIR that the Wetlands Restoration Program is currently estimated to cost $48 million,''—' without consideration for additional conditions imposed by State and Federal reviewing agencies.) The EIR's deficiency in presenting ' adequate information with respect to project timing, development phasing, marketing, and the cost of public facilities and services creates a significant problem for the City in assessing project' impacts 3. Lack of Information on Public Financing Capacity. The EIR is deficient in providing coherent, coordinated information on the full range of public facilities required and/or impacted by the project. The cost, individually and collectively, of these facilities should be addressed in the DEIR or in an accompanying public facilities financing plan. How these facilities will be paid for will dictate what options are available to local governments to offset the cost of project impacts. Will the cost of these public facilities be subsumed under project costs and included in home prices, or is the County or the developer planning to use assessments, fees, or special taxes above the basic one percent property tax to fund facilities and improvements? The DEIR must provide adequate information to assess the project's capacity to finance the restoration of the wetlands and required public facilities as well as mitigate other project impacts. 4. Lack of Information on Fiscal Impacts. The DEIR fails to provide any analysis or information regarding the recurring or one-time fiscal impacts of the project, either on the County or the City. According to the Orange County Auditor- Controller's office, the County will receive only one-half to one-third as much general fund property tax revenue in 1993-94 as in prior years, and this shortfall is expected to continue in the future. Property taxes are by far the largest revenue source available to the County to offset the costs of providing public facilities and services. In past years, residential projects such as Bolsa Chica have often proven to be "fiscally imbalanced," i.e., to generate public costs in excess of public revenues. With recent shifts in local property taxes, the potential fiscal imbalance of the Bolsa Chica project, which could create a significant fiscal drain on the County and/or other local governments, becomes an even more important question. Both 1121 The $48 Million figure is presented without support or justification of any kind. Since no financial information is provided, it is not possible to judge from the DEIR whether that figure represents all, one-half or some other fraction of the true cost of the plan. LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN a JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL COPPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 181 the DEIR and other project documents should account for this potential problem from the very outset of the review process. The project is an island of unincorporated County territory surrounded b the City. As a P J � tY rY Y Y result, the City is greatly concerned about the potential direct and indirect fiscal impacts of the project on the City. The 10,000 to 12,000 potential new project residents will require the full range of public facilities and services typically provided by local government, including public facilities and infrastructure, as well as fire and police protection services- street maintenance and lighting; landscape and park maintenance- recreation program services; library services; and sewer, water, and storm drain maintenance. In nearly all cases where the DEIR addresses impacts on public facilities and services, the City is mentioned as a major provider of such facilities and services. Since the project is surrounded by the City, any facilities and services not provided from onsite locations will, as a practical matter, be located in or provided, in part, from the City. While the DEIR tacitly recognizes the City as the logical source and most efficient provider of such facilities and services, the DEIR does not address the fiscal impacts of, or the necessary arrangements for, provision and use of these facilities and services by project residents. Further, as is examined in AmEX No. 11, if the project were annexed to the City after the development at the request of project residents, significant fiscal impacts and, consequently, environmental impacts, are likely. On page 4.14-18, under "Public Services and Utilities, Analysis of Impacts, Libraries," the DEIR clearly states the need for a Fiscal Impact Report ("FIR") on the project, In describing the need for an FIR, this paragraph implicitly underscores two major deficiencies of the DEIR: ■ First, the level of required review by general public and public agencies alike cannot take place without sufficient accompanying information to determine if the project is fiscally feasible. ■ Second, the DEIR states the need for an analysis with respect to project impacts on the County library system, even though, because of relative proximity, the majority of project impacts will involve City libraries. SILe discussion of library impacts at Section III.Q of this letter. The DEIR either fails to address any fiscal impacts on the City, fails to quantify and propose mitigation for City impacts, even when it is clear that the City will be more greatly impacted than the County. 4AW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency �+ February 17, 1994 Page 182 ,5. Failure to ConsiderImpacts of High Density Development. Both alternatives seriously evaluated in the EIR show residential development density at over 16 dwelling units per gross residential acre, with some development approaching 36 dwelling units per acre. This is a density of development that dictates multi-story, multi-family construction. No projects in Orange County have this intensity of residential development over a comparably large area. The implications of the project's proposed development density are not pointed out anywhere in the EIR. A multitude of additional impacts relating to this atypically high level of development are also not considered in the EIR. The impact on public safety services such as police and fire protection is an example of deficiencies in the analysis resulting from failure to consider the specific impacts of high density development. 6. Affordable Housing. Page 4.13-5: Why is there no discussion of affordable housing at all in this document? See also Comments regarding affordable housing requirements at Part III,D above in this letter. 7. School Impacts. Page 4,14-18, lines 8-10: Since the adequacy of school systems is an extremely important factor to homebuyers, this is a dubious conclusion at best. Land use will no doubt be influenced and quite possibly the success of the project could be influenced if buyers are dissuaded from purchasing homes due to overcrowded and underfunded schools. EIRs have traditionally addressed the specific impacts that projects are likely to create for school districts. Normally the documents disclose the response of school districts to letters which ask them to provide information. Any letters or information available from the school districts regarding their ability and strategies to meet the needs of project residents after receiving development fees should be disclosed. If no correspondence or consultation exists or has occurred, then it should be immediately initiated and documented. Q. CHAPTER 4.14 - PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTII mES. 1. Burden and Impacts on City Water System. a. Cost and Facilities Impacts. Page 4.14-13 of the DEIR notes that the City is one of two likely water sources for the project. Accordingly, the project has the potential to add significant capital cost requirements to the existing City water system infrastructure should the developer choose the option of having its water service LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 183 from the City. As identified in the 1988 Water Master Plan of the City of Huntington Y Y g Beach and its 1993 Update, these capital costs would be for the construction of two significant facilities: (1) a nine million gallon reservoir and associated pumping station and transmission pipelines, and; (2) a new water supply well. It must be stressed that the reservoir identified in (1) above is separate and distinct from the facility discussed in the DEIR. The reservoir discussed in the DEIR is a facility that is planned to be constructed to mitigate the impacts of another development of the same approximate size called the Holly- Seacliff Project. This fact is documented in City of Huntington Beach Development ' Agreement 901, approved by the City Council on November 5, 1990. The capital costs for the above two facilities is significant: 1 Nine million gallon reservoir, ( ) g , pump station & pipelines $ 6,640,000 (2) New water well 1,300,000 TOTAL $ 7,940,000 The above facilities would serve to mitigate the direct impacts of the project. However, these projects, if built separately and distinctly without connection to the existing water system, cannot operate to service the project. They must be connected into the existing system to realize their full benefit. As such, this means that the existing system has a value to the project. This value must be paid for by the developer as part of the mitigation of the water supply impacts, should the project be serviced by the City system. This is, in essence, a "buy-in," as the existing customers of the City system have been those who have "advanced" the money previously to build in the capacity that this project would be using. If the proposed new Capital Facilities Charges discussed in the 1993 Water Master Plan Update are calculated for the proposed project and its alternative, the following financial obligations would be due and owing. With a Capital Facilities Charge of$2,380 as delineated in the Update, the developer's project would incur an obligation of $10,200,000, based on 4,286 units. For the project alternative, the fee would be $7,306,600, based on 3,070 units. LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 184 Ongoing costs for a water system typically include those for operation and both long and short term maintenance. These costs are normally paid for by the water customers (as they consume water) by the payment of water utility bills (revenue). b. Significant Impacts on Water Services Remain. Since the discussion of water supply for the project is, in the opinion of the City's water department, inadequate, the last sentence (which says that no significant adverse impacts are expected) is inappropriate. The report does not adequately cover the impacts to the City water system should the project be connected to it. The report should delineate these impacts, and with respect to the 1988 Water Master Plan and its 1993 Update, state how these impacts will be mitigated. Since the existing City water system is currently deficient in meeting demands as outlined in the Water Master Plan, the addition of this project without any further efforts by the developer will not be acceptable to the City. If this were to occur, the existing level of service currently experienced would drop, and existing customers would, in effect, be paying the same for lesser service. This is most easily described by the fact that the domestic demands generated by the project would have to be met by the current reserve capacity normally used for fire protection purposes. Additionally, in the 1988 Water Master Plan (Table 7-7, p. 7-11), the peak hour deficiency of the existing water system is shown to be increased from 27,500 gallons per minute to 31,600 gallons per minute, an increase of 15%. C. Standards for Determining Water Supply. In terms of water supply being furnished by an independent water company or water district, no standards are set forth in the DEIR to judge whether the proposed options are acceptable to those having jurisdiction. It appears that the standards being used are discretionary and not necessarily those of recognized authorities. Until the standards of practice are identified in the DEIR, the DEIR is inadequate because it is not known what values were used in the author's analysis. d. See also Discussion of water related impacts noted in Chapter 3 of the DEIR, discussed above in Part III.0 of this letter."-3' 1131 The Resources Element of the County's General Plan notes that the County is largely dependent on imported water and that only 44% of local municipal/industrial demand is met by local resources. LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 185 e. The water supply options shown at page 4.14-13, lines 7-8 of ' the DEIR are not sufficiently comprehensive and do not consider all of the feasible alternatives. Another obvious option is seawater desalination. lY A second is for the City to serve the area without any middlemen, just like it currently serves the County area of Sunset Beach. A County Service Area is not necessary for the City to serve outside its boundaries. The developer has also explored other options not considered in the DEIR, such as obtaining service from the City of Fountain Valley. Finally, because an independent water company has different rules of formation and operation from a water district, these two options should be considered separate and distinct and be discussed and analyzed independently.i 15i f. The statement at page 4.14-13, lines 29-30, is only partially true. The City has the basic infrastructure in place to serve the development. The capacity 1 of the infrastructure is inadequate to serve the development without impacting the level of service of the City's existing customers. A further cost to the City would be incurred if the project connects to the City system without "buying in." The proposed mitigation measures will not work without the existing City system attached to them. Additional infrastructure would be necessary to utilize the mitigating facilities without the existing system. The 1141 An independent water company, contracting for desalinated seawater or well water from the City of Fountain Valley, using an inexpensive steel-tank for a small reservoir and contracting with a specialty contractor for maintenance could provide a basic water supply for the development. The result, however, would be that the reliability and life of the system, i.e., level of service to its customers, would not be nearly the same as the City's system. Additionally, the company may have to call on the City to assist them in times of source outage or other facility outage. This would result in an undeterminable cost to the City. 1151 The paragraph at Page 4.14-14, lines 34-45 is confusing. The City can supply the project if the developer mitigates the impacts of the project. This is detailed in previous comments and in the 1988 WMP, Section 7. As noted in the text, the concepts of an independent company and a water district are totally different in terms of formation and operation. Modern government thinking is to consolidate governmental agencies wherever possible to lessen cost to citizens. Why are two water wells needed?Wouldn't the second well have additional groundwater and earth impacts? The DEIR does not say why two wells are required and no member of the public would ever know from reviewing the document. Where are the locations alluded to?The environmental impact of these may be significant because the wells may cause lowered water levels in adjacent agency wells, thereby increasing the cost ofpumping and lowering the available water yieldfrom the affected wells. Adequate environmental reviews should be performed at this time to make this determination. No one can tell if the locations are not known. How will the water be transposed from the wells to the project?What are the related impacts? The DEIR does not answer these basic questions. LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN F3 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 186 developer would have to provide that additional infrastructure at additional cost. This is the basic premise that makes it "fair" to buy in to the existing system. g. The last statement on page 4.14-13 (which continues onto page 4.14-14) is not supported. It has not been shown in the DEIR or anywhere else that the improvements proposed in the DEIR will provide an adequate water service infrastructure. "Adequate" may be the key word here. It certainly won't be equal to the rest of the City's water system. Further, the DEIR's assumption that the OCWD water supply is "reliable" overstates any agency's ability to guaranty a supply of water. All water supplies are uncertain in this day and age. -` Page C-10, lines 35-47 of the Technical Appendices notes certain PDFs addressing water supply needs. The PDF's shown are inadequate to address the water supply needs of the project in accordance with the 1988 water Master Plan for all of the reasons stated in the previous comments contained herein. 2. Water Sources and Supply. The DEIR relies heavily on two ' concepts in its discussion of water supply: The Orange County Water District's Groundwater Management Plan (GWMP), a copy of which is attached to this letter as ANNEX No. 47, and the same agency's Green Acres Project (GAP) that will produce and 1161 Note,for example, the provisions of the County's Resources Element of its general plan (current through the May 7, 1991 revision), which notes, at page RES-2-53: MWD does not intend to rely on "luck"of whether conditions or the 'possibility" that excess waters presently available will continue to be there, especially since other areas of water origin are developing rapidly. Historically,MWD has been successful in anticipating and providing for the future water needs of its member agencies and their constituents. Today,however,due to entitlement cutbacks on the Colorado River, an uncompleted State Water Project, Federal and State water policies in disarray,groundwater contamination and loss of Los Angeles' entitlements from Owens-Mono Basin, MWD is presently 700,000 acre feet behind its ability to provide reliable water service to its customers. With above- normal demand. Orange County will be experiencing a shortfall exceeding 100,000 acre feet. (Emphasis Added). Thus,the County's own general plan notes that water supplies in the region are overloaded and may not be reliable. LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 187 S supply reclaimed wastewater to customers. Unfortunately, the DEIR errs strongly in doing PPY Y� gY g so. The GWMP does not mention growth in any of its goals or methodologies to carry out those goals. At the present time, the GAP may not be constructed into Huntington Beach (per a telephone conversation on January 24, 1994, between Mr. Charles Steinberg of OCWD and Mr. Jeffrey Renna of the City). The GWMP has five major goals OCWD GWMP Feb 1987 . 5 : J g ( �Y, , P ) 1. Increase Basin Water Supplies 2. Protect and Enhance Water Quality 3. Improve Basin Management 4. Improve OCWD Relations with Constituents 5. Improve OCWD Management/Operations If one reads the GWMP, no direct reference can be found discussing growth. The GWMP only makes reference to increasing supplies to rely less on imported water. The only possible reference to growth, albeit inconclusive, are charts that depict water demands in the OCWD member areas increasing over time. No explanation as to the basis of the demand curves is noted. Additionally, the GWMP is expensive. As of 1989 (GWMP, p. 31), the price was $96M for baseline projects and $371M for all projects. This is more than the local agencies can bear to spend. The following comments address specific inadequacies in the DEIR's analysis of water supply issues as set forth on page 4.14-2 and following: a. Lin - The DEIR states that the project is in the "service area of the Orange County Water District (OCWD) and the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC)." These agencies in fact do not have "service areas" because they do not serve water. They are in fact administrative and/or managerial agencies in which retail water agencies are members. Their boundaries are determined by their member agencies' locations. b. Line 4 - The DEIR states that "the site has water supply rights with these two water supplying agencies." The fact is that this site has no rights at all, in a typical sense. Groundwater rights are not adjudicated in the Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin. All agencies have equal access to this basin but no real "rights." With MWDOC, rights do not exist, either, because MWDOC is strictly an administrative agency that retail t LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN & JESSUP A PAS-TNERSRIP INCLOOING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 188 agencies belong to in order to obtain water from MWD. MWD sells capacity rights in its pipelines, but doing so does not guarantee that water will be available. Having a capacity right in a pipeline is more akin to an allowance if water is available in sufficient quantity. C. Line 13 - The quantity, "Seventy percent," is a figure called the Basin Production Percentage (BPP). It is set annually by the OCWD and can vary widely depending on the estimated safe yield of the Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin. The BPP is not a quantity that can be counted upon to remain constant as it is designed to fluctuate based on groundwater levels and estimated total demand within the Basin's boundaries. It must be understood that basing a new development's major source of supply on the groundwater basin is risky at best. d. Lines 18-20 - The fact is that the last sentence in this paragraph is the objective of OCWD's Groundwater Management Plan and may not become ' a reality. Its success is based purely on the local retail agencies (such as the City) to pay for their capital improvements and whether OCWD's assumptions are indeed correct. Reliance cannot be placed on this plan being implemented as is done in the DEIR. The price of the GWMP, as stated above, may be too high. Local agencies of OCWD are paying the price, but $371M in these difficult times may be too much. e. Lines 26-28 - This sentence reflects OCWD's belief but the fact is that all of the projects alluded to may not be completed. It is not a fact and to approve any project based on this is unjustifiable. The 90% figure represents a goal only. Again, the success depends on the ability of the members of OCWD to pay for the necessary projects. The DEIR should explore other sources of water, such as seawater desalination. No comments or discussion is given on this source in the DEIR. The cities of Santa Barbara and Morro Bay have constructed seawater desalination plants for domestic water sources, as has the SCE Company on Santa Catalina Island. This project should explore that option in depth. f. Lines 30-31 - This sentence reflects one of the criteria used by OCWD in their Groundwater Management Plan but in no way can be used as fact. It is simply one of the assumptions contained in their Plan but whose success cannot be totally counted upon. LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 189 g. Line 36 - The treated sewage effluent referred to in this sentence does not meet all potable water quality standards as stated. This statement is in error. h. Lines 37-39 - The "same technology" is not a true statement. "Similar technology" would be correct. The foregoing comments illustrate the confused approach of the water supply section and demonstrate why this Section of the DEIR needs to be corrected and the DEIR recirculated before it can be certified. 3. Green Acres Project and Water Availability. The non-construction of the Green Acres Project will most certainly impact this project's ability to obtain water should an independent water company or water district be selected for that task. Since OCWD's groundwater management policies revolve around what they consider to be a safe yield, any agency which exceeds their pro-rata share of the safe yield will not be viewed 1 favorably. A disservice to all other agencies can also be implied. To successfully manage the groundwater basin, OCWD must have the cooperation of all groundwater producers in its area of responsibility. Without the Green Acres Project, the independent water company or water district will not be able to do this. 100% of all its supply will be taken from the groundwater basin. The City, as well as the other municipalities that produce groundwater and observe the safe yield, will object to this practice. In the worst case, it could lead to ' adjudication of the groundwater basin. This would severely impact the City, forcing it to rely more heavily on the expensive imported water purchased from MWDOC. An impact in the amount of$6.5M (1994 dollars) in additional water costs to the City could result. iThe Green Acres project would not, as currently envisioned, service the project site. Page 4.14-12 through 13, commencing on line 46 assumes that reclaimed water will be available ' to serve the development. This may not be the case. The current planning for the Green Acres Pipeline does not extend to Bolsa Chica Street and Los Patos Avenue, but stops on Warner Avenue easterly of Bolsa Chica Street (Meadowlark Airport Property). This, of 1 course, assumes that the pipeline will even be built. Even if reclaimed water should be available to the project, an additional 16 inch line would need to be constructed in the Bolsa Chica Street extension/emergency access road to connect to the proposed GAP pipeline in Garfield Avenue to enhance the reliability of that system. LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSNIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 190 OCWD has discussed construction of the GAP but has not released plans for design as of this date. Funding and economic viability of the project are still uncertain. The cost, originally to be paid for by OCWD, is now considered to be too high compared to the revenue projections. No reference is given as to the source of demand factors used for the reclaimed water usage estimates shown in Table 4.14-4. Without further information, it can only be said that the numbers shown may be on the high side. This would impact the economic viability of OCWD's Green Acres Project because GAP would not experience the expected revenues if actual consumption was lower than estimated. If the bonds obtained to build GAP cannot be repaid because of insufficient revenue, the financial problems resulting could fiscally impact not only the City but the Orange County Water District as well. 4. Determination of Safe Yield. Page 4.14-11, lines 8-13 of the DEIR , note that the impacts of the project on water service will be considered significant if the project-related demand meets or exceeds the "safe yield" of existing water supplies. Safe yield must be defined in the report. It is generally a complicated series of measurements and calculations that are used to determine the Basin Production Percentage. The safe yield is arguable because the available water supplies cannot be shown to actually exist at the present time and appear to be an unfounded assumption in the DEIR. No hard evidence is available to solidly support the idea that additional groundwater supplies will be available if OCWD completes its Groundwater Management Plan. The Plan is based on assumptions and estimates. The reclaimed water supply system is still in suspense. Without concrete evidence that water is truly available, even with new improvements, any new development is at risk of water shortages. If a water shortage occurs because of this deficiency, and the City is impacted because of the nature of the unadjudicated groundwater basin, then an unavoidable adverse impact will have occurred ($6.5M additional cost for water as detailed above). This -possibility is not mitigated in the DEIR and thus the document is inadequate in this regard. 5. DEIR Omits Peak Demand Analysis. Page 4.14-12, lines 30-49 estimates the project-related water demand. This section of the DEIR fails to discuss the demands of peak water use. During a typical day, water demands ebb and flow based on the makeup of the water service area. Predominantly residential areas have a very different water use pattern than those that are predominantly industrial or commercial. Water use in residential areas tends to fluctuate more than in industrial areas (which tend to be more constant), depending on the number of workshifts in process. Consequently, regardless of LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 ' Page 191 type, each water service area will experience a flow. There will typically be a peak YPe Pe P� YP Y month (usually in the summer), a peak week (usually in the peak month), a peak day and a peak hour. The average annual water demand, which are the numbers stated in the DEIR, are calculated numbers obtained by dividing the total water consumption for a year's time by the number of days in the year. It is generally used as a guide for sizing a water source, and to compare total consumption on an annual basis. That number, however, does not play a major role in the total analysis of a given water system. The two conditions that generally stress a given water system the most are the peak hour condition or the peak day condition occurring at the same time a major fire has erupted. This can be documented in most water supply engineering manuals dealing with design. Neither of these conditions is discussed at all in the DEIR. In dealing with peak conditions, reservoir storage is a major consideration because the two peak conditions above can easily overstress most water supply sources. No mention is made in the DEIR as to the required fire flow demands for the project area. It is estimated that this project would require a fire flow of up to 4,000 gallons per minute over and above the domestic water flow requirements. Further fire flow study is required, including back up water storage. Storage must be provided for dealing with the peak hour condition, the peak day plus fire flow condition, and for other emergency conditions, such as water source outages (no water available from sources). No such analysis is provided nor discussed in the ' DEIR. The DEIR assumes that the City's nine million gallon reservoir will deal with these peak usages, yet no peak water use figures are quoted in the DEIR. The DEIR shows no analysis to support the proposed pipe sizing, so no surety can be realized that would allow one to conclude that adequate fire protection was available. A much more complete engineering analysis needs to be provided in the DEIR to assure ' environmental decision-makers that a thorough water availability analysis has been carried out under all normal design conditions as typically detailed in water supply engineering literature. An analysis of this type for the prior proposed Bolsa Chica project is contained 1 in the City's 1988 Water Master Plan (WMP), Chapter 7, page 7-1. The water use estimates presented at page 4.14-12 through 13 are confusing. Why are Sunset Beach and Huntington Harbor mentioned at line 33 of Page 4.14-12? One cannot tell what the numbers quoted in the text are intended to mean. The second sentence of this paragraph is confusing, at best. The report states that 180 gallons per person per day was LAW OFFICES ERVINI COHEN F3 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 192 used in the DEIR analysis. The water usage estimates generated using this number should y g g g e sou d be compared to those estimates that would be generated using the City's 1988 Water Master Plan (WMP) to substantiate their validity. As noted above, it appears that the water use figures are vQ er ge day usage. Peak usages should be calculated and analyzed in order to determine the full effect of the development. This would include peak day, peak hour and peak day plus fire flow. None of these analyses are contained in the report. The report is inadequate in its review of water supply. 6. Mitigation of Project-Related Water Demand. Page 4.14-12, lines 39-44 assume that the 9 million gallon reservoir is intended to mitigate the demand from this development. That is not true. That reservoir should not be a part of this development's planning, since, as discussed earlier herein, the reservoir planned for the Mesa is part of a mitigation plan for the water supply system of the Holly-Seacliff Development in another part of the City. The Bolsa Chica Project developer will need to build an additional 9 million gallon reservoir in another location in the City in order to mitigate this development's impact. (1988 WMP, p. 7-9). It is coincidental that both the Holly-Seacliff Development and the Bolsa Chica Project require 9 million gallons of water storage to mitigate their impacts on the existing City system. This is mainly because both developments are approximately the same size. The main sizes proposed by the project in the DEIR may work to serve the development in a simple fashion, but to contribute to the overall effectiveness of the City's existing system, the proposed pipe sizing and layout will have to be modified. The main sizes will have to be enlarged and the pipelines extended to connect with existing major City system pipelines. City water staff must be consulted and their conclusions incorporated into the DEIR prior to certification. The pump station alluded to in connection with the Bolsa Mesa Reservoir is not a water source for the development or even the City as a whole. The pump station, in conjunction with the 9 million gallon reservoir, is merely a tool to help meet the peak water usage that will be encountered during normal operations. The discussion of the reservoir in this DEIR is totally inadequate and shows a basic lack of understanding as to how a water system for this area should operate most effectively. Section 7-4 of the 1988 Water Master Plan (p. 7-6) discusses these matters in detail. An additional water well is also identified in the City's 1988 Water Master Plan as being needed to serve a major residential project on the proposed site. (1988 WMP, p.76). No mention is made of this fact. The concept that water conservation measures are expected to reduce water demand by at least 10 percent is LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN b JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 ' Page 193 questionable because the standard of comparison is not stated and no references are included. 7. Power and Natural Gas. Page 4.14-3, In. 45-50, states only that g Y electricity is provided to the areas adjacent to the project site by Southern California Edison and that natural gas is provided to these areas by Southern California Gas Co. The adequacy of these utilities to service the project is not discussed. The fact that one of these two energy sources must be used to pump water is not mentioned. The source of funds to pay to bring these utilities to the project is also not considered. All of these and the other relevant facts must be detailed in the DEIR so that the public can understand the impact of the project on these public utilities. Page 4.14-12, lines 1-28 of the DEIR state that generation factors to estimate electric power demand was estimated based on 1993 SCAQMD factors. The DEIR does not state, however, whether the energy consumption quantities for water pumping been taken into account."—'t Pumping energy for water supply will be a significant amount compared to the overall usage by the project. Based on City water system experience, it is estimated that a minimum of over 1,000,000 kilowatt- hours per year will be utilized for water supply pumping for the project. This represents a minimum of 4% additional electricity consumption for the project. The DEIR does not indicate whether this additional energy consumption has been taken into account when assessing the energy, air quality and other impacts of the project. The ratepayers of the water utility will pay these costs. ' 8. Wastewater Impacts. The DEIR does not adequately address the following issues regarding wastewater: a. Page 4.14-3 - The narrative states that the areas surrounding the subject project are served by the CSDOC, District No. 11, and that, based on the 1990 CSDOC District No. 11 Wastewater Master Plan, the CSDOC owned Los Patos trunk sewer and the subsequent downstream facilities including CSDOC Plant No. 2 have capacity to serve the Bolsa Chica project. However, there is no supporting documentation provided to validate this statement, and no reference to the service impact to the City's pumping facilities, and the cost impact to the City. 1171 The DEIR also fails to state whether energy consumption for desalinization of water (if utilized), energy for other water treatment requirements, and for waste water treatments/pumping,etc. have been taken into account. 1 LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROrESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 194 , b. The same portion of the narrative also refers to a i pre-annexation sewer service agreement. There is no information on the specifics or contents of this agreement. Does the agreement guarantee use of CSDOC facilities by the Bolsa Chica project and available capacity reserved? A copy of the pre-annexation agreement should be provided as part of the DEIR appendices to facilitate and enable review of environmental and cost impacts . C. Page 4.14-15, lines 18-24 refers to Figure 3.2-5 and states that two major lift stations will lift sewage from the Bolsa Chica project to the CSDOC Los Patos trunk sewer location at the intersection of Los Patos and Bolsa Chica Street. Neither the narrative nor the figure indicate how sewage from the proposed lift station I'D" will get from the City's existing 12" force main in Warner Avenue at Edgewater to this intersection. Additionally, if construction is required within the City's boundaries, how will construction impact local residents? Would it be feasible to use the City's existing 12" force main? What are all associated costs? Who will pay? i d. Page 4.14-15, lines 26-29 indicates an estimated total daily wastewater flow that will be generated by the Bolsa Chica development. However, there is no reference to peaking factors or peak flow from the project. There is no statement as to how these numbers were derived. What generally accepted criteria were used for projecting wastewater flow from the project? e. Page 4.14-15, lines 31-32 and page 4.14-16, lines 1-10 state , that the CSDOC Slater Pump Station and the CSDOC upstream sewer system have been redesigned to include the Bolsa Chica development. There is no documentation provided to support this statement. The capacity of wastewater facilities to serve the project is crucial to the project. Provide the appropriate documentation in a revised DEIR. f. Page 4.14-16, lines 19-21 indicate that a new pump station may be constructed to replace the City's Lift Station I'D" located along Warner at Edgewater. There is no agreement between the City and the developer for joint use of this lift station. The ability to enter an agreement with the City for operation and maintenance of Lift Station "D" is crucial to the proposed wastewater plan. A revised DEIR should include reference to such an agreement, or it should include an alternate means of accommodating wastewater discharge from the project. ' LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ' Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 195 . Page 4.14-16 lines 21-22 al proposed g g so state that the p posed replacement Lift Station "D" will be constructed within the Bolsa Chica development. However, Figure 3.2-5 shows the proposed Lift Station "D" outside of the Bolsa Chica study area boundary. Where will this facility be constructed? If the new lift station is proposed outside the Bolsa Chica Study Area, what would be the impacts to the City? A revised DEIR should address such impacts. h. Page 4.14-20 makes reference to a comprehensive water reuse program for new projects and a system of reclaimed water pipelines established. There is no figure or plan provided to assess the construction requirements and associated impacts within the City to interconnect to the CSDOC regional system. 9. Solid Waste Impacts. The DEIR does not adequately address the following issues regarding solid waste: a. Page 4.14-3 - There is no County Transfer Station. It closed ten years ago. Rainbow Disposal Company has operated their own transfer station since 1983. b. There is no Bee Canyon Landfill. The facility is the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill located in Bee Canyon. All references to a "Bee Canyon" landfill in the document should be changed to "Bowerman". C. Rainbow Disposal has a permitted capacity of 2,800 tons per day. d. Note page 4.14-3, line 38, the MRF is not a waste-to-energy facility. It is designed for separation and transportation only. This is a significant inaccuracy in the DEIR's discussion of solid waste impacts. e. Note page 4.14-3, line 40, the City's Waste Management Plan calls for diversion from land filling by the MRF of 28.2% (or 56.4% of the total 50% diversion). ' f. Page 4.14-20, In. 34: There are no "waste reduction" facilities. The City has a "source reduction" element in our plan with the goal of reducing LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN a JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUOING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 196 i waste generation 4.6% by the year 2000, but no reduction facility where waste would actually be "reduced" by incineration to ash. We are building a MRF where materials will be separated but not necessarily recycled. If there were no market, any of the materials processed at the MRF could end up landfilled. All references to waste "reduction" facilities in the document should be changed to waste "processing" facilities. 10. Impacts on Police Services. If the project were constructed as contemplated by Koll, the Huntington Beach Police Department anticipates the following impacts: a. Traffic loading on city streets accessing this development will require additional police service. b. Significantly more calls for service for sheriffs will increase ' requests for assistance. C. The Cross Gap Connector is critical for improved traffic circulation and reduced emergency response time to this and other contiguous developments. d. Additional residents living in this development will generate an increased demand for city services, shopping and recreational activity. Although this benefits the city, a degree of crime also accompanies these activities creating a need for additional police service. e. Based upon an estimated 4800 dwelling units, or approximately ' 15,000 new residents at build-out, the projected workload for Huntington Beach police officers would increase by the following: Calls for Assistance: 95 calls, 160 officer hours Traffic Accidents: 285 accidents, 855 officer hours Traffic Enforcement: 6,150 citations, 3,600 officer hours LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ' Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 197 Total: 4,615 officer hours. This would require an additional three officers to handle the increased activity at a current cost of$441,000 per year (including the cost of related additional support personnel and overhead and administrative expenses). 11. Fiscal Analysis of City Police Services. If the development was undertaken within the City (i.e., if an annexation were to proceed as part of the project) the adverse impacts on the provision of Police services would be greatly diminished. For ' comparison, only the following resources would be required: TODAY'S DOLLARS 1 7 Patrol Officers $504,000 2 Traffic Officers 155,520 2 Detectives 144,000 1 Dispatcher 50,000 1 Detention Officer 53,000 1 Criminalist/I.D. Technician 61,000 1 2 Records Clerks 78,000 2 Crossing Guards 12,500 18 Employees $1,058,020 The Police Department has received a rough draft of the Sheriffs estimation of additional personnel that will be included in the County's EIR. Due to service increases, they suggest an additional 13.5 employees at build-out by the year 2006. They are: 6 Deputies 3 Investigators 4.5 Clerical 13.5 Employees The discrepancy between the City's projected personnel needs and that of the Sheriffs exists because of differences in estimated population. The Sheriffs is based on its projections of a proposed population of 10,670, while the City is estimating 15,000 according to its last plans. However, the ratios of personnel needs are still approximately equal. ' Sheriff 13.5 employees/10,670 = 1.265 employees per 1000 pop. City 18.0 employees/15,000 = 1.200 employees per 1000 pop. 1 1 LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN a JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency , February 17, 1994 Page 198 If the population projections are reduced, the City's personnel requirements will be close to those estimated by the Sheriff. The Sheriffs draft also mentions that the Highway Patrol should be contacted regarding traffic considerations. Traffic loading will certainly increase on the freeways and State highways in proximity to the Bolsa Chica project that would impact the Highway Patrol. However, all traffic will culminate in the City's jurisdiction. The greatest traffic impacts will be to the City. Vehicular access into and through this project will be critical for rapid emergency responses. Especially when considering traffic congestion on PCH and north and southbound arterials in the City during the summer months. If City does not annex Bolsa Chica and the projected population at build-out is 12,170, our , adjusted workload and additional personnel needs will be: Calls for Assistance: 75 calls, 127 officer hours Traffic Accidents: 224 accidents, 671 officer hours Traffic Enforcement: 4,827 citations, 2,826 officer hours Varian Criminal Victimization: 117 incidents, 62 officer hours Total: 3,686 officer hours. This would require an additional two officers to handle the increased activity at a current cost of$294,000 per year (including the cost of related additional support personnel and overhead and , administrative expenses). 12. Other Police Service Issues. a. Construction of the Cross-Gap Connector. The department favors the construction of a fully accessible extension of Bolsa Chica street for all traffic that connects Garfield, Springdale, Talbert and Graham as specified in the county's Master Plan of Arterial Highways. There are numerous advantages to such a plan. 1) Although regional traffic flow may not be significantly impacted as indicated in the , applicant's proposed project, local traffic flow will be greatly improved. LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 199 ' 2 It would not require additional traffic enforcement or other control devices for the emergency road segment of the Bolsa Chica extension proposed by the applicant. ' Also, if control devices such as locked gates were necessary, emergency response times would be adversely impacted. 3) The connector would aid in any emergency evacuation in this area should it become necessary. 4) Emergency response times for police units responding to the north end of the City and harbor areas from the vicinity of City hall would be greatly improved. The 1 county proposes to assign a police unit in this development: The back-up unit will probably be responding from Sunset Beach. No data is available from the sheriff's that analyzes response times for their backup units. But it is likely that we will have closer units to respond in an emergency. When seconds are critical, speedy access is most important. 5) Not connecting Graham, Talbert and Springdale streets to the cross-gap connector sets up a potentially dangerous situation for the residents bordering the east side of the LCP. Homes built in this county region whose residents become victimized ' might require the sheriffs to drive out and around the development to reach the scene. The safety of Huntington Beach residents near this area is threatened if suspects discover that they can use the cross-gap as a means of escape since our units will be responding to the address of the call. Fleeing on foot to a car or other means located on the connector could provide a safer and more rapid escape for suspects. The need for the connector exists today. Development in this area will further contribute to its necessity. In those alternatives that include the connector, it should be completed during the earliest phase of construction. Without the connector and additional staffing resources to handle the increase in population as proposed by the applicant or the county, the City's Police Department's response times will continue to erode. Over the past five years, from 1987 to 1992, the City's Police Department priority one response times have increased by 35% from 5.21 to 7.03 minutes. b. County's Need for Additional Resources. Throughout the Draft EIR, the County's need for additional public safety personnel is explicit. References are made that impacts will be felt by Huntington Beach primarily in the form of emergency LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 200 backup support for the sheriffs. Since this project is completely enveloped by the City, all ingress and egress will impact our traffic enforcement and collision calls. Some of these , residents will also be victimized while in this City requiring our assistance. In short, development in the magnitude proposed by the applicant, in the modified project and some of the other alternatives, will require additional Huntington Beach public safety resources to handle this extra population growth. C. Construction of Additional Sub-Station. In the preparation of EIR/EIS, when annexation was anticipated, the Police Department expressed the need for a sub-station in Bolsa Chica to service the local residents as the population grew in that area. Although Koll does not plan an annexation at this time, consideration must be given to this ' possibility. Through a development agreement with the developer, land and building was to be provided for a fire station and shared space for a police sub-station. The developer was to contribute $2 million for land and building and another $1 million for operating costs to augment the general fund. This funding requirement is not addressed in the DEIR but the need still exists. The Bolsa Chica extension in the applicant's proposal would defeat any potential benefits of a station in this development since Springdale, Talbert and Gothard ' streets would not connect, giving further support for the Cross-Gap Connector. A county fire or police station would enhance their mutual aid efforts if all streets were connected. 13. Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Comments. , a. Page 4.14-1, Line 26-28: The report states that Orange County Fire Department (OCFD) Station 3 (Sunset Beach) has a one (1) engine station staffed by twenty-five (25) paid call firefighters. The DEIR needs to explain how a paid call system functions and a detailed explanation of how response time is measured. Response time should include reaction time (time to get assembled which includes: responding to the station, putting on equipment, and starting the apparatus) plus driving time (the time it takes to drive from the station to the actual emergency). It is understood that the Orange County Fire Department has established a response time goal of five (5) minutes for eighty (80) percent of their calls for a fully paid crew at the station available for response. At Station 3, paid call firefighters are not on duty and, when available, usually respond to the station from some distance. The distance from Station 3 to the project site is approximately 1.5 miles. At 30 mph, the average driving speed, it would take three (3) minutes to drive to the project (Warner & Algonquin). The actual reaction ' time for assembling that is responding to station, putting on equipment, and starting the apparatus ranges from one and one half (1.5) minutes for a fully staffed station to five (5) ' LAW OFFICES N ERVIN. COHE IS JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 ' Page 201 minutes for a paid call station. Therefore, the total response time (reaction + driving time) is eight (8) minutes for Station 3 operating as a paid call station. The County's response ' time standard of five (5) minutes will not be met. The report further states that staffing will consist of a captain, engineer, and firefighter. However, within a paid call system there is always the potential that no paid call firefighters will arrive or that none of the required ranks will arrive. The seven (7) closest Orange County fire stations to the project area are shown in Figure 1 attached to this letter as ANNEX No. 48. The distances, staffing, and response times from the seven (7) closest county fire stations are listed in Table I. As the table indicates, none of the stations under current staffing levels will meet the county response time of five (5) minutes for the first unit and six and one-half (6-1/2) ' minutes for the second and third engines and truck. Table I is based on the following assumptions: Reaction time for full paid 2 minutes maximum (1-2 minutes average) Reaction time for paid call 5 minutes maximum (within 5 minutes all appropriate ranks assemble before driving) 1 One minute driving time for each 1/2 mile of travel / / / LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN S JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLVO-MG PROIESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency ' February 17, 1994 Page 202 TABLE I ORANGE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT , RESPONSE TI111E TO PROJECT AREA Distance Reaction & From Project Location Type Vehicle Staffing Status Driving Time On site Within project Engine Full Paid <5 minutes Truck Full Paid Paramedic Unit Full Paid 1.5 miles Station 3 Engine Paid Call 8 minutes (Sunset Beach) 4.5 miles Station 44 Engine Full Paid 11-14 minutes (Seal Beach/ 1 Engine Paid Call downtown) 1 Truck Paid Call 5.5 miles Station 25 2 Engines Paid Call 16 minutes , (Midway City) 6.5 miles Station 48 1 Engine Full Paid 15 minutes (Seal Beach/405) I Paramedic Van Full Paid I Battalion Chief Full Paid 8.5 miles Station 2 1 Engine Full Paid 19-22 minutes ' (Los Alamitos) 1 Engine Paid Call 10.0 miles Station 46 1 Paramedic Engine Full Paid 20 minutes ' (Stanton) 1 Paramedic Truck Full Paid 10.6 miles Station 17 1 Engine Full Paid 23 minutes (Cypress) 1 Truck Full Paid 1 Paramedic Van Full Paid b. Page 4.14-1, Line 30: Although the project is phased, all phases will have insufficient fire protection based on County standards even when a station is built within the project area. The DEIR does not describe how fire protection, based on the County response standards, will be met. , ' LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ' Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 203 C. Page 4.14-19 Line 3: The DEIR does not discuss how h Count ag c the y will provide paramedic and paramedic back up service or ambulance service to the project. Beginning with Phase I of the project, paramedic service will not e adequate. The DEIR n g g p � , p s b dequate a eels to describe how this significant deficiency will be mitigated. Currently, the closest paramedic unit is 6.5 miles away located at Station 48. The response time is estimated to be 15 minutes which is greater than the County's paramedic response time standard of eight (8) minutes for ' urban areas. If and when a paramedic unit is provided within the County project area, paramedic backup services will be 6.5 miles away with a response time of 15 minutes. This second paramedic unit does not adequately provide paramedic response time to the project. Table II lists ' all of the OCFD paramedic resources near the project and their response times based on the assumptions that reaction time would be 2 minutes maximum (1-2 minutes average) and one minute driving time for each 1/2 mile of travel. TABLE II ORANGE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT PARAMEDIC RESOURCES & RESPONSE TIME Distance Paramedic Reaction & From Project Location Unit Type Driving Time ' On site Within project Paramedic Unit < 5 minutes (type not specified) 6.5 miles Station 48 Paramedic Van 15 minutes (Seal Beach/405) 10.0 miles Station 46 Paramedic Engine 20 minutes (Stanton) Paramedic Truck 10.6 miles Station 17 Paramedic Van 23 minutes (Cypress) Ambulance response and ambulance service levels are not described in the DEIR. The complete basic and advanced life support system also includes a transportation component. The ambulance transportation component should include the location of the ambulance, the response time, and the location of the second and third ambulance units including response times. LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN S JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency ' February 17, 1994 Page 204 1 OCFD policy currently requires three (3) engine companies, one (1) ladder truck company, one paramedic unit, and one (1) battalion chief to respond on "first alarm" assignments. ' These units should all be at the incident within six and one half (6-1/2) minutes with the first unit arriving within five (5) minutes. They should also be staffed using thirty (30), 24-hour personnel assigned to three (3) shifts with each working 56 hour weeks. Nine (9) personnel are assigned to the engine, twelve (12) to the truck, six (6) to the paramedic unit, and three (3) to the battalion chief unit. The station should also house adequate reserve apparatus for emergencies. Details should be provided to describe where additional units will be responding from to comply with County established response standards for first alarm and greater alarm fires. The proposed County fire station needs more detail. For instance, to house the fire r protection resources described above, the project should provide a four-bay station fully equipped with engine, truck, paramedic and battalion chief units to provide the minimum apparatus required for the project. d. Page 1-41, Table 1.5-1, Impact 4.14-2: The DEIR only addresses OCFD as the service provider. Assuming no fire or medical response is provided by Huntington Beach, OCFD will place service demands on other cities such as Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Newport Beach, Santa Ana, and Westminster. The DEIR needs to discuss the use of other cities' fire resources and the impacts on these cities, as well as the impacts on Huntington Beach. e. Page 4.14-19, Line 6: The proposed project only focuses on , OCFD's fire protection service impacts. The DEIR should evaluate and describe the impacts on surrounding fire protection services. The DEIR does not discuss the impacts and mitigation for the MWD property located within the City. f. As the project extends into the City (1.2.1), areas in the City will also be impacted and will require that a fire protection system be provided to mitigate response time deficiencies. This means that in addition to the County required station, a fully equipped fire station which includes an engine and a paramedic unit with a total staffing of fifteen (15) personnel will be required to mitigate City impacts. Additionally, all structures within the City boundaries must have automatic fire sprinkler systems installed pursuant to National Fire Protection Association Standards. Roadways and access must also comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department Standard 401. Other infrastructure and LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROIESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 205 ' traffic circulations stems must be installed pursuant to the City Growth Management Y P Y g Ordinance and Fire Protection Master Plans. ' The DEIR does not consider the service delivery alternative of g• rY the County contracting with the City whereby the City will provide fire protection and emergency medical services. Under a City contract alternative adequate fire protection can be provided to the first half of Phase I before a fire station needs to be built within the project area. h. Page 4.14-19, Line 10: All the population within the project area will travel over City streets and will require City services. The DEIR does not discuss the impacts on City public safety services or mitigation's for these impacts. The description for roadway response and infrastructure needs more detail regarding how public safety units will use roads and respond through non-public street areas and through barriers such as emergency access gates. If non-public streets and barriers are used, the DEIR needs to describe how the obstructions will impact response times and how the impacts will be mitigated. The DEIR does not show if the proposed fire station site is adequately placed to provide the necessary response time and roadways to prevent flashover. The DEIR must also show how people will exit the project area when they are threatened with floods, tidal waves, hazardous material releases, or major fires. Proposed circulation patterns should be detailed to show how citizens will exit threatened areas by efficient egress to safety. Amending the Master Plan for Arterial Highways will have an adverse impact on traffic ' circulation and emergency management both within the project area and in surrounding City areas. Fire response deficiencies throughout Huntington Beach are shown in Figure 2 attached to this letter as AM4EX No. 49. Development of the Bolsa Chica without the Cross- Gap Connector, as described in the DEIR, will worsen these response deficiencies. Population and traffic densities will increase and as a result will slow response time for public safety units. The Huntington Beach Growth Management Element for transportation improvements is recommended as the project area standard. If the MPAH is amended, response times to emergency incidents will be compromised in the proposed development area, as well as surrounding City areas. i LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 206 4.14-1 Lin 2 • Removal f it ril ' 'i. Page 9, a 6. o o drilling and storage facilities will have a mgjor impact on County staff or fire department staff. Stringent , regulations and standards make oil site and facility cleanup difficult. More tests need to be done to assure adequate safety and clean operations during site remediation activities. Recent City Fire Department history shows that significant time is expended by staff to , thoroughly analyze, review, and inspect sites for federal, State, and local regulatory compliance. The DEIR must be more specific and identify the hours necessary to conduct oil well abandonment and remediation activities. The report should describe what type of study, analysis, and testing will be conducted on existing as well as previously used areas. These activities should then be quantified to give a more accurate accounting of time for each function. Each phase of the project should be specifically analyzed for oil well history and site contamination. j. Page 4.14-19, Line 34: The DEIR needs to discuss how the County will provide hazardous materials response services to the project area. This discussion should include how the project area will pay for these services. If the County ' proposes to include the project area under the OCFD's provider umbrella of the Orange County Hazardous Materials Joint Powers Authority, the City and Newport Beach hazardous materials units will be providing the service without reimbursement. Implementing ' hazardous materials response under the County's provider umbrella has a significant impact on the Huntington Beach Fire Department and Newport Beach Fire Department and needs to be addressed in the DEIR. 14. Fire Department Comments Re: Cross-Gap Connector. ' a. Page 1-8, Table 1.5-1: This portion of the DEIR states that "detailed analysis has shown that no physical significant impacts occur from amending the ' LUE. The main inconsistency of the project relative to the MPAH is that Bolsa Chica Street is not connected to Garfield Avenue as a secondary arterial. (Analysis shows that no significant adverse impacts result from this modification as proposed.)" The DEIR statement of "insignificant" impact is not correct. The roadway and circulation system proposed for the Bolsa Chica Project will be an integral part of the City Fire Department's response routes and will cause significant adverse impacts if not constructed. The Orange County Master ' Plan of Arterial Highways recommends extension of Bolsa Chica Road connecting with Garfield Avenue including connections to Springdale, Graham, and Talbert Avenue (the ' LAW OFFICE5 ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ' Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 207 Cross-Gap Connector). These roadways are extremely important in meeting Huntington Beach Fire Department's response goals as required in the City's Growth Management Element. The specific standards are as follows: 1. Arrival of first engine company for fire/rescue/medical aid incidents within five (5) minutes, eighty (80) percent of the time and in all cases within ten (10) minutes. 2. Arrival of first paramedic unit within five (5) minutes, eighty (80) percent of the ' time. ' The proposal to eliminate the Cross-Gap Connector at Springdale Avenue and install an emergency vehicle access road from Springdale to Garfield Avenue increases response time for emergency vehicles in contrast to a public road. As the City continues to develop, the proposed cul-de-sac at Springdale will compromise the City's ability to meet the Growth Management goals. In addition, emergency egress for citizens living in the area, will be compromised when evacuation is needed due to flood, earthquake, fire, tsunami, etc. Roadway widths should be a minimum of forty (40) feet wide to accommodate emergency vehicles access and citizen egress during emergencies. Recent disastrous conflagrations in Laguna Beach and Malibu have taught us that access and egress during emergencies make ' roadway widths critical. In the event that the complete Cross-Gap Connector is not built, two (2) additional City fire ' stations will be required at the following locations: 1. Garfield and Edwards ' a. Engine company and medic van - 15 personnel; or, b. Paramedic engine company - 12 personnel. LAW OFFICES ERVIN . COHEN £3 JESSUP A PAPTNEPSNiP iNCLUD.NG PPO.'ESS.ONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency ' February 17, 1994 Page 208 ' 2. Kenilworth and Graham a. Engine company - 9 personnel , b. Truck company - 12 personnel C. Medic van - 6 personnel d. Ambulance - 6 personnel; or, e. Paramedic engine company - 12 personnel f. Truck company - 12 personnel g. Ambulance - 6 personnel , The Fire Department strongly supports the current Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways - which includes a complete Cross-Gap Connector connecting with Springdale, ' Graham, and Talbert Avenues. The use of "Opticom" controls at all signalized intersections within and adjacent to the project area is also recommended. If the proposed project is built as planned, including development on the City portion of the MWD property, the Fire Department will require an agreement with the developer to provide the property, staffing, and equipment for one (1) fire station on the Kenilworth property , noted above. 15. Library Services. The City central library will experience a ' significant increase in use due to increased residential population form the project. The DEIR notes that the project would burden existing resources and includes only the increased revenue to the CouW library fund as mitigation. The DEIR notes that if the burden on the County's resources exceed the revenue that an additional funding agreement would be required. The terms of that agreement are not disclosed in the DEIR and so it is not possible to assess whether the impact on the County library is mitigated. Furthermore, no mention of ' the impact to the 12a library system is even considered. The City central library is the closest library to the project and it provides a far higher level of service than the closest County branch libraries (which have only 10,000 to 20,000 square feet of space as opposed to 118,000 square feet available in the City's central library. Since residents will usually make use of the library closest to their homes and since the City's facilities offer a higher level of service than the County's facilities in the area, it is expected that most of the additional burdens would be placed on the City's system, not the County's. The DEIR does not even attempt to assess or mitigate the impact on the City library. ' LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 ' Page 209 ' 16. Miscellaneous. a. Page 4.14-14, lines 1-10: All of the comments offered above in regards to page 4.14-12, lines 30-49 are applicable to this section. No explanation is provided as to how the water consumption figures shown were derived. The DEIR should use the City's 1988 WMP figures. It appears that the figures shown are based on an annual average. This is without regard to the normal daily highs and lows of typical water service experience. A daily pealing factor of 2.43 should be applied in the analysis per the 1988 ' WMP. No such analysis is documented. How will the proposed water system be operated? How will the peaks and valleys of demand be dealt with? It is not acceptable to assume that the existing City system will take care of these, as it is currently inadequate to take care of all its current demands (1988 WMP, Executive Summary). The Water Master Plan peaking factors have not been applied. The numbers that are quoted are inadequate since no reviewer can possibly recreate them. The presumption that water saving devices and reclaimed water will reduce potable consumption below the amounts shown in the City's 1988 Water Master Plan is not supported and only conjecture. Additionally, the last sentence of this paragraph has no foundation. It is a conditional statement with no explanation or analysis of how it might be accomplished. b. Page 4.14-14. lines 20-26: The statement that the City's 1988 Water Master Plan implementation would allow the project to proceed has not been shown adequately nor clearly in the DEIR. The construction of nine million gallons of storage to augment the existing City system over and above the obligations of other developers has not been shown. This paragraph is somewhat confusing and conflicts with other parts of the report. An explanation of "minor" in line 24 is also needed. C. Page 4.14-14. lines 26-32: A service agreement is not necessary to serve water outside the City limits. However, the City Council must by ' resolution determine and declare that a surplus of water exists in excess of that required by the inhabitants of the City in order to sell water outside its limits. An additional 10% is added to the water rate for water sold outside the City limits as well. The concept of City forces performing maintenance under contract to the Bolsa Chica water company is but one option that the DEIR should explore. Other options exist, such as the City owning and operating the entire water system or a private contractor doing the same. The DEIR is inadequate in this regard. LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency ' February 17, 1994 Page 210 d. Page 4.14-14 lines 46-50: Connections to the Green Acres Project may not be available. As stated above, the project may not be built. Connections to ' MWDOC cannot be done because MWDOC has no facilities. These must be made to MWD facilities through the MWDOC agency. The construction of these facilities must be the subject of an additional environmental review document because the nearest MWD facilities are seven miles away in the City of Garden Grove. e. Page 4.14-15. lines 1-15: What is meant by "small" in line 1 ? , In line 5, mention is made of a 4-5 million gallon reservoir. Why is this different than the nine million gallons discussed previously? The nine million gallon reservoir erroneously stated in the DEIR to be intended for mitigation of the Bolsa Chica project will still need to be built somewhere. Significant adverse impacts will occur if the 1988 Water Master Plan is not followed because it has not been clearly and comprehensively shown in this document that all impacts will be mitigated: The report discusses only two alternatives for water ' supply. Additional alternatives need to be discussed. Seawater desalination is one. Because of these inadequacies, the DEIR is flawed. f. Page 4.14-20. lines 5-23: The 9.4 million gallon figure in the i first paragraph is not reproducible by anyone other than the author. The issue of fees is discussed without reference to AB1600 and how the money will be used in an equitable fashion. AB1600 requires that fees must be based on the capital costs of facilities required to serve new development. R. CHAPTER 4.15 - RECREATION. ' 1. Park Component of Proposed Plan is Deficient. The plan proposed ' by Koll is not consistent with the City General Plan in areas of ratio of acres of park land to population, development open space requirements, and cultural/historic elements, (e.g., two acres of park development per thousand population versus the city's five acres per thousand population standard). The City is currently developing its historic and cultural plan which will include a landmark ordinance which may be inconsistent with the proposed project. If the City ratio of acres of park land to population is not implemented, existing City parks will sustain increased usage which would result in higher maintenance, less field time available for youth and adult sports leagues, increased vandalism, increased citizen complaints regarding overcrowding, and increased City costs to program and maintain City facilities. If the City then annexes the property, the homeowners in the wetlands area could also put demands upon the City to increase their park acreage for neighborhood and community parks ' LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 211 m me standard that exists in the rest of the City. Further, the areas proposed for to meet the same stan ty p po active parks, such as Planning Area 3B on the Mesa, are not appropriate in terms of size or shape to permit sufficient room for an adequate number of athletic fields plus the proposed recreation center. r2. Lack of Urban Parks. The DEIR also presents an issue regarding urban parks (neighborhood and community parks) for the proposed development. The proposed high density housing needs recreational open space which is found in neighborhood and community parks. These parks, which are comprised of open grass areas, trees, sports courts and fields, picnic facilities and tot lots, are needed for people, especially people living in urban areas. Trading off urban parks within the proposed neighborhoods for Bolsa Chica Regional Park, which will be several miles away, not directly accessible and a natural, passive park, does not meet the needs of people living in high density residential areas. Both ' types of parks are necessary; but, one cannot say that one type of park (such as the Bolsa Chica Linear Park) can replace the other (i.e., the urban/neighborhood parks required in high density development). ' 3. No Funding Is Provided for Park and Public Greenbelt Maintenance. The Draft EIR is deficient in identifying cost and revenue to pay for ' maintenance of the public improvements such as parks, median landscape, roadside landscape, greenbelts, and specialty areas (i.e. ponds, tide pools, bike trails and wetlands, including all facilities necessary to operate tidal flushing system). If the City were to annex ' this project, the property tax derived from the area may not be sufficient to pay for cost of law enforcement, leaving the remaining City operations unfunded for services required in the project area. rFor maintenance of public improvements, consideration and analysis should be given to the following: 1. The 1972 Street Lighting and Landscape Act Assessment District information. 2. All roadside landscape and community benefit amenities should be in private property easement and not public property or right-of-way easement. ' 3. All parks, greenbelts, ponds, tide pools and the like to be dedicated for public use and maintained by the homeowners association and/or developer. LAW OFFICES ' ERVIN, COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 212 4. Wetlands maintained by the State of California and/or the federal government. Liability and claims that arise out of the wetlands must remain with the party ' or parties responsible for maintenance. 4. Oil Boom Will Cause Beach Contamination. The oil spill prevention ' control counter measures noted in Chapter 4.2 of the DEIR are not shown in the DEIR to be satisfactory to contain oil spills from reaching the wetlands through the proposed tidal inlet. A boom catch system in the tidal inlet will probably cause increased beach contamination. Based on the City's experience with the American Trader oil spill, further methods of mitigating oil spills need to be researched for further review and analysis by the public before the DEIR is certified. 5. Geology and Seismicity. The DEIR shows That park land will be ' developed across active fault lines. This will limit the ability to construct facilities such as a recreation center, rest rooms and hard surfaced court areas which will result in an inability to provide necessary recreational facilities for the future residents of this area. , 6. Slope Stability. Greenbelt areas which contain natural slopes may become unstable and present a liability problem. A slope stabilization plan should be , developed for review and comment by the public prior to the certification of the DEIR. 7. Contaminated Soil. The County has a different standard than the City for park lands to be developed on contaminated soil. The DEIR does not address this discrepancy nor does it state the standard for remediation which will be required before contaminated land is accepted for public park. If annexation were to take place, the soils would have to meet City standards for acceptance of park land. Further review and study by the City would be required. 8. Corrosive Soil. The DEIR indicates that it is possible that some of the land to be dedicated for passive and active parks may now contain corrosive soils. Soils containing corrosive elements (such as salt) have proven to progressively degrade irrigation ' systems, turf, and ground cover. The approach proposed is to provide resistant plant material and resistant irrigation systems may not be adequate mitigation. Park areas to be developed may be mitigated with non-corrosive import soil. Additional study is needed ' before the issue of corrosive soil can be deemed insignificant for parks and recreation LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PAATNEPSNIP INCLUOING PROFESSIONAL COPPOMTIONS ' Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 213 ' purposed. Significant, long term maintenance problems could result from inadequate P � g � g P �1 measures taken at the time of development. 9. Impact of Placement of Dredged Sediments on Beach. Excess sedimentation in full tidal areas is proposed to be mitigated by regular removal of sediment ' which will then be placed on the beach as beach replacement. This could have significant impact on the quality of beach shoreline. Further study regarding procedures for testing sediment before placement needs to be completed before effect can be found to be ' insignificant. Alternative methods for displacement of sediment need to be studied in cases where it is found to be unsuitable for beach placement. Further, the proposed project's water quality management plan indicates it will include a program of maintenance dredging near the mouth of the EGGW Channel to remove sediment containing unacceptable concentrations of pollutants. A relocation plan including an indication as to where the ' contaminated soil will be placed is required before this condition can be considered insignificant. See la so Page 4.3-14, line 27: The DEIR must define "minor hydraulic dredge operations" and detail the estimated percentage of sediment suitable for beach placement. Further, the DEIR should state whether this practice is done now, and, if so, what methods are used for determining suitability for beach placement. Further study to determine types of pollutants and alternate sites for relocation should be completed. The ' City will not want contaminated soils relocated to other sections of the City such as beaches or parks. ' 10. Elevate Parks above Flood Plain. If parks are included within the Santa Ana River flood plain, they should also be raised to at least one foot above flood elevation. If park land is used within a residential area to hold runoff and/or to control flood levels, parks may be unusable by the proposed residential development during the rainy season. If parks are developed as catch basins and flood control areas, proper drainage and diversion should be developed in order to insure year round neighborhood use. These areas ' should be short-term, temporary catch basins so as not to deny the public use of its parks and, thereby, generate public complaints. ' 11. Public Safety Impacts of Increased Site Visitation. The tidal inlet will provide habitat for marine life currently not associated with the site. This will increase potential for visitation to the area to explore the habitat which will increase the need for ' public safety measures, i.e., lifeguards and/or rangers. The jetties associated with the inlet will also increase fishing activity which will also increase the need for public safety I LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency ' February 17, 1994 Page 214 , personnel in this area. A plan must be devised to address this issue, including funding of such a program. ' 12. Loss of Oceanfront. Construction of the tidal inlet will result in loss of oceanfront for surfing and other beach recreation and may affect up to a quarter mile of ' surfing beach south of the proposed inlet. This area is one of the most popular surfing beaches. The City has spent considerable funds in improving parking and access immediately adjacent to this area for surfers and beachgoersAl' The impact should not be deemed insignificant as reported in the EIR. One natural resource (beachfront) is being ' traded for another (wetlands). An analysis should be performed to determine if the tradeoff for wetlands is worth the sacrifice of surf and beachfront areas.13. Transportation and Traffic Circulation; PCH Upsizing. Proposed project is estimated to increase overall traffic flow between 4 to 5 percent. No consideration ' is given to the impact on bicycle traffic on PCH with this proposed increase. Upsizing plan should include provisions for Class I bike lanes and bicycle access points to entryways at the State beach and the wetlands view point areas. ' 14. Surfing and Swimming Restrictions. Restricting surfing in front of the tidal inlet during high tide for safety considerations will require prohibiting surfing , activity by lifeguard staff and will have a significant financial impact on operational costs. In order to prohibit surfing during tidal changes, a blackballing operation will have to be implemented. Blackballing is the process of lifeguards dropping two black buoys between ' areas designated as "no surfing" and patrolling the area to keep surfers out. The inlet area would have to be blackballed from a boat operation which would require additional costs. From a practical standpoint, enforcing the surfing restriction in this area during tide changes will be extremely difficult, thereby resulting in increased liability to public safety. 15. Public Safety Requirements. Providing additional lifeguard towers , will not succeed as a mitigation measure unless the project provides additional funding to construct and provide qualified personnel to staff the towers. Additional warning signs must be included as a mitigation measure for the dangers created by the construction of the tidal ' inlet. 1181 In the opinion of such organizations as the Surf Rider Foundation, this area is important to the sung experience and, as such, represents both an important recreational and coastal resource. LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ' Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 ' Page 215 16. Interpretative Kayak/Canoe Program. Although the DEIR assumes that there is no significant impact from this program, it cannot assume that the impact is insignificant until a program plan has been reviewed for potential impacts on public safety, feasibility of kayak operations during tidal changes, locations for base operations have been studied, and funding source for program identified. ' S. CHAPTER 5 - MODIFIED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE. Most of the same impacts and CEQA deficiencies noted in this letter with respect to Koll's proposed project apply with equal force to the so-called "co-equal" or Modified Project Alternative. Certainly, the DEIR is not a legally-adequate document supporting the issuance of any approvals or permits for this proposed project. Further, it is ' difficult to see what overriding consideration would be posited by the County as the justification for the unavoidable unmitigated significant adverse environmental effects of this proposed alternative. In addition to the impacts noted with respect to Koll's proposed project, the Modified Project Alternative is likely to cause the further problems noted in this Part III.S. ' 1. Beach/Coastal Impacts. All reasonable and feasible alternatives have not been fully considered. For example, the relatively short length of jetties implies that lower profile structures could be considered. In this manner, aesthetics and viewshed ' concerns can be better mitigated. The Modified Project Alternative is stated to be dependent on public funding and requires that the public purchase all open space. Given the economic climate and potential for funding problems, this seems to place the project feasibility in jeopardy. It is possible that the County may only be able to afford a reduced scale restoration. Also, given the potential for problems associated with disposal of contaminated soil, reduced size restorations should be discussed as alternative plans. ' 2. Cultural Resources. The cultural resources component to the Modified Project Alternative represented in Chapter 5 is effectively identical to that in Chapter 4. All comments concerning Chapter 4 apply equally to the Modified Project Alternative presented in Chapter 5. Potential lowland sites ORA-86, 1308 and -1309 have not been determined to be cultural deposits nor is it known if they are important (pg. 5-101, lines 44-47). This contradicts LAW OFFICES ' ERVIN. COHEN b JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency ' February 17, 1994 Page 216 ' earlier statements that ORA-86 is a known cultural site. For example, Table 1 5-1, pages '1-34, 4.11 Cultural Resources identifies ORA-86 as a "prehistoric mesa component." ' 3. Water Impacts. a. Page 5-34. line 24: "The potential for fault rupture is remote , and not considered significant" is quoted from the report. It is "not considered significant" by whom? Paragraph 4, page 98, of Special Report 114, published by the California Division , of Mines and Geology (attached to this letter as AwEx No. 51) states otherwise. b. Page 5-40. lines 1-30: This is Modified Project Alternative. The same comments apply as in Koll's proposed project, p. 4.2-32, lines 18-31. C. Page 5-43. lines 44-48: Add to last sentence: "per utility or ' agency having jurisdiction." d. Page 5-44. lines 4-10: The same comments as stated with ' respect to Koll's proposed project apply equally to this Modified Project Alternative, p. 4.2- 36, lines 35-37. e. Page 5-44. lines 31-32: The Newport-Inglewood Fault is a , major feature that will greatly impact water service in its movement and thus should be examined in great detail. More discussion and evaluation of alternatives should be included ' to lessen major water losses should a seismic event occur. Although cutoff valves are one alternative, other and potentially better technology exists which must be considered in the DEIR. See comments for page 4.2-37, lines 1-10. ' f. Page 5-46. lines 6-43: A new drainage pump station is discussed. Who will operate and maintain this facility? What are its energy and emissions ' impacts and the impacts of failure of the station? Who will be responsible for cleaning and checking the stations for siltation? What will be the cost and who will pay it? g. Page 5-50. lines 4-11: Seawater intrusion into the groundwater , basin is unacceptable. Further explanation and more details are needed in regard to the "appropriate geotechnical solutions." 1 ' LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN b JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ' Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 ' Page 217 h. Page 5-112. Table 5.4.13-1: The Standard Population Factors quoted are low for water supply estimates. Figures obtained during research for the 1988 ' Water Master Plan indicate that higher figures, such as 3.5 for detached single family, should be used. The higher numbers will show a higher water demand which will need to be mitigated as per a new analysis that would be performed using the 1988 WMP figures. The quantities discussed would then be more closely comparable to those shown in the 1988 WMP. i. Page 5-113. lines 32-50: Is the amount of energy needed to pump the water required for the development figured into the analysis? See comments for page 4.14-12, lines 1-28. j. Page -114 lines - : All of the comments listed in the like section of the DEIR for Koll's proposed project are applicable to this section. See comments ' for pages 4.14-12 to 4.14-15. k. Page 5-118. lines 16-34: See comments for page 4.14-20, lines 5-23. ' 4. Traffic Impacts. a. Page 5-79. Line 9: Where is the justification for this statement? ' b. Page 5-82. Lines 38-39: In light of the HOCTAM Model's apparent inability to forecast reliable turning movement counts, it may be required to revise the analysis with necessary modifications to the model used, or post-process the data. Use of the SARA Model will help resolve this issue."-9' ' C. Page 5-86, Lines 1-13: As mentioned earlier, mitigation measures required by the project should not be classified as PDF's. How could a project have PDF's on the public roadway system? The cost of necessary improvements in the City could approach tens of millions of dollars. By referring to required transportation infrastructure improvements as "Project Design Features", the Applicant is incorporating the 119/ The output from model must be examined and, if necessary, adjusted based on engineering judgement. It will be necessary, therefore, to append the raw data output to the DEIR so that the accuracy of the TIA can be fully assessed by the persons reviewing the document. 1 LAW OFFICES , ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency , February 17, 1994 Page 218 ' improvements into the design of the project, and therefore should be responsible for funding these improvements. ' d. Page 5-86. Lines 18-19: The DEI'R does not address the potential hazards to existing traffic due to construction traffic. An analysis of this potential , impact should be included in the DEIR. Additionally, no analysis was conducted to assess the cost of monitoring any mitigation measures required during construction, nor is there discussion of who is responsible for the monitoring. This must be included in the revised , DEIR. e. Page 5-87. Lines 16-21: Taking into consideration the enormous impact of the project traffic on the Huntington Beach roadway network, the assumption made with respect to the availability of funds without even attempting to quantify monetary requirements in the study is unacceptable. , 5. Miscellaneous. ' a. Page 5-17, lines 5-14: This raises question that only partial funding may be available which means that a reduced size restoration might be implemented. ' Was this alternative considered? Is there a critical restoration area necessary to support water quality requirements? b. Page 5-52, lines 16-20: The water quality analysis appears to , be based solely on residence time of tidal waters. What are the expected dissolved oxygen levels throughout restored area as a result of the modified project? What are probable ' concentrations of other contaminant loadings? How does modified project water quality compare to that of existing conditions and proposed project? Be specific. C. Page 5-53, line 13: Define "as needed" dredging. ' d. Page 5-56, line 28: How much larger would current velocity be , if cross-section not increased at Warner Avenue Bridge? e. Page 5-64. line 6: What is estimated volume and frequency of maintenance dredging? LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 219 f. P -2 line 1 2: "Acquisition improvement and s� � r maintenance of the proposed wetlands would be funded through public funding sources or private contributions." This is a substantial difference from the applicant's proposed project which includes dedicated open space. This information must be presented in a more accessible and understandable context, since acquisition associated with public funds may impact project restoration implementation phasing or overall timing. The sensitive species discussion in this chapter should reference whether the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provided a list of relevant species to be considered. Page 5- 5: Why isn't habitat fragmentation and loss of locally g• g � Y g Y important habitat a part of the definition of adverse and significant? h. Page 5- 5: Why isn't the potential loss of vegetation due to failure of the WRP considered a significant impact? This is inappropriate since the Bolsa Chica wetlands is such a significant regional resource. The explanation provided at the bottom of page 4.7-43 and at the top of page 4-7.44 anticipates some failure and mentions contingencies. It should be made clear that the magnitude of plant losses is not anticipated to be significant due to the contingencies, remedial actions and alternative strategies, and then list some examples of other projects where this has been the case. i. Page 5-65 through 66: Does the loss of 310 acres of non-native grassland translate into the extirpation of locally important habitat? The document cites upland preservation in the Irvine Coast (12 miles away) as a contingency to this type of habitat remaining. If the Irvine Coast is the nearest substantial block of contiguous habitat, then the 310-acre loss at Bolsa must be the last substantive block of upland habitat in the vicinity. This finding undermines the determination of significance. j. Table 5.4.7-1: There is no discussion or quantification of impacts disclosed for the grading limits and this is a significant omission. The restoration program is represented in the numbers reflected in Table 5.4.7-1 and provides a net loss or net gain in specific habitat types. However, there is no analysis provided that identifies the short-term or temporary losses associated with the grading and dredging activities to assist in creating the restoration program. This should be provided for the EIR. Also, if there is excess dredge spoil, where is it disposed of and what are the biological impacts? LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUD.NG PROFESS.ONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency t February 17, 1994 Page 220 k. Page 5-71, lines 1-7: This paragraph states that "the black- tailed jackrabbit will potentially suffer a significant loss of upland habitat from the proposed development and wetlands restoration." The paragraph also cites Rabbit Island being retained and there would remain 40 square miles of habitat. The conclusion is that due to remaining open space the impact is adverse, not significant. The report also mentioned that there is another black-tailed jackrabbit population in Laguna Laurel. The analysis should draw made some conclusions about whether this black-tailed jackrabbit population is the last within the vicinity as a basis for determining whether this is a locally important population and whether Rabbit Island will support enough rabbits to reduce their chances of being extirpated from the site. 1. Pages 5-71 and 5-72: The text associated with birds is a little , difficult to follow. In some instances the discussion compares impacts with the applicant's proposed project and in other instances it does not clarify what it is comparing to. It would be useful to present this information in tabular form showing existing habitat, the applicant WRP and the modified WRP, contrasting each habitat in acres along with bird utilization by habitat type. This would provide a better understanding of how well each scenario accommodates the bird species involved. This must be done for each project phase. M. Page 5-73, lines 12-17: No figure or data is presented or referenced that shows or evaluates the importance of the least tern foraging areas that are proposed to be adversely affected during construction of the WRP. Thus, it is difficult for other biologists to comment as to whether or not this temporary loss would be a significant impact. n. Page 5-73, lines 36-40: The preservation of 200 acres of pickleweed will be maintained throughout completion of the WRP and that this "potentially reduces this significant impact to an adverse level rather than significant." It should be Clarified how much of this 200 acres of pickleweed is occupied habitat. Comparison of Figures 4.7-2 and 5.4.7-1 indicates that there are areas of pickleweed just east of the northern portion of Bolsa Chica Mesa where no Belding's savannah sparrows are reported. Where are the 200-acre areas that will remain available and are they or will they be in a condition to support sparrows? o. Page 5-76, lines 20-22: The discussion acknowledges saltmarsh ' contributions to the ecosystem, but the discussion is very brief considering this is such a major restoration program. It would seem that a project such as this would add measurably LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 221 to the benefit of a wide variety of wildlife. For example, projects such as this, coupled with plans for Batiquitos Lagoon, San Dieguito wetlands and Tijuana Estuary should help to continue to provide some form of a "safety net" for waterfowl and shorebirds. However, the text discusses the cumulative loss of upland habitat only. p. Page 55-77: The WRP should be summarized in the mitigation section - particularly the construction monitoring and maintenance, the 5-year post- construction monitoring and long-term surveys. These items were discussed on page 4.7-44 for Koll's proposed project. Also, if the WRP is a part of the project, why not discuss the WRP, at least in summary fashion, within the project description? q. Page 5-118: Cumulative Impacts/Modified Alternative/Water and Wastewater: This section implies that the developer intends to employ Mello-Roos districts to fund said improvements. Since the developer has not described the scope of said improvements in sufficient detail, there is no way to ascertain the significance or the reason for employing such districts and associated fees. The costs of developer-funded improvements would appear to be considerable. This would tend to heavily impact associated fees. T. CHAPTER 6 - LONG TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT. 1. Relationship between Short-Term Uses of the Environment and Maintenance/Enhancement of Productivity. As is noted in Part II.H of this letter, CEQA requires that an EIR considering basic planning and policy decisions must assess the relationship between local short term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long term productivity. PRC §§ 21100, 21100.1. Guidelines § 15126(e) and 15127 require this analysis to focus on impacts which narrow the range of beneficial use or pose long term risks to health and safety. As noted numerous places in this letter, the proposed project poses a health risk due to the 20-year remediation of the current hazardous conditions, coupled with an indeterminate period during which oil operations will continue on the site. The extended time during which oil operations will continue may also have an adverse impact on the continued viability of biological resources of the wetlands. What happens when oil prices increase and it becomes economic to continue oil operations on inactive but not yet abandoned wells? The DEIR never explores this issue, concluding only that "eventual phasing out of oil production operations and the cleanup of oil production sites will have positive impacts over the long term." This conclusory statement does not fulfill the requirement for analysis stated in PRC § 21100 and the recirculated DEIR must analyze the LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 222 potential schedule of phasing out oil operations, the implications of the project in terms of its potential to expose wildlife, birds and other biological resources as well as human populations to ongoing risks from the close proximity of oil operations, and alternative approaches which should be explored to reduce these impacts. The discussion of long-term impacts must assess the "cumulative and long-term effects of the j proposed project which adversely affect the state of the environment." Guidelines § 15126(e). Long-term productivity and long-term effects on the state of the environment include the adverse effects on productivity of the natural habitat. Chapter 6 of the DEIR must assess the impact of the project on the long-term productivity of the wildlife, fish and plant habitat in the region. This is not considered in the DEIR, and it is likely that the destruction of the uplands habitat would have a significant adverse impact on the ecological productivity not only of the uplands but of the remainder of the site as well. For example, the DEIR must consider the permanent impacts on biological productivity caused by the loss of raptor roosting and foraging habitat and the impact on brooding habitat for other threatened and endangered species, such as the burrowing owl. The DEIR must also evaluate (i) the potential permanent injury to environmentally sensitive habitat which may be occasioned by upset during the remediation or construction process and (ii) the impact of the indefinite and potentially permanent delay in implementing the WRP on the biological productivity of the site. In order to fulfill CEQA's dictates for analysis of the effect of the project on the long-term productivity of the environment, the DEIR must be rewritten to consider and analyze the impact of the layering man's environment (in the form of the 4,884 new homes in the area) over the natural environment as existing at the site. The current draft of the DEIR is deficient due to its failure to do so. Further, CEQA requires that "[s]pecial attention should be given to impacts which narrow the range of beneficial uses of the environment. . . [and] . . . the reasons why the proposed project is believed by the sponsor to be justified now, rather than reserving an option for further alternatives, should be explained." Sej,- Guidelines § 15126(e). Thus, the discussion must =lain the reasons which justify going forward with the project rather than reserving options for future alternatives. In this regard, the DEIR makes only a veiled reference to "regulatory reasons" (DEIR p. 6-1, In. 44) and proceeds to discuss the LCP approval process without explaining how that process iustifies implementation of the project at this time. The only explanation which is offered attempts (and fails) to justify the current development of the Mesa and the potential eventual development of the Lowlands on the basis of the implementation period for the project coupled with the statement that delay would only extend the time required for restoration. As demonstrated in this letter, the current plan does LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN & JESSUP A PART"ERSMIP MCLUOIMG PROVE5510"AL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 223 not specify any time period for the implementation of the restoration, there is no reasonable probability of obtaining the Lowlands development permits which are a condition to the wetlands restoration and, therefore, potential delays are as likely with or without project approval from the County. Accordingly, the potential delay neither explains nor justifies the foreclosing of environmental options which will occur by reason of the approval of the project at this time. 2. Irreversible Environmental Changes. Chapter 6.2 of the DEIR omits �. significant, irreversible changes which will occur from implementation of the project, including increases in traffic congestion (at PCH in all events and in other areas of the region depending on the timing and success of the ATIP), the permanent loss of local species foraging habitat and the loss of potentially significant archaeological and historic resources. Further, the project would permit increased human intrusion into relatively inaccessible wetlands and ESHAs. These are among the significant irreversible environmental changes which would be involved in the implementation of the action considered in the DEIR. The proposed project, if approved, is clearly an "ecological point of no return" for the future land use and environment of Bolsa Chica and must be evaluated in light of the long-term and irreversible changes in biological resource values, traffic, air quality, land use and other impacts which the project will create, particularly if the project never proceeds beyond the development of the Mesa. U. CHAPTER 7 - ALTERNATIVES TO PROPOSED PROJECT. �+ 1. General Comments. ' a. As noted in Part II.E, above, the discussion of alternative projects and alternate locations for the proposed project is inadequate and must be expanded and the DEIR recirculated. For example, a greater range of Lowlands alternatives and the alternatives suggested in Part II.E should be included in the recirculated DEIR. i b. A table indicating further information which is required for the DEIR to more adequately present the alternatives which are considered in the DEIR is presented in ANNEX No. 8 to this letter. C. In discussing the feasibility of the various project alternatives which are presented in the DEIR see page 7-7 and the subsections for each alternative), the DEIR presents no substantial evidence to support its conclusions. It is not clear that various LAW OFF ICES N ERVIN, COHE 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 224 public and private funding mechanisms have been fully investigated. Evidence regarding the contacts which were made on funding issues, such as correspondence with organizations which provide such funding, should be included in the EIR. For some alternatives, it is not enough to say that the applicant is not interested in proceeding with them (page 7-27, lines 33-36). There may be other potential developers who might wish to pursue any number of these alternatives, as long as they represent a reasonable potential for earnings. The lack ' of such other developers is not demonstrated, nor is the potential financial feasibility of the various alternatives properly compared with the proposed project. If the alternatives are to be rejected based, in part, on the fiscal feasibility of the alternative, that feasibility must be documented and compared to the feasibility of the proposed project.120' The DEIR must present a pro-forma for each alternative project which is rejected on the basis of economic feasibility and compare it to all of the options presented, including a pro-forma for the proposed project itself. In the absence of such data and analysis, it is not possible for the public or for the decision-makers of the County to assess the accuracy of the DEIR's conclusion that less environmentally alternatives are not feasible. d. CEQA requires that an EIR consider all reasonable alternatives. This DEIR fails to consider the potential annexation of the project into the City. As is noted above, the location of the project within the City would lessen the impacts on Police, Fire and other public services. Alternative "A" through Alternative "J" should be also considered under a scenario in which the project is first annexed into the City and the project thereafter proceeds as a City project. 2. Air Quality The No Development Alternative, page 7-51, lines 22-32, also proposes no housing. ' Consequently, the text needs to substantiate the additional vehicles entering the intersection. Try to make this section a more "stand-alone section such that the reader doesn't need to jump back and forth between chapters. 1201 For example, Alternative C and Alternative E seem to have been rejected, at least in part, based upon the financial feasibility of those alternatives; however, no data regarding the financial feasibility of those projects is presented in the DEIR. i LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN 6 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 225 M 3. Biology Impacts. Alternative A - Park/Lowland Restoration: Page 7-12: "Modification of Upland Habitat" There is no quantification of impacted habitat by acreage for this alternative. Table 7.1-2: The "Table also includes information for the Proposed Project" Page 7-5 (lines 30 and 31) - Table 7.1-2 provides no information for the proposed project but rather compares the impacts for the alternatives against the proposed project. How can Alternative A result in no significant difference from the proposed project. Contrary to the title of the Alternative, no wetland restoration appears to be planned under this alternative (page 7-14, Lines 46 and 47); consequently, the benefit of restoration is lost. However, there are no short-term impacts on biological resources since there is no grading in the Lowlands. Also, the description provided for the recreation uses under this alternative commits to a buffer and will likely result in less impacts than the residential development. Alternative B - Biodiversity Park: Similar to Alternative A, there is no quantification of impacted habitat by acreage for this alternative. Also, it is still unclear if this alternative (similar to Alternative A) assumes eventual wetland restoration (page 7-20, Lines 44 and 45). Based on the text on page 7-16, it appears only upland habitat restoration is being considered, since, like Alternative A, "it is assumed that oil operations would continue until the oil operator chooses to terminate operations." The text also states, "Eventual restoration of wetlands would depend on the availability of funding and the termination of oil activities." This wording is unclear as to the commitment or assumption for wetland restoration. I Page 7-18, line 41: "Restoration of the lowland will have positive biological impacts." The paragraph is non-committal that Lowlands restoration is a basic assumption for this alternative. 1� LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 226 Alternative C - Commercial/Resort/Housing Development: The underlying assumption for this alternative is that there would be no restoration as part of t this scenario (see Page 7-22, Line 46). There is no quantification of impacted habitat by acreage for this alternative. Page 7-25, line 11: "There will be significant loss of upland habitat." Why is this loss considered significant for commercial recreation uses, but not for the proposal project? See Page 4.7-43, Lines 12-16. Page 7-25, lines 23-25: How can the beneficial impacts on aquatic resources be the same since this project alternative does not include restoration - see Page 7-22, Lines 45 and 46. Alternative D - Marina/Housing Development: There is no quantification of impacted habitat by acreage for this alternative. It is unclear how much restoration occurs under this alternative - see Page 7-32, Lines 44 and 45. Alternative E - Lowland Restoration Development in Pocket Area and Edwards Thumb: There is no quantification of impacted habitat by acreage for this alternative. It appears the footprint for the development area is greater than that for the proposed project and the Modified Project Alternative, yet Table 7.1-2 indicates there is no significant difference in biological impacts. �1 Alternative F - Low Density Alternative: There is no quantification of impacted habitat by acreage for this alternative. Page 7-42, Lines 26 and 27 indicate loss of upland habitat is significant. Why is this different than for the proposed project? LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PRO.ESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 227 Alternatiye G - Medium Low Densi1y Alternative: The comments made for Alternative F also apply for this alternative. 4. Traffic and Circulation Impacts. a. Page 7-13, Alternative A, Transportation and Traffic Circulation: Staff understands that Alternative A includes no housing, however, the phrase - "contribute" funds toward an ATIP is inaccurate. It is staff s position that any alternative which means that the developer builds housing or other traffic generators would require the developer to, not only "contribute to", but also fully fund the ATIP. Governmental funds will not be spent to further the income derived from the project. b. Page 7-25, Alternative C, Transportation and Traffic Circulation: Lines 42 and 43 states . . . "Mhe commitment of this alternative to fund such a program [the required ATIP for this alternative] is not envisioned". It must be reemphasized that local government does not intend to fund improvements which further developer profit. C. Page 7-31, Alternative D, Transportation and Traffic Circulation: Line 17 states . . ."Mhe commitment of this alternative to fund such a program [the required ATIP for this alternative] is not envisioned". It must, again, be reemphasized that local government doesn't intend to fund improvements which further developer profit. d. Page 7-38, Alternative E, The document does not discuss utility impacts of this alternative. This discussion should be similar to that of the proposed alternative. e. Page 7-42, Alternative F, Transportation and Traffic Circulation: Line 49 states . . . "the commitment of this alternative to fund such a program [the required ATIP for this alternative] is not envisioned". It must, again, be reemphasized that local government doesn't intend to fund improvements which further developer profit. f. Page 7-43, Alternative F: In line 36, please delete the word, "either". LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS r Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 228 g. Page 7-48, Alternative G, Transportation and Traffic Circulation: Lines 1 and 2 state . . . "the commitment of this alternative to fund such a program [the required ATIP for this alternative] is not envisioned". It must, again, be t reemphasized that local government doesn't intend to fund improvements which further developer profits. h. Page 7-64, Compare Alternatives, Transportation and Circulation: Lines 47 through 50 are confusing. It doesn't say which traffic improvements the developer is willing to fund. 5. Beach Impacts. a. Page 7-60, line 33: If material is unsuitable, where will it be disposed? Will disposal require sizable truck fleet to haul material off site? What will be the impacts of this activity? ` b. Page 7-66, lines 26-28: Will lifeguard services be required on year-round basis? If so, is this consistent with present County operation? Will additional costs be incurred by the County? 6. Cultural Resources. Table 7.1-2 on page 7-6 overestimates the impacts on cultural resources in the cases of Alternatives A, B and C. The table is inconsistent with the text of the report which reflects the lower level of impact on cultural resources for these alternatives. Dredging for the marina under Alternative D (DEIR Section 7.2.4) increases the likelihood for damage to submerged and/or buried archaeological sites not previously identified. 7. Police Services. The City Police Department finds Alternative A to be acceptable since there is no development proposed in this alternative and, accordingly, no additional staffing will be needed. Alternative B is also acceptable since the Police Department does not anticipate significant increases in police service. Access for emergency vehicles in the park areas are critical. Alternatives D, H, I and J are also acceptable to the Police Department since Alternative D would include the cross-gap connector and the other alternatives do not appear to adversely affect police services. i LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFE55IONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 229 The Police Department is opposed to Alternatives C E F and G since epart PPo , additional burdens would be placed on police services without adequate funding and without any opportunity for the construction of a cross-gap connector in the future. 8. Water Impacts a. Page 7-12 lines 20-22: The fact that "a groundwater barrier or �g es groundwater pumping to remedy this situation" may be needed is cause for concern. Further in-depth discussion is needed here to evaluate the impacts to the City and the groundwater basin. What effects would this cause? What would be the impacts of these effects? An obvious concern is increased seawater intrusion. Would this occur? If so, what are mitigation measures? Has the Orange County Water District been consulted? b. Page 7-43. lines 33-43: A water supply analysis is needed with this alternative. Since the project analysis is weak, this option needs further study. C. Page 7-48. lines 33-43: Ditto. d. Page 7-61. line 46: How will turbidity be controlled and contained. This is not explained. Page Pa 7-66 lines 7-16: Line 12 is unclear in meaning. The e. g_ g section is very brief and doesn't say anything that can be supported. Water impacts will certainly not be mitigated as proposed in the portions of the DEIR which consider Koll's proposed project. V. CHAPTER 8 - MITIGATION MEASURES. As is noted in a number of prior references in this letter, many of the �r mitigation measures proposed for the project are not proper under CEQA. The list of mitigation measures in this section of the letter is not intended to be exhaustive. It merely illustrates the inadequacy of the DEIR's approach to mitigation of the significant impacts of the project. There are mitigation measures, not detailed at length in this letter, which share the same flaws as noted in this section. The most crucial flaws of each of the mitigation measures are indicated in ANNEx No. 7 to this letter. LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ` Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 230 1. Mitigation Measures Relying on Future Studies/Development of Mitigation Plans. There are any number of examples of this particular flaw in the mitigation measures listed in Chapter 8 of the DEIR. For example, Mitigation Measure 4.2-13 states: Mitigation Measure 4.2-13: Prior to construction of the 9-million-gallon tank by the County of Orange, a geologic investigation shall be performed to determine the suitability of the site. The DEIR relies (erroneously) on the placement of the reservoir on the Mesa as mitigation for the project without knowing whether the site would even support such a use. There is serious question regarding whether this site is appropriate since it lies so close to a major fault zone. A further example is Mitigation Measure 4.7-4, which states: Mitigation Measure 4.7-4: If raptors begin to prey upon nesting sensitive target species or other sensitive species, the Applicant shall consult with CDFG and UST^WS and prepare a relocation program for these raptors. The DEIR does not consider how such a plan would work nor what the alternatives to achieve this end might be. The development of a plan in the future is simply not adequate consideration of the impact to conclude that the impact is not significant. Similar lack of information was provided in the DEIR's consideration of the potential adverse impact of predation by the red fox. Mitigation Measure 4.7-3b states: Mitigation Measure 4.7-3b: A mitigation and monitoring program will be implemented by the Applicant in consultation with CDFG and USFWS to determine the effectiveness of the coyote as a control agent for the red fox at Bolsa Chica. If the coyote's effectiveness is found to be significant, a plan shall be developed and implemented which will encourage the continued presence of the coyote as a control agent for the red fox at Bolsa Chica. The plan shall include specific measures designed to create and/or maintain adequate habitat for the coyote in the undeveloped portions of the project site so that the coyote may maintain its ongoing role as a control agent for the red fox. OCEMA shall approve this program before restoration of the Lowlands. This mitigation measure relies on the coyote as a control agent without considering its effectiveness as such. Only future consultation with the State and federal wildlife agencies would determine the effectiveness of the DEIR's proposal; yet, the DEIR relies in the LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 8 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PRO►ESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 231 proposal for a determination that the potential impact would be insignificant. This defies both the substantive requirements of CEQA and logic. The foregoing flaws are made all the worse b the DEIR's implication that no g g Y P further environmental review of these future plans would be undertaken. Where a future mitigation plan is considered as the subject of a future environmental review to assess its adequacy the DEIR notes that possibility. Thus, Mitigation Measure 4.3-9 states explicitly that, "To the extent required by CEQA, these mitigation measures will be developed through a supplemental and focused environmental review under CEQA." Although that statement is not sufficient to make Mitigation Measure 4.3-9 valid under CEQA, it is at least indicative of some intention to subject the future mitigation plan to further CEQA review. The other future-based mitigation measures contain no such indication. This type of mitigation is illusory and contrary to the public information purpose underlying CEQA and reliance on mitigation measures which merely state that further investigation will be �. undertaken in the future renders the DEIR invalid under State law. 2. Mitigation Measures which Do Not Mitigate Impacts to A Level of Insignificance. In many instances, the DEIR relies on measures which are ineffective to reduce the level of impact to any reasonable notion of insignificance. The first example of this type of inadequacy comes in one of the first mitigation measures. Mitigation Measure 4.1-1b states: Mitigation Measure 4.1-lb: All potential buyers of onsite residences shall be notified of the potential hazardous conditions associated with onsite oil production activities. Such information shall be disclosed in the Department of Real Estate reports prior to unit sales. The DEIR implies that mere notification of the hazard is sufficient to mitigate the impact of placing a residential use next to an oilfield which has been in operation for 70 years to a level of insignificance. Mere knowledge of the hazard does not alleviate the impact. Further, related mitigation measures regarding the treatment of hazardous materials/wastes (Mitigation Measures 4.2-9 and 4.2-10a rely on mere compliance with applicable law (the very minimum standard which can be applied) for the conclusion that the known presence of potentially substantial amounts of hazardous materials would be removed from the Lowlands at a time when the Mesa had already undergone significant development. This is not proper under CEQA, which mandates that the lead agency must view each impact in light of the environmental setting which will exist as and when that impact is experienced. LAW OFFICES ERVIN, COHEN & JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 232 3. Mitigation Measures which Are Listed As PDFs and Are Not Treated As Mitigation Measures. As noted above, the DEIR :relies in many instances on PDFs to mitigate potentially or known significant impacts. However, once the DEIR assumes that the PDF would be effective, it is no longer considered as a mitigation measure. This is a violation of CEQA. 4. Mitigation Measures which Are Not Shown to Be Economically or Technically Feasible. As noted above, the implementation of the ATIP, WRP and other mitigation plans for the project will require a huge outlay of funds. The DEIR never provides the reader with information regarding the source of that money. Accordingly, there is serious doubt as to whether these most basic elements of mitigation are economically feasible (much less technically effective). The DEIR also does not consider the inter-relationship of various mitigation measures which are intended to address different aspects of associated problems. For example, one must consider the following mitigation measures: Mitigation Measure 4.2-12a(PDF): Measures to mitigate corrosive soil conditions shall be implemented by the Applicant. These measures include, but are not limited to,sl2ecial formulated cement for concrete placed in contact with corrosive soils, and cathodic protection or specialized coatings to prevent corrosion of metals in contact with corrosive soils. Mitigation Measure 4.9-3: The Applicant shall specify the use of emulsified asphalt or asphaltic cement, neither of which produce significant quantities of VOC emissions. To provide the public with complete information, the DEIR should specify whether emulsified asphalt/cement meeting the requirements of both of the foregoing requirements is readily available. The public simply has no way to know. IV. Conclusion. The City is concerned about more than the substantive, procedural and other failures of the County to proceed in accordance with CEQA. Although the violation of State law is significant and of great importance, the most important concern is potential harm to the residents of the City, and the residents of the area to be developed by Koll, if the project proceeds without adequate environmental review and mitigation. If the development of this project proceeds without mitigation tremendous harm will result. The project as proposed by Koll would expose its residents to known hazards from existing and former oil production i LAW OFFICES ERVIN. COHEN 9 JESSUP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 233 activities. Fire and police protection for the area will be compromised and deficient. The project will also cause huge increases in traffic volumes in the area, an impact which the 1 DEIR proposes to alleviate solely by an as-yet-unfunded program of traffic improvement which is conceded to be ineffective to mitigate all traffic impacts. No measures are included to cause the project traffic load to be reduced. The restoration of the wetlands, which seems to form the sole justification for the County's approval of the project, is unlikely to occur. It would occur, if at all, 20 to 30 years gAcr Koll has constructed its approximately 4,000 unit housing project atop the Mesa. The wetlands restoration is an unfunded and speculative promise to implement an untested program at such time, if any, as oil producers voluntarily elect to stop operating. There is no time at which the restoration would be re u'red to commence. Further, the restoration plan would be implemented only if Koll desired to develop the Lowlands. That development appears to be a low margin project of questionable profitability once the cost of the WRP (and if funded, the ATIP) is taken into account. The true project here appears to be the development of the Mesa with approximately 4,000 homes being constructed in an island of County jurisdiction without mitigation of the biological, traffic, cultural resource or other significant impacts noted in this letter and ignored in the DEIR. The project as proposed would burden and harm the citizens of the City. The DEIR is not adequate under State law. The City, therefore, respectfully requests the County to recirculate a new and wholly rewritten DEIR which addresses the inadequacies noted in this letter. Without a new and legally adequate DEIR, the proposed project cannot legally proceed. Respectfully submitted, ERvnv, CoHEN & JEssuP Roger J. Holt Steven A. Roseman B a. y: Steven A. Roseman of Ervin, Cohen & Jessup, Special Legal Counsel to the City of Huntington Beach ANNEX NO. 1 INDEX Page I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 A. THE PURPOSE OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IS TO INFORM DECISION MAKERS AND THE PUBLIC OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF GOVERNMENTAL DECISIONS AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE STAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 B. AN EIR MUST EVALUATE A SPECIFIC PROGRAM OR PRoJECr IN LIGHT OF THE PARTICULAR ENVIRONMENTAL SmTwo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 C. THE COUNTY ACTS As THE LEAD AGENCY UNDER CEQA AND, As SUCH, MUST TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE COMMENTS OF THE CITY BOTH As ADVISORY AGENCY AND AS RESPONSIBLE AGENCY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 D. THE COUNTY HAS SEGMENTED THE WHOLE OF THE PROJECT DrrO A NUMBER OF SMALLER INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS IN VIOLATION OF CEQA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 r E. THE DEIR ABUSES THE CONCEPT OF TmRiNa BY USING A PROGRAM EIR TO EVADE THE MORE DETAILED PRoJECT EIR ANALYSIS REQUIRED FOR APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF HOMES UPON THE BOLSA MESA . . . . . . . . . . . 12 F. THE DEIR IMPROPERLY RELIES ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF FUTURE STUDIES AND UNMONITORED PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES FOR MITIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 G. THE DEIR OMITS ANALYSIS OF THE FISCAL FEASIBILITY OF THE MITIGATION MEASURES ON WHICH IT RELIES AND ASSUMES THAT UNFUNDED MITIGATION PLANS WILL BE FUNDED WITHOUT IDENTIFYING THE SOURCE OF THOSE FUNDS . . . . . 15 H. THE DEIR DOES NOT CONSIDER KoLL's ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD IN ASSESSING MITIGATION IMPLEMENTATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 II. Particular CEQA Violations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 A. THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF THE DEIR IS INCONSISTENT AND INACCURATE . . . . . . . 18 B. THE DEIR INACCURATELY LABELS SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AS INSIGNIFICANT AND USES INAPPROPRIATE STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE . . . . . . . . . . 26 C. INCLUSION OF MODIFIED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE OBSCURES THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ANALYZED BY THE DEIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 D. WETLANDS RESTORATION NOT TmD To PROJECT DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 E. THE DEIR's CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES IS INADEQUATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 F. THE DEIR OMITS CONSIDERATION OF THE RISK OF UPSET AND RELATED DANGERS TO THE POTENTIAL RESIDENTS OF THE PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 G. THE COUNTY's PROCEDURES IN PROCESSING THE DEIR ARE DEFICIENT . . . . . . . . . . 47 1 H. DISCUSSION OF LONG TERM IMPACTS IN THE DEIR IS INADEQUATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 I. THE DEIR DOES Norr ADEQUATELY CONSIDER THE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 III. Chapter-By-Chapter Analysis of the DEIR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 A. CHAPTER 1 -EXECUTIVE SummARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 B. CHAPTER 2 -INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 C. CHAPTER 3 -PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 D. CHAPTER 4.1 - LAND USE AND RELATED PLANNING IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 E. CHAPTER 4.2 -GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 F. CHAPTER 4.3 - SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 G. CHAPTER 4.4 -WATER QuALrrY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 H. CHAPTER 4.5 - COASTAL RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 I. CHAPTER 4.6- MARINVAQUATIC BIOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 J. CHAPTER 4.7 -TFRREmvjAL BIOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 K. CHAPTER 4.8-TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC CutcuLATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 L. CHAPTER 4.9- AIR QUALrrY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 M. CHAPTER 4.10- NOISE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 N. CHAPTER 4.11 - CULTURAL RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 O. CHAPTER 4.12-AESTHETICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 P. CHAPTER 4.13 - SOCIOECONOMICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 Q. CHAPTER 4.14-PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 R. CHAPTER 4.15 - RECREATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 S. CHAPTER 5 -MODIFIED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 T. CHAPTER 6 -LONG TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . 221 U. CHAPTER 7 -ALTERNATIVES To PROPOSED PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 V. CHAPTER 8 - MITIGATION MEASURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 IV. Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 2 i ANNEx No. 2 List of Annexes Submitted to the Orange County Environmental Management Agency in Connection with the Comments of the City of Huntington Beach Regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Bolsa Chica Development ANNEX No. (DESCRIPTION 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index to comment letter 2. . List of annexes to comment letter 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1986 LCP conditionally certified by the CCC in 1986 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter dated July 12, 1993 regarding the NOP from the City Department of Community Development to the County 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter dated September 13, 1993 from the Corp's District Engineer to Koll 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter dated January 13, 1994 from Thomas B. Matthews, County Director of Community Development to Daryl D. Smith of the City 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table of analysis of mitigation measures 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table of analysis of alternative projects 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1992 EIR/EIS 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Public comments received by the City and the Corps with respect to the EIR/EIS 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fiscal analysis of impacts of the project on the City prepared by Public Economics 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . California Department of Fish and Game Report on Identification of Degraded Wetlands in Bolsa Chica, dated December 11, 1981 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter dated December 29, 1993 from Howard Zelefsky of the City's Department of Planning to the County requesting an extension of the public comment period on the DEIR 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter dated January 11, 1994 from Thomas B. Matthews to Howard Zelefsky denying the City's request for an extension of the public comment period 15* . : : : : : : : : : : . . Notice of Completion 16. . . . Letter from City Attorney dated February 15, 1994, transmitting the transcript of January 31, 1994 hearing at City of Huntington Beach to the County 17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter of January 31, 1994 from Supervisor Wieder to the City 18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter dated July 15, 1992 from Koll to Robert J. Franz, Assistant City Administrator 19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chambers Group, Inc. Study Plan and Outline prepared for the City dated February 1991; Revised June 1991 20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chambers Group,Inc. Memorandum dated April 18, 1991 to Laura Phillips from Noel Davis 21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Three (3) memoranda from Wetlands Research Associates, Inc. regarding (i) Wetland plant distribution ranges, dated October 9, 1991, (ii) Review of draft Wetlands Restoration/Conservation Plan, dated March 23, 1992, and (iii) Continued review of the WRP/CP, dated March 29, 1992. 22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chart of Corps permitting process 23. . Wetlands Regulation in California, 17 CEB Real Prop.L.Rptr 1 (1993) 24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Memorandum from the Assistant City Administrator to the City Council detailing the comments from federal agencies regarding proposed development 25. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letters from NMFS, USEPA, USFWS and CDFG, objecting to characterization as "support members" 26. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bolsa Chica Planning Coalition Concept Plan 27. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Materials received at January 31, 1994 City Council hearing regarding Koll environmental record 9M10125C.Wro 208041 SWAS SCR TION ANNEX NO. E IP 28. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter dated September 24, 1991 from Joan Golding Iby Kari A. Rigoni, Senior Planner) of the County EMA addressed to the City Planning Department 29. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter dated January 20, 1993, from SCAG to City Planning Department 30. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter, dated April 1, 1992 from The Chambers Group, Inc. to the Corps 31. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Draft of Development Agreement delivered to the City by Koll 3/24/92 32. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Report entitled Geotechnical Inputs, dated February 1974, prepared by Leighton-Yen and Associates and the Huntington Beach Planning Department 33. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Land Use Element of Component 11 of County General Plan 34. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Resources Element of Component II of County General Plan 35. . . . . . . . . . . . . . California Wetlands Conservation Policy, Executive Order W59-93 (Aug. 23, 19931 36. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1988 City Water Master Plan 37. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1993 Update to 1988 City Water Master Pian 38. . . . . . . . . . . . . . City Soil Standard #431-92 39. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Report, dated June 3, 1982, prepared by CDFG, entitled "Environmentally Sensitive Areas at Bolsa Chica" 40. . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTENTIONALLY OMITTED 41. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter, dated November 1, 1993, regarding SARA and HOCTAM models 42. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Los Angeles Times, January 25, 1994 Article re: Discovery of human remains at Bolsa Chica excavation 43. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter from Judy Myers Suchey regarding same 44. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter, dated January 31, 1994, from Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. to the City Council 45. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Documents received from Pat Ware at the January 31, 1994 City Council hearing 46. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Miscellaneous written comments received by the City Council at January 31, 1994 City Council hearing 47. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Orange County Water District Groundwater Management Plan 48. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure depicting locations of County Fire Stations closest to Bolsa Chica 49. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 2 depicting fire response deficiencies within the City 50. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 3 depicting 14 known drill sites on the Mesa 51. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Special Report 114, published by the California Division of Mines and Geology 52. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transportation Element of Component II of County General Plan 53. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Safety Element of Component 11 of County General Plan 54. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Noise Element of Component II of County General Plan 55. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Housing Element of Component II of County General Plan 56. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correspondence from the SHPO Re: Bolsa Chica Archaeological Resources i 2 3 i - - BOLSA CHICA /-LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM NORTH COAST PLANNING UNIT BOLSA CHICA LAND USE PLAN ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEN AGE TNCY �.. DECEMBER 1985 •. 'S`�.r�n v Fi R�`Jr:F w tin ly/i. �. 1 BOLSA CSICA LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE PLAN ? ` Adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors on January 20, 1982 by Resolution No. 82-102. Supplemented by the Orange County 'Board of Supervisors on December 20, 1983 by Resolution No. 83-1876. Revised by the Orange County Boar3 of Supervisors on May 22, 1985 by Resolution No. 85-790. �- Revised by the Orange County Board of Supervisors on December 18, 1985 by Resolution No. 85-1777. Certified by the California Coastal Commission on January 8, 1986. r � r • 1: i - L \J i { �w r v BOLSA CHICA LOCAL COASTAL PRAM LAND USE PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Page i. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ii. GLOSSARY ' INTRODUCTION DU N I. California Coastal Act I-1 Balsa Chica Study Area I-2 Planning History: 1964-1985 I-3 ` II. LAND USE PLAN AND POLICIES II-1 r III. LAND USE PLAN COMPONENTS 1. Biological Resources Management Component III-1 2. Shoreline Processes and Structures Component III-19 3. Physical and Cultural Resources Component III-31 4. Coastal Access and Recreation/Visitor-Serving III-59 Facilities Component 1f5. Transportation Component III-71 L. 6. Energy Facilities Component III-85 7. Public Works Component III-105 l S. New Residential and Neighborhood Commercial Component III-113 11 i! 9. Community Design/Visual and Scenic Resources Component III-119 l: 10. Phasing and Financing Component III-125 r ; IV. LUP CONFIRMATION AND IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS PROGRAM IV-1 ' APPENDICES LIST OF BXRIBITS Following Number Title Page Number r ' 1 Regional Location I-2 2 LCP Planning Units I-2 3 Site Vicinity I-2 ' 4 Ownership I-2 5 Aerial Photograph I-2 6 1973 Recreation Concept Plan I-6 7 Alternative Land Use Plans I-10 i a. Alternatives 1-3 b. Alternatives 4-6 c. Alternatives 7-9 d. Alternatives 10-12 L8 Land Use Plan II-2 9 California Coastal Commission II-4 �. Secondary Alternative Land Use Plan, Non-Navigable Ocean Entrance 10 Vegetation Communities III-5 r 11 Generalized Map of Major Habitat Types III-5 j� 12 Hydrology III-20 f 13 Topography III-32 `J 14 Fault Map III-34 f 15 Liquefaction Evaluation III-42 E� 16 Subsidence III-46 17 Average Annual Subsidence III-46 Rate 1976 - 1982 18 Generalized Occurrences of Peat III-48 ( ' 19 Coastal Access and Recreation Plan III-62 20 Circulation Plan III-72 i 21 Orange County Circulation Element I11-74 , �. 22 Huntington Beach Circulation Element III-74 23 Energy Facilities Plan 2006 III-88 Non-Directional Scenario Li 24 Energy Facilities Plan 2006 III-88 i Partial Directional Drilling Scenario i. LIST OF EZSIBITS (cont'd) Following j Number Title Page Number 25 Existing/Projected Energy Facilities, 1986 III-90 26 Typical Oil Well Salt Marsh Edge Condition III-92 27 Physical Characteristics III-120 28 Site Photo Index III-122 29 Photographs III-122 a. Site Photographs b. Site Photographs c. Site Photographs ! 30 LCP Planning Process Flow Chart IV-2 E ; L f� 1 1 i. EXECUTIVE Swam ' This revised Bolas Chica Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan document has ! � been prepared by the Orange County Environmental Management Agency. The LUP as revised is in full agreement with and contains all suggested modi- fications approved by the California Coastal Commission on October 23, 1985. These modifications have received the full concurrence of the Department of Fish and Game and the major landowner. Upon approval of the revisions contained herein by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, the Land Use Plan will be resubmitted to the Coastal Commission. Since the changes to the plan correspond with the r Commission's suggested modifications, the County anticipates that the LUP will receive final approval by the Commission's Executive Director pursu- ant to the Commission's Executive Director's checkoff process. � ! The Land Use Plan is the first of several steps that are required for 1 Orange County to gain full certification of its Local Coastal Program (LCP) for the 1,600+-acre Bales Chic& LCP Segment. This is a modified version of the Land Use Plan originally approved by the Board of Super- visors on May 22, 1985. �. The Land Use Plan includes the following features: i 915 acres of productive and diverse wetlands and 86 acres of environ- mentally sensitive habitat areas; the wetlands to be buffered from urban development. ' A navigable ocean entrance to provide high-quality tidal flow to the wetlands and navigable access to the ocean; new navigable waterways; a 75-acre or larger marina and commercial area, with berthing and dry storage for at least 1,700 boats, launch ramps, and coastal-dependent, visitor-serving commercial facilities. ' An inward realignment of a segment of Pacific Coast Highway past the new ocean entrance and through the marina, taking advantage of the Bolan Chica Mesa elevation for navigable bridge(s) over the main channel waterway and Huntington Harbour Connection Channel. An internal road system including the connection of Bolas Chica Street with Garfield Avenue through a corridor in the lowland; a relocation of the PCH/Warner Avenue intersection; and other secondary roadways. Creation of a 130-acre Linear Regional Park on the Huntington Mesa, with a linking trail system through the lowland buffer to the marina/ commercial and ocean entrance area. A total of approximately 500 gross acres of medium, high, and heavy density residential development in the lowland and on the Bolsa Chica � . Mesa. i. A provision for a navigable interior waterway system into Huntington Harbour and a minimum 25-foot-clearance Pacific Coast Highway bridge over Outer Bolsa Bay. r The Bolas, Chica Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan is divided into four major sections. Section I presents an Introduction to County's local coastal planning, history of Bolsa Chica alternatives studies, and back- ground to the present Land Use Plan. Section II of the Land Use Plan is ' divided into ten components and contains governing policies. The policies Include specification of- land use requirements, ecological objectives, and further steps to provide detailed information regarding design, feasibili- ty, phasing, financing, multi-party agreements and long-term management, as well as noting at which stage each activity will occur. Section III contains the background and analyses used to develop the policies, which are the major items of Coastal Commission review. Finally, Section IV details the Land Use Plan Confirmation phase activities and required products, and presents the key elements of the Implementing Actions Program. r r r • 1 i bi f. d ii. GWSSART Ambient Boise The measure of normal, existing noise found at an outdoor location. Average Daily Trips (ADT) The number of automobiles or other vehicular traffic passing a given point during an average 24-hour period. A round trip counts twice. Bolsa Chico Mesa The higher ground at the north end of the Bolsa Chic& area between Warner Avenue and the Bolsa lowlands. t Bolsa Cap i r The lowland area, between the Bolas, Chica and Huntington Mesas. Boundary Settlement and Land E=bange Agree mt (1973 Settlement 1 tt� Agreeaent) E . The 1973 agreement between the State of California and Signal Bolas, Corporation giving the state fee title to a consolidated 300 acres, Plus a lease option on an adjacent 230 acres dependent upon construc- tion of an ocean entrance system, and clearing Signal's interest in the remainder of the property from regulation for public trust. ti Buffers [ Open space and/or barriers that separate and protect habitat areas from human or domestic animal intrusion. �s Certification The Coastal Commission procedure to review Local Coastal Programs and their Land Use and Implementing Actions Programs components to deter- mine if they raise a substantial issue as to conformity with the poli- cies set forth in the Coastal Act. If no substantial issues are raised, the LCP is deemed certified. Coastal Act of 1976 (Coastal Act) The state law codified at Public Resources Code Sections 30000-30900, that was enacted to protect and enhance the coastal environment and to guide and regulate local planning within the coastal zone to assure conformity with statewide goals. Coastal Cosmaission The state agency established under Section 30300 of the Coastal Act designated as the coastal zone planning and management agency charged with implementing the Coastal Act. r Coastal Conservancy The state agency established under Public Resources Code Sections 31000-31405, that has consultation and land stewardship responsibili- ties. It was specifically given lead agency authority under Section ' 30237 of the Coastal Act to resolve differences regarding Bolsa Chica through preparation of the Habitat Conservation Plan. Coastal Zone , The coastal area as defined in Section 30103 of the Coastal Act over which the state Coastal Commission exercises jurisdiction. The , Coastal Zone varies in width but generally extends from the seaward limit of the state's jurisdiction to a point approximately 1,000 yards from the mean high tideline of the sea. ' Cassunity Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) An average of the noise levels audible to the human ear occurring at an outdoor location during a 24-hour period with extra weighting given to noises occurring in the evening and still heavier to those at night. Confirmation Review ' The Coastal Commission procedure, unique to Bolsa Chica, for con- , firming that the preferred option (navigable ocean entrance) in this Land Use Plan document is technically and financially feasible and the impacts that would result are substantially mitigable. Canty of Orange Environmental Management Agency (EMA) The Orange County agency that encompasses planning, building, flood control, parks and harbors and other departmental functions. EMA is responsible for preparation of this Land Use Plan. Crone-Gap or Bolsa Chica/Garfield Connector The primary street connection proposed to cross the lowland, linking Bolsa Chica Street and Garfield Avenue. ' Decibel (dB) The unit for expressing the relative intensity of sounds on a scale from 0 to 130 with incremental increases by logarithmic progression (accelerating curve rather than straight line). Department of Fish and Gass (DPW , The state agency having authority and responsibility to protect and enhance fish and wildlife resources and to administer State Ecological Reserve lands. Ecological Reserve A 300-acre portion of the Bolsa Chica lowland , a portion of which was restored in 1978 by the Department of Fish and Game as a tide gate-reg- ulated salt marsh habitat area. l ' Endangered Species Any plant or animal listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act, ' 16 U.S.C. Section 1531-1543, or the State Endangered Species Act, 1984 Cal. Stat. Cho. 1162, 1240, which is in danger of extinction throughout all, or a significant portion of, its range. Energy Facilities Any well, pipeline or other permanent structure(s) used in exploration ' for, production or transmission of any petroleum or natural gas energy resource. Energy Facilities Plan The portion of the Implementing Actions Program that will deal with accommodations, effects and impacts of energy recovery facilities for the remaining life of the oil field on wetlands restoration and management. Energy Besaarce Any non-renewable resource, particularly petroleum or natural gas, used for fuel or other energy purposes. Enhanced Oil Recovery Oil well injection or flooding with water, gas, steam or chemicals to �s cause more oil to be recovered than would be achieved by unaided pumping. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESE") Non-wetland areas that provide rare or biologically valuable habitat areas, including at Bolsa Chica, principally sand dunes, eucalyptus grove, and coastal sage scrub plant associations. I1 Feature Plan A plan for implementing the General Plan and applicable zoning regula- tions for development in a specific geographic area. A Feature Plan ' will be prepared as part of the Implementing Actions Program of this LUP. General Plan The comprehensive long-term plan for the physical development of the County consisting of policies setting forth objectives, principles, standards and generalized land use designations. Geotechnical Hazards i" The term covering potential dangers to person or property as a conse- quence of earthquake tremor or geological instability. It includes the effects of surface faulting , tsunami, liquefaction, subsidence and &W subsidence-related to shallow peat deposits. I Habitat I The area or type of environment within a biological zone in Which an organism, population or community normally lives or occurs. Habitat Conservation Plan (RCP) A plan which provides for the conservation of the habitat of fish and wildlife resources, including the plan authorized by the Legislature in Section 30237 of the Coastal Act and jointly prepared by the Coas- tal Conservancy, the Department of Fish and Game in cooperation with the County and any landowner to resolve land use planning differences at Bolas, Chica. HCP Parties Parties that agreed upon land use allocations and configurations in ' the process of preparing the Bolaa Chica Habitat Conservation Plan, specifically the Coastal Conservancy, Department of Fish and Game, the County and landowner Signal Landmark, Inc. Hundred (100) ?ear Flood A measure of carrying capacity for a flood control channel, dam or other facility. A 100-year flood is the largest that according to rainfall and hydrology discharge probabilities might occur in any 100-year period. Humtington Harbour Connection Channel. An optional feature of the Land Use Plan for a navigable connection of the new ocean entrance system with Huntington Barbour and Anaheim Bay waterways. Subject to feasibility substantiation as part of the Land Use Plan Confirmation Review procedure. Huntington Mesa The high ground at the south end of the Bolsa Chica area slated as the site the County Linear Regional Park. Implementing actions Program (IAP) As defined in Section 30108.4, the zoning ordinances, regulations or programs which implement either the provisions of the certified local coastal program or the policies of the Coastal Act; the final step in local coastal program certification. LCP Segment Area The Bolsa Chica lands entirely within the County's jurisdictional boundary. ' Land Use Plan (LUP) As defined in Section 30108.5, the relevant portions of a local govern- meet's general plan, or local coastal element which are sufficiently detailed to indicate the kinds, location and intensity of land uses, the applicable resource protection and development policies to accom- plish Coastal Act objectives and, Where necessary, a listing Implemen- ting actions. The first step in local coastal program certification. j : Linear Regional Park The County of Orange regional park to link Huntington Central Park and Bolas. Chico State Beach along the Huntington Mesa and also to include the lowland segment (trail system). Liquefaction The phenomenon in which a cohesionless soil below the water table loses its strength during the groundshaking of an earthquake. Littoral Drift a Movement of sand or other sediment up- or down-coast as a result of wave action. Subject to interruption and resultant change in beach profiles by construction of offshore facilities, such as breakwaters ' or jetties. r Local Coastal Program (L:CP) As defined in Section 30108.6 of the Coastal Act, local government°s land use plans, zoning ordinances, zoning district maps, and implemen- ting actions which, when taken together, meet the requirements of, and Implement the provisions and policies of, the Coastal Act at the local level. Mizisg (Desilting) Basin The Wetland area to be created on the course of the Wintersburg Flood Control Channel for dissipation of flood flows, sediment trapping, and ' . creation of restored wetlands habitat area. f� Mitigation 1. As defined in the Guidelines for the National Environmental Policy Act, 40 C.F.2 Section 1508.20, mitigation includes any actions to reduce or avoid a significant impact on the environment by a) reavoid- ing the impact altogether; b) minimizing the impact; c) rectifying the Impact by repair, rehabilitation or restoration; d) reducing or elimi- nating the impact by preservation or maintenance; e) compensation by replacement or provision of substitute resources or environments. Modified Land Use Plan Far A submitted Land Use Plan incorporating suggested modifications of the Coastal Commission to make the plan consistent with Coastal Act poli- cies. N.P.D.E.S. Permit iPermits controlling discharges into oceans and their tributaries (federal waters governed by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimina- 1 tions Systems Act) and issued locally by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board to meet objectives regarding beneficial uses of the waterways by limitations on suspended solids and tonics. I Navigable Ocean Entrance The ocean cut through Bolas, Chica State Beach to provide tidal flows to wetlands and direct navigable access to the ocean from the new marina. Shown in the Land Use Plan, subject to, Corps of Engineers design confirmation, as a 600-foot-wide navigable channel With side jetties and an offshore sheltering breakwater. Northern Sector Those lands in the Bolsa Chica lowland generally located landward (inland) of Freeman Creek Channel and the extension of its drainage ' connection to the State Ecological Reserve. Outer Bolsa Bay The full-range tidal area, outside of the Department of Fish and Game ' Ecological Reserve, that connects with the ocean through Huntington Harbour and Sunset Harbor. PCH Realignment The landward realignment of a segment of Pacific Coast Highway from ' its present location and taking advantage of Bolsa Chica Mesa eleva- tion for a 45-foot-clearance bridge over the main channel waterway. Phasing Plaa(s) A program to assure that public facilities development, habitat restor- ation and accompanying mitigation will be accomplished ahead of or con- , current with phases of urban development. To be detailed as part of the Implementing Actions Program. Plan Components i Elements of this Land Use Plan pertaining to the Study Area and des- cribed by function. ' Primary Arterial A street by definition having four travel lanes, with a median divider, typically encompassing a 90-foot-wide right-of-way. Public Facilities Management and Financing Plan The three-phase study identifying sources of funding, projecting cash flows and fiscal impacts, determining multi-party financial participa- tions and long-term management responsibilities for all public facili- ties and ownerships, including roads, waterways and wetlands. Phase I was completed in 1981 and updated in 1984. Phase II will be completed ' concurrent with the rmplementing Actions Program. Phase III, includ- ing contractual arrangements, will precede issuance of development per- mits. ii Restoration Activity to establish and preserve wetland or other habitat areas, generally those which have been destroyed or degraded, to a viably functioning level of biological productivity and diversity. . Ripariaa Corridor An area to be created as part of Bolsa Chica wetlands restoration with vegetation and habitat having streambed and riverbank characteristics. Sand Bypass ' t Any system for artificially passing sand in the normal littoral pat- tern past harbor entrances in the nearabore zone. ' Scoping Process The procedure provided for in the National Environmental Policy Act Guidelines, 40 C.P.R. Section 1501.7, for coordinating aulti-levels of government involvement, preparing environmental impact documents, and eliciting public input. Secondary Arterial A street by definition having four travel lanes, with no median r- divider. Shoreline Structures 1 Any man-made structures, including groins, piers and retaining walls, in the littoral zone. ' Southern Sector Those lands in the Bolsa Chica lowland generally located seaward of �- Freeman Creek Channel and the extension of its drainage connection to the State Ecological Reserve. Study Area � The area encompassing the unincorporated Bolsa Chica area of County jurisdiction and contiguous portions of the City of Huntington Beach ' and offshore areas identified by Department of Fish and Game for its wetlands determination and in the Habitat Conservation Plan. Subsidence L Drop in ground elevation, as a result of, eg., removal of underground oil, groundwater withdrawal or peat decomposition. kw 1 o+ Substantial Issue A Coastal Commission procedure to identify components of a Land Use ' Plan requiring further review and public hearing because of potential consistency conflicts between those components and the Coastal Act. Sunset Harbor Study , The ongoing study by the Corps of Engineers to determine, the feasibil- ity of federal financial participation in the construction of a navi- gable ocean entrance in conjunction with a smallcraft harbor and wet- lands restoration at Bolas Chiea. Tide Gate Structure to control tidal flow in either direction. Used to restrict ' and regulate the high and low range of tidal fluctuation and to limit the volume of water flowing in and out. U.S. Area Corps of Engineers (Corps) , The federal agency that reviews navigation aspects of development projects. Conducts design studies, and issues dredge and fill permits , under the Clean Water Act and water construction permits under the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1910. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The federal agency with authority and responsibility for protecting and enhancing fish and wildlife resources, and protection of threa- tened and endangered species. Provides consultation and technical assistance to permitting agencies such as the Corps of Engineers regarding the effects of proposed actions upon fish and wildlife resources, particularly with respect to endangered species. Visitor-Serving Facilities Facilities that fulfill the purpose under the Coastal Act of serving , the need for public access and recreation within the Coastal Zone, Including dining, shopping and overnight lodging. ' Water Regines The variety of wetland habitats variously created by full-tidal, muted-tidal (tide gates regulated, and nontidal fresh, brackish and hypersaline conditions. Wetland As defined in Section 30121 of the Coastal Act, "wetland" means lands within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or perma- nently with shallow water and includes saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mudf lats, and fens. � • Wetlands Restoration Plan As described in this LUP, a two-phase, Concept and Implemention Plan ' to establish, restore and preserve 915 acres of productive and diverse wetland, and 86 acres of environmentally sensitive habitat area at Bolsa Chica. The Concept Plan (Phase I) is to be part of the Land Use Plan Confirmation Review Report; the Implementation Plan (Phase II) is to be part of the Implementing Actions Program. \J r r- SBCTIW It ZU umpulIO® This document comprises the Land Use Plan ("LUP") of the Local Coastal ' Program ("LCP") for the Bolsa Chica Study Area which has been prepared by r� the County of Orange Environmental Management Agency ("EMA") pursuant to Section 30500 of the California Coastal Act of 1976 ("Coastal Act"). In addition, this Plan constitutes an amendment to the Orange County General Plan. } CAI.IFOUTA COAS?AL ACT iThe Coastal Act was adopted by the State legislature to complete and perpetuate the work begun as a result of voter passage in November 1972 of the Coastal Zone Initiative. The original coastal initiative declared . that: "the permanent protection of the remaining natural and scenic resources of the coastal zone is of para- mount concern to present and future residents of the state and nation... (and that) ' "it is the policy of the state to preserve, protect �- and where possible, to restore the resources of the coastal zone for the enjoyment of the current and succeeding generations." The Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972 did not provide a permanent pro- I 1 ( .. gram but did establish a state commission and six regional commissions to ' plan the future of California's coast and to oversee development of the it coast for the interim. Efforts of the ]972-]976 Coastal Commission resul- ted in passage of the Coastal Act in 1976 and the preparation of a state- wide Coastal Plan. This Act remains in force and declares that basic goals of the state, pertaining to the coastal zone are to: - protect, maintain, and, where feasible, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone environment and its natural and man-made resources; i - assure orderly, balanced utilization and conservation of coastal zone resources taking into account the social and economic needs of the people of the state; � i maximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public recreational opportunities in the coastal zone consistent with sound resource conservation principles and constitutionally protected rights ' of private property owners; assure priority for coastal-dependent and coastal-related development over other development on the coast; and encourage state and local initiatives and cooperation in preparing procedures to implement coordinated planning and development for mutually beneficial uses, including educational uses, in the coastal zones f ` i. . . I-1 The Coastal Plan provides general guidance to locall governments for ' planning for their coastal areas. The North Orange County Subregion plan proposals include increased public recreation access including a linear park system around Bolas Chica, restoration of wildlife habitat at Bolsa Chica, and location of development in patterns supporting major goals of the plan for this subregion. The Coastal Act requires each local goverment located in whole or in part , within the coastal zone to prepare a Local Coastal Program for that part of the coastal zone located within its jurisdiction. Each local coastal program is to be prepared in accordance with Coastal Act policies and is to consist of a Land Use Plan, and an Implementing Actions Program. The land use plan indicates location and intensity of land uses and provides supporting policies to accomplish Coastal Act objectives. The implemen- ting actions phase is to include methods necessary to realize the policies and provisions of the land use plan. DOLSA CHIC& STUDY AURA , The Bolas Chica area is located in northeastern Orange County (Exhibit 1). For LCP planning purposes, the coastal strip of Orange County is segmented ' into four planning units. Bolsa Chica is one of six noncontiguous seg- ments comprising the North Coast Planning Unit (Exhibit 2). Other sub- areas in this unit include Sunset Aquatic Park, Sunset Beach, Santa Ana River Mouth, Santa Ana Heights and Newport Dunes. Individual LCPs have been or are being prepared for these subareas. The Bolsa Chica LCP Segment area occupies 1 ,600 acres of unincorporated , land surrounded by the City of Huntington Beach (Exhibit 3). This LUP also considers, but does not have jurisdiction over proposed use areas I outside of the LCP Segment Boundary. These areas (Project Area) comprise ' 1,688 acres and additional acreage is contained within a larger Study Area generally reflecting the boundaries shown in the Habitat Conservation Plan. The site is bordered on the northwest by Huntington Harbour and , Warner Avenue, on the east by residential development, on the southeast predominantly by open land supporting oil production, and on the west by Pacific Coast Highway and Bolsa Chic& State Beach. At present the Bolsa ' Chica area consists predominantly of open space land used for oil ' production activities. l The Study Area is characterized by an upland mesa and a lowland area. The lowland was formerly part of a large, shallow coastal bay/marsh system. Over the past century, this system was altered by urban and recreational development and oil production resulting in the present condition of the study area and its environs (see Exhibit 5). Section III of this document provides a more detailed discussion of the past and present physical character of the Study Area and vicinity. Signal Bolsa Corporation ("Signal") is the major landowner in the Bolsa Chica study area, having fee title to 1 ,200 acres (see Exhibit 4). W.R. Grace Properties, Inc. owns 42 acres adjacent to the East Garden Grove- Wintersburg Flood Control Channel and the northerly boundary of the site. Approximately 100+ acres are owned by other interests which include the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the Huntington Beach Company, the Orange County Flood Control District, the Ocean View School ' District and Donald Goodell. The State of California holds 327.5 acres in I-2 ' YORBA LINDA\ FULLERTON �w ANAHEIM ' y a RANGE ARDEN GROVE .,.. t l SANTA ANA TUSTIN p � oa Study ' Area COST A ' IRVINE � NEW PORT BEACH — t L� LAGUNA BEACH e SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO SAN CLEMENTE Q Incorporated Unincorporated o Coastal Zone Boundary BOLSA CHICA NORTH COAST PLANNING UNIT ' • - LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM - - - - - - - - ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY COUNTY OF ORANGE EXHIBIT 1 i i IRVINE COAST PLANNING UNIT ALISO CREEK PLANNING UNIT ALISO VIEJO SEGMENT REMAINDER SEGMENT � 1 SAN DIEGO COASTAL ZONE B O NDARV FRwtt U 9 � O O BOLSA C�HgICA BEACH HEIGHTS A AOUATITC PARK JIV STAUARY DI NES A LLL LA UNA ERAW BAY/ NIGUEELA POINT BFtM RANO ' NORTH COAST PLANNING UNIT SOUTH COAST PLANNING UNIT INCORPORATED ' E3 UNINCORPORATED ' L� � l LC P PLANNONG UNOTS BOLSA CHICA ' NORTH COAST PLANNING UNIT LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM Z AA-- - - " ENVRONYENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY COUNTY Of ORANGE EXHIBIT 2 Ile. ^ yc, LT dui+i L:� r, •��� ir• 4• �' r Y - ' Anaheim' Sunset. Bay Aquat{o Hu ten Bolisa GA�cp ,., r' _, 11{Ha�b� Mese� I rarneienue - - IL yuntington ' Bolsa Chica` e u µ i A State Beach cue �81: �;- ; ' Palk ( ; Hunt"ton S.eacliH n__ ' .. � 14 a i d 75 r ' �• - i Newport Beach • ' crrr,xr�E•rx ' Y g (�n � a BOLSA CHI CA NORTH COAST PLANNING UNIT ' LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM ENVOOPAK mLL M AKAGEW T AGENCY COUWY OF Onu" ' EXHIBIT 3 i I, ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON EACH 17 AC DEDICATED TO CITY BY SIGNAL METROPOLITAN PROBABLE FUTURE USE AS COUNTY SUMMARY ACRES WATER DIST I LINEAR PARK. - 80.7 AC HUNTINGTON BEACH COMPANY STATE OF CALIFORNIA 333.624 - 10.15 AC SIGNALBOLSA—LEASED TO STATE 227.903 =� ' SIGNAL BOLSA—UPLAND 213.560 SIGNAL BOLSA—LOWLAND 719,783 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 14.087 ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD M.W.D. 80.760 •••__ CONTROL DISTRICT M.W.D.—LEASED TO STATE 2097, W.R.GRACE 42.431 ; - 17.5 AC EASEMENT FOR WINTERSBURG FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL. _ ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 17.553 - NEEDS ADDITIONAL LAND FOR OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT 15.000 IMPROVEMENTS. D,E.GOODELL 6.198 HUNTINGTON BEACH COMPANY 10.150 % TOTAL 1683.146 W.R. GRACE - ���'� �• 42,4 A ' ' 4��► ,`�� TOTAL LCP SEGMENT 1623.849 AREA ACREAGE r - 'SOURCE:SIGNAL LANDMARK,INC. c • SIGNAL BOLSA U.t. twvv� �. CORPORATION 6 AC - _. SIGNAL BOLSA _ CORPORATION 213.5 AC , OCEAN VIEW ., I. J"' r 1 `mot �!'- �� \ t`\ • �, �}. /,�� i SCHOOL DISTRICT 15 AC HAS NO PLANS TO CONSTRUCT = _ �� \ -__ \ • SCHOOL ON SITE ♦ �' % - `� - - j/,I ., �y - .�� _ •;�--�- . - _ ;�%, : - _ -- :� = 1. ; METROPOLITAN ! WATER DISTRICT i. 2.0 AC LEASED TO STATE -SIGNAL BOLSA -, -- -- BOUNDARY s - S F CALIFORNIA ..-CORPORATION f 333.6 AC- 227,9 AC LEASED TO STATE -FEE TITLE TRANSFERRED TO STATE TOPOGRAPHIC���y�� i FOR 14 YEARS UNDER TERMS OF 1973 AGREEMENT ppTp {qy;SEPTEMMq 17,19W t FEE TITLE TO BE TRANSFERRED TO WITH SIGNAL BOLSA ,BOLSA CHICA STATE IN 1987 IF NAVIGABLE CUT CONSTRUCTED ON PROPERTY OCEAN WITHIN INCLUDES 27.5 ACRES UNDER PACIFIC ' NORTH COAST PLANNING MIT �0 555 1 100 low LEASE PERIOD COAST HIGHWAY LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM W EN NTAL MANAGEMENT COUNTY OF ORANGE t I EXHIBIT 4 i BOLSA CHICA STUDY AREA BOUNDARY i r'—------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ { �'J1s� fY1'}� '� `, _ rI•.� �',ti .. ...z-'' "� �t��I'�ts�� ��' /1�" �, r:'L�7'•' :,�� Q• .. 'fir• , i it t v t leit ®rIt ,.� ,� �.\�;;/ :r'r .< •.�' •c`y�, � a r,,. VVV /�!../1�`�•�t , ►:� ;�',� t ��' ' �-. «.Z': , ','`t� sly,• ;�. (,�.••' �;,'c. . , ;, ,. �.4' �,fit ,, z�:3�. .•,' ;, O ' 1 ! } .1 / .'�,I `. �` t l.. ,•� JI >/�t~��y�'� ' , <��rtwi .1 t� •t f � �� � ,. ►r 1 S ; L ,�y. j ;.� �1T"r� f�,� 7�` '1� . A'' , . ,�,•�,, �l,.c , l�,r ., ���� '� I 1 t��t}i1,• ,'� 'I', • 1_.T , fr' ��.i.�ra i� i �• r» f !t.�',, ' 4`Il, VVV,,, �=.. � •'� , ' fee in addition to an additional 230 acres that it holds pursuant to a lease with an option to acquire subject to the provisions of the 1973 ' "Boundary Settlement and Land Exchange Agreement Regarding Lands in the Bolsa Chica Area, Orange County, California" ("1973 Settlement Agreement"). Under the 1973 Settlement Agreement between the State and the Signal Com- panies which was signed by the governor of California on March 15, 1973, the State acquired title to a 300-acre parcel in the Bolsa Chica lowland. ' Under the 1973 Settlement Agreement, the State also acquired a lease for an additional 230 acres adjacent to the 300-acre parcel for a period of 14 years (later, in 1984, extended by the parties to 17 years). The state ' has an option to acquire title to the 230-acre lease parcel if (among other conditions) within the 14-year period (which may be extended for three years under certain conditions), an ocean entrance system is constructed. Such system is to consist of a navigable waterway between ' the Pacific Ocean and Signal lands (see 1973 Settlement Agreement, p. 16). PLAMIM HISTORY: 1964-1985 Land use planning for the Bolsa Chica study area began in the 1960s. In 1964, the United States Congress authorized the United States Army Corps ' of Engineers ("COE") to study the feasibility of a small craft harbor at Bolsa Chic&. This study was a cooperative venture with the County and continued until 1972, at which time the California State Department of Navigation and Ocean Development assumed project sponsorship. In the late 1960s, the property owners of Bolsa Chica began to prepare plans for a marina/residential complex onsite. Such plans drew opposition from the California State Resources Agency and from conservationists. In 1970, ' Signal Bolsa Corporation acquired the Boles. Chica surface rights from the prior owners. After Signal's purchase of the property, the State claimed that a portion ' of the lowland (approximately 528 acres) was historic tide and submerged lands. The State claimed: (i) the historic tidelands area (lands between the ordinary low and high water marks in their last natural condition) were impressed with a public trust and thus subject to regulation by the state for com- merce, navigation and fisheries. Under the 1971 California Supreme Court decision in Marks v. Whitney, public trust purposes include wildlife habitat preservation; (ii) approximately 63 acres of historic submerged lands (lands below the historic ordinary low water mark) were owned in fee title by the state (see 1973 Settlement Agreement, p. 7). ' Signal's position was that all of these lands had been conveyed into pri- vate ownership by a Mexican rancho grant and were, therefore, free from the state's claims. Signal also contended that to the extent any lands within the area were not conveyed by the Mexican rancho grant, the State conveyed such lands free of the public trust by virtue of two tideland patents, or by, in effect, its conduct over the years. In order to settle ' their respective claims, Signal and the State decided to compromise. The record indicates that both Signal and the State realized that their indivi- dual objectives could not be obtained without the cooperation of the ' I-3 other. Signal needed to be free of the State's regulatory claims and the State needed title to restore the lands involved. The State, through the Secretary of Resources, the Attorney General and the State Lands Commission, formed an Inter-Agency Task Force with appro- • 4 priate state agencies with the objective of coming to an agreement which ' would 1) reconcile and settle the public and private claims and interests In the Bolsa Chica area; and 2) permit a large portion of the lowland to t be used as marsh habitat (see 1973 Settlement Agreement, p. 10). The mem- bership of the Task Force included the Department of Fish and Game ("DFG"), the Department of Navigation and Ocean Development, the Depart- ment of Parks and Recreation, the Attorney General's office and the State Lands Commission. } The Secretary of Resources promulgated the following objectives for Bole& ' Bay to be addressed by the Agreement: "Objectives of the State in Bolas. Bay: To re-establish and maintain Li for the people of the State, now and in the years ahead, a saltwater ' ecological system, adequate in size and quality to provide for a diver- sity of use of coastal wetland habitats. More specifically: 1. To improve the bay and surf fisheries of the contiguous area by ' increasing nurseries and forage; 2. To provide habitat for a variety of water-associated wildlife ' including the endangered light-footed clapper rail and least tern; 3. To provide unique scientific and education use opportunities to study the development, formation and maintenance of saltwater marsh; ' 4. To provide Bolsa Chica State Beach expanded recreational opportuni- ties; and, , 5. To provide a public waterway system available for small craft recreational uses." (State of California, Bolas Bay Conceptual Plan for Resources and Recreation, p. 12, December 1972). Extensive negotiations including studies and analyses of the property followed. The three-volume report entitled "Environmental Evaluation of ' the Bolas Chita Area" was prepared by Dillingham Environmental Company utilizing the services of experts in marsh habitat, biology, vegetation, hydrology and other disciplines. The County considers the Dillingham ' study to be the definitive baseline evaluation of the environmental resources of the Bolas Chita area conducted to date. The Task Force determined that the irregular configuration and narrowness ' of the lands subject to the state claims were not conducive to achieving state objectives and recommended that state-claimed lands be consolidated into a solid "block" adjacent to Bolas, Chita State Beach. The 1973 Agree- , meat was entered into by the state and Signal to achieve the state's enun- ciated objectives (Settlement Agreement, p. 7). I-4 1 � 1973 Boundary Settlement and Land Exchange AMeement The culmination of the cooperative efforts of the state and Signal to reconcile and accommodate public and private interests was the "Boundary Settlement and Exchange Agreement Regarding Lands in the Bolsa Chica Area, Orange County, California", signed by the governor of California on March 15, 1973. The major provisions of the 1973 Settlement Agreement are as follows: ' I. Fee title to a 300-acre plot and 27.5 acres beneath Pacific Coast Highway (both of which are adjacent to the Bolas, Chica State Beach) was confirmed or received by the state. The state determined that the 1 lands within the 300-acre parcel were equal or greater in value than its interest outside the 300-acre area (Settlement Agreement, p. 31). 2. Clear fee title to the remainder of Bolas Chica area was confirmed or conveyed to Signal free from regulation for public trust purposes (Settlement Agreement, p. 21). 3. Signal would lease to the state, without cost, an additional 230 acres of land adjacent to the 300-acre plot for a period of 14 years (1987). The State Lands Commission indicated that this land would compensate for the effect of an ocean entrance system on the states 300-acre parcel as well as constitute a contribution for the estab- lishment of such a system by Signal. 4. The state would receive fee title to the 230-acre plot upon con- struction of an ocean entrance system, within the 14-year period (1987) (which may be extended for three years under certain condi- tions), thus re-opening Bolas. Gap to the ocean to provide a variety of public benefits and water access to Signal lands (Settlement Agree- ment, p. 38). ' S. The DFG received 66year leases of the lands described in points 1 and 3 from the State Lands Commission for the purpose of marsh re-establishment with the qualifications that the lease of the ' 230-acre area would terminate at the end of 14 years should an ocean entrance system not be constructed. Implementation of the 1973 Settlement Agreement The Agreement contained language that required particular design specifica- tions for new development of a navigable water access connection (if con- structed) from the Pacific Ocean to the boundary of the Signal property (1973 Settlement Agreement, p. 16). The agreement recognized that permits would be required for both public and private development and provided for mutual cooperation and assistance among parties to obtain permits from state and federal agencies (1973 Settlement Agreement, p. 47). The agree- ment appears to have contemplated development of Signal property for resi- dential and other urban-associated uses. ' The 1973 Settlement Agreement included a Conceptual Plan (Exhibit 6) pre- pared by the DFG for the state lands in the study area (Settlement Agree- ment, p. 7). Revised in 1974, the plan included a two-phase project. Phase I involved reestablishment of a marsh encompassing approximately 150 i I-5 v' 1 MN MWA ' Flo,` , •�;.� ;,t,.•, � � . :�..,.',���q/'1�-.;'y� �. �•ter: _ \ �� -•-31,� '� �,"�.'� � .I�I�•�v�:� �� /� � �i1� 1 �1 lib'�J•+��• ���J�'�•- 'tea �•-'��I '-�� ��oJ,\. /� e,•����'a MARMAIN ~! �i7 bi �l '�' -r•�-.terIIII Is '�J� �,•a./ -`k=�:.H���? _ _ —_-•-•- c - • - • ' _ (� 973 RECREATION CONCEPT . acres of the 300-acre state parcel (in addition to the 60+ acres in Outer Bolsa Bay). Phase I was completed in 1978. Phase II would involve expan- sion of the marsh, construction of a public marina, and construction of a navigable ocean entrance system to provide tidal flushing and waters for the marsh and marina and navigable water access to Signal lands. Upon com- pletion, the State would gain fee title to the additional 230 acres of leased land. Conveyance of additional acreage for wildlife purposes as specified in the land use plan would be subject to other agreements to be developed by participating parties. Phasing activity: 1973 - 1977 Subsequent to the 1973 Settlement Agreement, several government agencies and independent environmental groups became involved in planning efforts for Bolsa Chica. The State DFG, State Department of Navigation and Ocean Development (now the Department of Boating and Waterways) and the Corps of Engineers continued to study the feasibility of marsh and marina develop- ment. In 19771, the County, in response to a proposal by the City of Hun- tington Beach, completed a feasibility study for a linear regional park in Bolsa Chica that would connect Huntington Central Park, the DFG Ecological Reserve and Bolas Chica State Beach. It was conceptually proposed to textend along Huntington Mesa, across the lowland to, and possibly along, J Bolsa Chica Mesa. �* Bolas Chica Study Group: 1978 - 1979 The need for more coordinated planning became apparent by 1978. The County, along with other interested agencies and groups, met and formed the Bolas, Chica Study Group. The objective of the Study Group was to examine the factors, issues, and opinions related to the diverse public �• and private interests at Bolsa Chic&. EDAW, Inc. was selected as consul- tant to the Study Group and was charged with the responsibility of collec- ting available data, coordinating efforts of subconsultants, analyzing per- tinent issues and formulating land use concepts that reflected the various views of study group members. The Bolsa Chica Study Group did identify several areas of agreement including consensus that Bolsa Chica Mesa was suitable for urban development, that a linear park to connect Bolsa Chica F� State Beach and Huntington Central Park was desirable, and that some undefined amount of additional wetland restoration was appropriate for the lowland. Local environmental groups and such agencies as the United States Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS") have contended that implementation of Phase II of the 1973 Boundary Settlement would be detrimental to environmental � resources within Bolas Chica. A local environmental group, the Amigos de ►. Bolas Chica ("Amigos") have contested the 1973 Agreement. In a lawsuit the Amigos alleged that the 1973 Settlement Agreement violated the State constitution; and that certain actions by Signal and others violated the California Coastal Act. Specifically, the Amigos maintained that the California Constitution prohibits conveyance of tidelands. Signal demurred (objected) to this allegation on the grounds that the suit was barred by the statute of limitations. Signal's demurrer has been sustained by the California Superior Court and the California Courts of Appeal (see Amigos de Bolsa Chica v. Signal Properties, Inc. 142 Cal. ` App. 3d 166 (1983)). The case remains on appeal. The Amigos' claims ,. pertaining to the California Coastal Act have been dismissed along with I-7 their request for various interpretations of the 1973 Settlement Agreement (Stipulation filed in Orange County Superior Court, December 19, 1980, re: Amigos de Bolsa Chica v. Signal Properties et al., Case No. 30-49-15). The Amigos have agreed not to refile their complaint until a decision has been reached on their appeal of the decision on the demurrer. Relationship of 1973 Settlement Agreement to the LCP It is clear that there are a variety of views on the relationship of the 1973 Agreement to the planning efforts for the Bolsa Chica LCP. The State Lands Commission has commented that the "conceptual plan was an agreement in principal for the development of resources and recreation in Bolsa Bay." The State Lands Commission stated that the plan was contingent upon many factors including availability of public funds for the capital Improvements and on obtaining all necessary government permits. The Com- mission also asserted that the Agreement did not purport to and could not affect the power of the Legislature to enact regulatory laws such as the Coastal Act (letter from William Northrop, State Lands Commission to Wayne Johnson, County EMA, January 23, 1981). Similarly, the DFG commented that - the "1973 Agreement was to resolve land ownership as it pertained to tide and submerged lands." In contrast to these views, Signal has taken the position that the 1973 Settlement Agreement must be taken into consideration in planning efforts for Bolsa Chica. The substance of Signal's view is that: (i) the 1973 Settlement Agreement represented much more than a simple exchange of lands between Signal and the State of California, and was intended to accommo- date the public interest in wildlife habitat preservation, (11) the Agree- ment contemplated that Signal would be able to develop its land free of regulation for public trust purposes, (III) Sections 30233(a)(3) and 30411 of the Coastal Act were specifically written to permit the implementation of the 1973 Settlement Agreement, (iv) to the extent the state's interest in "wetlands" under the Coastal Act is coincident with the public trust, they were reconciled in the 1973 Settlement Agreement, and (v) the Agree- ment also specifically contemplated the implementation of the state Con- ceptual Plan for Bolas Chica which include a 100 to 150-acre small-craft marina (letter from William R. Phillips, Phillips Brandt Reddick, to A.G. Armijo, County of Orange, December 15, 1980). The County recognizes that the "conceptual plan" is a plan in concept, con- tingent upon many factors, including availability of public funds for capi- tal improvements and obtaining of necessary government permits. The County assumes that the 1973 Settlement Agreement did not exempt Signal from applicable regulatory laws and did not purport to' nor could affect the power of the people or the legislature to enact regulatory laws such as the Coastal Act. As such, the County assumes that any plan for the Signal properties must be consistent with all applicable laws. It is the' County's understanding that provisions of the 1973 Settlement , Agreement are binding on both the State and Signal within the 557.5-acre area and does not assume that the Settlement Agreement exempted either party from applicable regulatory laws in force at the time or enacted since. The County also understands that the Coastal Act was written in a manner that would allow, but not require, implementation of the 1973 Settlement Agreement in a manner consistent with the Coastal Act. This assumption is supported by a memorandum prepared by Peter Douglas, Deputy I-8 Director of the Coastal Commission staff. This memorandum indicates that the degraded wetland provisions of the Coastal Act were drafted to "ensure that the settlement agreement for Bolsa Chica could be implemented." The j memo also indicates that the degraded wetland provisions did not require the implementation of the conceptual plan for Bolsa Chica. (Memo from Peter Douglas to Michael Fischer, January 13, 1981.) Thus, for purposes of planning for the Bolas Chica LCP, the County believes that implementation of the 1973 Settlement. Agreement is entirely consistent with the Coastal Act. LCP Land Use Planning: 1980-1985 The process of arriving at a LCP/LUP for the Study Area began in 1980 and has required several major revisions in the ensuing years. The scientific studies of the previous decade were taken into consideration in establish- ing the initial range of alternatives considered for the area by the county. Major effort was expended' by County EMA, state agencies, and the major private landowner in the area, Signal Landmark, Inc., in the ongoing dialogue and planning for the future of Bolsa Chica. Throughout the course of planning for the area, EMA staff has conducted numerous community workshops which were designed for exchange of informa- tion on the study area and the LCP process, discussion of issues, and for receipt of input and suggestions for possible incorporation in the LCP. Between November 1980 and December 1981, nine alternative land use plans were developed by EMA staff, Signal Landmark, and other interested parties ►� for consideration by the Orange County Planning Commission and Board of ` Supervisors. The alternatives ranged from preservation of almost the entire site in its present state to intensive urban and recreational devel- opment .of the majority of the site. These alternatives are summarized below and discussed in detail and illustrated in Exhibits 7a-7d. Alternative One focused on major restoration (1,100) acres of the lowland with residential use on the periphery of the lowland and the Bolsa Chica Mesa (Exhibit 7a). 1- Alternative Two proposed intensive water-oriented urban and residential development in the lowland and Bola& Chica Mesa with restoration of approx- imately 300 acres of marsh in the area already owned by the state. Alternative Three represented implementation of the 1973 Settlement Agree- _, E . meat and Phase II concepts of the 1974 master plan as described earlier. Re-routing of Pacific Coast Highway around a restored salt marsh area was t' proposed along with a public marina/visitor-serving area connected to the ocean by a navigable entrance through Bolas Chica State Beach. Residen- tial uses were proposed for the inland portion of the lowland and on the Bolas Chica Mesa. A linear park was proposed for the Huntington Beach Mesa as similarly delineated in Alternatives One, Two and Three. t ' Alternative Four was based, in large part, on Alternative Three design concepts and involved enlarging the restored marsh area to 455 acres and reconfiguring uses in the lowland to accommodate a larger marsh (Exhibit 7b). sd ' I-9 ! • 7 1. ..J .. �. � �. .. .! r.. 20 � = r _ 41 Cn � rm �� � •.<i ' �„ by # >•�. � IUD a4 y i TM' EXHIBIT 7a LEGM t c. � � F.: • /, . . c� 0 D - .✓�/% IMMnY"NAImOIw WON row-wAvrAra ... Awvaae oouw nn�wwi _ is ' QLl` ERfn ATOVE `. o ` 4 Q o AFEDW CHANNR OO a° 1 ., a 1 "'NEL TURN_AAa,o kC1 3 BOLBA CNCA nAYE BEACH BOLB11 WCA�TAIE BEACH NAVIOABIE .EKES CMANEl �BFFA WAIEA HAVjaAftE BOLSA CHICA C� NORTH COAST PLANNING UNIT m LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM = IRONME T,L MANAGEMENT AGENCY «C ,N,Y OF ORANGE� ALTERNATIVE 7 MCA WN DENS" cp AOOM TFAL MACH ALTERNATIVE 8 TKIL FIESCSIMLRESCOOML Dwimm M - --T:,m • .. �1 •. OF ALTERNATIVE J • • NORTH COAST LOCAL COASTAL - • �� 1 1 �~ j ALTERNATWE 90 i i= , —ADOPTED LAND - -:-- USE PLAN. JANUARY 1982 1 ` 1 m a w•srre •� OAS OM AIfA 11r. 1 erm oe.err oeaawrn 1 1 e1�A1�11 O)1�1 M 011e �Tl��� iAl� �• I`� �.ry q•� 4VJeee eKi ..w• ALTERNA75YE t f1 �� —ADOPTED HABITAT c 1 CONSERVATION PLAN. 8.s'.N•"� - - JULY M4 t � 1 i FNWUN AREA n •o tro.ra••arw . � - - -: C1110ft 11RltAND RARI01 Ep T f —ADOPTED BY '�b .. a ••t CALIFORNIA - COASTAL :•-. ;.- .-•. COMMISSION. NOVEMBER 19Bd /� Gor< '� «r•• ; •.+ Peed L. pe.Tra a.. ��•..•.� •-�r.. r •s -: NaMYRpluRllaRlou - r .� l MInRYpIM NarYeer ';:1•:1?r. +� — - f=- [ +--'" •. F i'. N Cembliallon _ � _ - --•,-� to !�.._ j_-!r+ 11 •` II6Ye ___ _ •h.dhl�� � v Baba G1ea S1aM PaA Beleo Ohba Slats P" ` WoUaW Conma"m chaaaal BOLSA CHICA C� NORTH COAST PLANNING UNIT LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM tAAAMMMMX DIVNOAw XTAL MANACfAENT AGENCY COUNTY OF OPA► A w • Alternative Five further increased the proposed restored marsh area from that proposed in Alternative Three and Four to 930 acres. A marina and navigable ocean access Were indicated in the lowland as well as a narrow strip of residential use along the northeast study area boundary. Other major plan features were similar to the previous alternatives. } Alternative Six was a partial alternative which only provided for a navigable ocean entrance, rerouted PCE alignment, and flood control channel. Other land uses were not addressed (Exhibit 7c). Alternative Seven proposed relocating Bolas Chica State Beach into the existing near-shore area of the ocean as a peninsula similar to the Balboa Peninsula. It also proposed creation of a centrally located marsh area flanked by waterways and adjacent residential and commercial development. Navigable ocean access would be gained from the extreme southern end of i the study area and PCH would be relocated inland. �( Alternative Eight proposed marsh restoration within the 300-acre state fee-owned lands, a narrow strip of residential use along the northeastern study area boundary, and maintaining the remainder of the lowland and a portion of the Bolas Chica Mesa in its existing state. The upper portion of the Bolas Chica Mesa was proposed for resldential use and the Hunting- ton Beach Mesa, as in all the alternatives, was shown as a linear park. Alternative Nine proposed a multiple use concept incorporating a navigable E ocean entrance to serve Bolsa Chica and Huntington Harbour. A visitor-ser- ving marina complex with 1,800 boat slips, coastal-oriented commercial sup- port facilities, overnight lodging, and open space recreation were located Ly in the lowland and on a portion of Bolsa Chica Mesa. Four hundred acres of salt marsh were also included in the plan along with 5,700 medium, high and heavy density residential dwelling units. Alternative Nine served as the basis upon which the Land Use Plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors !� in 1982 was prepared. The 1982 Land Use Plan (see Alternative 10, Exhibit 7d) approved by the i� Board of Supervisors and submitted to the Coastal Commission early in that year was similar in concept to Alternative Nine. Major differences included an expansion of the salt marsh system to 600+ acres and some s reconfiguration of major lowland roadway systems. With assistance from the consulting firms of EDAW and Earth Sciences Associates, EMA prepared extensive analyses and reports on these alterna- tives. Draft EIR 81-250 evaluated the environmental impacts of Alterna- tives One, Two and Three. In addition, this document provided an exten- sive baseline for use by staff and decisionmakers. Additional environmen- tal analyses were prepared for Alternatives Four through Nine, and the adopted 1982 LUP. A series of twelve issue papers was prepared discussing various important aspects of the alternative plans: Faulting, Seismicity and Subsidence, Oil Production, Navigable Channel Connection with Hunting- ton Harbour, Marina Operating Costs, Pending Litigation, Wetlands, 1973 Settlement Agreement, Coastal Act Consistency, Pacific Coast Highway 1 Re-Routing, Marsh-Marina Compatibility, New Ocean Entrance and Tidal Flush- ing, and Circulation and Traffic. The County Administrative Office pre- pared a report summarizing the Fiscal Impact Report findings and added analyses for additional alternatives. Finally, EMA prepared extensive I-11 staff reports for each public hearing held by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. All documentation is on file at County EMA. The County Planning Commission began deliberation of the LUP on January 27, 1981. Two hearings were held in February 1981 including one in the Huntington Beach community. At the public hearing held March 10, 1981, EMA submitted a staff preferred alternative (Alternative Nine) which embodied concepts from many of the previous eight alternatives and particu- larly Alternative Three. This alternative was recommended for approval to the Board of Supervisors who held two public hearings on the LUP in April 1981. The Board concurred with the Planning Commission's recommendation of Alternative Nine with certain modifications and conditions. On April 8, 1981, the County Board of Supervisors adopted Alternative Nine in con- cept with a number of conditions and modifications as provided for in Resolution 81-479. The Board directed County ENA staff to prepare and LCP/LUP document pursuant to the Resolution. Also to be prepared sepa- rately was the Phase I Management and Financing Plan which delineated public facilities capital costs and described a range of financing mechan- isms to provide for a self-supporting Bolsa Chico project in accordance with Board directives. The LUP was completed and circulated for public review and comment on November 2, 1981. On November 17, 1981, the Planning Commission received testimony and comments on the LCP. At a public hearing on November 24, 1981, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the LCP/LUP to the Board of Supervisors with clarification on several key issues, including increasing the size of the proposed salt marsh system from 400 to 450 acres. On December 16, 1981, the Board of Supervisors approved the LCP/LUP with a number of modifications. The most important of these included revision of the Land Use Plan, Circulation Plan, Access Concept Plan, and General Plan Land Use Element exhibits and attendant policy and descriptive language to provide for a minimum 600-acre marsh system with no contingencies. In its action, the Board directed EMA staff to make the above changes and refer- red the plan back to the Planning Commission for review. On January 4, 1982, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the revised plan and unanimously recommended approval of the changes. On January 20, 1982, the Board of Supervisors unanimously concurred with the Commission's recommendation, approved the LCP/LUP via Resolution 82-102 and authorized plan submittal to the Coastal Commission. At the same time, the Board also approved revised General Plan Land Use and Transporta- tion Element amendments and certified accompanying EIR 81-250 as complete and adequate. Shortly thereafter, the County transmitted the Land Use Plan to the Coastal Commission for staff review and commission hearings. On April 22, 1982, the Coastal Commission held a public hearing in which it considered the plan, received public testimony, and identified nine sub- stantial issues with respect to the Coastal Act. Concurrently, in a rela- ted action, the County Board of Supervisors endorsed Senate Bill 493 which would confer upon the Legislature the power to confirm the county's LUP as the certified plan for the area. This endorsement was based on a concern that the Coastal Commission might first want to deny the County's plan before a significant County/Coastal Commission joint effort could occur to resolve substantial issues. I-12 1 - On June 18, 1982, the Coastal Commission held a second public hearing, heard extensive public testimony, and directed its staff to prepare modifi- cations and findings for denial that would make the plan certifiable. The Commission also endorsed a proposal for County and Commission staff to � I wort together on the proposed modifications. On July 30, 1982, the Coastal Commission received a joint report from com- mission and County staff indicating that progress had been made in resol- ving the nine substantial issues. Additional time was recommended to con- tinue the process of issue resolution. The County had also withdrawn its support of SB 493 based on a report by its Planning Director that substan- tial progress was being made to resolve most of the substantial issues. Several Coastal Commission members expressed misgivings about the joint staff efforts and indicated a desire to make a decision that day. Other members expressed support for the joint resolution process and moved to continue the matter. The County Planning Director indicated that the County intended to withdraw the Plan if the Commission insisted upon tol! taking action for denial while progress was being made at the staff level in resolving the substantial plan issues. The Commission then voted 7 to 5 to continue the matter, expressing the desire to bring the plan back for .{' decision as soon as possible. The county indicated it would be November or December at the earliest before the issue resolution process could be completed. 1, On August 26, 1982, the Commission staff gave a progress report to the f' commission on the joint staff efforts. Acknowledgement was made of interest in returning the matter to the Commission for decision at an early date. In September, the County received a revised set of consen- sus/plan modifications statements and findings from the Commission staff that evidenced a reversal of earlier staff positions. By early November 1982, it had become clear that the County and the Coas- tal Commission were not in a position to resolve their dispute particular- ly with respect to wetlands, in a mutually acceptable manner. On November 10, 1982 the Board of Supervisors directed and the EMA with- drew the LUP from Coastal Commission consideration. The Board also direc- ted EMA staff to continue work toward issue resolution. During 1983, the County worked on several fronts to clarify and amplify the character and intent of the LUP in response to the Coastal Commission substantial issues determination. Particular emphasis was given to field investigations on geotechnical hazards; and additional design work was done to illustrate the character of the public marina and associated visi- tor-serving uses, wetlands edge conditions, visual and scenic resources, energy, and to resolve concerns raised by the Metropolitan dater District regarding its landholdings in the Study Area. These studies were com- pleted in late 1983 and the LCP/LUP and Supplement were authorized for submittal to the Coastal Commission by the Board of Supervisors in December 1983. Meanwhile, in January 1983, the COE completed a progress report on its ongoing Sunset Harbor Study which had been authorized by U.S. congres- sional resolutions in 1964 and 1976. The study was intended to provide r Congress with a recommendation on the feasibility of federal financial I-13 i participation in the construction of a navigable ocean entrance in connec- tion with a smallcraft harbor and wildlife enhancement within the study area. The progress report indicated that, although certain technical and economic studies needed for the Corps to make its recommendation to Con- gress regarding construction funding were not yet complete, a conclusion could be made that a navigable entrance of the type originally proposed by the County in the LUP was technically feasible. Soon after the COE progress report was released the County and the DFG, the local co-sponsors of the Sunset Harbor Feasibility Study, negotiated a proposed Memorandum of Understanding ("HOU") with the COE Los Angeles District, that would allow the COE to complete the study with funds provided by the County. The MOU for completing the feasibility study still had not been approved by all reviewing authorities as of April 1985. Congress did appropriate $100,000 for the Sunset Harbor study work effort in late 1984. $50,000 is presently available to the Corps' L.A. District. The local sponsors and the COE are presently finalizing an acceptable MOU. In August 1983, Governor Deukmejian signed into law Senate Bill 429 (Coas- tal Act Section 30237) authorizing the DFG and the California State Coas- tal Conservancy ("Conservancy"), upon petition of the the County and any landowner in the area ("HCP parties") to prepare a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for Bolsa Chica. The Conservancy was the lead agency for the purposes of identifying land use alternatives, while DFG was the lead agency for wetlands identification purposes. The intent of the HCP was to provide a means by which longstanding disputes between the County, Signal and the Coastal Commission, over wetland acreages to be restored and other issues, could be resolved. After ten months of intensive work by the HCP parties and other concerned groups and individuals including the Coastal Commission and city of Hun- tington Beach staff, a multiple use plan was adopted by the Coastal Conser- vancy Board on July 19, 1984, in accordance with the legislated deadline for completion (see Alternative 11, Exhibit 7d). The HCP was thereupon forwarded to the Coastal Commission for its consideration and possible recommedation for incorporation into the County's LCP. At the time the Conservancy took its action, it was understood that several issues, princi- pally related to the location of a re-routed Pacific Coast Highway and cross-gap connector roadway in the lowland, required additional planning effort. This supplemental activity was reviewed by the Conservancy board in a public hearing and forwarded to the Coastal Commission on October 18, 1984. The complete text of the July 19 and October 18 Conservancy staff reports is reproduced in the Appendices. The Metropolitan Water District objected to the inclusion of its land outside of the segment area as wetland to be restored. The final HCP (Exhibit 7d: Alternative 11), agreed to by all HCP parties, included the following features and findings: . The RCP study area was increased beyond the County Bolsa Chica Segment boundary to include all lands studied by the DFG for its wetlands determination, Pacific Coast Highway and Bolsa Chica State Beach, and portions of Huntington Beach Mesa outside of, but contiguous to the Bolsa Chica study area. The lands outside of the segment area are , entirely within the jurisdiction of the City of Huntington Beach. . All HCP parties agreed that 915 acres of wetlands were to be restored within the Study Area. I-14 I i Eighty-six acres of environmentally sensitive habitat were to be created/protected in the Bolas Chica Linear Park area or elsewhere within the Study Area. 3 A navigable ocean entrance similar to that proposed by the County is Its 1982 LUP was recommended as the least environmentally damaging feasible mesas of realizing wildlife enhancement and public recreation objectives. A realignment ("mini-reroute") of Pacific Coast Highway and bridge to traverse the edge of Bolsa Chica Mesa was agreed to be the best solu- tion to provide navigable access to the lowland in order to minimize the effects on Bolsa Chica State Beach Park facilities resulting from the construction of a navigable ocean entrance. The mini re-route was also considered to be preferred over a longer PCH re-route adjacent to existing neighborhoods. A 75-acre marina and visitor-serving complex should be constructed in the lowland and the southwesterly corner of Bolas Chica Mesa. A navigable connection to Huntington Harbour was considered a desir- able option to improve areawide water quality and navigation. E; The Bolsa Chica Linear Park would cover at least 57 acres and would contain newly created environmentally sensitive habitat. i Approximately 500 gross acres would be available for residential r development in the lowland and on the Bolsa Chica Mesa. 4 After review of the HCP and the resubmitted County 1982 LUP and Supple- ment, and numerous discussions with County EMA staff and the other HCP parties, the Coastal Commission on November 29, 1984 denied the County i, Plan as submitted, found substantial issue with the HCP, and recommended certification of the LUP if it were modified in accordance with staff suggested modifications. These suggested modifications incorporated the majority of the land use configurations and conclusions of the HCP. Of particular importance was the Coastal Commission finding that 915 acres of wetlands should be restored on-site and that a navigable ocean entrance as originally proposed by the County and the HCP was the preferred option for • the focus of detailed technical study. ' However, the Commission stopped short of fully certifying the LUP in L, accordance with staff suggested modifications. Instead, the Commission required that the overall feasibility of the navigable ocean entrance (the "preferred option") be proven up via additional technical studies to be prepared in conjunction with of the Corps* Sunset Harbor Study. The Com- mission indicated that if these studies demonstrated that the preferred option was the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative in accordance with the Coastal Act and performance standards laid out in the November 29, 1984 staff report, the Commission would confirm certification of the modified Land Use Plan. The Commission also stipulated that a wet- lands restoration plan and a Huntington Harbour Connection Channel Plan be prepared concurrently with the ocean entrance studies. Should these studies indicate the overall infeasibility of the preferred option, the Coastal Commission found that a secondary alternative could be I-15 i - the certified LUP for the area without further public hearing if the County chose to substitute this option in its LCP. The County indicated In its testimony before the Commission on November 29 that it considered the secondary alternative to be undesirable and infeasible. In revising the Land Use Plan document subsequent to the November 29, 1984 hearing, the County incorporated the main body of Suggested Modifications into a revised document. After review by the Bolsa Chica Citizens Advi- sory Committee hearings by the County Planning Commission, and approval by the Board of Supervisors on May 22, 1985, the County resubmitted the LUP for Commission review and action. The Commission found that although the resubmitted document generally met , the intent of the Suggested Modifications, some revisions were required to reach full agreement. After numerous meetings and discussions among the affected parties, changes to the document were made. The Commission then approved the LUP with these changes on October 23, 1985. The Land Use Plan Confirmation Review is unprecedented in California coastal zone planning. As such, it represents an interim planning step between the plan, policies and programs set forth in this document and the Implementing Actions Program. The ZAP for Bolsa Chica will include a Fea- ture Plan, zoning, regulations and design standards to guide all future detailed planning and to assure that the intent of the Land Use Plan, poli- cies and programs is met. The Land Use Plan Confirmation Review process and IAP are described in detail in Section IV. I-16 SEMON II: LAID USE PLAN, POLICIES AND GENERAL PLAN A)GOO M I0101AZZ AND INTRODUCTION This section contains a general description of the Bolas. Chica Land Use Plan and a discussion of the technical approach which led to objectives and conclusions regarding the plan's development. LUP Component Policies which will guide the process leading to Land Use Plan Confirmation, the Implementing Actions Program (IAP), and ultimately construction of the various identified Bolas Chica projects are also presented here. Detailed descriptions of the various plan elements and the basic framework which will lead to completion of the Implementing Actions Program found in Sections III and IV. r The Bolas Chica Land Use Plan, hereinafter referred to as "Land Use Plan", "Plan", or "LUP" provides for multiple and mutually supporting uses with rl emphasis on wildlife habitat enhancement, public recreation and coastal ji access, and water-dependent residential development. The Land Use Plan as depicted in Exhibit 8 is the result of more than a decade of intense planning effort for the Study Area. More specifically, the LUP closely reflects the land use allocations con- figurations agreed to in 1984 by the Habitat Conservation Plan partici- pants: the Coastal Conservancy, the California Department of Fish and Game, the County of Orange, and one landowner, Signal Bolsa Corporation. The Plan description and the policies articulated below reflect both the HCP and the Coastal Commission's suggested modifications to the land use plan. Also included in this section is a description of and policy guidance for the Coastal Commission suggested "Secondary Alternative" containing a nos-navigable ocean entrance. LAND USE PLAN DESCRIPTION The Land Use Plan contains the following features and acreage allocations: ' 915 acres of restored, high quality, fully functioning full tidal, muted tidal, fresh and brackish water wetlands within the LCP Segment boundary and overall Study Areas, with emphasis on diversity of habi- tat and the protection and recovery of endangered species. LA 86 acres of existing or newly created environmentally sensitive habi- tat within the Study Area. t4 LBuffer areas between wetland and urban development to protect environ- mentally sensitive habitats. A fully-navigable ocean entrance to provide a continuous, assured i source of water for tidal wetlands and interior waterways; and recreational boating ocean access from both the Bolsa Chica area and Huntington Harbour. i� . Interior navigable waterways providing navigation connections to the Bolsa Chica marina, waterfront residential housing, and the Huntington Harbour. • II-1 LEGEND MEDIIMI DENSITY RESIDENTIAL •~ 1 � • 27 FiC*i DENSITY RESDENTIAL '••, $1 9 Q HEAVY DENSITY RESIDENTIAL � � � •�, MC MARINA/COMM1EMAL ', T g 9S'T N M. BASBASIN/ :', _ DESILTING LOCAL COASTAL PROGRA _, N� CENTRAL WETLAND BOLSA CHICA SEGMENT BOUNDARY LINE WAND `O UNEAR• BOLSA CHICA STUDY AREA T BOUNDARY LIE REGIONAL NntR . 1 PARK J Orw"Cou y 1.wnrnN vo swv as M t.t G�—.1 Pon.hcn i5 co VVi dth Nn Ltf. ` _ .. ��� CON,�.C70R 7`n9 � � 9lJ` � t• t i 2 i • �,. ,i off,. MID 1 - CENTRAL WETLAND 1 t RIPARIAN ' RIPARIAN AREA/WETLAND 1 2 3 3 MC MC 3 , Iwf wcTaN OUTER BOLSA / •- ---� BAY/WETLAND ';� MC• I .: —--— PACFl COAST HIGHWAY J _ BOLSA CHICA STATE BEACH :. . ,i f' J j NAVIGABLE OCEAN ENTRANCE + j• BOLA CHICA o *" NORTH LmD UISE PL °M1 COAST PLANNING UNIT LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM EXHIBIT 8 tAt least 75 acres of a mixed-use, marina/commercial area providing In-the-water berthing and dry storage for at least 1,700 boats; a major boat launch ramp facility with at least six lanes and related parking and staging areas; provisions for active and passive recrea- tion; visitor-serving and overnight lodging facilities, with an option for including neighborhood commercial services and contiguous high and/or heavy density housing. A realignment of Pacific Coast Highway from the existing PCH/Warner Avenue intersection, across Outer Bolsa Bay, Bolsa Chica Mesa and through the proposed marina. Bridge clearance over the Bolsa Chica Main Channel will be at least 45 feet, and at least 25 feet over the Outer Bolsa Bay/Huntington Harbour connection channel, the latter to be subject to technical studies to be completed as part of the Land Use Plan Confirmation Review planning phase. F An internal roadway system connecting Bolsa Chica Street with Garfield � i Avenue within a corridor between 500 and 950 feet from adjacent exist- ing neighborhoods; a realignment of Warner Avenue onsite; a direct secondary arterial connection between Bolas. Chica Street and Pacific Coast Highway on Bolas. Chica Mesa, and provision for an additional secondary arterial connection between Warner Avenue and the PCH/Bolsa Chica Garfield roadway. Creation of the 130 acre Bolsa Chica Linear Regional Park on Hunting- ton Mesa and the lowland. The trails within the Linear park and .; elsewhere within the Study Area will link Huntington Central Park, j . Bolsa Chica State Beach Park, the marina/commercial complex and other regional bicycle and hiking trails. ' Approximately 500 gross acres of medium, high, and heavy density `J residential development in the lowland and on Bolsa Chica Mesa. Local processing of this LUP will require an amendment of the following �- elements of the County General Plan: 1. Land Use Element; 2. Circulation Element; 3. Recreation Element; and ,- 4. Resources Element. s Since 1982 when the original Land Use Plan was approved by the Board of Supervisors, the County has made a number of changes in its General Plan regulations that affect Bolas Chica. The "Reserve" designation previously L shown on all land uses within Bolsa Chica has been deleted and General Plan land use designations have been generalized. Exhibit 8 shows General Plan level land use designations that correspond directly to the General Plan Amendment being processed concurrently with this LCP/LUP through the County. Accordingly, the County has determined that the General Plan Amendment is consistent and complies fully with the substance and provi- sions of this Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. SECONDARY ALTERNATIVE Q., In certifying the Land Use Plan with Suggested Modifcations, the Coastal Commission also certified an alternative plan ("Secondary Alternative", s L II-3 Exhibit 9) with a non-navigable ocean entrance and different internal use configurations than the modified County LUP. This alternative contains 915 acres of wetlands, a non-navigable ocean entrance, a marina along the existing Warner Avenue on Bolsa Chica Mesa. Ocean access would be through Huntington Harbour. The Coastal Commission indicated that the Secondary Alternative could be certified as the Land Use Plan without further hearings if the proposed navigable ocean entrance was found to be infeasible pursuant to perform- ance standards contained in the November 29, 1984 staff report and substan- tially embodied in this document. By noting that the Secondary Alternative is similar in concept to plans conceived early in LCP planning and subsequently rejected on the basis of technical evidence, the County has concluded that the secondary alterna- tive is neither desirable from an urban use or ecological standpoint, nor is it economically feasible from a capital funding perspective. Neverthe- less, as a result of Coastal Commission action, the County is incorpora- ting the Secondary Alternative in this LUP as a land use option which the County would consider as a basis for an alternative LCP/LUP, should the navigable ocean entrance prove overall to be infeasible as a result of the Land Use Plan Confirmation process. LUP policy 25 requires submittal of an evaluation of this alternative as part of LUP Confirmation. RATIONALE FOR LARD USE PLAN DEVELOPMENT The underlying technical rationale which led to the development of the Land Use Plan is multi-faceted and required the balancing and reconcilia- tion of a variety of often conflicting issues and considerations which generally were as follows: Development of a plan consistent with California Coastal Act policies, and other regulatory and legislative mandates. The number of acres, the requirements and character of wetlands and environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHAs) to be restored, enhanced or preserved. The requirements for protection of new public and private development from geologic hazards. The character of landside and ocean navigation access to be provided for the public. The means of improving water quality and flood control facilities in the area for both wildlife enhancement and urban development purposes. Accommodation of the existing oil extraction operations in conjunction with wildlife habitat enhancement and urban development. The nature and configuration of improvements to existing roadways and the construction of new roadways in the area, and the effect of such improvements on the surrounding communities. II-4 LEGEND COASTAL DEPENDENT INDUSTRY/MARSH QLOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ®IIARIIIA COIttN:RC1AL RED. DENSITY RESIDENTIAL QIUIRSII/OPEN SPACE Ilnnlinglon Beach Central Perk , •:. HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ;r LINEAR PARK/OPEN SPACE ak`� J � Q _ _ 36�00 Fft T c� O wo tr COASTAL ZONE ODY. i- ,. Bolsa Chica t W Planning Area goad Co Cif f fldof _ �•� >° _ -"�•� , w •'c. J r '.' - .tea.'-- �, �A .1•' A -. �-* , •:� ul '•j'��QO�''io 1 ;8tii�ei=��rea::-.-' •-.:' _ • Ihmlirlglon I lorbot _�' _ �'. �_ A - • Q: • .•• . • • 1 seadill IV -�� ' ••w .A�• ..;�7a=L • it .�-.. _.�: _ "..^ �. ._, .••�••. : - -• � •-•�.' - ,•..�4 a•s �(� �Z•�• AL �.. - •.A �- �. ,Ate' -tom �_•' •L:-.• _ 1 ..� . w: • I ��� � � A .• --• ^. i+ . 7 Z � � •�,. A ice- ¢ �� ': � -:a ^ •`( "C iJL�F©r„ b18� p3' •'. -� ',_ _-�� " �. Peclllc Co isi ill hwa ] • A 7l `, • a t—yam.. fiolsa Chica Stale Pork Dolsa Cldce Stoto Park SOUME TodvtmW SerWom DhiWW,CaWortia C MMAM Co uTiseim BOL.Q.091-11 CHICA NORTH COAST PLANNING UNIT QLTCG �IQ�OMC LQ�IDD USE pL�QI— o OO LSQ C� 1�C�Q LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM �LLUSTRAMOO H 2 O M 00N-MAMMA o LE C MM °. 1NCC eWROMAM&aMNAGEMENT AGO CY c•.•,a a•b. EXHIBIT 9 The means of addressing cultural resources on-site. The level of technical detail and specificity required. The type of phasing, financing and long-term management of the Bolsa Chic& natural and man-made resources. jThe Land Use Plan has responded well to these basic statewide goals and to site specific demands and conditions. However, despite these many techni-cal and social considerations, the protection of wildlife habitat has been the pre-eminent focus of Bola& Chica planning. In order to arrive at the Land Use Plan the followink technical approach and key objectives were set forth, were refined, and have remained in i place throughout the many years of planning for the area. Along with wildlife protection objectives, the fundamental guiding force for Bole& Chica planning was the Coastal Act. The Act implicitly recog- nizes the convergent and conflicting interests which the County faced in developing the Bolea Chica Local Coastal Program. Section 30007.5 of the L� Act declares: The Legislature...finds...that conflicts may occur between one or more policies of the division (Coas- tal Act). The Legislature therefore declares that in carrying out the provisions of this division such conflicts be resolved in a manner which on balance ' is most protective of significant coastal resources. In this context, the Legislature declares that broad- er policies, which, for example, serve to concen- trate development in close proximity to urban and employment centers may be more protective, overall, that specific wildlife habitat and other similar �! resource policies. And, as noted in Section I, Section 30001.5 declares that the basic goals of the state for the coastal zone are to: a) Protect, maintain, and, where feasible, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone environment and its natural and man-made resources. +� b) Assure orderly, balanced utilization and conser- vation of coastal zone resources taking into account the social and economic needs of the people of the state. c) Maximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public recreational opportunities in the coastal zone consistent with sound resource con- servation principles and constitutionally protected rights of private property owners. d) Assure priority for coastal-dependent development over other development on the coast. ' -� I I-5 e) Encourage state and local initiatives and cooperation in preparing procedures to implement coordinated planning and development for mutually beneficial uses, including educational uses, in the coastal zone. In considering protection of coastal resources at Bolsa Chica, LCP plan- ning has endeavored to balance the need for protection and maintenance of exististing resources with the opportunities for enhancement and restoration of resources for increased human and natural benefits. After thorough analysis of site conditions and various technical and econ- omic factors, the County concluded that enhancement and restoration of existing ecological values, in conjunction with provision of maximum pub- lic access and recreational opportunities, and a relatively smaller propor- tion of waterfront residential development, will ultimately be the most protective of Bolsa Chica's natural and man-made coastal resources. This determination is made on the basis of the following: 1. Bolsa Chica's ecological values (biological productivity, species diversity) have been degraded by human activities on the site during the last 100 years. 2. Surrounding urbanization has irrevocably altered the Study Area's ecological characteristics. Thus, the area is and will remain part of an urban ecosystem regardless of the type of wildlife habitat or urban development that is to occur on-site. 3. The construction and maintenance of Bolsa Chica wildlife habitat repre- sents a major and costly development project which can beat be funded by creating contiguous urban benefits having revenue and assessment potential for wetlands related activities. Given these factors, and the tremendous demands being placed on the site for a multiplicity of uses, the County, the other HCP parties, and the Coastal Commission determined that implementation of the balanced use goals of the Coastal Act at Bolsa Chica could be feasibly achieved only through mutual compatibility between the area's ecosystem and a variety of public and private sector elements. Traditionally, this compatibility has not been struck in the coastal zone. In urban areas of California, urban development prerogatives have often superseded those of natural systems and have caused the degradation of the coastal resource on which man depends variously for commerce, recreation, and sustenance. The degra- dation of coastal resources was, in fact, the major catalyst leading to the enactment of the Coastal Act. In order to achieve the desired compatibility of natural and urban ele- ments, planning for revitalizing the Bolsa Chica ecosystem clearly recog- nized the urban setting of the site and the costly reality of restoring wildlife habitat within an urban context. The proposed Plan therefore Proceeded beyond the standard concepts of preservation (ie., maintaining a natural resource, such as a national park, in a pristine, natural state) and/or conservation (ie., actively managing a natural resource, such as a national forest, for both human and natural benefit without degrading it) II-6 ' most often used in rural and wilderness areas. Had Bolas, Chica not been so altered from its condition of a century ago, and were it not located on one of the most populous urban coastlines in the United States, a preser- vationist approach might well have been appropriate. A preservationist planning approach for Boles. Chica would essentially have allowed the resource to continue to exist in its degraded state or degrade further as a result of additional encroachment from surrounding urbanizing areas. A result of this approach would be that later attempts at marsh re- storation would be more difficult and expensive, due in part to increased acquisition and development costs, in part to loss of major funding/ acquisition opportunities for restoration provided by the 1973 Agreement and other project-specific public and private funding sources, as well as i further degradation of on-site resources over time. A conservationist planning approach which would have resulted in marsh re- storation over the entire lowland area would be desirable from the exclu- aive perspective of maximizing natural system values. However, it has { . been found that accomplishing this objective is not economically feasible without major external grant funding which has not and will not be avail- able in sufficient amounts to cover land acquisition, financing and main- tenance costs for the type of wetlands restoration contemplated for the area. '• These realities led the County, the HCP parties and the Coastal Commis- sion to conclude that the preferred means of enhancing the natural values ' of Bolas Chica was that which sought, through a multiple-purpose project t. (the Land Use Plan), to integrate natural and human processes in such a way that both could mutually benefit from the relationship functionally and economically. Accordingly, the County, the other HCP parties, and the Coastal Commission � E ' have agreed that the key specific objectives for confirmation and j. implementation of the Land Use Plan are: The development of at least 915 acres of high quality, fully func- tioning wetlands providing high biological productivity and habitat diversity including the protection and restoration of endangered species habitat under a plan with a high predictability of success. Minimization of public facilities capital and operations costs consis- tent with environmental technological, economic and social factors as �•- defined by the Coastal Act. Provisions for mutual compatibility of all public and private develop- ment including present and future oil operations. A preference for construction of a navigable ocean entrance that would have no substantive, unmitigable adverse effects on shoreline beaches and littoral processes. Provision for a non-navigable ocean entrance is remains should a navigable entrance not be approved by the California Coastal Commission. Creation of major new coastal access and public recreation opportuni- ties compatible with ecological and economic requirements. II-7 • Creation of sufficient private development and publicly funded programs to finance objectives 1, 2, and 3 above at minimum cost to the general public. • Creation of an aesthetically attractive, resource-sensitive community compatible with surrounding areas. While these objectives have always been a focus for County Bolsa Chica LCP planning, the Habitat Conservation Plan process confirmed these objectives and supporting technical data as fundamentally correct. In doing no, the HCP produced several new ways in which land uses could be configured to resolve longstanding issues and to meet stated objectives. The County policies articulated below provide the regulatory guidance for confirmation and implementation of the Land Use Plan. Detailed areawide and project element plans, ordinances, other regulatory mechanisms will be prepared at the Implementing Actions Program stage of planning to assure that these initial policies are fully carried out. II-8 , LARD USE PLAN POLICIES Biological Resources Management Component Policies Marsh Restoration and ESHA Plan/Programs 1. Fish and wildlife values encompassed within the Bolsa Chica planning area shall be enhanced through expansion of wetland acreage to 915 acres, and through restoration and enhancement programs. 2. Nine-hundred fifteen (915) acres of wetlands shall be preserved, restored, and maintained as high quality, fully functioning wetlands ' within the Bolsa Chica Study Area. 3. Wetlands Restoration Plan: The owners or developers of private lands within the Bolsa Chica Study Area shall fund the preparation of a [ ' detailed Wetlands Restoration Plan for enhancement and restoration of all the wetlands and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs) required by the LUP. The potential for obtaining Coastal Conservancy funding of the cost of preparing the Wetlands Restoration Plan shall be pursued. The Restoration plan shall be prepared by the Department •* of Fish and Game or a contractor to the Department selected jointly by the Department of Fish and Game (DFG), Coastal Commission, the County and affected landowners. T The Wetlands Restoration Plan shall be completed and submitted to the z- Commission for review and approval in two phases: a Concept Plan (Phase I) and an Implementation Plan (Phase II). The Concept Plan shall be submitted as part of the LUP Confirmation Report. The Imple- mentation Plan will be submitted as part of the Phase III LCP, IAP. The Wetlands Restoration Plan shall be developed as described below: i A. Wetlands Restoration Concept Plan (Phase I) shall provide for: (1) Establishment of 915 acres of high quality, fully functioning wetlands providing high biological productivity and habitat diversity through the creation of a mix of tidal, muted tidal and non-tidal and other wetlands; (2) Restoration of 86.8 acres of ESHAs; (3) Design concepts which are consistent with low capital and 9 operation costs; � t. (4) Whenever possible, and consistent with restoration and resource protection needs, mutual compatibility of public and private development, including present and future oil opera- tions, with wetlands restoration; (5) High predictability of success and establishment of criteria for evaluating success of wetlands and ESHA restoration; (6) Protection and/or restoration of endangered species habitat; ' II-9 (7) Assurance of water of sufficient quality and quantity to provide for high productivity in the wetlands; (8) Protection of the wetlands from any significant adverse impacts emanating from the marina, commercial, and residential areas; and (9) Linear Regional Park design shall provide for the establish- ment and protection of some but not all ESHAs while accommoda- ting public recreational values and uses. (10) Compensation of fish and wildlife habitats in the form of replacement habitat which duplicates or surpasses those wild- life values lost; (11) Specifications for the buffers necessary on lands adjacent to the restored wetlands consistent with the LUP buffer policy; (12) Documentation in the LUP Confirmation Report reflecting items 1-11 above and the following specific products: a. General type, location and mix of wetland habitat to be restored in the 915-acre wetland area in conjunction with the phase-out of ongoing oil field operations; b. ESHA and buffer element; c. phasing element indicating the sequence of areas to be re- stored and the relationship to phasing of urban develop- ment. B. Wetlands Restoration Implementation Plan (Phase II) shall provide for: (1) Adequate legal and institutional arrangements and a financing plan for the successful establishment, management, operation and maintenance, and protection of all wetlands, ESHAs, and necessary water supplies; in addition, possible acquisitions will be addressed. (2) Identification of the funding source(s) of all restoration, operation and maintenance costa. In addition, contributions may be made by the public, by government agencies and by other parties interested in restoration and preservation of these natural resources. (3) A monitoring program to assure that all Wetlands Restoration Plan provisions are complied with; (4) Specific measures to ensure that high quality, fully function- t ing restored wetlands can be established in a manner compati- ble with the phase-out of ongoing oil operations; and(5) Incorporation and accommodation of a wetlands mitigation pro- gram for Outer Bolsa Bay wetlands if a Huntington Harbour Con- nection Channel Plan agreed to by all affected landowners is adopted by the Coastal Commission, and if the approved connec- tion channel generates adverse impacts to those wetlands. II-10 ' 4. The Wetlands Restoration Plan shall be entirely consistent with and adequate to carry out all phasing policies of the LUP. 5. The project proponents shall provide funding mechanisms to implement the Wetlands Restoration Plan. 1 6. Public access facilities and oil-related facilities shall be sited so as not to conflict with the establishment of restored or enhanced wetlands in areas adjacent to these uses. 7. Wetland and ESHAs shall be protected from intrusion by feral/domestic animals. S. Buffer areas shall be established to protect wetland habitat and shall be of adequate width and character to assure that disturbance factors '}} associated with adjacent development are reduced to levels of insigni- ficance. The specific design of the buffers shall be designed by DFG, In consultation with the Coastal Commission, the Coastal Conservancy, � r the County, and affected landowner(s), and shall be as described in Il pages 8 through 15 of the April 8, 1985, "Department of Fish and Game Findings and Recommendations for the Maintenance, Restoration and a Enhancement of Wetland and Non-wetland Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas at Bolas, Chica, Orange County." 9. Oil production facilities within the wetlands areas shall be managed to protect biological resources to the maximum extent feasible. 10. Lands within areas designated for future wetlands restoration which are in use for oil-related facilities/operations shall, to the maximum extent feasible, be converted to wetland habitat as oil production is ' phased out. 11. The Wetlands Restoration Plan shall provide for educational opportuni- ties and scientific research where feasible and in a manner consistent with protection of wetlands values. 12. Prior to issuance of development permits, all projects must be deter- mined by the County to be in conformance with applicable habitat pro- tection policies of this Biological Resources Management Component, and the Coastal Access/Recreation and New Residential/Commercial Development Components of the certified Bolsa Chica LCP. e 13. All urban construction and wetland habitat restoration activities shall be conducted so as to minimize adverse impacts to flora and fauna through careful phasing, timing and sensitive construction practices, and any unavoidable adverse impacts shall be mitigated to levels of insignificance. 14. The following general policies shall provide the framework for Interpreting the Land Use Plan: a. Where policies within the Land Use Plan overlap, the policy which f is the most protective of coastal resources and consistent with s.. Policies 1 through 15 shall take precedence. i b. Where there are conflicts between the policies set forth in the Land Use Plan and those set forth in any element of the County's General Plan, existing ordinances, or other County regional plans, the policies of this Land Use Plan shall take precedence. c. In the event of any ambiguities or silence of the LUP not resolved by A or B, above, or other LCP provisions, the policies of the Coastal Act shall guide interpretation of this LCP. 15. Wetlands Phasing Policies A. No residential or commercial development, as proposed in the LUP, shall occur in the Bolsa Chica LCP Segment area prior to Coastal Commission concurrence with the Wetland Restoration Implementation Plan. The relationship of urban development and wetlands restora- tion, including the relationship of mesa activities and lowland activities, shall be clearly identified in the Wetland Restoration Implementation Plan and shall be sufficient to assure that the wetland and ESHA restoration will be accomplished. B. No portion of the habitat of any endangered species shall be disturbed for development until an equivalent area of high quali- ty, fully functioning habitat has been established and its mainten- ance assured. Prior to the development of high pickleweed salt- marsh, high pickleweed saltmarsh of equivalent quality shall be created, or existing high pickleweed saltmarsh shall be enhanced so that no reduction in carrying capacity for the Belding's Savan- nah sparrow shall result from permitted development. Addition- ally, and consistent with the wetland design criteria established by the HCP, the area of high pickleweed saltmarsh shall not be less than 200 acres at any time. C. New development shall be permitted in the lowlands only after the Wetlands Restoration Implementation Plan has been reviewed and approved by the County and Coastal Commission and all other appli- cable restoration plan policies have been met. D. Prior to any development within the existing 852 acres of wetland , area, as defined by DPG in its December 1981 Degraded Wetlands Report, a wetland area 1.5 times as large as the wetland area proposed for development shall be created within the LCP Study Area. (Using this procedure, for example, development upon 126 acres of wetlands will result in the creation of 63 additional acres of wetland.) This condition of development shall remain in effect until such time as 63 more acres of wetland have been crea- ted than that wetland acreage which will be lost to development. At that time, and prior to any additional development within exist- ing wetland areas, a wetland area of equal size to that wetland area proposed for development shall be created within the LCP Study Area. The term "created" as used here means that non-wet- land areas as determined by the Department of Fish and Game in the 1981 DPG Degraded Wetlands Report shall be converted to wetland status. Non-wetland areas are defined as only those historic wet- lands which have been so severely degraded that they no longer II-12 r r - function as wetlands. A determination of wetland area impacted by proposed development shall be consistent with the detailed mapping j which accompanied the report to the California Coastal Commission entitled, "Department of Fish and Game Determination of the Status of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands" (December 1981), and, in addition: E. Prior to an development within he exists 8 2-acre wetland area y pme t existing 5 as defined by the DFG in its December 1981 Degraded Wetlands Re- port, a wetland area no less than one and one-half times the size of the wetland area proposed for development shall be restored to a condition of high quality as certified by the DFG. Additional- ly, prior to the commencement of the final phase of development, ` 915 acres of high quality wetlands shall be in place and fully functioning with the LCP Study Area. The final phase of develop- ment, as identified prior to certification of the LCP, shall be of r { sufficient size and economic value so as to assure that the re- quirements of this policy are achieved, but in no case shall the final development area be less in size than one-third of the final E' wetland restoration area. `L: The Wetland Restoration Implementation Program shall provide a sys- un tea for "banking" credit accumulated for any amount of restoration completed by either public or private agencies in excess of the + ' requirements of policies 15D and 15E, and prescribing how subse- quent development may obtain such credits to meet the restoration requirements of 15D and 15E. This system shall also provide that development which utilizes r credit for restoration accomplished by the Department of Fish and Game shall reimburse the Department of Fish and Game for the costs of that restoration. F. Where wetlands acreage above 852 acres is to be restored but land € - within the designated wetlands restoration areas is unavailable, due to oil operations for example, interim on- or off-site restora- tion may be accomplished with the former being of higher priority. If interim off-site restoration is chosen, it shall be completed only if: (1) two acres shall be restored for each acre lost; (2) at the earliest feasible opportunity, but in no case later than the final phase of development, the restoration shall be completed on-site; and, (3) upon replacement of interim off-site restored wetlands with the required on-site restored wetlands, said interim off-site wetlands shall be permanently maintained and protected. 1 G. Prior to the initiation of any development which results in � adverse impacts to ESHAs identified by the Department of Fish and Game in its report, "Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas at 1 Bolsa Chica", ESHAs of equivalent size, character, and quality as determined by DFG shall be created and functioning so that at .Y, I I-13 least 86.8 acres of ESHA shall be protected in perpetuity, and so , that at no time during the phasing of development shall there be less than 86.8 acres of ESHA within the LCP Study Area. The 86.8 acres of ESHA shall be composed of those elements and respective acreages determined by the Department of Fish and Game in its report to the Commission entitled 'Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas at Bolas. Chica' . H. Bolea Chica has been planned as a single, integrated habitat con- servation plan to restore, permanently protect, and maintain the wetland system, while allowing development in the Study Area. The conveyance of title to all lands designated for wetlands or envi- ronmentally sensitive habitat area preservation to a state or fed- eral agency or organisation capable of protection and/or enhance- ment of fish, wildlife and other environmental values, and approved by the County Board of Supervisors and Coastal Commission Executive Director, shall be provided for in the Project Agreement submitted with the IAP and Phase II PFMF. However, the ESHA loca- ted in the Linear Regional Park shall be conveyed to a local agency approved by the County Board of Supervisors and the Coastal Commission Executive Director. The Project Agreement shall require that prior to any land division or issuance of any grading or building permit for the mesa area, the landowner shall supply assurances that all restoration and improvements can be accom- , plished feasibly. In view of such assurances, development on the mesa would not in itself trigger the requirements of polices 15D and 15E for actual restoration and creation of wetlands. Such assurances shall be provided through either or both of the follow- , ing measures: 1. Conveyance to the approved agency or organization of legal or equitable interests in all lands designated on the land use plan maps for wetland and environmentally sensitive habitat areas. The interests conveyed shall be sufficient to allow restora- tion activities to be carried out. At the completion of devel- opment in the Study Area, if fee title to any property designa- ted for wetlands or ESHA purposes has not been conveyed to the approved agency or organization, the landowner shall cause it to be conveyed. 2. For any land for which a legal or equitable interest has not been conveyed pursuant to (1) above, financial security shall be posted in an amount sufficient to assure acquisition of that interest at such time as restoration is to begin. At the completion of development in the Study Area, if fee title to any property designated for wetlands or ESHA purposes has not been conveyed to the approved agency or organization, the land- owner shall cause it to be conveyed. Water Quality 16. Runoff pollutant standards shall be established to protect the area's water quality and the biological resources. These standards shall be consistent with all existing and applicable local, state, and federal , water quality laws and regulations. II-14 ' 17. The overall water quality program shall be established and detailed in the IAP. r.� 18. Designs for dredging and excavation projects shall include protective .� ; measures such as silt curtains, diapers, or weirs to protect water qualtiy in adjacent areas during construction and/or maintenance acti- vities. 19. Dep osition of dredge spoils shall not adversely affect water quality r or marine habitats, nor shall dredge spoil deposition result in either a net loss of wetlands acreage or wetland habitat values. Further, such deposition shall be compatible with the requirements of Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act, Section 10 of the Federal Rivers ' and Harbors Act, as well as State and Federal Endangered Species Acts. r 20. A source control program shall be developed in the IAP to manage run- off of pesticides and herbicides in order to minimize possible adverse effects of these substances, and to respond adequately to the require- ments of State and Federal law regarding the introduction of these sub- stances into waters of the United States and waters of the State of California. t.i 21. Water Quality Monitoring: A. Surface water quality shall be monitored through existing and any needed new County programs for water pollution control. ' B. A groundwater quality monitoring program shall be developed by the 4 County in the IAP in coordination with the Corps of Engineers' Sunset Harbor Study. 22. Pollution control measures shall be developed in the I. P for all aspects of recreational boating activities at Bolas. Chica. Such mea- � , sures will focus on protecting water quality, biological resources, and navigation safety (debris control). Shoreline Processes and Structures Component Policies ' 23A. "Land Land Use Plan Confirmation" review shall be conducted by the Coas- tal Commission on the Plan Alternatives prior to the County's submit- tal of the Phase III LCP Implementation Program. The Preferred Option, Alternative 1, shall be the adopted Land Use Plan provided that the Commission by majority vote of the appointed membership finds at the time of this review that: (1) A navigable ocean entrance would have no significant adverse effects and would conform with Public Works Policies 23B through 26; (2) The Wetlands Restoration Plan can be accomplished as provided in `'- the LUP; and 1 (3) The navigable ocean entrance is consistent with all other policies of the LUP and the Coastal Act. II-25 If the Commission does not find that each of these standards is satis- ' fied, the Preferred Option shall no longer be the adopted and certi- fied Land Use Plan and the Secondary Alternative providing for a non- navigable ocean entrance shall be the Land Use Plan if adopted by the County. 238. Any ocean entrance to Bola& Chica, including any related structures such as groins, breakwaters or channels shall be permitted only if the County and the Coastal Commission review such entrance and find that it is the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative as defined in the Coastal Act; that it will have no significant adverse Impact on sand supply, beach profile or recreation values of any of the beaches in the area; and that an effective program of institu- tional and financing arrangements adequate to mitigate to levels of insignificance or eliminate any impacts has been identified at the Con- firmation Review stage and has been established pursuant to the Phase II PFMF Plan. 24. A concept plan and attendant detailed analysis of the navigable and non-navigable ocean entrance and channel system shall be prepared for County and Coastal Commission review and approval at the LUP Confirma- tion phase prior to submission of the IAP. The ocean entrance plan analysis shall provide a reasonable basis for a determination by the County and the Coastal Commission that this entrance system is the least environmentally damaging feasible alterna- tive as defined in the Coastal Act. The analysis shall address the environmental and recreation impacts; the proposed mitigation mea- sures; and the costs and financing for construction maintenance, and operation of each facet of the entrance system and its associated miti- gation measures. The LUP shall be included as an explicit alternative plan in the Corps of Engineers Sunset Harbor Study and shall receive complete analysis and review consistent with the Corps evaluation of other alternatives considered. The County shall request that the Corps of Engineers conduct comprehen- sive physical modeling on any recommended navigable entrance as part of the Sunset Harbor Study. 25. The County shall also request the Corps study to include a non-naviga- ble alternative (the Coastal Commission "Secondary Alternative") to be analyzed consistent with the Corps' other work efforts on the Sunset Harbor Study pursuant to Policy 24. The analysis of the non--navigable alternative shall be provided for Coastal Commission review at the LUP Confirmation at a level of detail equivalent to the analysis of alter- ' natives in an Environmental Impact Statement. 26. Any plan for an ocean entrance shall meet at least the following criteria at the LUP Confirmation planning phase: II-16 A. The entrance plan shall protect and maintain the area's beaches ' from adverse impacts of the ocean entrance system and shall assure that impacts that may result in an increase in downcoast or up- coast erosion shall be mitigated to levels of insignificance. Spe- cifically, the plan shall provide adequate mitigation for any potential lose of sandy beach available for recreational use, from the Anaheim Bay Breakwater to the Huntington Beach pier, which is directly attributable to an ocean entrance at Bolas Chica. B. The plan shall specifically identify the area of existing beach required for sand bypass operations and mitigation measures necessary to address potential impacts on the recreational beach. C. The plan shall protect existing swimming, surfing and beach enjoy- ment opportunities to the maximum extent feasible, and where pro- tection is not feasible, mitigate any adverse impacts to levels of insignificance. D. The plan shall avoid or mitigate the risk of seawater intrusion into the freshwater aquifer landward of the Newport-Inglewood f fault zone. E. Any ocean entrance and channels to Huntington Harbour and the marina/commercial complex and other water-dependent uses shown in the Land Use Plan shall be subject to detailed hydraulic analysis according to Corps methodology. �= F. Any entrance shall minimize environmental impacts as well as operation and maintenance costs and maximize environmental quality ;(? and capital coat effectiveness. G. Any entrance design shall mitigate adverse effects, if any, on the wetlands. H. Any navigable entrance shall be at least sixteen (16) feet deep at mean lower low water, with a width dependent on proposed boat use ' (between 400 and 600 feet at the surface, or more). I. Any navigable entrance shall be designed so as to allow an opera- tor to accept responsibility within accepted liability parameters. 27. All new waterways e navigable and non--navigable channels and y ( 8 , 8 8 Q basins) shall be designed to promote tidal circulation. Water quality ' considerations and concerns for acceptable current velocities shall form the basis for such designs. 1 28. Consistent with wetland restoration needs, the hydraulic regime within Bolas Chica shall be designed to provide benefits to and mitigate any potential adverse effects on the existing Huntington Harbour waterway system. 29. The navigable ocean entrance channel shall be located and designed to accommodate needs for optimum hydraulic functioning of the Bolsa Chica- Huntington Harbour waterway system with those needs related to traf- fic, coastal access, and beach and boating recreation. II-17 30. A navigable Huntington Harbour connection may be both technically and economically feasible and shall be considered for inclusion in the , LCP, provided that: A. As part of the LUP Confirmation, the County and Coastal Commission approve a complete financing program and a mitigation plan, pre- pared by the proponents of the overall Bolsa Chica Project, for the channel, attendant structures, and any wetland-associated impacts of the connection. , B. If a navigable connection is to be built, it shall be the least environmentally damaging channel feasible alternative as defined in the Coastal Act. 31. All navigable waterways shall be accessible to the public for boating. Public launch ramps and support facilities shall be provided pursuant to the Coastal Access and Recreation Component. The ocean entrance and all other channels and basins shall be designed to maximize naviga- tion safety and to minimize operator liability. Specifically, the following criteria shall be used to design the overall Bolsa Chica waterway system, in accordance with other project goals and requirements: , A. All channels and marina basins shall be designed at a minimum to satisfy state-of-the-art Corps standards of construction and harbor operation parameters. All design shall be permissible ' under the Corps regulatory framework. B. The terminal breakwater and channel jetties shall be designed and equipped with lights, markers, and other state/federal required navigation appurtenances to minimize safety risks to boaters. C. The navigation design element of the entrance channel and interior waterways shall also be guided by boat traffic projections to be prepared as part of the IAP with County Harbor Patrol and other local, state and federal agency input as required. ' Physical and Cultural Resources Component Policies Geotechnical Hazards 32. Geotechnical studies to augment those completed in 1983 and 1984 shall be prepared during the IAP to fulfill the seismic safety requirements ' of the Alquist-Priolo Act. Required standards for setbacks from active fault zones shall reflect the results of these additional studies. Fault zones and areas of soil liquefaction potential and ground subsi- dence, as indicated in the "Preliminary Evaluations of the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program" prepared by Woodward-Clyde Consultants (1983 , and 1984a, b, c) and concurred in by the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), shall be the basis for future geotechnical studies and regulatory/engineering requirements connected with the IAP. II-18 1 1 33. Pursuant to the UP, additional studies to determine liquefaction potential in areas slated for urban development shall be conducted. E 1 Design and construction standards recommended in these studies to miti- gate potential hazards shall be incorporated into the IAP. 34. Navigation channels and structures for human occupancy shall be loca- ted outside of areas of liquefiable soils unless specific mitigation measures which shall be developed in consultation with CDMG are submit- ted for Coastal Commission review and approval with the UP. As speci- fied by the CDMG on February 22, 1985, mitigation measures shall be sufficient to withstand a repeatable site acceleration of 0.25g. 35. Each site plan, subdivision map and/or major public works development Ishall include sufficient subsurface soil and geological investigations which consider both existing conditions and proposed development impacts and provide appropriate mitigation measures. 36. The a r a r liability for all geologic haz- ards for development in those sections of the Bolas Chica planning area identified as subject to potential geologic hazards based on �i studies done pursuant to the UP. The waiver shall be in the form of a deed restriction for recording, free of prior liens except tax liens that binds the applicant and any successors in interest. The waiver r shall be in the form of a deed restriction subject to the review and approval of the Director, EMA and County Counsel and shall provide: a) that the applicants understand that the site may be subject to ' s extraordinary geologic hazards from faulting, liquefaction and/or subsidence, and unconditionally waive any claim of liability on the part of the County or any other public agency for any damage from such hazards; and b) the applicants understand construction in the face of these possible known hazards may make them ineligible for public disaster funds or loans for repair, replacement, or rehabilitation of R ' the property in the event of faulting, liquefaction and/or subsidence. 37. As art of the IAP the Count shall develop regulations in areas sub- ject to potential geologic hazards to protect persons and to minimize damage to property in case of seismic event. 38. Subsidence monitoring programs presently ongoing by the County shall be continued for the life of the project. All grading plans, bulkhead r designs and habitat enhancement designs shall take in account the esti- mated amount of subsidence over a 50-year period and shall establish elevations to maintain the appropriate vertical distances above tidal ' and flood datums. 39. In areas of new development adjacent to bluffs, above-ground struc- tures will be set back a sufficient distance from the bluff edge to be ' safe from the threat of bluff erosion for a minimum of 50 years. A geologic report may be required at tentative tract map stage of pro- ject design to make this determination. 40. Development of any kind shall be constructed to ensure that all surface and subsurface drainage will not contribute to the erosion of the bluff face or the stability of the bluff itself. i II-19 Air Quality 41. Proposed land uses shall be consistent with all existing local, state and federal- air quality laws and regulations. 42. 'The IAP shall incorporate a program of one or more of the following air quality control measures, along with appropriate projected dates for implementation of these, and this program shall be reflected in the County's tentative tract map(s) approval process for Bolsa Chica: (1) modified work schedules (2) carpooling and preferential parking (3) increased bicycle/pedestrian facilities (4) employee rideshare program (5) traffic signal synchronization (6) energy conservation Cultural Resources 43. All planning for Bolsa Chica shall comply with adopted County policies , and Board of Supervisors Resolution 77-866 as related to cultural and scientific resources to ensure that all reasonable and proper steps shall be taken to achieve the preservation of archaeological and pale- ontological remains or, in the alternative, measures shall be provided to assure the recovery, identification and analysis of such resources so that their scientific and historical values are preserved. 44. Appropriate mitigation measures for archaeological site ORA-83 as spe- cified in Coastal Permit 5-83-984, including possible preservation of all or part of the site, shall be incorporated into the Bolsa Chica LCP. 45. For other sites, if archaeological resources are disclosed during any construction phase of the project, all activity which could damage or destroy these resources shall be temporarily suspended until the site has been examined by a qualified archaeologist and mitigation measures have been developed to address the impacts of the project on archaeo- logical resources. Such mitigation measures shall be reviewed by the State Office of Historic Preservation. Coastal Access and Recreation/Visitor-Serving Facilities Component Policies These policies provide planning guidance for: All existing and proposed public access to and within landside areas of the Study Area. (Navigation access is covered in Shoreline Pro- cesses and Structures Component Policies; Landaide Access Policies are presented below.) Recreation facilities projects including the Bolsa Chica marina/commer- cial area, the Bolsa Chica Linear Regional Park (Huntington Mesa and lowland segments), and the Bolsa Chica State Beach in the vicinity of the proposed ocean entrance. ' II-20 rLandside Access 46. Access shall be provided to the ocean shoreline, navigable waterways ( and public recreational areas in conjunction with new residential or ;FA commercial development as follows: (a) to and along all shorelines between the restored wetlands and new residential and commercial development; (b) to and along the entire marina, except in areas posing health and safety risks; and (c) to and between recreation and access nodes within the residential and commercial areas.. 47. A detailed access plan shall be prepared as part of the Implementing Actions Program which shall also include guidelines for use in the preparation of tentative tract maps and final project engineering and design work. 48. Bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian access to existing and new recrea- ' tion facilities within the Study Area and immediate vicinity shall be provided. 1 , 49. All bikeways shall be located and constructed in accordance with the County Master Plan of Bikeways in effect at the time of development. '� . 50. A network of roadway-separated adn on-road bicycle and pedestrian trails shall link Huntington Central Park, the Huntington Mesa and low-land segments of the Bolas Chia Linear REgional Park, the Bolsa Chica marina/commercial area, Pacific Coast Highway, Bolas Chic& State �L Beach Park/ocean entrance, and the State Ecological Reserve. �l 51. Public access, including opportunities for public waterway viewing, i fishing, small boat launching and passive recreation such as picnick- ing, shall be established within the proposed new recreation and visi- tor-serving facilities; residential and commercial development shall be designed generally consistent with the Access and Recreation Plan, 1 and New Residential and Community Design policies and programs. 52. Visual access shall be provided through the location of scenic over- looks as generally identified in the Access and Recreation Plan and the Linear Park Boundary Study, or where physical access to a particular area (eg., wetlands, ESHAs, etc.) may not be appropriate. Visual access opportunities shall be protected for long-term public use. 53. The maintenance and enhancement of public non-vehicular access to the shoreline shall be of primary importance when evaluating future improvements in the coastal zone, both public and private. 54. At the time that new access is provided, an appropriate public agency shall assume management and liability responsibility for public use, or agreements concerning such responsibility shall be reached with the landowners and agencies having jurisdictional authority, in accordance with the Phasing and Financing Component of the LUP. ' _ II-21 The following access policies provide guidance to IAP planning for various Bolas. Chica project areas. Linear Regional Park 55. The trail system between Huntington Central Park and Garfield Avenue as it traverses Huntington Mesa, and the entire lowland segment of the Linear Park shall be the primary coastal access link in the Study Area. Ocean Entrance and Pacific Coast Highway ' 56. The new alignment of Pacific Coast Highway and all new bridges shall ' provide Class II pedestrian and cyclist corridors on both sides of Pacific Coast Highway. Bole& Chics-Garfield Connector 57. A Class I bicycle and pedestrian trail shall be provided on the sea- ward side of the entire Bolas Chica-Garfield connector between the , marina north basin and the Huntington Mesa segment of the Linear Regional Park. Wetlands and ESHAs 58. Access to provide viewing and educational opportunities shall be pro- vided on the perimeter of wetlands and within ESHAs as specified in , the Wetlands Restoration Concept and Implementation Plans. Access shall be designed in coordination with DFG and shall be consistent with resource protection needs. Residential Areas 59. Maximum public recreation and access opportunities for public waterway viewing, fishing, small boat launching, and passive recreation such as picnicking, including at least three access nodes in the lowland medium density residential area, shall be established within areas of ' new residential and commercial development. Recreation and Visitor-Serving Facilities 60. All public and private boating and other recreation facilities shall be designed to be compatible with wildlife habitats and meet water quality objectives established in the Biological Resources Management, and Shoreline Processes and Structures Components. Structural (eg., floating barriers) and non-structural (eg., harbor patrol) measures and programs shall be designed to ensure that recreation uses do not intrude into wetland habitat areas. 61. All parks shall be irrevocably offered for dedication to the County as a condition of subdivision approval in accordance with the Project , Agreement or other agreements. II-22 ' r ' Bolas. Chica Marina/Commercial Area 62. The Bolas, Chica marina/commercial area, approximately 75 acres, shall provide priority for public recreational activities. Such uses shall include boating and boating support facilities for at least 1,300 in-water boat bertha and shall provide sufficient land, and other rec- reation and commercial uses to accommodate storage for at least 400 dry stored boats, at least six lanes of launching ramps, public boat rentals and related necessary facilities including hoists, stacking and staging areas, to provide for public access to, and use of, coastal waters. The uses permitted within State sovereign fee owned lands shall be restricted to those of statewide benefit consistent with the public trust for commerce, navigation and fisheries as deter- mined by the State Lands Commission. It is acknowledge that the other ' facilities listed on page III-63 of Section I2I under the classifica- tion Marina/Commercial Facilities which are not related to coastal access or recreation are not authorized trust uses. 63. Boating facilities shall be designed to provide opportunities for non- boating waterfront access and recreation uses, including overnight facilities, visitor-serving commercial, and open space for passive ( Y recreation. r - 64. Visitor-serving establishments shall be located, designed and operated primarily to serve the needs of coastal-dependent uses. Such estab- ` " lishments shall not create immitigable traffic congestion or hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic by reason of their location, con- struction, manner or timing of operations, or parking arrangements. Bolan Chica State Beach/Ocean Entrance ? 65. Any navigable ocean entrance shall be designed to promote new recrea- tion including jetty access fishing t opportunities at the state beach g j y , g opportunities, scenic overlooks, boat launch, and enhanced beach use, consistent with the Shoreline Processes and Structures Component. 66. All parking, appurtenant structures, concession stands, and restroom ' facilities displaced by the ocean entrance construction shall be 1. relocated such that overall recreation enjoyment in the beach area is not diminished. i67. Specific agreements for operation, maintenance and liability for the, above uses and mitigations shall be provided for in the IA.P. 8 ! ' 68. All future recreation planning for this area shall be done in coordina- tion with the City of Huntington Beach and the State Department of Parks and Recreation. ' Bolan Chica Linear Regional Park - Huntington Mesa and Lowland Segments 69. The precise boundary of the Linear Park lowland segment shall be deter- ' L mined and a general development plan when prepared shall be consistent with the Wetlands Restoration Implementation Plan. 70. Low-intensity recreation nodes shall be located within the Linear Park, as generally shown on the Access and Recreation Plan. II-23 7 e desirability and feasibility of a hand-powered/launched boat 1 The y facility at the eastern end of the Bolsa Chica main channel shall be determined as part of the IAP. _Transportation Component Policies 72. The circulation system for the Bolsa Chica project area shall be , consistent with the County "Master Plan of Arterial Highways" and shall complement the City of Huntington Beach "Circulation Plan of , Arterial Streets and Highways". 73. The major and primary roadway facilities for the Bolsa Chica project shall adequately accommodate the projected future transit demands for ' this section of the Orange County Transit District. 74. Specific on-street parking requirements/limitations shall be addressed ' as part of the IAP. 75. All development shall meet the off-street parking requirements of the Orange County Zoning Code. 76. Parking areas shall be designed to include safe and secure parking for bicycles. 77. Walkways and bicycle trails shall be provided in conjunction with new development. Development shall be designed to encourage the use of transit services and bicycles as alternative modes of transportation. , Local bikeways shall be consistent with the County of Orange and the City of Huntington Beach Master Plans of Bikeways. 78. Pacific Coast Highway shall be upgraded to a sir-lane, modified major arterial highway (100-foot right-of-way) between Goldenwest and the southern boundary of the mini reroute. The entire length of the mini reroute of PCH shall be upgraded to a standard major arterial highway , (a sir-lane divided roadway with a typical right-of-way of 120 feet and a roadway width from curb to curb of 102 feet). Development of PCH shall consistent with the Wetlands Restoration Plan, the need to , maintain existing beach parking capacity, and Coastal Access and Recre- ation Component policies. Precise design of Pacific Coast Highway improvements shall be accomplished in consultation with Caltrans as part of the IAP. 79. Pacific Coast Highway shall be realigned in accordance with the Land Use Plan, the standards of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and the County Transportation Element. Precise roadway alignment and navigation channel bridge spans and structures shall be delineated in the IAP. The County shall determine at the Land Use ' Plan Confirmation Review by the Coastal Commission whether to desig- nate a navigable bridge structure over Outer Bolsa Bay for a Huntington Harbour Connection Channel. 80. Warner Avenue shall be realigned to complement the rerouting of Paci- fic Coast Highway and the planned adjacent land uses for the Bolsa Chica Project. This realignment shall allow for a Pacific Coast High- , II-24 way bridge overcrossing at the Huntington Harbour connection channel. r Specific design criteria for these project elements shall be estab- lished in the IAP. ' a 81. Bolas, Chica Street shall be extended to connect with Garfield Avenue ("Bolan Chiea/Garfield Connector") and its cross-section shall also be sufficiently wide to accommodate projected traffic volumes and nonvehi- cular access, as specified here and in the Coastal Access and Recrea- tion Component. The Bolsa Chica/Garfield Connector shall be a scenic secondary roadway with two standard width travel lanes in each direc- tion plus parting/breakdown areas and a landscaped median; but in no ' instance shall the road right-of-way be reduced to a width less than 90 feet. The Bolsa Chic&/Garfield Connector shall be built and shall remain as a four-lane divided roadway in perpetuity consistent with its designation as scenic secondary roadway. Any unforeseen future � . changes in areawide traffic conditions which may occasion a change 'in traffic capacity shall only occur following public hearing processes to amend the Bolas, Chica Local Coastal Program and the County and the City of Huntington Beach Transportation/Circulation Elements. The applicable California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provisions shall apply to such amendments. ► � 82. The Bolsa Chica/Garfield Connector shall be located 500 to 950 feet away from the property line of the nearest homes, the specific align- ' ment to be determined at the LUP Confirmation stage. i 83. The Bolsa Chica/Garfield Connector and extensions of Graham, Talbert and Springdale Streets shall incorporate design features to satisfy all state and local noise attenuation regulations and laws and shall satisfy the following requirements: Bolsa Chica/Garfield Connector traffic-induced noise shall be L. attenuated by roadway location and any other needed mitigation measures so that this noise source shall not increase noise levels in adjacent existing residential neighborhoods by more than 3 db. Noise levels in new residential development contiguous with the 1 Bolan Chica/Garfield Connector shall meet the standards for resi- dential development set forth by applicable laws and regulations. Noise generated as a result of any extensions of Graham, Talbert and Springdale Streets shall meet the standards for residential development set forth by applicable laws and regulations. Any necessary mitigation measures for noise impacts on existing ' neighborhoods shall be developed in the LAP in consultation with effected homeowner associations. 84. At the inland edge of the study area, Talbert Street and Graham Street ' shall be extended to connect to the realigned Bolsa Chica/Garfield Con- nection consistent with the County and City of Huntington Beach's cir- culation plans. However, if future LAP planning and traffic engineer- ing studies indicate those connections are not necessary, then an amendment to the MPAH could be made. 1 II-25 1 r 85. A secondary roadway shall be provided to link the Bolaa Chica/Gar- field Connector with the rerouted segment of Pacific Coast Highway. ' 86. If determined essential by traffic engineering studies developed dur- ing the UP, an additional roadway connector shall be provided, con- necting Warner Avenue to the secondary roadway link connecting Paci- fic Coast Highway and the Bolas, Chica/Garfield Connector. Specific roadway design and alignment criteria established in the IAP shall at a minimum consider the configuration of the realigned Warner Avenue and the proposed adjacent riparian wetlands. Energy Facilities Component Policies ' 87. The productivity of Bolsa Chica oil operations shall not be signifi- cantly diminished by proposed land uses. 88. The LUP shall imply no modification of the legal status of any por- tion of the study area currently used for oil production activities so as to preclude or modify the ability to continue oil production , operations. 89. Energy facilities at Bolas. Chica shall be sited and operated in a manner consistent with applicable provisions of the Coastal Act. 90. As oil production facilities within the restored wetlands areas are phased out over the long-term, these areas shall be converted to wild- life habitat and shall be considered part of the 915-acre wetland sys- tem. 91. An Energy Facilities Plan shall be prepared as part of the IAP and shall be coordinated and consistent with the Wetlands Restoration Implementation Plan. The Energy Facilities Plan shall include detailed plans and programs for: ' A. On-going and future operations including onshore facilities ser- ving offshore operations, and, when feasible, the consolidation of wells, roads, and other facilities; B. Standards and control measures for operator access and limitation of oil field activity impacts on adjacent habitats (eg., runoff, , vehicles, lights, noise); C. Field maintenance and spill prevention measures (eg., road term- ing, catch basins, well cellar pump outs); ' D. Water level management and flood prevention measures to protect access roads, wells, and runoff water quality; , E. Subsidence mitigation if required by the Division of Oil and Gas (DOG); F. Relationships and responsibilities among the landowners and oil r lessees with regard to the utilization of surface properties for oil operations, including financial and/or funding provisions; and ' II-26 G. Additional contracts and/or agreements which may be necessary to promote the goals and objectives of the LUP. �-� 92. Any relocation of oil-related facilities required by the Energy Facil- ities Plan shall be fully consistent with the Biological Resources Management Component Policies (1. through 15H, inclusive), provided that no such facilities shall be relocated into areas that have been restored. 93. Energy facility requirements shall be a major criterion is the development of the Bolsa Chica Phasing Plan. 94. Within areas designated for urban land uses, adequate screening, set- backs and aesthetic treatments shall be provided to minimize hazards i and/or nuisances posed by oil field operations. These measures shall i be implemented in conjunction with the individual access and mainten- ance requirements of oil operations and the corresponding provisions J of the existing Bolsa Surface Use Agreement. 95. All development will be designed in accordance with the provisions of ( ` PBC Section 3208.1 and DOG guidelines regarding specifications and standards for oil-related activities, and well abandonments or reaban- donments, which include the following provisions: A. Tentative tract maps of all planned development at Bolsa Chica which is within as oil or gas-producing area shall be examined by DOG engineers prior to commencement of development operations; and B. Any unabandoned well, or any well not abandoned to current DOG specifications and requirements which will be overlain by or be in close proximity to any permanent structure, shall be evaluated by DOG which will establish any abandonment or reabandonment require- ments* . Public Works Component Policies t. 96. A master plan of utilities shall be prepared as part of the IAP. The master plan shall designate locations of all major underground utili- ties for new development proposed in the LUP. This utility plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Coastal Commission �. as part of the TAP. 97. Utilities shall be located outside the wetland and environmentally sensitive habitat areas unless there is no other feasible, less envi- ronmentally damaging alternative as defined in the Coastal Act. L,. Mitigation measures shall be provided to minimize adverse environmen- tal effects of any utilities located in these areas, including utili- ties directly related to petroleum production, marsh restoration and maintenance, flood and water quality control and coastal dependent Industrial uses. 98. Consistent with sound engineering and design practices, utilities shall generally be located in road system rights-of-way, or where necessary or feasible. in open space areas not directly related to wildlife habitat. ' Ca II-27 99. The annual development monitoring program by County shall provide ' for ensuring the availability of services required to serve projected development projects. 100. Pursuant to the Phasing and Financing Component, the fiscal impact of the Bolsa Chica public works projects shall be determined as part of , the IAP. 101. Specific sources for financing public works infrastructure improve- ' meats with no County tax dollar expenditure other than those funds already allocated for the Bolsa Chica Regional Linear Park shall be Identified in the Phase II PFMF Plan. 102. Resource-conserving water devices shall be encouraged in all new i development. 103. Reclaimed water shall be used for landscape irrigation wherever fea- sible. 104. The East Garden Grove-Wintereburg Flood Control Channel shall be , Improved to provide 100-year flood protection, sediment and water quality control, and compliance with navigation safety requirements. A desilting basin shall be provided as described in the LUP in accord- ance with Orange County Flood Control District requirements, and input from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD)/County cooperative planning effort, in consultation with the City of Huntington Beach. The desilting basin design shall be submitted as part of the Wetlands ' Restoration Implementation Plan. 105. A master plan of drainage shall be prepared as part of the IAP to address urban runoff/water quality objectives, erosion control and other on-site drainage considerations. 106. Water supply for urban uses and fire protection on-site shall be ' established by the project applicant in cooperation with an existing water agency or a new agency. 107. Prior to LUP confirmation, the County, with assistance from the Coas- tal Conservancy, shall work with MWD and other affected parties, including the City of Huntington Beach, to identify appropriate means , or alternative development sites to meet MWD's goals. The Project Agreement or other agreement(s) shall be the means by which the use of MWD land or compensatory financing shall be reached. Now Residential and Neighborhood Commercial Component Policies ' 108. The following categories in the County General Plan Land Use Element shall guide new development in the Land Use Plan: ' 1.4 Medium Density Residential Neighborhoods (LUP Designation '1'): Dwelling Units/Acre Area/Unit 3.5-6.5 9,300 to 5,000 sq.ft. II-28 ' 1.5 High Density Residential Neighborhoods (LUP Designation 121): Dwelling Units/Acre Area/Unit 6.5-18.0 5,000 to 1, 0 sq.ft. 1.6 Heavy Density Residential Neighborhoods (LUP Designation 131): Duelling Units/Acre Area/Unit 18.0-28.0+ Less than 1,800 sq.ft. ' 109. New development as described is the County General Plan for Medium, High and Heavy Density Residential shall be permitted consistent with the other policies and programs in this document. ' 110. High or Heavy density residential and/or neighborhood commercial facilities within the marina/commercial complex may be desirable to strengthen the revenue generating capacity and assessment base for the long-term financing of public facilities operation and mainten- ance. A final determination of these uses shall be made in the IAP; however under no circumstances shall urban residential development be provided within marina/commercial areas owned by the State Lands Corn- , mission. 111. New development shall comply with all provisions of the Housing Ele- ment of the General Plan. 112. New development shall be compatible and phased with the capacity of ' the public facilities and services systems. 113. Where there are conflicts between policies set forth In the Bolsa Chica LCP and those set forth in any element of the Orange County Gen- ' eral Plan, policies of the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program shall take precedence. ' 114. All development adjacent to wildlife habitats shall be regulated/ fdesigned to avoid unmitigable adverse impacts on habitat resources. Regulatory or design measures shall include buffer areas, landscaping and grading controls, noise restrictions, and control of runoff. Community Design and Visual and Scenic Resources Component Policies 1 115. An Urban Design Plan and Development Guidelines shall be prepared for L; the overall project as part of the IAP- 116. Revegetation and landscaping treatments shall be included in all development to enhance the character of the Bolas Chica and Hunting- ton Mesa bluffs. The existing DFG scenic and interpretive overlook on the Bolsa Mesa shall be replaced and incorporated is the Bolas ' Chica Marina/Commercial complex as shown on the Coastal Access and Recreation Plan. ' f 117. A Concept Grading Plan shall be prepared as part of the LAP and shall be consistent with other LUP policies and programs. Le II-29 118. The UP shall include a master landscape plan for all arterial road- ways- These roadways include Pacif is Coast Highway, Bolsa Chica/ Garfield Connector, Warner Avenue realignment, and Bolsa Chica/PCH connector. 119. Undergrounding of utilities shall be required in new development and encouraged for existing above-ground utilities, pursuant to Public ' Works Component policies. Phasing mad Financing Component Policies ' 120. A detailed Phasing Plan shall be prepared as part of the IAP. The Phasing Plan shall include a precise description of the kinds, loca- tions and intensities of uses at each phase of development, and a schedule of the restoration and mitigation actions prerequisite to each element of development. The Phasing Plan shall be consistent with wetlands restoration phasing policies and programs contained in ' the Biological Resources Management Component. A financing, operation and maintenance plan for any ocean entrance ' and navigation channels shall be established in the Phase II PFMF Plan, and submitted for Commission review and approval with the IAP. The plan shall include and refine the following elements from the LUP Confirmation Report: , A. Detail the costs of the ocean entrance alternatives considered most feasible by the Corps and all mitigation measures suggested ' by the Corps. B. Provide for monitoring of the beach for the life of the project, after completion of any ocean entrance and related structures as ' identified by the Corps. C. Specify an impact mitigation program establishing financial and , institutional arrangements that will assure adequate funding to mitigate any potential impacts including those identified by the Corps. ' 121. The fiscal impact of the Bolsa Chica development on the City of Huntington Beach shall be discussed in the Phase II PFMF Plan in a manner meeting the approval of the County Administrative Office and ' the City of Huntington Beach. 122. Specific sources for financing public infrastructure improvements with no county tax dollar expenditure other than those funds already allocated for the Bolsa Chica Linear Regional Park shall be identi- fied in the Phase II PFMF Plan. 123. The expenditure of public money to provide services and facilities ' shall be made only for those areas where development plans are consis- tent with this LCP. ' 124. Concurrent with approval of the IAP, a Phase II PFMF Plan, together with appropriate agreements, approved by the Board of Supervisors, shall include the following: ' I I-30 �' ' A. Identification of all facilities services and land area involved, i to include all other public project and marina capital projects as outlined in Section III, Part 10 of this LUP. B. Identification of all agencies, private ownerships and associa- tions responsible for management of the above facilities, services ' and land. C. The costs associated with each of the above facilities, services and land. D. Preliminary funding mechanisms for all of the above facilities, services and land. ' B. A plan for funds the public projects net cost identified in p funding Section III, Part 10, including identifying specific sources, methods and reasonable possibilities of securing such amounts. Prior to approval of any land division and/or any development of the subject property, a Phase III PFMF Plan shall provide for finalized, contractual detail for public facilities identified in this LCP/LUP for approval of the Board of Supervisors. i 125. No general county tax dollars shall be allocated to the cost of con- struction of any infrastructure improvements on the Bolsa Chica pro- perty other than those funds now budgeted for the Bolsa Chica Linear ' Regional Park. The developer shall be responsible for construction of bridges, roadways, channels, flood control channels, and other , infrastructure, not otherwise financed by state or federal funds, or ' special assessment funds. 126. Subject to terms in the Project Agreement or other agreements, all property owned by Signal Bolsa Corporation in the area designated for ' r the Bolsa Chica Linear Regional Park shall be dedicated by Signal to the County. L , II-31 SECTION III, PART 1: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT COMPONENT SNZOPSIS ' The County of Orange, in consultation with the State Department of Fish and Game, believes that it is possible to restore and maintain 915 acres of high quality, fully functioning wetlands within the LCP Study Area, and also to retain the values associated with other environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) within Bola& Chica. In order to accomplish this, it will be necessary to develop achievable goals, criteria for and measures of success, and a two-phase Wetlands Restoration Plan which neither con- flicts with existing fish and wildlife values nor with the ultimate wet- land acreage, ESHA acreage and the protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife goals. The conditions of development, and courses of action t delineated in this document provide the framework for achieving Wetland restoration, retention of existing wetland values during all phases of development and wetland restoration; retention of values presently associa- ted with identified environmentally sensitive habitat areas; necessary assurances regarding the preclusion of adverse impacts to endangered spe- cies; and assurance that the least environmentally damaging feasible approach that achieves the goals of this Land Use Plan will be selected. ' Existing water quality and water circulation concerns in Bola& Chica and the adjacent Anaheim Bay/Huntington Harbour system will be effectively addressed and improved through creation of a new ocean entrance at Bolea Chica. Also, creation of a desilting basin on the flood control channel, and policies and programs to monitor and regulate water quality, will provide additional solutions to these concerns. rAdditional major discussions relating to Biological Resources and Water Quality may be found in the following components: ' Shoreline Processes and Structures Component . Public Works Component . Energy Facilities Component PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY Features of the Wetlands Restoration Plan regarding wetlands, ESHAs and endangered species considerations are summarized as follows: A. 915 acres of high quality wetlands will be in place and fully function- ing prior to completion of the final phase of development (see Table 1). As provided for within the Biological Resources Management Poli- cies, oil facilities within the 915-acre wetlands delineated on the Land Use Plan, Exhibit 8, will to the maximum extent feasible be con- verted to wetland habitat at the termination of those activities con- sistent with Policy 92. ' B. There is a provision to create and or restore wetlands off-site as an interim solution to the ultimate restoration of 915 acres of wetland on-site. This provision is described in the Biological Resources Man- agement Policies, Section IT. r III-1 C. There exists 86.8 acres of environmentally sensitive habitat area , (ESHA). These ESHA values will be recreated within the LCP Study Area. The Linear Regional Park area may be used to create as much ' ESHA as is feasible. Further, the goal will be to retain as much character of existing ESHAs as is feasible. Table 1 0 , Wetland T e General Location Acreage T. Muted Tidal and State Ecological Reserve, 488-515 acres Fully Tidal* Southern Sector, and Central '! Wetland area presently occupied by oil extraction use. ' 2. High Pickleweed Edwards Thumb, Desilting 200 acres Basin/Flood Control -Channel, and Central Wetland areas ' 3. Periodically Southern Sector 150 acres tJ (seasonally) ' inundated 1 saltflats 4. Fresh to slightly Along base of Huntington Beach 50 acres brackish perma- bluff nently inundated pond area ' 5. Riparian On Bolsa Mesa, within 0-27 acres Wetlands County linear park * The ideal mixture of muted tidal and fully tidal wetlands will be ' ' ) determined in the Phase I Wetlands Restoration Plan. D. Development will not occur within the habitats of endangered species until such values, which would be lost to development, have been off- ' set either through enhancement of other existing habitat or creation of habitat equivalent in carrying capacity and value to that lost to development. The LUP requires the preparation of a two-phase Wetlands Restoration Plan. The Wetlands Restoration Concept Plan (Phase I) will be prepared at the Land Use Plan Confirmation Review stage. Description and policies to ' guide Plan preparation are found in Section II, under Biological Resources Management and in Section IV: Implementing Actions Program. The Wetlands Restoration Implementation Plan (Phase II) will be prepared concurrently ' with the IAP. Governing policies and plan elements are also found in Sections II and IV. Implementation of the LUP will yield a marked improvement to water quality within Bolsa Chica and the adjacent Anaheim Bay/Huntington Harbour system. The existing adverse impacts of the urban runoff from Wintersburg Flood Control Channel, both in Bolas. Bay and Huntington Harbour, will be allevi- ated with the creation of the desilting basin and new ocean entrance. Water circulation in the Study Area and Huntington Harbour will also be enhanced. III-2 The LUP contains programs to monitor water quality from a variety of poten- tial "source" areas, notably the recreational boating and oil-related acti- vities. Also, the Corps will consider water quality as one of the factors evaluated in its Sunset Harbor Study. PROJECT DBSCRIMOH The section of the Biological Resources Hanagement Component of the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program briefly touch upon past and recent actions taken by various agencies, including the California Coastal Commission, California Department of Fish and Game, the County, and the State Coastal Conservancy in regard to the "wetlands" issue. Following these, the ' county toapproach to wetlands planning is presented. The remainder of this Component details the specific issues and concepts associated with wetlands, ESHAs, buffer areas, endangered species, considerations of a Huntington Harbour connection channel and water quality. rAgency Actions and Wetlands Identification ' The following paragraphs describe actions taken by various agencies over the past several years. This discussion, combined with the complex legal/- regulatory and biological nature of the "wetlands" issue, provide the basis of understanding for the final resolution of this issue which occur- red in the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) process and was essentially con- firmed by the Coastal Commission in its November 1984 and October 1985 actions on the Land Use Plan. ' During December 1979-February 1980, EHA staff participated with Coastal Commission staff in research and composition of a document entitled "Spe- cial Report Identifying 'Wetlands" in the Bolas. Chica lowland for the pur- poses of LCP planning. This report was prepared jointly by the California Coastal Commission and EMA, pursuant to an agreement between the Califor- nia Coastal Commission and ERA. The report did not reflect official policy of the County, but provided background information for County local coastal program efforts. In 1980, the Coastal Commission requested the Department of Fish and Game t to prepare a "consultative report" on Bolas, Chica. In preparation of the report, the DFG examined historical maps and related data, fish and wild- life use of the site, species diversity, invertebrate biomass and vegeta- tive vigor/composition. DFG compared this data with the area's existing and former tidal system values in order to determine presence and extent of "degraded" wetlands within the Study Area. As a result of this work, DFG found that there are 852 acres of existing wetlands within the LCP area below the 5-foot HSL contour line, and that none of these wetlands are so severely degraded as to require major restor- ation efforts. The Department also found, however, that if it considered the union of the 616 acres of existing wetland outside the State Ecologi- cal Reserve with 384 acres of feasibly restorable former wetland, which had been so severely degraded that it no longer functioned as wetland and which also lies outside the Ecological Reserve, then the Department could, and did, conclude that this 1,000-acre system was so severely degraded as to require major restoration efforts. The Department then applied the formula contained in Coastal Act Section 30411 to this 1,000-acre system and concluded that 750 acres of this 1,000-acre system could be feasibly III-3 restored. _By_ merging this 750 acres with another 268 acres of existin¢ wetlands and feasibly restorable non-wetlands within the reserve. the Department found that it was feasible to restore and/or maintain 1.018 acres of wetland within the Bolsa Chica area. DFG also concluded that further study would be required to determine the most feasible means of restoring wetlands at Bolsa Chica, and that such study was necessary before a determination could be made regarding the types of restoration ' activities appropriate for particular areas. In 1982 the Count submitted the Bolas Chica LCP/LUP for consideration Y and . certification by the Coastal Commission. After an extensive and lengthy hearing process, the County's Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan was withdrawn from consideration by the Coastal Commission. The key area of disagreement was still focused upon the wetlands issue. t Given a number of other substantial issues identified by the Commission during the hearing process, the County provided additional Plan details and information in its LCP/LUP Supplement in December 1983. ' In an effort to break this apparent impasse, the State Legislature enacted Senate Bill 429 to enact Section 30237 of the Coastal Act, authorizing the creation of the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) process. In October 1983, work on the HCP was begun. The HCP was adopted by the State Coastal Con- servancy in July 1984. The HCP recommended a 915-acre wetland system be created at Bolsa Chica. This 915-acre requirement was generated by mer- sing all existing wetlands (852 acres) and feasibly restorable non-wetlands 1 (416 acres) involved both within and outside the Ecological Reserve. The 1 De ap rtment also found that 50 acres of this overall 1,268-acre area pre- sently functioned as ESHA. and that for this reason these 50 acres should not be treated as feasibly restorable non-wetlands. Thus. the formula con- tained in Coastal_ Act Section_ 30411_ was. applied to 1,218 acres and a 913.5 ' minimum wetland restoration requirement was generated. and the 915-acre ' figure was arrived at by mutual agreement of all HCP parties. Wetlands Planning Having now examined many of the legal, scientific, and agency-related Issues and actions associated with wetlands, it is important to note that the County in developing this Land Use Plan for its Bolsa Chica Local Coas- tal Program, has placed considerations of wetlands uppermost in attempting to resolve human and wildlife needs and to balance these uses within the study area. The County's review of the wetlands issue included careful ' consideration of existing vegetation and wildlife habitats at Bolsa Chica (Exhibits 10 and 11). In developing a plan for Bolsa Chica, the County considered the Coastal Commission's (1981 adopted) "Interpretive Guidelines for Wetlands and other Wet Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas," addressing land use activities which may be associated with projects involving restoration of ' degraded wetlands. In descending order of priority, they are 1) restora- tion projects without other uses; 2) boating facilities; 3) visitor-serv- ing commercial recreation facilities; and, 4) private residential, general industrial or general commercial development. ' The County also considered the need to balance land uses in the lowland. Various Coastal Act policies promote public access to coastal resources, ' public recreation, visitor-serving facilities and affordable housing. III-4 ' Ln i LEGEND ^ ' EXHIBIT 10 Vaaetatlan Coeimmities A Symbol Unit Characterization ' Terrestrial Vegetation G Gnssland Areas above sea level predominately covered with introduced grasses (includes , areas with history of agricultural use) GU Urban Gnssland Disturbed areas partially vegetated with weedy species and saltgrass GS Saltgress Grassland Upland areas partially vegetated by saltgrass. locally disturbed by ran 0 Dune Areas of hummocky topography and sand substrate vegetated by a variety of ' grasses. low perennials and scattered shrubs (includes Least Tern nesting sites) OL Low Gee Areas of sandy substrate occupied by shoregrass and glasswort at elevations just above the pickleweed commaeity DU Urban Dune Sandy areas adjacent to Pacific Cast Highway vegetated by ice plant, beach r bur and beach priwase P Pickleweed Areas covered with nearly solid stands of pickleweed; typically saline soils. dry much of the year LJ PM Mixed Picklaweed Areas covered predoaiately with pickleweed. but may include species such ' as glasswort. marsh heather and shoregrass S Shrub Steep slope areas of the Salsa Chic& Mesa vegetated with coyote bush. I telegraph weed. California sunflower and cactus E Eucalyptus Stands of eucalyptus and other introduced vegetation Marsh vegetation , Tidal CT Cordgnss Areas of SLwrtina located on sandy mud substrate in scattered iwer lntertlda are—as of Inner and Outer Salsa Says PT Pickle med Areas of Salicornis forming an extensive community located at higher ' lntertldaTT a—on• composed mainly of plckleweed plus marsh heather. saltgress and sea-bllte { Mon-tidal , PMT Pickleweed Areas of Salicornia occurring around the margins of permanent ponds and channeT— B Bulrush Areas of�Sc1r�; small stands of several species of bulrush occurring , In scatter �u ss areas K Cattail Small stands of cattail (Typha) occurring in scattered areas, associated with localized freshwater sources, including water main leaks I F Unvegetated Flats Predominately dry, featureless, highly saline. sandy flats enclosed by I berw*d roads. In winter, shallow, brackish water ponds form locally and evaporate as the seasons progress. Seasonally. wigeon grass and r ' algal species my occur. E Water Bodies Tidal WiI. Lagoon Marine water bodies subject to daily tidal exchange Non-Tidal WNC Channel Mon-marine water bodies, primarily man-made channels which vary from fresh to hypersaline with the season WNP Permanent Ponds/sloughs Non-cerine water bodies, in part occupying deeper remnants of former natural channels; varies from fresh to hypersallne with season Disturbed Primarily unvegetated areas disturbed by man; these include roadways, drilling pads, tank farms. storage areas. waste disposal facility and related areas ' SOURCE: Map unit designations based. in part. on Shapiro and Associate:, 1981 and Dillingham Environantal Company, 1971; no unit boundaries modified from Shapiro and Associates. 1961 and topographic survey, ' Septamber 1980. III-6 , ♦\J( ``� ?�-,r'J C"`�.n�.�vii.�`�' `�,G.tom\ \ /.., _ �(` GU- TvY ` <� C F ^; - 1. . SOURCE:tees boa dooWal•oeo booed.to OWL on Ohm"one Aoede4too.test . ,i"' •.��• ,,;�., S n rj % al c� a y. one ONWqhm En.ron..nm Compsay.,ait wt botndo.tem nesn.e ee■ Q s . n Shooho end Aeeotlotee.test one teooQepee evwr.boO,enpr low. `Y,�>;„ /�`i i _ '< � ; Q F P p ,. �^�v C} �Y�`�'_ t�. ,� t101C •� f1 -e /.' `' F v. ; P_ F /l� K P ('� GU F LAX F _ P' pu PyNJ F . .PM F F PM - au _ -v =© 3 P• IF i F •trr Pr r', f pU r'. pr ► F P. F F ' g PM'T'. rp F 0°a ri F , • Fmr P i' i owr pm r � p' F F o F- , rF E G F ' FWNC , P WN► ` --- - f wNP s �DL . 0 _ s, % p • F' i p •G ' :!✓err C' ,,o . . F P P F ms ® � F _ E �. bow F G � Gy ;tS 6 PM G D P wNc _ p WNv �� e P D T _ G s' e • PT /'�/� P Wit F W rp. Wf1 PT �;• pj D _ ., D ` FY F fil L J PIr PIT WN lyrpm pw WTL 141, / Pr PT \ �r r / _ _ g of � JA FT _ BOLSA CHICA NORTH COAST PLANNING UNIT r0 500 1000 1500 LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM W '°°°aA"•C°A"" MEANiTER AL. FEET ova i W vNorocnA►wrEntr:sEvrvreEn ti,tsgo �L��L�,�li—L1�oOU V `Vr�UVUUVUI�JU ENVtt,O► NTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY COUNTY OF ORANGE LL rra.r TO R.weer RY:a twee M R 17,11 •n EXHIBIT 10 i ^ f %� 5r•`,y!} �/ ,.'� � .cam\' � , LEGEND � 0` 4"ct.frf"oai ,, ? �' • j<<, , 1 UPLAND 2 TIDAL SALT--MARSH 3 BRACKISH MARSH "- �---� 7 /� � •iU , ,��f �, f lly 'ham� ✓/ 7 • ..' 4 FRESHWATER MARSH ry c �v4r. ��jr .< /� \ �� 5 vz TIDAL LAGOON NON—TIDAL WATER BODIES rpq " / •..-fir r' �.,1 l�. 7, T�.y Y ;•ri, 7 PICKLEWEED FLATS 9 8 UNVEGETATED FLATS e e t f2 — j 8 7 •� ✓ 1. ti \ e t 9 DISTURBED > } _ �CQ v 3 �y�l L�/�✓1:. g 9 �.�.7- `8 _� '� - 4 •. w;. SOURCE:wo art emMortby+wwa to trn.en tYrotre.we A.wd.n..tat - .na nwrptr.Emrar+r Camps".ta?t; w WO boWWW$ft 00 w ra. m,.oro.w A"DeWtM"61.tee t000w.otwe twrwY.tt.ot..o«1900. 1 - - 8 V r 1 r ` t, t 8 8 , 8 7 t 8' f 7 1 • • � _ , ._ ors, 9 •7 _ - r's- - i9 f 3 '' 7 8 8 - - g• �j 7 1 1 t h f ' 8 7 7 I 8• g t 1 8 7 1 t 7 r 1 ' i 2 s e 2 a; z O s 1 1 . 7 �• ,. 8' 1 2 2 i I, 8 9 - 3 4 BOLSA CHICA \ NORTH COAST PLANNING UNIT F,0 500 1000 1600 DATUM � v ���LS �Ls�� OF " r �Q TOPOGRAPMC LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM W J pp7b(WAME7iry CONTOUR rrtsNAL•2 FFEET � :SFAtF7BE7i t 7,1980 EmvpoNE/RAL MANACfIEttTAGENCY COUNTY Of Otter v. ..,e..®., .., ....,,.v..>,. . ...,...r, EXHIBIT 11 I Section 30001.5 of the Coastal Act states in relevant part that the goals of the State for the coastal zone are to: "...a) protect, maintain, and, when feasible enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone..e b) assure orderly, balanced utilization and conservation of coastal zone resources taking into account the social and economic needs of the people of the state. ' c) maximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public recreational opportunities in the coastal zone consistent with sound resources conservation principles and constitutionally protected rights of private property owners. d) assure priority for coastal-dependent and coastal-related development over other development on the coast. a) encourage state and local initiatives and cooperation in pre- paring procedures to implement coordinated planning and devel- opment for mutugally beneficial uses...in the coastal zone." Finally, the County believes that interpretation of the various Coastal Act policies which apply to Bolas. Chica must take cognizance of Section 30007.5 which clearly indicates the Legislature's recognition that the policies of the Coastal Act related to wetlands and other concerns cannot be considered in isolation. t� "The Legislature further finds and recognizes that conflicts may occur between one or more policies of this division. The Legislature therefore declares that in carrying out the provisions of this division such conflicts be resolved in a manner which on bal- ance is the most protective of significant coastal resources. In this context, the Legislature declares that broader policies which, for example, serve to concentrate development in close proximity to urban and employment centers may be more protective, over- all, than specific wildlife habitat and other simi- lar resource policies." In developing its Land Use Plan, the Count sought to include the maximum p ng s y u8 feasible protection/restoration of biologically productive wetland habi- tat, and to satisfy the Coastal Commission's interpretive wetlands guide- lines with regard to priority of land uses in conjunction with projects to restore degraded wetlands. The Land Use Plan recognizes the importance of these valuable habitats. The proposed Wetlands Restoration Plan will con- tain the essence of the County's intent to preserve, protect, and enhance wetlands, valuable marine resources, and environmentally sensitive habi- tat. This LCP/LUP requires the ultimate restoration of 915 acres of wetlands at Bolsa Chic&. In preparing the HCP, the various participants were advised by the state Attorney General's office that the minimum wetland acreage III-7 1 which could be viewed as consistent with the requirements of the Coastal Act is 913.5 acres. The County's review indicates that only about 453 acres of wetlands exist at Bola& Chica. On the other hand, DFG has deter- mined that 852 acres of wetlands exist and that about 1,218 acres would comprise a degraded wetland system. In any case, the 915 acres of wet- lands to be provided within this Bolsa Chica Study Area will satisfy the restoration requirements of the Coastal Act set forth in Sections 30233 j and 30411. The County will request that DFG complete its Section 30411 findings concurrent with the Land Use Plan Confirmation process. The Department of Fish and Game has agreed to the general wetland configura- tion represented on the LCP/LUP maps presented at the California Coastal Commission hearing in Los Angeles on November 29, 1984, and contained herein as Exhibit 8. Wetland Acreage Considerations The nucleus of the Land Use Plan's treatment of wetlands is the ultimate restoration of 915 acres of wetlands within the LCP/LUP study area. The precise delineation of a wetland restoration program in the Wetlands Restoration Plan will be completed in two phases. Phase I will be a Con- cept Plan and will be submitted as part of the "Land Use Plan Confirma- tion." Phase II will be the Implementation Plan and will be submitted as part of the Phase III LCP, Implementing Actions Program. The Restoration Plan will generally incorporate the following concepts: A. The existing restored wetlands values within the State Ecological Reserve will be maintained throughout the wetland restoration program. The Reserve contains approximately 110 acres of wetlands which have been restored with a muted tidal water regime. B. Restoration of wetlands with a fully tidal water regime will be con- centrated in the southern sector (generally south of the Pro—An Creek Channel). Elevations in this area, although intertidal, are generally lower than the remainder of the lowland area. This lower elevation would result in periodically and permanently inundated flats and maxi- mal water volume per unit area, which, in turn would result in more stable temperatures, salinity, and moisture characteristics than would be the case if full tidal influence were restored to other (higher elevation) portions of the lowland. Therefore, fish and wildlife values associated with the restoration of full tidal influence in the southern sector would be more readily enhanced than in the remainder of the lowland area. For the most part, areas restored to full tidal influence would also provide a "mudflat" component within the restor- ation project. C. Expansion of a muted tidal water regime, as in the State Ecological Reserve, is more flexible with regard to site selection than is the case with a fully tidal water regime. The reason for this increased flexibility is that the muted tidal water regime has a tendency to retain water on a receding tide, and therefore tends to create a more uniform environment than is the case when a fully tidal water regime is restored to an area of intertidal elevation. Expansion of the muted tidal regime is largely dependent upon the incremental phase out of the existing oil field-related facilities and activities. III-8 I D. The combination of muted and fully tidal wetlands will encompass approximately 488 acres. According to the DFG, the reason for this is that about 400 acres of other wetland types are necessary to ensure no significant negative impact to existing fish and wildlife values. I + E. A large freshwater to slightly brackish water, shallow, permanently Inundated pond area will be incorporated into the overall wetland restoration project. The value of such an area in juxtaposition to marine and intertidal areas has been shown to be high. The "market- place pond" in the Los Cerritos wetland area in Long Beach, the "rem- � : rant pond" in the Sweetwater Marsh/Paradise Marsh wetland complex in Chula Vista, and the east basin of San Elijo Lagoon in San Diego Coun- .ty are but three of many examples of the benefits to be gained through the establishment of freshwater wetland areas adjacent to marine and intertidal environments. Present and future development on the Hun- tington Beach Mesa may provide enough freshwater runoff to maintain a 50-acre freshwater pond near the base of the Huntington Beach bluffs. The Department of Fish and Game views creation of such an area at the base of the Huntington Beach bluffs as an important element of the wetland restoration program at Bolsa Chica but indicates that the loca- tion and configuration of the area cannot be precisely determined at V this time. This will be done as part of the Concept Plan (Phase I). F. According to the Department of Fish and Came, retention, restoration, ' enhancement and/or creation of a total of 200 acres of pickleweed salt marsh would permit them to protect the endangered Belding's Savannah sparrow. As discussed in the section dealing with endangered species considerations, these 200 acres should be located peripherally to areas restored as either full tidal or muted tidal wetlands. Prime locations for the creation, retention, or enhancement of high pickle- weed salt marsh include the proposed desilting basin/flood control channel, the Edwards Thumb area, and portions of the central wetland area presently devoted to oil extraction activities. With the excep- tion of the proposed desilting basin/flood control channel and Edwards Thumb area, expansion of pickleweed salt marsh will be largely concur- rent with the incremental phase out of existing oil-related activi- ties. G. The retention and enhancement of 150 acres of periodically inundated salt flats, generally located in the southern sector, if managed in a way which prolonged inundation, would be adequate to offset the conver-sion of the remainder of existing souther sector saltflat wetlands to other wetland types, and existing fish and wildlife values associated t with these saltflat areas could be preserved. E.� Retention of Values Associated with Existing Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas The LCP/LUP acknowledges the findings of the Department of Fish and Game regarding the existence of 86.8 acres of environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) in the Bolsa Chica study area. The LCP/LUP goal is to main- tain the fish and wildlife values associated with these ESHAs, and to relocate much of the existing ESHA acreage, as feasible, to the Linear Park. While ESHAs will be clearly addressed in detail in the Phase I Wet- lands Restoration Plan, the following are important considerations. _ III-9 � r 1 Rabbit Island (approximately 51 acres) is composed of 8.3 acres of wet- lands, and a mixture of grassland, Baccharis-dominated scrub, and coastal dune. The mixture of the three non-wetland plant communities totals 42.7 acres, and each plant community is of approximately equal area (14.2 acres each). ' Warner Avenue Pond (1.7 acres) and the eucalyptus grove (20.5 acres) will be lost to Bolea Mesa residential development proposed by the LUP. The ESHA components may be compensated for, in part, within the central wet- land buffer area and proposed Linear Park with the replacement of 39 acres of coastal sage scrub and 21 acres of eucalyptus trees. The 13.6 acres of dune plant community along Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) and the 14.2 acres of dune plant community involved on Rabbit Island may be relocated within the linear park as is proposed by the LOP if feasible. Alternatives to the linear park siting for ESHAe, include the following: . Retain existing dunes in their existing location. . Expand the existing 13.6-acre PCH dune area by 14.2 acres to compere- sate for the loss of dune areas on Rabbit Island. Such an expansion appears to be feasible in the area between the Huntington Beach bluffs and the State Ecological Reserve southern boundary. . Retain the 13.6-acre dune area along PCH and establish a 14.2-acre dune elsewhere within the LCP/LOP area, including locating these dunes within or adjacent to buffers associated with lowland residential development. This alternative also assumes loss of dunes associated with Rabbit Island. . Relocate 27.8 acres of dunes variously within the study area as is proposed by the LCP/LOP. Given this alternative, the conclusion may be assumed that roughly 13 acres of dunes could be relocated into the central wetland buffer. This buffer/dune concept is described in the section dealing with buffers. Buffer Design and Width Based upon discussion with the Department of Fish and Game, the following buffer design and width concepts would be adequate to preclude adverse effects of proposed development upon the wetlands to be restored within the Bolsa Chica HCP area. The specific design of the buffers shall be designed by DFG, in consultation with the Coastal Commission, the Coastal Conservancy, the County, and affected landowner(s), and shall be as described in pages 8 through 15 of the April 8, 1985, "Department of Fish and Game Findings and Recommendations for the Maintenance, Restoration and Enhancement of Wetland and Non-wetland Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas at Bolas Chica, Orange County." A. Central Wetlands/Development Buffer - This buffer may consist of a 10-foot wide pedestrian trail, a muted tidal channel and an area of relocated sand dunes. The trail would be located between development and the edge of the tidal channel, delineated by the level of extreme high water +5' MSL. Between the trail and edge of the channel, a III-10 6-foot-high fence could be located to prevent intrusion into the wet- lands. The channel would be of sufficient width to inhibit further wetland intrusion and of sufficient depth to remain wet at all times. The sand dune area would be located from the channel edge to the wet- land edge, also +5' MSL, and average approximately four feet in height, +9' MSL. The planting of- native sand dune vegetation may be necessary to ensure that there will be no erosion or migration of dunes into adjacent areas. B. Edwards Thumb Buffer - The lands adjacent to the planned wetland { restoration area in the "Edwards Thumb" is already developed. A E five-foot cinder-block wall has been constructed along residential backyards. It is considered advisable to construct a 10-foot-wide (� moat within the wetland area on the wetland side of the existing wall. In order to be included, such a moat must be proven to have no negative effects upon the existing residential development. 0 C. Outer Bolsa Bay Buffer - Planned development adjacent to Outer Bolsa will occur on the Bolsa Chico Mesa which rises in elevation from approximately +8' MSL near Huntington Harbour to +27' MSL at the proposed turning basin. From Huntington Harbour to the point where the bluff edge is at +17' MSL, the buffer between proposed development and wetlands associated with Outer Bolsa Bay would consist of an un- dulating landscaped slope, 3:1 or less, topped by a 10-foot pedestrian trail with a 6-foot cyclone fence immediately downslope, and common passive open space areas shared with the adjacent development. The remaining buffer along higher blufftop elevations could be a 3:1 landscaped slope including a 10-foot pedestrian trail continued on top with a 6-foot-high cyclone fence immediately downslope. With a Huntington Harbour connection channel between Bolsa Chica Mesa and the Outer Bolsa Bay wetlands, it may be necessary to install a levee to separate the channel from adjacent wetlands, high enough to prevent disturbances from the wake of passing boats and provide an effective visual screen. However, a floating buoy and "canal" system, coupled with controlled boat speeds, may prove an effective, and more feasible, alternative. The integrity of existing Outer Bolsa Bay resources would be assured by retaining much of the existing hydrol- ogy. Additionally, a means of precluding erosion of Outer Bolsa Bay edges into the Bolsa Chic& entrance channel will be developed at the LUP Confirmation stage. D. Desil i sin r r - shall e located o t ng Basin/Northern/No therm Buffer This buffer s 1 bn the slope separating Bolas, Chica Mesa and the desilting basin. The slope would be no steeper than 2:1 and landscaped to provide 100 percent canopy coverage, 50 percent evergreen in nature, contain a 6-foot fence immediately downslope from the development edge and a 10-foot- wide moat at the bottom. E. Desilting Basin/South Buffer - As described below (see F-2.). F. Flood Control Channel between Bolsa Chica/Garfield Connector and Main Channel - This flood control channel is to be located between proposed Bolsa Chica Mesa development and proposed development of the lowland, extending from the desilting basin to the proposed marina channel. The buffer associated with this channel shall be as follows: III-11 r 1. Along the Bolsa Mesa, the buffer would include a 10-foot pedestrian trail parallel to the channel at the development edge of the buffer. A six- foot cyclone fence would be erected on the wet- land side of the pedestrian trail immediately downslope. Trees providing a 100 percent canopy and 50 percent evergreen in nature would be planted between the fence and wetlands to be buf- fered. This buffer format is intended for ap- proximately the inland one-half of the flood con- trol channel-Bolsa Chica Mesa interface. 2. Along the proposed lowland development, the flood control channel buffer would be composed essentially of a levee topped with a maintenance road and a small pedestrian access trail. The trail would be located on the development side of the maintenance road and a six-foot cyclone fence could separate the two. The side slope of the levee on the channel side would be at a 2:1 slope and not vegetated below the 10-foot MSL elevation because of the flood control purpose of the levee. 3. Separating the flood control channel wetland-ha- bitat and marina basin would be another levee extending from the Bolsa Chico Mesa to the pro- posed main navigable channel. The eastern por- tion of this levee serves as a buffer for the adjacent wetlands. The buffer begins at the top of the levee and consists of a 6-foot cyclone fence, to prevent physical intrusion into the channel, followed by a four-foot-high landscaped berm for visual screening, and a 2:1 landscaped slope, which would not be vegetated below +10' MSL for flood control purposes. The landscaping provides 100 percent canopy and can be at least 50 percent evergreen in nature. G. Bolsa Chica Mesa Riparian/Wetland Buffer - East (Interior) Buffer The slope between wetland areas to be buffered and proposed devel- opment would be vegetated with trees to provide a 100 percent canopy and composed of at least 50 percent evergreen trees to provide a year- round visual buffer. This slope would not be steeper than 2:1. A 6-foot cyclone fence can be located immediately downslope from the development edge of the buffer. No structures would be located either within or overhang the buffer described. H. Bolsa Chica Mesa Riparian/Wetland Buffer - West Buffer A ten-foot pedestrian trail would be located at the development edge of the buffer and included in the buffer width. This buffer would be planted as specified for the eastern buffer (above). A six-foot III-12 cyclone fence could be located immediately downslope from the pedes- trian trail such that the top of this fence is at an elevation four feet above the elevation of the trail. The slope within this buffer would not be steeper than 2:1. Endangered Species Considerations Five endangered bird species are known to use, or have been reported over- flying, the Bolas. Chica wetland/ESHA complex. These birds are the feder- ally and state-listed endangered California least tern, brown pelican, light-footed clapper railb and peregrine falcon, and the state-listed endangered Belding's Savannah sparrow. The brown pelican, California least tern, and light-footed clapper rail will not be negatively affected by the LCP/LUP-proposed Wetlands Restoration Plan. Forage area for the California least tern could be dramatically increased with the addition of newly restored wetlands supporting increased wild- life. Assuming that the nesting areas within the State Ecological Reserve are protected by maintenance of the existing muted tidal water regime, and that various elements of planned construction are timed and designed so as not to interfere with the life history requirements of the least tern, then no adverse impacts to the California least tern appear probable. Foraging area and resting area for the brown pelican would be increased, 1 and this species would undoubtedly benefit from the LCP/LUP-proposed Wetlands Restoration Plan. The Bolsa Chica wetlands are not, at present, extensively used by the light-footed clapper rail. An increase in muted-tidal and full tidal wetland area, especially if dense cordgrass wetland can be established, 1 �(J would be likely to benefit the light-footed clapper rail. If perching areas, such as are presently provided by the existing eucalyp- tus grove, are reestablished within the proposed County Linear Park and/or elsewhere within the study area, and protected from human and domestic J animal intrusion, then it is unlikely that the peregrin falcon will be negatively affected by the proposed plan. Certainly, potential prey for the peregrine falcon, such as shorebirds and waterfowl, would not be expected to diminish in numbers. The state-listed endangered Belding's Savannah sparrow, however, will require careful planning and sensitivity to life cycle timing and habitat requirements. The sparrow population is dependent upon the high pickle- weed salt marsh located in the area inland from the Freeman Creek channel. !Much of this area is proposed for development. Unless high pickleweed salt marsh habitat values, of equivalent Belding'a Savannah sparrow carry- ing capacity to that which is lost, is created prior to the proposed devel- opment of the lowlands, then significant impact on this endangered species could occur. With regard to the LCP/LUP general wetland configuration, the most logical locations in which to attempt to create high pickleweed salt marsh as com- pensation for that which is planned to be developed are the 52-acre desilt- t . ing basin/flood control channel, and the Edwards Thumb area. These areas are desirable as sites for high pickleweed saltmarsh/Belding's Savannah sparrow compensation for a variety of reasons. These will be elaborated upon and carefully address in the Phase I Wetlands Restoration Plan. Con- r III-13 sistent with the wetland design criteria established by the LCP/LUP, the ' area of high pickleweed salt marsh will be about 200 acres. Wetlands/Navigable Connection Considerations for Outer 3olsa Bay There are two main reasons to propose a connection between Huntington Har- bour and the LCP/LUP-proposed navigable ocean entrance. First, existing water quality problems within Huntington Harbour could be reduced by provi- ding a new source of tidal water for flushing purposes. Second, there is the possibility of providing an alternative smallcraft exit from Hunting- ton Harbour to that which presently exists at Anaheim Bay. Regarding the issue of water quality, LCP/LUP-proposed navigable ocean entrance channel through Bolsa Chica State Beach would increase the volume of tidal water within the Bolsa Chica lowland, and would benefit the water quality of Huntington Harbour, especially the more southerly portions of Huntington Harbour. If the Warner Avenue bridge channel were expanded somewhat, the water quality within Huntington Harbour would probably i Improve quite dramatically. Outer Bolsa Bay is within the Bolsa Chica State Ecological Reserve. Its value to fish and wildlife resources is very high. This area is owned by the State of California and is leased by the Department of Fish and Game specifically for the protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources. The Department of Fish and Game also leases eleven acres of the Bolsa Chica Mesa adjacent to Outer Bolsa Bay; these eleven acres are also owned by the State of California. Because of the significant fish and wildlife values associated with Outer Bolsa Bay the Department of Fish and Game does not favor the construction of a navigable ocean connection between Huntington Harbour and the LCP/LUP proposed navigable ocean entrance through Outer Bolsa Bay. However, this issue is addressed in the Shoreline Processes and Structures Component in the LCP (see Section III. Part 2.). Water Quality The Bolas Chica Local Coastal Program study area is located at the seaward margin of the Santa Ana River basin. Until 1825, the Santa Ana River occupied the Bolsa Chica lowland enroute to the ocean. Changes in the course of the river shifted the principal drainage away from Bolas Chica to other areas to the east. After this shift, the remnant drainage (Free- man Creek) continued to convey local runoff to the ocean. Installation of tide gates in 1899 significantly altered surface hydrology of the Bolsa lowland. Other subsequent actions that have altered surface drainage conditions include the following: additional Gun Club modifica- tion of Bolsa lowland topography via construction of dikes and ponds; increased utilization of groundwater supplies for inland agricultural purposes with resulting reduction in freshwater input to the Gap; construc- tion of a network of road embankments and drilling pads that resulted in a series of shallow impoundments and segmented remnant drainage channels; construction of the East Garden Grove-Winters burg Flood Control Channel; and, creation of the California State Ecological Reserve with attendant diking and limited restoration of tidal flow. Each of these changes has had measurable effects on the water quality within the Bolsa lowland (Exhibit 12 illustrates existing hydrologic features). The following paragraphs summarize the conditions found today. III-14 • The 1971 Dillingham Environmental Company investigation of salinity distri- bution and dissolved oxygen concentrations within non-tidal areas of Bolsa Gap indicated for the most part that surface waters had salinities higher than did normal seawater (typically 35 parts per thousand total dissolved ' ! salts). Inland areas displayed higher concentrations. Seasonal rains produced sharp reductions in salinities which then rose steadily due to evaporation. Dissolved oxygen concentrations were reported to decrease from inland seaward. However, dissolved oxygen concentrations approached saturation levels throughout the site during summer months. The same trends are found throughout the lowland now. 1 The southern portions of the Bolsa lowland are subject to urban runoff from the Huntington Mesa and from the Springdale pump station. Therefore, urban-associated pollutants such as oil, grease, heavy metals and pesticides occur in these surface waters which drain through this area of ' the site. ' 41 Within the Inner Bolas Bay and the South Bolsa Slough areas of the Ecologi- cal Reserve, the 1978 restoration of tidal exchange, though limited, has had a significant effect on surface water quality conditions. A benefi- cial effect of opening the tide gates has been the considerable improve- ment of salinity, dissolved oxygen and nutrient conditions (nitrate, phosphate and ammonia levels) favorable for primary biological . f� productivity. A potentially adverse effect, however, has been the intro- duction of urban pollutants picked up from Anaheim Bay, Huntington Harbour and the East Garden Grove-Win tersburg Flood Control Channel (stormwater runoff) on incoming tides from Outer Bolas Bay. Stormwater runoff from the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Flood Control Channel is noted as the major factor adversely affecting the quality of the surface waters within the Reserve. During the first rains of the -�, season, runoff flows laden with urban pollutants, sediment, and debris washed into the channel from its highly urbanized watershed are discharged into Outer Bolsa Bay. When this runoff meets an incoming tide through Outer Bolsa Bay, a portion of the flow is subsequently diverted through the tide gates into the waters of Inner Bolsa Bay. Subsequent heavy rains during a wet season may flush out only a portion of these substances. j Accumulations of such pollutants as heavy metals (notably lead) and oil and grease have occurred in Inner Bolas Bay since the opening of the tide gates in 1978. r ' The Wintersburg Flood Control Channel also currently has a marked effect on water quality and surface water runoff within the existing Outer Bolsa Bay and Huntington Harbour-Anaheim Bay system. The collection of urban runoff from 28 square miles of inland Orange County and the discharge of same into Outer Bolas Bay, a component of the existing State Ecological Reserve, clearly has had a marked effect on water quality. The presence a of trash and other floatables, the general increasing trend of heavy metals accumulation in the soils, as well as the impacts on oxygen and nutrient levels within the water column have all been documented. Because the discharge of the flood control channel is currently three miles from the ocean, impact both on water quality and sedimentation is occurring with Huntington Harbour. Scouring conditions under the Warner Avenue bridge have required increased revetments/stabilization; shoaling condi- tions from the influx of sedimentation from the flood control channel has .�. been in evidence both in Outer Bolsa Bay and in portions of Huntington III-15 Harbour. Another contributing factor to the increased shoaling in Hunting- ton Harbour derives from the increased tidal prism from the re-opened Inner Bolas Bay, which in turn has increased tidal currents (and scouring) In Outer Bolsa Bay. The configuration of the Wintersburg Flood Control Channel in the Land Use Plan and the creation of a new ocean entrance will place the discharge of waters from the flood control channel significantly closer to the open ocean. Therefore, substantial improvement in water quality and sedimenta- tion can be expected in both the Bole& Chic& area and Huntington Harbour- Anaheim Bay system. The Land Use Plan* contemplates the creation of a , desilting basin upstream of the existing mouth of the Wintersburg Flood Control Channel. This will provide several benefits. First, a large volume water basin would allow for complete mixing of urban freshwater runoff flows and salt waters from the adjacent navigable waterways. This would tend to lessen the "shock" load impacts of runoff from winter storms during the first part of that season. Second, the basin would provide a sediment trap that could be dredged to lessen downstream adverse effects of shoaling within either navigable waterways or within salt marsh or other restored habitat areas. Third, the interface between the freshwater runoff flows and the saltwater of the desilting basin would provide some brackish water habitat for a number of faunal and floral species. The new ocean connection will directly enhance water quality in Huntington Harbour by increasing water circulation and promoting more rapid exchange of water in most areas. However, the potential creation of "slack water areas" within Huntington Harbour or within water channels onsite (as a consequence of the new hydraulic configuration) could trap certain pollu- tants in these areas. The water in "slack" areas can become depleted of available oxygen and low in available nutrients in absence of adequate mixing. Thus, these "slack" areas would represent water of measurably lower water quality than that of surrounding waters. Resolution of this potential issue will occur as a report of the Corps of Engineers' modeling studies to be completed in its Sunset Harbor studies. Recreational boating in newly created water areas within Bolas Gap will cause discharge of exhaust, lubrication oils and other associated pollu- tants into waterways. Discharges from boat maintenance will also involve a long-term impact on water quality. Maintenance dredging activities may resuspend bottom sediments containing accumulated contaminants. Water quality also may be impacted by discharge of human sewage from boat hold- ing tanks, although expressly forbidden within marina areas. Studies done for EPA in Georgia on boat pollutants may provide assistance in quantifying the problem and addressing its resolution in the Implementing Actions Program. The Land Use Plan will allow for important new recreational boating facili- ties to be created at Bolsa Chica. Design of such facilities will occur in the normal course of development. The means for regulating and mitiga- ting potential adverse water quality impacts will be addressed in the IAP. The Coastal Commission and the City of Huntington Beach have required that the Seacliff IV development, as a condition of their permit approvals, mitigate potential runoff impacts to the Bolsa lowland. Further, through a master plan storm drain system, the potential adverse effects of waters originating from the Springdale pump station can be mitigated. However, some re-use of these runoff waters is addressed in the Biological Re- sources Management Component, above. 111-16 ' Retention of oil operation facilities in the lowland could potentially Impact water quality. Concerns regarding the effects of spills of oil, lubricants or drilling muds in the Study Area, particularly wildlife habitat areas in both aquatic and terrestrial settings have been raised. Compatibility of the oil field facilities and surrounding urban and natural systems will be specifically addressed in the IAP (see Energy Facilities Component for a complete discussion). Generally, the Land Use Plan contemplates the retention and possible expansion of oil extraction facilities throughout the study area. Areas will have to be diked or bermed and various control mechanisms will have to be established to ensure that ponded waters (principally rainfall) are properly treated and the impacts mitigated before discharge of those waters to other areas can occur. In addition, a careful review of existing spill prevention and contingency plans will be conducted in the IAP to ensure that oil operations can properly address these potential runoff impacts, under restored wetlands conditions. A water quality program will be developed in the SAP to address the techni- cal and management/monitoring aspects of protecting water quality at Bolsa Chica. The program will consider a variety of factors as discussed below. The desilting basin and velocity control structures built into the drain- age boxes culverts etc.) will be designed to minimize age system (eg., p • , sediment transport into receiving waters. Non-structural methods of pollu- tion control will also be investigated. These may include litter removal and street sweeping programs and community and homeowner association educa- tion programs regarding use of fertilizers or pesticdes in landscaped areas. Interim sedimentation control measures will be identified and implemented prior to construction. In consultation with the Corps of Engineers Sunset Harbor Study, specific water quality guidelines and phasing programs will be established to per- mit and regulate all dredging and filling to be undertaken. Construction dredging and filling will be timed to protect critical cycles for endan- gered species. Similarly, maintenance dredging will be performed accord-ing to specific criteria established to protect long-term habitat values and endangered species. Within public and private marina basins and all navigable waterways, regu- lations for in-water and haul-out boat maintenance. , boating support activi- ties, and effluent pump-out/die charge will be developed as part of a mar- ins operations and maintenance program under the IAP. The final element of the water quality program is construction-phasing and + ' long-term surface water quality monitoring to determine program effective- ness. The County is responsible for water quality monitoring in the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Flood Control Channel. These monitoring programs will be used to identify and correct any water quality problems, should they arise. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) establishes overall para- meters for water quality in the study area for both point and nonpoint source discharges. The County, State and federal agencies mentioned above will coordinate their respective water quality program elements with the RWQCB. III-17 r ■ter �■■� ■ems � � � � � s � � ■■s � � �■�r �■■r air � � Co SEMOH III, PART 2: SHORELI31K PEOCESSES AND STRUCTURES COMPOlDW SUOPSIS f � This section presents a discussion of the overall existing and proposed hydrologic regime and navigation access features for Bolas Chica and its environs. Specifically considered are a description of the tidal charac- teristics associated with the construction of the ocean entrance and ' interior waterways; the effect on littoral drift posed by ocean entrance channel structures; hazards pertaining to the interaction of flood flows from inland and ocean storm tides; the effect on groundwater quality as a result of interior channel excavation and tidal flow reintroduction; and the navigation access features associated with existing and new waterways. Major additional discussion related to Shoreline Processes and Structures i is found in '�•J 0 Coastal Access and Recreation Component . Public Works Component ! ` Energy Facilities Component Community Design and Visual and Scenic Resources Component. PEOJN= DESCRIPTION! SUMMMZ 1. Tidal Hydrology Element Pacific Ocean tides enter Anaheim Bay approximately three miles to the is northwest of Bolsa Chica. Tidal flows to the State Ecological Reserve must traverse Sunset Bay and Huntington Harbour to reach Outer Bolsa Bay ( (see Exhibit 12). Except for Outer Bolsa Bay and the Ecological Reserve, `d the Bolsa lowland is not subject to tides and has not been since construc- tion of the control structure (tide dam) in 1899. In October 1978 the California Department of Fish and Game opened one of the three tide gates that separate Outer and Inner Bolas Bays. This opening reestablished limited tidal flow into an approximately 150-acre portion of the Bolsa lowland in conjunction with the Department's Phase I Harsh Reestablishment ,(1 Project. A second gate was opened in March 1980 to allow for further tidal exchange. The dike constructed around the north and southeastern perimeter of the Reserve and the tide gates installed at the mouth of the North Bolsa Channel prevent any inland flow of tidal waters and prevent flooding of adjacent oil fields by seawater. A third tide gate allows •Li water to flow only out of Inner Bolas. Bay on ebb tides. The Land Use Plan will create a new surface hydrologic environment over much of the Bolsa lowland. The existing surface drainage system will be completely modified. Existing drainage features including the system of Impoundments, tide gates and surface drainage channels may be removed or altered to accommodate urban development areas, a new system of waterways and expanded marsh restoration. Ocean Entrance Channel System v The major issue in the Bolas Chica LCP with regard to surface hydrology is the provision of a new navigable ocean entrance and a system of waterways to support a marina and other recreational boating activities, turning ' III-19 basins, connecting channels, and navigable water access to private lands, in addition to allowing for expansion of a variety of wetland types/ecosys- tems in the area. Using the existing ocean connection through Anaheim Bay to Outer Bolsa Bay, Moffat and Nichol (1980) estimated that up to 125 acres of additional marsh (beyond the existing 150 acres of Inner Bolas Bay) could be restored with full tidal range while maintaining channel velocities in Huntington Harbour, Sunset Bay and Anaheim Bay of approximately one-half foot per second if the following channel improvements were made: a) widening and improvement of Pacific Coast Highway bridge at Anaheim Bay; b) straighten- ing of portions of the channels (in Huntington Harbour and Anaheim Bay); and c) widening of the Warner Avenue bridge to create a 200-300-foot wide channel from Huntington Harbour to the vicinity of Inner Bolsa Bay. Moffatt and Nichol (1978) determined that the introduction of additional tidal flushing via a new ocean connection through Bolsa Chica State Beach was feasible and would provide sufficient tidal flow to restore larger portions of the lowland to a salt marsh/lagooa ecosystem or other mixes of wetland types. Various alternatives were considered including the use of culverts, non-navigable channel(s), and a navigable ocean entrance charm nel. Generally, culverts were determined to be very costly, not ideal bio- logical corridors, and not able to support the size of marsh system origin- ally proposed by the County, assuming full tidal range conditions. Non- navigable channel(s) were considered, but also were considered infeasible given that Corps of Engineers financial participation would not occur, and the hydraulics required to assure low maintenance were not fully devel- oped. Furthermore, neither culverts nor non-navigable ocean connections would meet provisions in the 1973 Signal-State Agreement which would enable the State to acquire an additional 230 acres in the Bolsa lowland at no cost for additional wetlands restoration. The County concludes and DFG concurs that a navigable ocean entrance would facilitate the attain- ment of the 915-acre wetlands system approved by the Coastal Commission on November 29, 1984 and October 23, 1985. Littoral Drift The proposed navigable ocean entrance will bisect Bolsa Chica State Beach and remove a portion of the beach. Unmitigated, the entrance would interrupt the natural process of near-shore sand transport, known as littoral drift, along the shoreline in the area. In 1980, the Corps of Engineers completed a report treating littoral drift (sand movement) processes occurring along the coastline between Anaheim Bay and Newport Bay. "Littoral drift" is the process by which sediment (sand) moves along the coast. Factors that affect littoral drift include wave climate, coastline orientation, sheltering effects (such as offshore islands), man-made barriers (jetties, breakwaters) and bathymetric (ocean bottom contour/depth) conditions. Bolsa Chica State Beach is located within a stretch of coastline extending from Anaheim Bay to Newport Bay that is known as the Anaheim/Newport Lit- toral Cell. As defined by the Corps, a segment of coastline that contains a complete sediment flow regime including sources, transport paths and sinks. "Sources" for this cell include the Surfside-Sunset Beach area III-20 ' +� aup u W-- !n s - 5" m r, m m m m no m r m m0z rd r �km4'IV, o ��IM, FEET i fi cis . . :` ,� .,tom - ,��'y' '\ � �♦ 17 ri of ''% _ _ � F-���- ��. � \ Rt,•fir% ./.`yJ-�' r i ACC rnmma woz t 1 z � m> �+. ' - \_. '�,✓r , . yy �vl-� _i ',1• gat �::. �,�,/ Ott .r, \jk ;Y11j't[J"i rn .0� 4 I -`� .. t ti,. 1•1. , ,_t• •.cr,1,.rCT_ - C'-�� !,��• '/(' (1 /�Y '� y._ '4'/ ,• _ _ _p 1_ �t �x4 .Y',y�S'��/,•C r ^h2>���+�`4• '•r ` -'r'{''.I I t -:i y �� - ;i / v 'Cn Q• ^C Z• r J �y , •„ \. /.; � ` � _{. I\ �``-�, i (l ./•vp, t �. r--v:4�(k•G5J ;-��, ')i�t: � ��1 J 'c ,' }•'�N � i" \pQ�lG c Ycy�;�i;, ^ ��u �1�� " - ti4 .•,Y� _ � —�_� 71. � �� ./// (G� ,-- fir, i1C `7 -, C �.f,��r �� �. /"•r`�-j�fc. /�y�+a i- t \.7. -.�, 1� \ •/ / )�.y�-. 5 ti- 1 ' - it '/ ' �A ` 1 �� „��� �y""!.��i� � � /'`�•�/: I i 1+�=�� ` .��.`.��[.,,I�p:� P\' 4 /t Oi/f�d IN ��V• ¢,_,� 'S. '�,VeT�i '4�' -.�;.'►,P.� , -�` , t\'' .or,�(/�D Yf��' � ,[�, — L c`�s+ / O '�t+ ;,; �� .`; • f� ;*\ � + •; �...�•• ,� ;,'��; t ,fi >c�' :: _ if � •���7xr� CY i O a\ ,_ � ..•_-` ` f/ .'i.' %t: \,- 1`i.,i- 1�1" .�,�.�•, •<-/' _ t� _ > .� \ago 9'; �r_ tS ': � � - �--- � > thy.- ,,..4.. j+,: 'tU f ,._j� 't� C. C. _-"•`i- \ 'T --',%c- fA ° W > N>_ m.+ N �m z0 3 iimmediately southeast of the Anaheim Bay entrance (the major artificially maintained feeder beach) and the Santa Ana River mouth during the rainy season. The "transport path" is the surf zone. "Sinks" include Anaheim Bay and beaches sheltered by the Long Beach breakwater to the north and the Newport Submarine Canyon and steeper nearshore zones in the Newport Beach area to the south. The Anaheim/Newport Cell overall is undergoing a net southerly littoral drift. The segment from Anaheim Bay to Huntington Beach is experiencing a net southerly drift of approximately 276,000 cubic yards of material annually. ' Construction of dams and debris basins along the Los Angeles, San Gabriel and Santa Ana rivers_ have significantly reduced the natural supply of beach material to the Anaheim/Newport Littoral Cell. In addition, serious erosion of the Surfside-Sunset Beach area since 1944 when the Anaheim Bay East jetty was constructed has necessitated periodic replenishment of beach sand by the Corps of Engineers. This replenishment program main- tains the Surf side-Sunset Beach area as an acceptable beach for recrea- tion, protects public and private properties, and preserves the area's function as a major feeder beach providing nourishment to downcoast beaches of the Anaheim/Newport Littoral Cell. The proposed navigable ocean entrance includes a pair of jetties extending to a water depth of -20 feet MLLW and an offshore terminal breakwater (-24 feet MLLW) to maintain the opening and to allow safe passage for boats. The ocean entrance channel will impact littoral drift processes along the Bolas Chica State Beach shoreline. The jetties associated with this channel will disrupt the downcoast flow of sand, accumulating sand "upcurrent", and causing some additional sand to accrete against the downcoast jetty. Also, sand will tend to build up at the mouth and eventually within the navigable channel. To mitigate these concerns, hydraulic or mechanical sand bypassing can be done periodi- cally, as has been successfully accomplished elsewhere in southern Califor- nia. An alternative mitigation procedure would be to relocate the exist-ing "feeder" beach (where sand has been periodically replenished by man since natural transport corridors of sand to the sea have been largely dammed) from its present location near Anaheim Bay to the area downcoast of the new navigable channel. The beaches between these two points can be stabilized with some additional rock groins. This would then mitigate the need for sand bypassing. In addition to evaluating design criteria and specific plan alternatives, the Corps of Engineers will determine the best location for the navigable channel, in conjunction with the most practice- ble solution for mitigating disruption of littoral drift. The Coastal Commission in its review of this LUP, expressed concern regarding- the impact of rock groins on the recreational aspects of affected beaches. This concern, including mitigation for any identified impacts, will be addressed as part of the materials submitted for Land Use Plan Confirma- tion. Community considerations will also need to be addressed, particularly under any alternative littoral drift mitigation plans that provide upcur- rent beach stabilization through the use of rock groins. The Implementing Actions Program will incorporate important input from the Corps of Engi- neers, State Departments of Parks and Recreation, Fish and Game, Boating and Waterways, the Sunset Beach Community Association, and others. III-21 The Corps of Engineers has already published a series of preliminary tech- , nical reports in 1982 which addressed the ocean entrance, design concepts, littoral drift impacts, and a variety of mitigation concepts. This work was summarized in a 1983 progress report on the Sunset Harbor Study. The continuation of the Sunset Harbor Study will allow the Corps to refine these ' studies and to determine the preferred ocean entrance design and explicit litigation measures/concepts necessary for related impacts. The County will work closely with the Corps in the Land Use Plan Confirmation and EIS scoping process to ensure that all interests and concerns are addressed. 2. Flood Hazard As discussed in detail in the Public Works Component, the Bole& Chica Study Area is crossed by Reach I of the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Flood Control Channel. In the Study Area, the flood control channel is predominantly a 70-foot wide, 14-foot high trapezoidal earthen structure that widens to 120 feet at its Outer Bolsa Bay outlet. A series of tide (one-way flapper) gates installed at the outlet allows discharge of fresh- water runoff during ebb tides and minimizes saltwater flows entering the channel during flood tides. The existing channel has been designed to carry only 65 percent of ultimate 25-year storm runoff. However, urban development occurring within the tributary watershed since channel construction has increased runoff rates to a degree where adequate flood protection cannot be provided during periods of heavy rainfall. Adjacent properties are subject to channel overflow during large storms. Present County Flood Control District hydrologic criteria specify a 100-year storm channel design for areas between 4,000 and 20,000 acres of drainage. A 100-year storm criterion is also the Corps of Engineers' typical standard. The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Insurance Administration Study (1979) delineated potential flood hazard conditions within the Bolsa Chica Study Area. The study found that there exists a potential for overflow of the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Chan- nel during a 25-year storm. Furthermore, the study determined that por- tions of Bolsa Chic& (including Inner Bolsa Bay, North and Middle Bolsa Channels and the vicinity of Springdale Pump Station) be designated "Spe- cial Flood Hazard Areas (zones)" subject to inundation from 100-year floods. The remainder of Bolsa lowland was designated as "Zone B", an area that delineates territory between the 100-year and 50-year flood. "Zone B" onsite included areas protected by water control structures (eg., ' dikes, levees) and areas that might be subject to certain types of 100-year shallow flooding (ie., areas less than 1.0 feet in depth). The Study placed a "Zone C" designation on the Bole& Chica Mesa. This designa- tion applies to areas of minimal flooding. Along with flooding risk to the Bolsa lowland, the waters that the Win- tersburg channel discharges must flow through the Huntington Harbour and Anaheim Bay prior to reaching the ocean. At certain times, particularly during high storm flows coupled with high tide conditions, flooding is possible in low-lying areas of Huntington Harbour and PCH. The storm run- off flows also compound safety issues related to current velocities at the Anaheim Bay/PCH bridge, especially during ebbtide stages. With the crea- tion of a new ocean entrance and the discharge of such flood waters in significantly closer proximity to the ocean, these problems pertaining to III-22 • navigation hazards should largely be mitigated. Such hydrologic condi- tions are anticipated to be one of the components of the modeling and hydraulic studies to be conducted by the Corps as part of the Sunset Harbor Study. Much of the Bolsa lowland, including the oil production facilities areas, is near, at or below sea level elevations. The lowland and adjacent development is currently protected from sea flood by the existing State Beach (10-12 feet MSL in elevation) and the dike around the Ecological Reserve, the levees of the flood control channel, and by an earthen berm and masonry wall at the Study Area landward boundary. However, as evi- denced by 1983 storm waves which breached the State Beach and flooded portions of the lowland the area is nevertheless subject to risk from sea flood. Because many, if not most, of the oil-related facilities are also at or below sea level, careful consideration also will be given in the UP to • ( assure protection of oil facilities against sea flood conditions particu- larly within the lower elevation wildlife habitat areas of the lowland. As noted in the Community Design and Visual and Scenic Resources Compo- [J nent, lowland areas slated for urban development will be filled and graded to elevations of sufficient height to protect against sea flooding. t? { 3. Groundwater/Seaoater Intrusion Element A hydrogeological investigation for the central Bolsa Gap conducted in ( 1980 by LeRoy Crandall and Associates indicated groundwater conditions underlying the Bolas. Chlca area have remained essentially the same since the 1971 detailed hydrogeologic investigation of the Bolsa Chica area i conducted by Glenn A. Brown and Associates. The Study Area overlies a portion of the Orange County coastal plain groundwater basin. The groundwater basin is composed of an inland nonpres- sure area (forebay) and a coastal pressure area. Groundwater within the basin flows from the forebay and supplies aquifers within the pressure area. The Study Area is located within the coastal portion of the Ares- O sure area. Groundwater resources immediately beneath the site are used primarily in conjunction with existing oil field operations. Groundwater underlying the Bole& lowland and adjacent Bolas, Chica and Hun- tington Beach mesas occurs in successively deeper sands of Holocene and Pleistocene age which extend from the surface to depths of 600 feet. Prin- cipal hydrogeologic formations that influence localized groundwater occur- rences include a surficial coastal Semipherched zone, an intervening aqui- �i clude, the Bolsa aquifer, and the Alpha, Beta, • Lambda, Meadowlark and Main aquifers. QThe Coastal Semiperched zone (Holocene age) underlies the Bolas lowland and extends inland to the vicinity of Slater Avenue. Within the Bolsa Chica study area, the zone exhibits a gradual landward thinning trend from a thickness of 40 feet along the coast to 10 feet along the eastern boun- dary. Groundwater in the Semiperched zone primarily originates from ver- tical percolation of local freshwater runoff and from seawater within r•. Outer Bolas, Bay and tidal portions of the State Ecological Reserve. ... Groundwaters within this zone have a salinity near that of seawater. III-23 i The Semiparched zone is underlain by a confining zone (aquiclude) of rela- tively impermeable fine-grained Recent Age deposits that separate the Bolsa aquifer from the Semiperched zone within Bolas. Gap. The aquiclude extends inland from the coast to beyond the inferred location of the Bolsa-Fairview fault. Depths of the top of the aquiclude within the Bolsa Chica study area range from ten feet along the eastern periphery to 40 feet through the central coastal portions of Bola& Gap. Thickness of the aquiclude ranges from approximately 25 feet to the center of Bolas. Gap to approximately 10-15 feet along the coast. Extensive permeability and pump- ing tests conducted by Glenn A. Brown and Associates in 1971 demonstrated that the aquiclude effectively impedes vertical movement of overlying saline groundwaters of the Semiperched zone to underlying fresh ground- waters of the Bola& aquifer. Tests conducted in 1980 also demonstrated t this aquiclude effect. The Bolsa aquifer is a locally important aquifer that extends inland from the ocean through Bolsa Gap to the city of Westminster. Depths to the top of the aquifer within the Bolsa Chica study area range from approximately 45 feet along the eastern periphery to approximately 60-65 feet in the central and coastal portions of Bola& Gap. Thickness of the aquifer is approximately 30-35 feet. The aquifer has been. offset somewhat by the North Branch of the Newport-Inglewood fault system, which forms a partial barrier to groundwater flow. The Upper Pleistocene Alpha, Beta and Lambda aquifers extend laterally through the coastal Bola&-Sunset area. These units are absent in the Bolsa lowland. In their place, Holocene age alluvial fill was deposited by the ancestral Santa Ana River. Within the Study Area, these aquifers underlie the adjacent Bolas Chica and Huntington Beach mesas and are in partial contact with the Holocene age Semiperched zone and Bolsa aquifer (which also extends laterally through the Bola&-Sunset area) in contact with the Bolsa aquifer along the northeastern portions of the Bolas. lowland. Groundwater levels in the Holocene aquifer systems underlying Bolas Gap ' rise and decline in response to managed extraction and replenishment acti- vities within the entire coastal basin. During periods when groundwater elevations within the basin are high the groundwater levels exceed those of the ground surface elevation and could cause surface seepage in Bolas, Gap. There have been reports that water has bubbled up and caused damage in the vicinity of Meadowlark Golf Course north of the Study Area. How- ever, during dry periods when groundwater levels within the basin are low, continued inland pumping can result in a landward hydraulic gradient and potential for seawater intrusion. A toxic waste disposal site (used in the 1930s and 1940s) exists on Bolsa Chica Mesa north of the Study Area. Studies conducted in 1980 by Jack K. Bryant b Associates indicated a leachate plume containing trace concentra- tions of contaminants has entered the semiperched and Alpha aquifers of Bolsa Chica Mesa to a limited extent beyond the disposal area. A current northward hydraulic gradient in these groundwaters is transporting the contaminants away from the Study Area. Tests conducted by the County have not detected any measurable levels of toxic substances. III-24 ' The Land Use Plan includes an inland extension of surface seawater systems within the Bolsa lowland and may contemplate groundwater extraction as a potential partial water supply option (see Public Works Component). Such activities could affect existing groundwater conditions within the Study Area. A concern associated with extending surface seawater into Balsa Gap is ' r potential vertical intrusion of seawater to underlying fresh waters of Balsa aquifer landward of the Newport-Inglewood fault zone. Dredging 15-foot deep waterways, and subsequent coverage of inland areas by salt- water would not necessarily pose a significant threat of vertical seawater Intrusion. Fifteen-foot deep channels would penetrate the Semiperched zone but would not penetrate the underlying impermeable aquiclude layer (located approximately 40 feet below the center of Balsa Gap). This aqui- elude impedes vertical percolation of saline waters from the Semiperched zone to the Balsa aquifer and may prevent proposed inland surface salt- water from entering the aquifer. Further, navigable channels will not be �l deep enough to reach or impact the fault barrier (50+ feet below the sur- face) vithin the Balsa aquifer which restricts horizontal seawater intru- siou inland to freshwater aquifers. n A potential water supply system for proposed development within the study area would involve use of groundwater from the Meadowlark aquifer (as the primary source) and the Balsa aquifer (as the secondary source). Such a 1 system would aid in reducing surface groundwater problems during high 1 groundwater conditions. Extraction from the Meadowlark aquifer (located offsite to the north) as ' j the primary supply source potentially could cause the beneficial impact of reducing undesirable artesian flows from this aquifer during high ground- water conditions. Investigations conducted by Don Owen S Associates, Inc. l: (1980), indicated that a sufficient supply to serve a multiple use project onsite was available from the Meadowlark aquifer during high groundwater level periods. Under such a plan, groundwater from the Balsa Aquifer ' beneath the Study Area would be used as a secondary supply source when dry J periods caused low groundwater conditions not conducive to extensive pump- ing of the Meadowlark aquifer. ' Lowered groundwater levels could result in an increased landward hydraulic gradient with subsequent increased potential for inland seawater intrusion Into the Balsa aquifer. Although the Bolsa Aquifer is protected from intrusion by the Newport-Inglewood fault zone, excessive overdrafting of the basin might draw in seawater from already intruded aquifers underlying the adjacent Huntington Beach Mesa. This situation has occurred during previous periods of excessive basin overdrafting. In addition, severe overdraft conditions could cause/encourage leakage across the Newport- Inglewood fault. QSeawater Intrusion Inflow of seawater into freshwater aquifers historically has influenced ' quality of groundwater supplies within coastal Los Angeles and Orange counties. Such intrusion occurs when groundwater levels (or pressure heads) vithin an aquifer exposed or accessible to seawater are below the r pressure head of the adjoining seawater body (usually mean sea level). The resulting landward hydraulic gradient causes inland movement of seawater. .� III-25 i Unlike other lowland areas along the southern California coast, the Bolsa lowland has experienced only limited seawater intrusion effects, primarily because the Newport-Inglewood fault zone acts as a hydraulic barrier to groundwater flow. By contrast, Upper Pleistocene aquifers underlying the adjoining Bolsa Chica and Huntington Beach mesas have experienced seawater intrusion landward of the fault zone. Seawater has intruded the Bolas. aquifer seaward of the trace of the Newport-Inglewood fault, but has not progressed inland from the fault. Vertical percolation of saline groundwaters from the Semiperched zone ' inland of the fault system could present a secondary seawater intrusion threat to the Bolas aquifer, but percolation is prevented by the interven- ing aquiclude. Historically, groundwaters within the Bolsa aquifer have been subject to encroachment of seawater from intruded aquifers underlying the adjacent Huntington Beach ?less. If significant seawater intrusion into the Bolsa aquifer were to occur from seawaters encroaching laterally through the inland fault zone and/or the aquifer systems flanking Bolas aquifer, withdrawal from Bolsa aquifer via a barrier-well system near the contact point of the aquifers and/or along the fault could intercept the intruding seawater. This would pre- clude further migration into Bolas aquifer in a way similar to other bar- rier systems in coastal lowland areas. The IAP will require detailed groundwater and seawater intrusion/hydraulic studies addressing the potential effects of proposed land uses on groundwater hydrology. The conclusions of these studies regarding criteria for protection and monitoring of non-saline aquifers will be used as the basis for final designs of new seawater bodies in the lowland. Groundwater quality will be periodically monitored by the County to ensure , that saline groundwater does not penetrate vertical or horizontal geologic barriers which are currently protecting non-saline groundwater. If ground- water is to be extracted to serve uses proposed in the LUP, a program will ' be established in the IAP for regulating withdrawals to assure that ground- water resources are adequately protected. As part of the groundwater monitoring program, periodic tests will be con- ' ducted in the extreme northeastern corner of the site to assure that any remaining contaminants from the previously excavated toxic waste site adjacent to the Study Area are not entering potable groundwater supplies. ' 4. Navigation and Ocean Access Element As a part of Land Use Plan Confirmation, the County will submit additional analyses of the navigable and non-navigable ocean entrances. The Commis- sion will evaluate the navigable entrance in light of the criteria set forth in Land Use Plan Policies 23B - 26. The County-adopted Land Use Plan requires a navigable ocean entrance. The paragraphs below describe the overall navigational features of the Plan. The multiple uses of wildlife habitat, water-oriented recreation, new ' coastal access and new residential development proposed for Bolsa Chica will be fundamentally shaped by and be dependent upon the navigable ocean III-26 entrance and inland waterways system. Is, addition, a member of navigation deficiences currently associated with Huntington Harbour and Anaheim Bay will be greatly alleviated by implementation of the Bolsa Chica waterways plan. From a navigation and ocean access perspective, there are four com-ponents of the waterways plan, including: 1. The navigable ocean entrance seaward of existing Pacific Coast Highway 2. The Bolsa Chica main channel ' 3. The Bolas, Chica marina berthing basins 4. Huntington Harbour connection channel All channels and navigable waterways will be designed to superior stan- dards and will provide for Bolsa Chica to be designated as a harbor of ' f refuge. Ocean Entrance r The ocean entrance channel contemplated in the Land Use Plan will consist L' of a terminal breakwater designed to provide for calm waters within the entrance channel and sand trapping associated with littoral drift charac-teristics. The breakwater will be located at sufficient distance offshore � . and configured such that navigation to and from the open ocean will not be hazardous beyond liability parameters acceptable to the operating entities 1 who will be identified at the Implementing Action Program planning phase. s In accordance with good design practice as articulated by the U.S. Army l� Corps of Engineers, the quiet water between the terminal breakwater and the entrance channel itself will be dredged to a depth of -24 feet MLLW. -= Landward of the terminal breakwater, two jetties will extend toward PCH and will terminate at the junction of the Huntington Harbour and Bolsa Chica main channels. Pending the studies to be completed as part of the Land Use Plan Confirmation Report, these jetties, which will form the entrance channel itself, will be spaced approximately 900 feet apart, jetty centerline to centerline. This will allow for a navigation channel ' with an effective width of approximately 600 feet. The maintained depth of the channel will be consistent with Corps of Engineers accepted design practice and liability parameters for harbor entrances along the southern California coastline. The 600-foot channel width will efficiently and safely serve at least 4,000 boats, using design rules of thumb developed by the Corps of ' Engineers. These guidelines call for 300 feet of channel width for the first 1,000 boats to be -served and 100 additional feet for each additional 1,000 boats. ' The navigation characteristics and design requirements for the ocean entrance will be refined and finalized as part of the Land Use Plan Confir- mation Report in accordance with relevant LUP policies and programs. 1 � III-27 ,V Bolas. Chica Main Channel The Bolas. Chica main channel will extend from the landward end of the ocean entrance to the southeasterly edge of residential development. The ' channel will provide navigation access to the marina north and south basins and the waterfront residential area to the south. Channel width and depth will be sufficient to serve the projected boat traffic which will be determined in the IAP; and to be compatible with energy facility and new residential uses. The channel will generally be located over the trace of Inglewood-Newport fault zone (see Physical and Cultural Resources Component) and will connect to various secondary channels to be con- , structed to serve waterfront residences. The Pacific Coast Highway bridge spanning the main channel shall have a clearance of at least 65 feet above mean lower low water (mllw). , Marina Berthing Basins The Bolas Chica marina will be divided into north and south basins in , which boat slips and related facilities will be constructed, either by the marina operating entity or designated leaseholders. The characteristics and size of the individual basins and marina leaseholds within the basins will be determined is the LAP and subsequently all slips, dry storage and boat launch ramps in the marina will be available to the public. If , determined to be feasible and desirable in the County Marina Feasibility Study to be undertaken as part of the IAP, tour boat, sport and/or some commercial fishing moorage and facilities may be provided in the marina. Huntington Harbour Connection Channel , As conceived in the Land Use Plan, the Huntington Harbour connection ' channel will be excavated along the landward edge of Outer Bolsa Bay and adjacent to the Bolan Chic& Mesa bluffs. This channel will provide a navigable connection between the new ocean entrance, Huntington Harbour and Sunset Aquatic Park. This connection will have several important ' benefits with respect to navigation and related recreation. First, the channel will allow the County to maintain a single harbor , patrol facility to serve both Sunset Aquatic Park/Huntington Harbour and Bolas Chic&. A consolidated operation will allow for efficiencies of additional equipment and manpower needed to serve the expanded navigation areas. Without a Huntington Harbour connection, two stand-alone facili- ties for Sunset Aquatic Park and Bolas. Chica would be required. Second, the United States Navy, which operates the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station munitions facilities in Anaheim Bay, has on numerous occasions officially expressed concern for the hazards posed by the inter- mingling of pleasure craft and weapons loading and storage barges in the area. These concerns have been documented by the Navy in a draft urban encroachment study. The study investigated the effects of increasing urbanization on weapons station activities in general. In particular, the study indicated, and independent analysis done for the County confirmed ' that at certain peak use periods, boat traffic in the Anaheim Bay/Hunting- ton Harbour area reaches or somewhat surpasses the "threshold" or "inci- pient" congestion. Boat traffic congestion may be generally defined as III-28 the point at which the number of boats per acre of harbor entrance per ' hour requires numerous navigation avoidance maneuvers. tinder these condi- tions, there are typically few collisions. However, given the unusual hazard conditions in Anaheim Bay and the con- striction to navigation created by the low (25' clearance) and the narrow channel width (120-foot) Anaheim Bay bridge, the need for an alterate ocean access from Huntington Harbour and Sunset Aquatic Park is compel- ling. More importantly from the U.S. Navy perspective, relief from the Incompatibility of pleasure boats and munitions loading and storage activi- ties could provide some national defense benefits. At the Land Use Plan phase of planning, the Huntington Harbour connection channel has been included as a proposed project. It has been conceptually located on the LUP exhibit to indicate a need to maintain and protect as many acres of Outer Bolsa Bay wetlands as feasible. The Coastal Commission in its November 29, 1984 action allocated 17 acres of land for the Huntington Harbour channel. Based on preliminary analy- �: sin, County EMA concluded that this acreage would roughly translate to a channel with no more than 120 feet of effective navigable width. By con- ' tract, the 1982 Land Use Plan contained provisions for a 400-foot-wide channel, equivalent to the existing Huntington Harbour channel. At this phase of planning, the County is concerned that a 120-foot channel E width would be inadequate to meet boat traffic volume boating safety and harbor patrol emergency access requirements. Conversely, the need for 915 acres of wetlands on-site places constraints on the feasibility of a 400-foot-wide channel in Outer Bolsa Bay. Further, capital costs for a PCH bridge span attributable to the Huntington Harbour increase with a wider navigation channel. Finally, the Coastal Commission and the Depart- ment of Fish and Game have expressed concern regarding impacts of any such ' connection channel to Outer Bolsa Bay wetlands. Taking the opportunities and constraints related to the Huntington Harbour connection channel together, the County intends to make a determination regarding the inclusion and the characteristics of the Huntington Harbour connection channel as part of the Land Use Plan Confirmation Report. (� Specifically addressed will be: I. The location, width, and depth of a "preferred" channel configuration. ' 2. The height and general characteristics and capital costs of the t' associated PCH bridge. t 3. Mitigation measures for wetlands and visual and scenic resources. i. 4. A financing program with identified funding potentials and preliminary commitments from a variety of sources. Based on this program, the County will present findings in the land use plan confirmation report as to whether to designate the Huntington Harbour connection channel as a Bolsa Chica project element to be included in the Implementing Actions Program. Should the County determine that the channel shall be included, the rele- vant elements of the Implementing Actions Program regarding wetlands, recreation, transportation, and financing shall apply. III-29 0 SECTION III, PART 3: PIIZSICAL ARID CULTURAL RESOURCES COMPONENT SMPSIS This section provides a discussion of the technical issues and mitigation • measures pertaining to: 1) Geotechnical Factors - Faulting, Liquefac- tion, Subsidence, and Soils; 2) Air quality and attendant laws, regula- tions and programs; and 3) paleontological, archaeological, and historical ' resources in the Study Area. A summary of each of the three sub-sections are provided at the beginning ±. of each topical heading. � Geotechnical Factors The Geotechnical factors subsection provides a description of the existing geotechnical conditions and potential geological hazards at Bolsa Chica. The initial geotechnical investigations completed for Bolsa Chica and their conclusions are also reviewed. Specifically delineated are 1) the potential for surface fault rupture due to the presence of the active Newport-Inglewood fault zone; ,2) the poten- tial for seismically induced liquefaction; 3) the potential for a seis- mically induced tsunami; and 4) other geologic hazards, such as subsi- dence, compressible soils, erosion, and slope stability. i ' �t . Overall, the most significant issues related to geologic hazards that ' could potentially impact the proposed Bolsa Chica development are surface fault rupture, liquefaction, and surface subsidence. Measures are dis- cussed in this document such as fault setback requirements and soil stabil- ,` ' ization measures that can reduce the risk to lives and property associated with these potential hazards. Policies regarding the geotechnical conditions onsite and the potential geologic hazards are provided in Section N. ' ,� Susaary .- The LCP Study Area is situated along the seaward margin of the Orange County coastal plain within the Los Angeles structural basin. The northwestern portion of the site is formed by the Bolas Chica Mesa with surface elevations that range from +26 feet to +75 feet above sea level s" (Exhibit 13). The southeastern edge of the site is formed by the i, Huntington Beach Mesa with surface elevations ranging from +20 to +70 feet above sea level. Between the two mesas existing surface elevations in the flat lowland areas varies between +6.9 to -4.3 feet MSL. iThe soils and surficial geologic units found within the Study Area include Recent age alluvial deposits in the lowland and the older Pleistocene age Lakewood formation, which is exposed on Bolsa Chica Mesa and Huntington Beach Mesa. The alluvial deposits are primarily composed of soft clays, and loose silts and silty sands to depths of approximately ten feet and are underlain by denser deposits of interbedded silty sands, silts and clays to a maximum depth of 65 feet. Some peat areas are present locally. R, III-31 �r- �}, ,Say ''� •4 ? L''' , QF v,jr ' k LLNWf ` +70/ ' a V y. Cam^ '/ .'�}, `vO) '/.° ✓ r J - �7 V - ' T F , ,. . .ta�fJ rk.; .7c-. Y' Lc° < ; i�o(`�!•n .� a (� . +0r8- —0.4 —Z B - a . 2 . -0.9 Bluffs -os i, =2.8 Upper Bench �. ,0 7 Bolsa Chica * + }rs . , -� r< t , s Mesa �, � ,.. _ �. - {�:3 — -- o1sa�Lawt' t — -f.8 * Bluff i — _ � - . t. +e3: f0.7 f - 3;8i ,- -r -- .,r � -2A 1` _- � , � 0.0 -2.5. - -3.7 +27 +29241 y i - - - --- - -- - —-— -- -- - - - , .\ I 1 DFti f;e_serve.Dike. -0.8( Lower Bench � +4.6 8 f•4.7 r' +2. +28.8 1 +3.2 Nesting j HiJnl9ton Islands Q ,\ +0.8 +0.6 - - - -' - ._ Beach \ Mesa r rOPOORAP19C DATiAI! IEAN 9E- LOW CONTOUR KrERVAL-2 FEET R10TOGRAN -M:SFPrBABFT 17.1980 . .rror amm wncw w v wv..m ao ruwm BOLSA CHICA NORTH COAT PLANNING UNIT r0 556 1110 1665 LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM 4; _--= W r 70FIOG o D HIf ENV910NENTAL MANAGOAM AGOCY COUNTY OF ORANGE VL EXHIBIT 13 i Below about 65 feet are coarse sands and gravels of the Bolsa Aquifer. The Lakewood formation is composed primarily of firm, interbedded mudstones, siltstones and sandstones which are in turn underlain by the San Pedro formation, which consists of firm sandstones with interbedded ' mudstones and siltstones. These geologic units rest on a sequence of older sedimentary rocks that extends to a depth of about 14,000 feet. ' The site is located in a seismically active region of southern California and the active Newport-Inglewood fault zone (the source of the 1933 magni- tude 6.3 Long Beach earthquake) crosses through the center of the site (Exhibit 14). Over geologic time, the faulting and folding of the thick sequence of sedimentary rocks along the Newport-Inglewood fault zone, at depth, have produced the petroleum "traps" that are now being produced by the oil field. Description The site setting gives rise to concerns regarding potential for surface faulting, seismically induced soil liquefaction, tsuanami, and subsidence. Other geotechnical issues are related to the presence of peat, use of hydraulic dredging materials, and shrink-swell potential of onsite water- ' ( ials. The following sections were prepared with the assistance of Wood- ward-Clyde Consultants to address these issues. The information presented is largely extracted from reports and documents prepared by Woodward-Clyde Consultants regarding geotechnical engineering, engineering geology, and seismology studies completed at the County's request in 1983 and 1984. Surface Faulting c. Like most locations is southern California, Bolsa Chica is surrounded by active faults that are capable of generating earthquakes that can induce seismic shaking at the site. The following table summarizes the charac- teristics of the most significant of these regional faults and notes the distance from the Bolsa Chica site to the closest approach of the fault. Estimated Estimated Closest Distance Long-Term Maximum Source to Site Slip Rate Magnitude____ ' San Andreas 80 km 37 mm/yr 8.5 Newport-Inglewood at site 0.5 7 Palos Verdes 13 km 0.8 7 ` Whittier 30 1.2 7 ►y Elsinore 40 2.3 7.5 Sierra Madre 48 4* 7.25 Santa Monica 48 0.4 7.25 Ll Catalina 54 ** 7 San Jacinto 77 8 7.5 s J * 1.2 to 4 mm/yr; 4 mm/yr used for calculating recurrences. ' ** Unknown; assumed similar to Palos Verdes. III-33 w DATA SOURCES: ! ` 0 ? Newport-Inglewood, Zone of Deformation: c; North Branch Fault - Bolsa Chica Mesa and Huntington Beach Mesa, Woodward-Clyde Consultants (1984) Bolsa Chica Lowlands - Hazenbush and Allen, (1958) � South Branch Fault - California Division of Mines and Geology (1973), Woodward-Clyde Consultants (1984) ' Bolsa-Fairview Fault - Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Map, Seal Beach Quad, 1976 o U Small fault, south- eastern corner of - California Division of Mines and Geology (1973), Lawmaster, 1976 Bolsa Chica gY Planning Unit /6j��o �aoo a yi'�' o `' .�� �� O� ..��l �p min'� '• ^I•ed -' •,1� LEGEND: 04 "1 %o°� �i ;Q _ oa ;,8ro :.� ➢� - ` :i,. S� -.r' � •�°; � a-pQ10°°cD°��,o- .1 tl •`b `5 a � �• i! 1'd4( ✓{i .. i E -� •� r . fir,_••. L - '- North Branch Fault, dashed where approximately located; fyo --D � arrows indicate relative lateral displacement; U=up, � _ � oqn' •-• - '`t- �" - D=down indicate relative vertical displacement �" I+. ��� - Kam• . '` `�- Y '~J � Inferred subsurface trace of South Branch and • Bolsa-Fairview Faults a�o� . -- _ - * . �',, @�.y 11 - -� • ' �� - '� �/_ •` • .��f� :.1e ;-' O �f� - - -'� .l•',�1"r,,~�' >Jp�� _ P. •�• a�. `'� ,+r "rat;--y�j�' �. .4i�. �� _ •�. + . NOTES: 1. Roads and wells on Huntington Beach Mesa were added from 1969 aerial rc�r�• �� �• �� photographs. �^ ' '`- - �-�. > ," .•. . 2. Topographic base map prepared by ti .t. :. ," <= ' yr,raz "t �` -� ' '�/ . -•a-:-r:. ..•b;�t �.`- � �,a• .��/r / - _..�.�-Y���j�ioimrrircw srraT 4� �,y.•._•:.. - Genge Consultants, Irvine,Californi for Signal Landmark Inc. � < ",► '> T: �� . �- • - h• :.�.- -. • �"�=--_-� �.�: _ :-r� "�.. � �-'� .• - _ _:tom ___� -� •, :,�;�� �.• r= 1 SOURCE: WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS BOLSA CHICA NORTH COAST PLANNING UNIT o eoo ,zoo ,eoo FAULT LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM �rI EXHIBIT 14 ENVigMENTAL YANAGFIE►R ACf,11CY COUNTY Or 011ApCE � 1. r The most important active fault to the project is the northwest trending Newport-Inglewood fault zone, which crosses the center of the site nearly �? parallel with the coastline. Within the Study Area, previous geological f ` studies (CDWR, 1968) had mapped three primary branch faults within the Newport-Inglewood fault zone. These branches are referred to as the South ' Branch fault, the North Branch fault and the Bolsa-Fairview fault. The North Branch fault and the Bolsa-Fairview fault have been placed, by the California Division of Mines and Geology, in an Alquist-Priolo special studies zone, which requires studies to be completed regarding the poten- tial for surface faulting. In order to address the issue of potential surface faulting and to respond ' to Coastal Commission substantial issues raised during 1982 hearings, Woodward-Clyde Consultants (WCC) evaluated the surface faulting hazard at the Land Use plan stage. ' The findings of the WCC (1984a and 1984c) studies provide new insight to an understanding of the faulting hazard related to the Newport-Inglewood zone of deformation in Bolsa Chica and provide hard field data to planning ( for the area. More specific data have been made available regarding loca- tions of surface faulting, absence of surface faulting, and width of sur- face faulting zones. Such information can be directly incorporated into both the planning and construction of the project to reduce the risk to life and property. The Woodward-Clyde studies were conducted in a phased approach leading from comprehensive literature analyses to field investigations for ►� confirmation. The studies were designed to conform to the provisions of the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act and to assist in mitigating ' the hazard of surface-fault rupture during future site-specific design of ' the project. Detailed discussions of the geologic studies completed on the Newport-Inglewood fault zone at Bolas Chica are contained in Woodward- Clyde reports 1984a and 1984c on file at County EMA. The following �1 outlines the sequence of the steps of Woodward-Clyde Consultants' Study approach, which conforms with CDMG Note 49, Guidelines for Evaluating the Hazard of Surface Fault Rupture: r1) Review of published and unpublished literature and records concerning geologic structure, ground- water barriers, previous studies for Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act; 2) discussions with geo- logists knowledgeable of the area; 3) stereoscopic examination of aerial photographs to detect geomor- phic or other evidence of possible fault origin; 4) surface observations, including mapping of geomor- phic evidence of faulting and inspection of expo- sures along road cuts and cliff faces for evidence of the presence and absence of faulting; and S) exca- vation of exploratory trenches and cleaning of road cuts to permit detailed and direct observation of continuously exposed geologic units across fault traces. i t ' III-35 r The three previously mapped branches of the Newport-Inglewood fault zone (ie., the Bolsa-Fairview, the North Branch, and the South Branch) were examined systematically. The method of study for Bolsa Chica assumed the following: 1) that the Newport-Inglewood fault zone is capable of surface fault rupture, thus reducing the importance of establishing the presence ' or absence of Holocene surface faulting; 2) that where repeated surface faulting has occurred in the past is where future surface rupture may be expected; and 3) that although the deposits on Bolas Chica and Huntington Beach Mesas are older than Holocene years (11,000), the faulting found on either mesa can be used to define fault traces capable of future surface faulting. The absence of significant faulting in the pre-Holocene sediments found in the mesas is evidence that the potential for future , surface faulting in those areas is very low to nil. A critical guideline that WCC have applied to all fault traces published for the area is from the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act under paragraph "3602, Specific Criteria" (Hart, 1980). These criteria state that no habitable structure can be placed astride an "active" fault trace but that construction may be allowed in the special studies zones to with- in 50 feet of a suspected fault trace. For distances less than 50 feet and where the fault location is unknown, the burden of proof is on geolo- gists who demonstrate that active faulting does not underlie proposed ' structures for human occupancy. The location of the fault is a key issue in mitigating the hazard of potential surface faulting and is the focus of the following discussions as far as it applies to the planning of the pro- posed project. Explanations of WCC findings along each of the three fault ' branches within the Newport-Inglewood fault zone follow in order of their mapped position from north to south. Bolsa-Fairview Fault ' As presented in the literature, the Bolsa-Fairview fault is located to the north of the Bolsa Chica planning unit. However, the far northwest corner of the project area is included within the limits of the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone designated around the Bolsa-Fairview fault. it is, therefore, addressed for Bolas Chica land use planning purposes. ' In the Bolsa Chica area, the California Department of Water Resources (1968) inferred the presence of the Bolsa-Fairview fault in the subsur- face. Evidence cited for existence of the Bolsa-Fairview fault includes: 1) topography of Huntington Beach Mesa; 2) a report 10-foot vertical off- set of the Bolsa Aquifer; 3) differences in chloride-ion concentration ' beneath Bolsa Chica Mesa in the Alpha aquifer (Pleistocene age); 4) limi- ted inland seawater intrusion beneath Bolsa Chica Mesa; 5) pump test data; and 6) oil well data to the northwest of Bolsa Chica Mesa in the Sunset oil field. WCC reviewed the data set forth by the CDWR (1968) as evidence for the Bolsa-Fairview fault and found data deficiencies that question the CDWR interpretation of the presence of the Bolsa-Fairview fault in the near surface. The data that suggest no near surface faulting along the Bolsa- Fairview fault are reviewed in the final WCC (1984a) report on faulting ' hazards and include the following: 1) the lack of topographic expression across Huntington Beach Mesa; 2) the lack of faulting at depth consistent III-36 with the inferred Bolsa-Fairview fault according to oil field data (ie., "... few [faults) extend up into the Pliocene beds and those that do are minor in displacement". (Allen and Hazenbush, 1957); 3) no evidence of faulting has been found during geotechnical explorations by others to ! satisfy the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act (including 1,100 feet of trench across the projected fault trace); and 4) the absence of any faulting within the Sully Miller Pond where the Bolsa-Fairview fault projects across Huntington Beach Mesa. ' In summary, the Bolsa-Fairview fault is probably not a Holocene fault as portrayed by the CDWB (1968) but possibly an artificial alignment of inferred subsurface fault features. Because the mapped trace of the Bole&-Fairview fault does not cross the LCP segment area, no subsurface field investigation was conducted on the project property for planning purposes. However, to address the specific requirements of the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone that includes a corner of the ' LCP segment, some future field verification studies may be required at the tenative tract-map stage of the project. ' Newport-Inglewood North Branch The North Branch fault (also called High School fault) of the Newport- Ingleweood zone has long been identified as the major structural diecon- ' tinuity in the Huntington Beach area. Most subsurface data regarding the fault come from oil field structural interpretations, and confirm the presence of a major fault at depth between various oil well locations. Poland and Piper (1956) point out an abrupt scarp across Balsa Chica Mesa ' associated with the fault. The location of the scarp is in good agreement � with the subsurface interpretations. The best published map of subsurface details is by Hazenbush and Allen (1958) and shows a shattered zone that bows seaward beneath the Bola& Chic& lowland between Huntington Beach and Balsa Chica Mesas. Within the lowland, the CDWB (1968) demonstrates an effective salinity barrier in Holocene sediments coincident with the North Branch fault. The CDWB information is cited as evidence of Holocene faulting and is part of the technical basis for extension of the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone across the lowland from Balsa Chic& Mesa to Huntington Beach Mesa. ' Various publications show different interpretations of the width and loca- tion of the North Branch fault in the Balsa Chica area. Oil field struc- tural interpretations indicate a shatter zone as wide as 400 to 450 feet in the subsurface (2,500 feet below sea level) whereas the CDWB (1968) indicates a zone of three fault traces comprising a zone as wide as 900 feet in the lowland based on shallow groundwater interpretations. In ' order to evaluate the width of the fault zone and to locate specific fault traces, WCC reviewed published and unpublished data sources, conducted field reconnaissance studies including the use of aerial photographs, and Q completed an extensive subsurface field investigation on the Balsa and Huntington Beach Mesas, On Balsa Chica Mesa, the Newport-Inglewood fault is mapped as a single ' fault trace associated with the surface scarp in Pleistocene sediments on the mesa. Two overlapping trenches, consisting of 470 linear feet, were excavated across the suspected fault trace. The existence of the fault was confirmed and found to consist of a zone approximately five feet wide. • III-37 1 The fault was again exposed in a road cut along a portion of the southern edge of the Bolsa Chica Mesa and formed a zone approximately fifteen feet ' wide within the Pleistocene sediments. Southeast of Bolas Chica Mesa, the Newport-Inglewood fault has been shown on maps to split into a North Branch (the main fault) and a South Branch. ' The North Branch fault was mapped in the subsurface by CDWR (1968) as three traces separated by approximately 750 feet, where they intersect the Huntington Beach Mesa. At the edge of the mesa, exposures of Pleistocene ' sediments were examined for evidence of faulting. A large offset and associated zone of faulting which were found in exposures in an old borrow pit appear to be associated with the most southerly of the three traces mapped by the CDWR (1968), and are coincident with the interpreted salin- ity barrier reportedly formed by the North Branch fault in the lowlands (CDWR, 1968). Northeast of the exposed faulting, large but scattered expo- sures of undisturbed Pleistocene sediments exist within the "fault zone" defined by the CDWR (1968). In order to obtain continuous or overlapping coverage of the Pleistocene , exposures across an approximately 1,000-foot-wide zone through which the North Branch fault was previously mapped by the CDWR (1968) and the Alquist- Priolo Special Studies Zone map, 760 feet of trenching and 300 feet of cut slopes were logged to document the presence and absence of ' faults. In addition, another 400 feet of cut slopes were inspected to look for evidence of faulting but were not logged. In the Huntington Beach Mesa, the main fault trace was confined to a zone approximately 80 ' feet wide. No other faults were discovered, although occasional small offsets of a few inches or lose were observed in some of the Pleistocene sediments. Such small offsets are not uncommon to these older Pleistocene sediments and appear to be related to regional folding and uplift over the ' crest of the Huntington Beach oil field. In summary, the 750- to 900-foot-wide zone of faulting described by the CDWR (1968) and shown on Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone maps, does not exist in the Peeistocene sediments at the Huntington Beach or Bolsa Chica Mesas. The zone of faulting that most likely would experience future surface rupture is approximately fifteen feet wide at Bolsa Chica ' Mesa and 80 feet wide at Huntington Beach Mesa. As discussed previously, the width of the North Branch fault through the ' Bolsa Chica lowlands was inferred from previous work, mainly by Hazenbush and Allen (1958) who relied on data from numerous oil wells in the area to map the subsurface character of the fault at depths greater than 1,000 ' feet below sea level. They represented the fault beneath the Bolsa Chic& Mesa and the northwestern portion of the lowlands as a single strand. Farther southeastward, they mapped the fault as diverging into as zone of shattering up to 400 to 450 feet wide. Southeast of the lowland, ' Hazenbush and Allen (1958) merged the zone of shattering back into a single strand. The width of the zone of faulting and the location of the fault on Hazenbush and Allen's map (1958) is controlled by the location of the oils wells from which their data were obtained. Thus, the maximum width of the shattered zone beneath the lowlands at depths below 1,000 feet could be as much as 550 feet wide or as little as 200 feet wide. III-38 ' The 80-foot-wide fault zone observed by trenching in the Huntington Beach Mesa is less than the zone width of about 250 feet suggested by Hazenbush and Allen (1958) on the basis of deep subsurface data from the same area. �..; Thus, this information supports the hypothesis that, at least on the Hun-tington Beach Mesa, the width of the North Branch fault zone is less in the near surface Pleistocene deposits than the width of the fault inferred to exist in the deeper Pliocene deposits by Hazenbush and Allen (1958). Therefore, this could suggest that the width of the North Branch fault in the Pleistocene deposits beneath the lowlands also may be less than what is represented by Hazenbush and Allen (1958) in the deeper Pliocene deposits beneath the lowlands. For the purposes of the LCP, no detailed investigations were completed to refine the width of the North Branch fault in the lowlands beyond that of Hazenbush and Allen (1958). However, the location of the northeastern edge of the fault zone appears to be reasonably well controlled by numerous oil wells. The CDMG, in its review of the NCC report, comments on the possibility that that the width of the North Branch fault zone may be wider, via branching and an echelon breaking, within the saturated soils beneath the Bolas Chica lowlands. Saturated soils are mostly confined to the Holocene ( sediments which overlie the Pleistocene deposits in the lowlands and is L judged to be on the order of 80 to 100 feet thick (CDWR, 1968). ' [[ Until additional studies are conducted for subsequent stages of planning t , and project design, it was estimated that significant surface fault rup- ture associated with any widening of the North Branch fault through the relatively shallow Holocene deposits of the lowlands would most likely be confined with a zone similar in width to whatever fault width that is found to exist in the underlying Pleistocene sediments plus recommended setback distances as discussed below. 7 To complete Alquist-Priolo requirements, additional studies are needed to evaluate and further refine the subsurface widths of the fault zone in the Holocene and Pleistocene sediments beneath the lowlands. These studies will include a re-examination and structural analysis of any pertinent and available logs from the oil wells surrounding the fault zone in the low- lands. These studies will also develop a data base, from the available ' literature and other pertinent documents, regarding the typical widths of lateral slip faulting in unconsolidated sediments. Examples to be consi- dered include the Imperial fault in the Imperial Valley, the San Jacinto fault in San Bernardino, and the San Andreas fault offshore of San Fran- cisco and in the Point Reyes area. 0n the basis of the data collected during this research, analogies will be developed to model the conditions in the Bolsa Chico lowlands. Additional trenching supported by shallow (100 feet or less) subsurface exploratory drill holes, may be required to ' support interpretations of fault width within Holocene deposits beneath the Bolsa Chic& lowlands. Planning of the Bolsa Chico development will implement the guidelines of the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act with regard to setbacks from the zone of faulting. The setback zone will be 50 feet on either side of the zone of faulting. Accordingly, there will be a 115-foot-wide corridor extending across Bolsa Chica Mesa in which no habitable structures would be allowed. At Huntington Beach Mesa the maximum width for excluding ' € habitable structures is estimated to be 180 feet when the 50-foot setbacks are included with the 80-foot-wide zone of faulting found here. III-39 � 1 1 In reviewing other developments along the Newport-Inglewood zone near the ' coast, WCC found that the setbacks and widths of faulting established for the Bolas. Chica area- are consistent. For example, Woodward-Clyde Consul- tants recently reviewed plans of the Hellman development for the city of Seal Beach. In that project the consultant found the zone of surface ' faulting associated with the Newport-Inglewood zone to be approximately 20 feet wide. Recommended setbacks of 50 feet on either side of the zone of faulting were determined to be in conformance with the Alquist-Priolo Spe- cial Studies Zone Act. South Branch Fault Poland and Piper (1956) first inferred a "probable" fault, the South ' Branch, across Huntington Beach Mesa based on "landforms" (a gentle southwest-facing slope) and "structure features" at depth (CDWR, 1968). Hazenbush and Allen (1958) reported on the area by describing the subsur- face geologic structure of Huntington Beach oil field. They mapped two faults below the Bola& lowland that are roughly parallel to and proximal to the fault inferred by Poland and Piper (1956). However, these faults ' do not offset units younger than Lower Pliocene and do not come within 1,500 feet of the ground surface. In 1976, Robert C. Erickson (Chevron USA) studied the geology along the ' mapped trace of the inferred South Branch for the Huntington Beach Com- pany. The area of investigation was the Phase IV expansion of Seacliff Village on Huntington Beach Mesa. Based on his studies of oil-well data, ' Erickson projected a subsurface fault to the surface and excavated two trenches across this fault projection. Neither of the trenches across the fault mapped by Erickson revealed any evidence of faulting in the late ' Pleistocene materials that were estimated to be older than 26,000 years (Erickson, 1976). Based on the locations of the trenches by Erickson and the inferred loca- tion of the South Branch fault, Woodward-Clyde Consultants selected a trench location to overlap various published projections of the fault trace and to extend the exposures of late Pleistocene deposits to the north of Erickson's trenches. No evidence of faulting was found. In summary, the South Branch does not appear to extend upward into Pleisto- cene sediments. WCC concur with the California Division of Mines and Geology that the fault should not be included within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. WCC believe that the South Branch has not been ac- tive within Pleistocene or Holocene time and that the fault poses no ' threat to life or property due to effects from surface faulting. No special provisions are required for development over the South Branch fault. ' Liquefaction Liquefaction refers to a phenomenon in which a cohesionless soil below the , water table loses its strength during an earthquake. Liquefaction is a function of the following geotechnical factors: groundwater level; soil types; relative density of soils; initial confining pressure; intensity of ' ground shaking; and, duration of groundshaking. The geotechnical condi- III-40 i tions in the Bolsa Chica lowlands are such that the potential for soil . liquefaction is a major concern for the Bolsa Chica project both from a technical as well as an economic standpoint. The following sections were prepared with the assistance of Woodward-Clyde Consultants to address these concerns. The information presented is largely extracted from reports and documents prepared by Woodward-Clyde Consultants (1983, 1984c). The following elements of work have been completed by Woodward-Clyde Consultants (1983 and 1984c) as a preliminary evaluation of liquefaction potential at Bolsa Chica. ' A review of all prior geotechnical work at the site was completed. . Eighteen borings ware drilled and sampled at the site. The main I emphasis of this drilling and sampling program was to obtain standard penetration (SPT) blow count in the cohesionless soil layers at the site. i 1, Cone penetration teats (CPT) were conducted at four locations adjacent to borings. The main emphasis for the CPT was to correlate with the SPT and to check on its potential use in the future as a tool for a r"' before and after implementation of a site improvement procedure. The seismicity of the region in which Bolsa Chica lies was evaluated. ' Consideration was given to the potential activity of the Newport-Ingle- wood fault that passes through the site and several other potentially active sources, including the nearby Palos Verdes and the distant San Andreas fault. Average return periods for various levels of ground ' shaking at the site were calculated considering the contributions from t all these faults. To account explicitly for duration effects, the contributions from each fault were weighted with respect to a magni- tude, M - 7. In addition to uncertainties in the attenuation relation- ships used, uncertainties in the recurrence estimates on each fault were also incorporated. ' The results of this part of the evaluation provided values of average return period versus acceleration weighted with respect to M - 7. The approximate 90-percent confidence limits obtained for average return periods of 50 to 1,000 years are the following: Approximate 90-Percent E Average Confidence Limits of Return Period Peak Ground Acceleration 50 years 0.07 to 0.13 g 100 0.12 to 0.18 200 0.17 to 0.25 300 0.21 to 0.30 .. 500 0.26 to 0.36 ' 1,000 0.34 to 0.47 For evaluating the liquefaction potential at Bole& Chica, the upper range of peak ground acceleration (weighted to M - 7) for an average ' return period of 200 years was selected; ie., 0.25 g and M - 7. The III-41 . 1 i best estimate average return period for this level of shaking is 300 years, and the 90-1ercent confidence interval is approximately 200 to 500 years. The California Division of Mines and Geology, in a letter dated February 229 19850 stated: "DMG staff has thoroughly analyzed the WCC (Wood- ward-Clyde Consultants) methodology and concludes that the WCC ground acceleration (.25g with a return period of 200 years) is adequate and sufficiently conservative for the design of the Bolsa Chica project." . Using the above level of shaking the liquefaction potential at each i boring location was evaluated for two cases: Case A: Finished ground surface at elevation +12 and groundwater level i at elevation 0. Case B: Bottom of water channel at elevation -10. i . Several potential mitigation measures were considered including site improvement and designs to withstand liquefaction. Results of Preliminary Liquefaction Evaluation i Evaluation: The liquefaction potential at the location of Borings B-1 through B-9 and B-12 through B-18 is depicted in Exhibit 15. Note that ' the liquefaction potential at Borings B-10 and B-11 (which are located at the top of the mesa) is nil. As can be seen in Figure F-19 liquefaction is not likely in the vicinity i of Borings B-1, B-2, B-8, B-12, and B-14. Liquefaction is likely only in the relatively deeper soil layers (approximately 20 to 30 feet below fin- ' ished grade) in the vicinity of Borings B-3, B-4, B-7, and B-9. Liquefac- tion is likely in the relatively shallower soil layers (approximately to elevation 0 or about 12 feet below finished grade) in the vicinity of Borings B-5, B-6, B-13, and B-15. In the vicinity of Borings B-16, B-17, i and B-18 liquefaction is likely below elevation -5 (approximately 17 feet below finished grade). Potential Consequences: The areas that are planned to be filled to eleva- tion +12 (Case A) will be basically level away from the planned channels. In these areas, the consequences of liquefaction are most likely to be ' manifested in uneven settlements ranging from almost nil to possibly as much as three inches. Without the mitigation measures described below, however, the potential i exists for lateral movements adjacent to the excavated channels due to liquefaction in the underlying soils in the vicinity of those borings in which liquefaction is likely above approximately elevation -10. By con- i trast, in the vicinity of the other borings (eg., adjacent to Borings B-1, B-2, B-8, B-12, or B-14) it is highly unlikely that lateral movements would take place because liquefaction is unlikely. Therefore, no special mitigation measures would be necessary in the vicinity of these borings. i III-42 ' +20A A+20 +20 B +20 Finished Ground Surface Finished Ground Surface +10 B-4 B-3 B-6 B-5 B-1 +10 +10 B-13 B-14 B-16 B-4 +10 r0 1600 3000 45W 0 0 0 Y p W �; Y Y Y g Y Y � 'I I ^ -10 -10 -10 cu .20 -20 -20 -20 m �- v E 30 30 30 30 $ r' 14 1 w 0 •4' 2 0 -40 -4 0 -4 — 0 0 `' 1 ice*i r .•v. ^�•'' '\. �9' Lu > _ _ J 70 70 Li r 70 CASE A 80 .80 -80 .80 • Finished ground surface at elevation +12 feet (mean sea level) • Water,level at elevation 0 feet (mean sea level) • See text for level of shaking +20 C C+20 +20 D D+20 • FACTOR OF SAFETY = 1 Finished Ground Surface B-17 Finished Ground Surface +10 B-18 B-12 B-15 B-6 B-3 +10 +10 +10 B-9 B-8 B-7 8-5 B-2 LEGEND 0 $ 0 0 0 a Clay soil layers 0 i -10 -10 -10 -10 Cofiesionless soil layers; liquefaction unlikely � m � -20 20 20 -20 c , Extent of liquefaction in cohesionless soil layers W ro m E 30 -30 30 •30 E Highest water level recorded in 1981/82 a+ Li V m m w c -40 -40 -40 -40 .2 c w is i w -50 -50 -50 -50 w SOURCE: WOODWARD—CLYDE CONSULTANTS I -so -so -so -so M Q�,UEFAC�790fnl C MALMA`TU oO�l -gyp Ll -70 -70 -70 BOLSA CHICA 80 80 80 80 FORTH COAST PLANNING UNIT LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM D"V^0'�r L��r�Y COW"a one EXHIBIT 15 1 Potential Mitigation Measures Neasures to mitigate the consequences of liquefaction can include design provisions that permit the structures (eg., the structure retaining the excavated channels) to Withstand liquefaction without serious conse- quences. Appropriately designed bulkheads, for example, can be construc- ted such that little or no lateral movements occur adjacent to the excava- ted channels. This can be accomplished by extending the sheet-piling well below elevation -20 and by constructing a dead-man supported on deep piling (also extending well below elevation -20). Alternatively, mitigation measures can include site improvement that increases the resistance of the underlying cohesionless soils to liquefac- tion. Several site improvement procedures were considered for this pur- pose. Dynamic consolidation (or compaction) and compaction piles appear most likely to provide the necessary means to increase this resistance. Similar measures have been economically used at numerous sites in the United States and other countries. It is expected that the mitigation measures indicated above can also be economically implemented at Bolsa 3 Chica in the areas of concern. Additional field studies will be carried out in or following IAP planning stages to delineate better the areas of concern and to field test the A . mitigation measures judged most appropriate. Tsunami A tsunami is a sea wave generated by a submarine earthquake, landslide or volcanic action. A major tsunami from either of the latter two events is considered to be remote for the site. L Submarine earthquakes, however, are common around the edges of the Pacific Ocean. Accordingly, all of the Pacific coastal areas are subject to this r �3 potential hazard to a greater or lesser degree. The most damaging tsunamis are usually associated with large vertical tectonic displacements and large earthquakes of magnitude 7.5 or greater, such as the earthquakes off the coast of Alaska, Chile, and Japan that are associated with subduction of large areas crustal plates. Movement along the Newport-Inglewood fault system and other offshore faults such as the Palos Verdes fault are expected to be primarily horizon- tal, based on present information. The 1933 Long Beach earthquake of mag- nitude 6.3 occurred on the Newport-Inglewood fault system with an epicen- L ter reportedly located offshore of Newport Beach. This earthquake did not result in tsunami damage at Newport Beach. It is questionable that Q movement along the Newport-Inglewood fault could cause a significant tsunami affecting the Study Area. r Tsunamis triggered by distant earthquakes can impact the California coast- line, such as in the case of the 20-foot-high tsunami that hit Crescent City in northern California. That tsunami originated 1,500 miles away dur- ing the magnitude 8, March 1964 Alaskan earthquake. Most of the loss in Crescent City was harbor and boat damage. There was some damage due pri- III-43 1 W merrily to the convergence of rapid currents in channels in the Los Angeles and Long Beach harbors associated with this 1964 tsunami, but there was no significant damage reported at Newport Beach. Thus, based upon historical evidence, the level of risk at Bolsa Chica is the same as that at other low-lying areas along -the southern California coastline_. There does exist a potential for minor damage in harbors. Subsidence The LUP identifies subsidence as one of the potential geologic hazards that will be addressed in the IAP for both project design and subsequent monitoring. In southern California, measurable land .subsidence has been correlated with oil production in the Inglewood, Wilmington, Long Beach and Huntington Beach oil fields (Yerkes and Castle, 1969). Subsidence in the Santa Ana area has been attributed to extensive groundwater withdrawal from the Santa Ana River basin (Morton and others, 1976). Cases of localized subsidence due to decomposition and consolidation of buried peat deposits have been reported at several locations between Newport Beach and Sunset Beach (Bechtel Corp., 1976; Morton and others, 1976). In order to address the issue of subsidence more fully and to provide current data on the continuing monitoring program, Woodward-Clyde Consultants were asked to investigate and update the subsidence conditions in the Study Area. Because subsidence has been noted in the Huntington Beach area by the USGS (Yerkes and Castle, 1969), the State Division of Oil and Gas (CDOG, 1973), and the State Division of Mines and Geology (Morton and others, 1976), these sources were reviewed in detail. Special emphasis was placed on recorded subsidence in the Huntington Beach, Sunset Beach, and Seal Beach oil fields in order to provide some historical documentation on the amount of subsidence that has occurred in those areas. The second phase of the subsidence study involved acquisition of precise ' leveling data from the County Surveyor's office. These data included the basic surveyor benchmark description and data sheets for each benchmark within the area, as well as the results of a 1981 and 1982 subsidence study in Huntington Beach conducted by the Surveyor's Office. Because the maps provided with these data were of a small scale (1:24,000) the basic data were converted to annual subsidence rates and then plotted and contoured on a one inch - 1,200 feet-scale map of the Bolea Chica area. Review of Prior Studies The occurrence of land surface subsidence in the Huntington Beach area has been described in the following reports: 1) Bechtel Corporation (1967); 2) California Division of Oil and Gas (1973); 3) Leighton-Yen (1974); 4) (Morton and others, 1976); and 5) H.V. Lawmaster (1980). All of these reports indicate that the major subsidence area roughly corre- lates with the limits of the Huntington Beach oil field. The greatest mea- sured subsidence has occurred near the intersection of Golden West Street and Pacific Coast Highway on Huntington Beach Mesa near the center of the Huntington Beach oil field. Estimates of the maximum amount of subsidence range up to five feet since 1920 when oil production began. The Califon III-44 ; nia Division of Oil and Gas (1973) published a small-scale map showing that approximately three feet of subsidence has occurred near the center of a subsidence bowl during the period 1933 to 1972, Exhibit 16. This map also shows that a lesser amount (between one and two feet) of sub- sidence occurred over that same period in the Bolsa Chica area in the northwestern portion of the Huntington Beach oil field. Subsequently, the California Division of Mines and Geology provided a map (Morton and others, 1976) based on first-order leveling surveys between 1964-65 and 1966-69 that showed a similar subsidence pattern with the area of maximum subsidence dropping approximately 0.25 feet over the four-year period, Exhibit 16. In the same report Morton and others (1976) estimated that the greatest total measured subsidence from 1920 to 1973 was approximately five feet near the center of the subsidence bowl at the intersection of Golden West Street and Pacific Coast Highway. Several reports indicate that the rate of subsidence has decreased since water flooding of oil producing zones was initiated in 1959. The Division of Oil and Gas (1973) reports that the maximum recorded rate of subsidence was 0.15 feet (1.8 inches) per year from 1955 to 1968 but decreased to 0.05 feet (0.6 inches) per year from 1968 to 1972. The County established a network of stations in 1981 to monitor the subsi- dence in the Huntington Beach area. The data indicate that the area of maximum subsidence from 1976 to 1982 occurred close to the intersection of Golden West Street and Pacific Coast Highway. During that period, the rate of subsidence is reported to have been 0.09 feet/year near the intersection. Review of Recent Survey Data In order to estimate the amount and rate of recent subsidence in the Bolsa Chica area, Woodward-Clyde Consultants obtained from the County Survey office maps of subsidence and copies of the reduced survey data for each of the stations in the Orange County Coastal survey for the period 1976 to 1982. Exhibit 17 was prepared from these survey data that shows contours of the average annual subsidence rates for that period of time at Bolsa Chica. These data indicate a rate of subsidence in the Bolsa Chica lowland of approximately 0.005 to 0.035 feet/year, a significantly lower rate than the maximum reported at Golden West Street and Pacific Coast Highway. The data also show that the subsidence rate increases southeastward across Bolsa Chica towards the center of the Huntington Beach oil field. It also shows an increase in subsidence north of the planning area in an area of numerous water wells and an area of suspected shallow peat deposits (Mor- ton and others, 1976). These recent survey data suggest that the subsi- dence that has been observed in the greater Huntington Beach area may be die to more than the one cause. However, it appears that the observed subsidence is primarily associated in the area of the Huntington Beach oil 1 , field downcast of the Study Area. L At present, it is not clear from the data available in the Bolsa Chica area whether or not the subsidence rate is slowing. Several key survey benchmarks throughout the planning unit has been reviewed to see how their III-45 i man w 4m m m m r A m m m to v M y �M.*�1r,WF.A4�:!AA A. yjM.-r_i-�Mv�'• 1 Boom"" MUT f own"To%NAtl1 STUNT (` tuvAlon au4498 Ivan IC.D.O.O., 1973) M1f TC IDT! Li I / • Aw i � �N- r I i � `tA �•• i� • Fr t N \ •, of EIu.A.N M• �'w T[ rA00YCTIv �\ NIA. Ave T n !ua 0 I !sales •m SUBSIDENCE IN FEET NEAR HUNTINGTON BEACH, 1964-1969 (IMomn mW others, 19761 SOURCE: WOODWARD—CLYDE CONSULTANTS t" BOLSA CHICA NORTH COAST PLANNING UNIT LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM ' ENVMIONMENTAI MANAGEMENT AGENCY COUNTY OF ORANGE EXHIBIT 16 NOTES "Q?p O �7 j• - 0 ryyn. I. Data sour ,� ce• Orange County E.M.A., County Surveyor's Office. p . O A HI-101-69 .018 EXPLANATION ID-81-69 I• u \'� 043 ® .028.Approximate location of bench mark. 5 28. J8 p •' r, f � _ IJ-50-61 Bench mark identification. 0033 Average annual subsidence rate in feet 7 H13466.69 V •W GRAHAM 0 �.001 Contour line of equal subsidence rate. O C H-14 �. \ o°o 0 .:. .02 �o� g @ o c �0 .041 GRACE fir \J. L� ,. ' '' '. \ H821 o J L �, _ D 82 69' ° I { = CMM ki=5 i?r j ► �` `l0w �L ` ' •� �'` - avORCM rD 96 71 VIEW r ` %� J - 9 = =c== :;ut= ;' ►` r .0065 iSTF(!CT J '/ s lC� lr '.._:r8 �;_'— ,__-- - ,f. 1 B213-71 r- TIDM. Aa ID R •/� STATE OF CALIF IJ-50 69 J. 8 1J 4 — _ %' • . ,u `' i �> •f IJ-43-69 _ — _ .051 ---------------- 00� o� ON pip �0 t f•! BOLSA CHICA SOURCE: WOODWARD—CLYDE CONSULTANTS NORTH COAST PLANNING LUT 0 666 1110 less LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM -bd W AVERAGE AHNUQL SM o MENCC R FE V#VVMN DffAL MANAL'nWrr OADOC' COIWTY OF ORANGE �J EXHIBIT 17 ' elevations have changed with time. Examination of the data shows little change in subsidence rate over time in the Bolsa Chica Study Area. While some oil field produced water is reinjected into the oil producing zone, there is no repressuring of the zone at this time. For planning purposes, it can be concluded that the current rates of sub- sidence may continue in the near future until either oil production is reduced or water flooding in the Bolsa Chica area is accelerated and the producing zone repressurized. Experience in other oil fields, such as at Wilmington, shows that repressurization of the oil producing zones, through water injection, has caused reduced rates of subsidence and often have completely halted subsidence. However, until such a repressurization program is implemented the current rates of subsidence in the planning area will be assumed to persist in the near future. Current subsidence rates and shape of contours are generally consistent with prior published data. The current average rate of 0.02 feet per year for the Bolas Chica area would produce one foot of surface subsidence over the next 50 years. This is believed to represent a maximum figure because of a decline in future oil production and the possibility of future projected long-term accelerated water flooding programs. f Possible Subsidence Related to Shallow Peat Deposits In view of reported cases by Bechtel Corporation (1967) of local subsi- dence, possibly caused by oxidation of thick peat beds, a review of the occurrence of peat in the Bolsa Chica planning area was completed (Exhibit 18). These reported cases were in the greater Huntington Beach area pri- marily in the inland cultivated lowlands of the Santa Ana and Bolsa gaps. CDMG Open File Report 79-8L.A. provides a map of the distribution and thickness of peat deposits in Orange County. This map shows extensive deposits of peat in these low inland areas principally outside of the Bol- as Chica Study Area. _ One area of these peat deposits is shown extending into the Study Area along the northwest side of the Bolsa Chica lowlands. ' This area coincides with a small subsidence bowl shown on the Subsidence � • Rate Map. The maximum current subsidence rate for the northeastern corner of the Study Area is between 0.02 and 0.02 feet/year and may be due, in ' ) part, to oxidation of peat deposits that underlie the area and to the t_ north. However, this area is also near a well field where a large number of water wells have been drilled and produced. Water withdrawal may have added to the subsidence in the area. Two areas have been identified as "Generalized Occurrence of Peat" in Bolas Chica. These areas were first defined by H.W. Lawmaster (1980). {" Lawmaster describes these areas as not having a significant potential for subsidence because of the minor amount of compressible material present. Three borings, drilled by Woodward-Clyde Consultants (1983) in connection with the above-noted liquefaction studies, encountered thin layers of peat and highly organic clays. Two of these borings were conducted in and adjacent to the northern area of "Generalized Occurrence of Peat". Data _ from the borings indicate beds of peat of up to six feet thick in E discontinuous layers at depths of four to ten feet and 42 to 48 feet that test 72 percent and 47 percent organics, respectively. The third boring took place in the southeasterly peat area. A six-foot bed of peat at a t depth of three to nine feet that tested 73 percent organics was encountered. III-47 i LEGEND Od AREAS OF PEAT t 3so ® �o 040o rX Qoo�aoQlh o O QQ O 4 Oti J c� � 1 a 'oo �I��� -I •\�`o` ,� � ��g I °p�oo <` "�' z o;, .�r.� tc t` ,Wx � a �� -ter=� � ,fir .,. _ ;�, �1 •�- ,; _ ,: ��' •:; ,� r .`')� � `\` - '�• ✓/ ' '�- .a. +- --__ -�VTR✓. L:''!� . ;� /•� - rr ice— 1� ��• - - - �_ ���-� � � _ �, •�< _ _ _� - zy •�- 6 - � ���� fit_—! 2. oi�� � r�s— T:_ .,4'_ --��5� ~' _" _ ___.-___ _.___.._—_ - _-__ _ _ — - _ - �_-�—�—�-. SOURCE KV. LAWMASTER d ASSOCIATES CO.. INC. BOU-SpollI� CHICA �LCST PLANNING UNIT' Wo 600 120J0 1800 GEHERoLM[ D LOCAL COAST gryRp&@IfAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY OCCURRENCES O EAT r.� EXHIBIT 18 ' These borings provide substantial evidence that there are no thick peat deposits in the Bolas Chica Study Area in comparison to those reported by Bechtel (1967) or those shown to exist further inland in the CDMG Open File Report 79-8L.A. The majority of peat deposits with a high percentage of organic materials are found to occur within ten feet of the surface. At this depth the pot- entially compressible peat deposits can be removed where necessary for planned development. Much of the area "identified as containing peat will comprise the marina and flood control channel improvements. These pro- jects will entail excavations to depths greater than ten feet, thus removing peat layers. Stabilization of the southeastern area identified as containing generalized occurrences of peat can be accomplished by remov- ing the local areas of near-surface peat and replacing these deposits with compacted and controlled earth fill, where necessary. In those few areas where occurrence of peat beds is found at depths greater than ten feet, ( such as in WCC Boring B-18 where organic clays were encountered between 42 and 48 feet, stabilization measures will have to depend on precise plans for these areas. Where major structures are planned for such areas, foun- �- dation support can be provided by such procedures as driving piles below E the organic layers. In conclusion, peat deposits in the Bolaa Chica Study Area do not repre- sent a significant geotechnical hazard or design problem. Soils: Hydraulic Fill Settlement and Shrink-Swell Potential Natural alluvial soils within the Study Area consist of firm silts, clays, silty sands and sands. The United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service saps indicate that all soils onsite belong to the Alo series, the Bolas series, Marina series, Myford series and Thapto-Histic Fluvaquents (poorly drained soils formed in nixed mineral alluvium and organic deposits and found within coastal basins) (USDA Soil Conservation ft � Service, 1978). Areas sapped as "tidal flat" (generally poorly drained [; and high in salts) are also located onsite. Two issues pertaining to soils are the potential for settlement of hydrau- lic fills and the shrink-swell potential of the near-surface soils. The borings recently made at the site (Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1983) indicate that much of the soils in the upper ten to twenty feet (in the depths likely to be dredged at the site) consists of silty sands. These materials, when used in hydraulic fills, would be expected to have a potential for some settlement under load; however, hydraulic fills are M " routinely used in marina areas in southern California and the potential settlement can be mitigated by preloading with surcharge fills and/or by using soil improvement procedures, such as dynamic consolidation or compac- tion piles. With respect to shrink-swell potential of the near-surface soils, it is expected that these upper soils consisting primarily of sandy materials would have a low swell potential and could have low to moderate settlement potential depending on the applied loads (that is, the height of fill placed on them). Appreciable heaving of soils surrounding 10-foot-high fills would not be expected to occur. However, any such tendency can typically be minimized by layering the fill in stages. td III-49 a Erosion Potential/Slope Stability ' Slope inclination along the bluffs bordering the Bolas. Chica and Hunting- ton Beach Mesas range from approximately 2:1 and 1.5:1 for natural slopes to nearly vertical for existing cut slopes. These bluffs are comprised primarily of exposures of the Lakewood formation (firm sandstones and mudstones). Consequently, erosion is limited to minor surficial slough- ing. A stability analysis conducted by Lawmaster indicated slope stabili- ty is not a constraint to development. Air Quality , This subsection addresses air quality considerations within the North Coast Planning Unit and the surrounding region. It also defines the ' County's program for compliance with the 1977 federal Clean Air Act. smalm 1 Air quality levels depend upon the interaction between air pollution sources and the local and regional dispersion mechanisms active in the areas. These mechanisms for dispersion of pollutants are affected by meteorological, topographical and climatological characteristics of the area. Air quality in the North Coast Planning Unit is a function of meteorological factors, primary and secondary pollutants and regional ambient air quality. In order to assess the air quality of the region, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) has established fourteen (14) air basins in the state. These basins define areas having similar meteorologi- cal and geographical conditions and existing political boundaries wherever practical. The North Coast Planning Unit lies within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which includes all of Orange County and portions of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties. The basin is bounded on the west by the Ventura County line and on the north by the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, San Gorgonio, and San Jacinto mountains. Currently, there are no major point sources of air pollution in the North Coast Planning Unit. Ambient air quality data is described in terms of state and federal standards adopted to protect public health with a margin of safety. In addition to ambient standards, California has adopted epi- sode criteria for oxidant, carbon monoxide (CO) and sulfur dioxide (S02). The episode levels represent short-term exposures at which public health is actually threatened. In Orange County, air quality data is collected primarily by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Monitoring stations in Los Alamitos and Costa Mesa are closest to the Study Area. Both stations monitor oxidants (ozone), sulfur dioxide, parti- culates and lead; the Costa Mesa station also monitors carbon monoxide. New development within the Study Area must be consistent with those requirements imposed by an air pollution control district or the State Air Resources Control Board. The Air Quality Management Plan which is described below will serve as the principal measure for compliance of the Bolas. Chica local coastal program with respect to meeting air quality objectives. The California Air Resources Board has determined that the entire South Coast Air Basin is a nonattainment area for oxidant, CO, NO2 and total III-50 suspended particulates (Air Quality Management Plan 1979). The nonattain- ment status implies that the oxidant, 00, NO2 and TSP are in violation of 1 F, the primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards. As a result, the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the Southern California Association of Governments have jointly prepared as Air Quality Management 1 Plan for meeting the federal air quality standards. The AQMP responds to both state and federal legislative mandates. The State Lewis Air Quality Management Act (1976) created the SCAQMD and required the development of a plan to meet state standards in the South Coast Air Basin at the earliest achievable date. The Clean Air Act Amendments (1977) required that a nonattainment contingency plan be developed in this basin. A joint planning effort between SCAG and SCAQMD was established to develop an AQMP to satisfy both state and federal mandates. The AQMP represents the culmination of this two-year planning effort involving SLAG and the SCAQMD, assisted by numerous local, state •( and federal agencies. A preliminary draft AQMP was released in August t 1978, and contained 125 potential control measures. Following workshops and a public review period, the draft AQMP was issued in October 1978. The draft contained a list of recommended measures aimed at attaining air quality standards. It was reviewed between October and December 15 sknd final revisions were made until adoption by the SCAG executive committee on January 25, 1979 and the SCAQKD Board on January 26, 1979. i . The AQMP was submitted to the California Air Resources Board (ARB) on January 31, 1979. ARB approved the AQMP and submitted it to the Environ- mental Protection Agency. After EPA approval, the plan becomes the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) portion of the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Control measures and attainment dates relating to state standards are not a part of the federal nonattainment plan. The control measures in the AQMP are to be implemented by the agencies identified in the plan. Fail- ure to implement these measures could result in federal enforcement and imposition of sanctions against the funding and approval of all federally funded projects, particularly transportation and waste water treatment projects. The basic goal of AQMP is to attain federal and state health standards for ambient air quality at the earliest achievable date and maintain these standards thereafter. For federal primary standards, the deadline for cow- pliance was December 31, 1982. However, the Clean Air Act of 1977 allows for an extension in the deadlines from 1982 to 1987 if all "reasonably available control measures" (RACKS) were implemented before December 31, 1982. ' In 1980, the Orange County Board of Supervisors adopted a program with the intent of satisfying the 1977 Clean Air Act, that would implement six con- trol measures prior to the 1982 deadline. These control measures, along with a preliminary projected date for implementation, are described below: 1. Modified Work Schedules - Initiate, support, and set participation targets for the voluntary use of modified work schedules, where feasi- ble, including staggered hours, flexible schedules, and a 4-day work week, in order to promote the more efficient use of existing transit, p reduce the need for trip making, and facilitate ride sharing among a. employees. ' III-51 2. Carpool Preferential Parking - Promote ridesharing through the provi- sion of a targeted number of preferred parking areas for all employees engaging in carpooling, in order to reduce the need for trip making and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). 3. Increased Bicycle/Pedestrian" Facilities - Promote the use of bicycle and pedestrian modes of transportation for short trips in order to reduce the need for vehicular trips and to reduce VMT, by providing a targeted number of adequate and safe bicycle facilities such as bike paths and parking areas. 4. Employee Rideshare Program - Initiate a shift to high occupancy vehi- cles by assisting employees to form car/vanpools wherever feasible. Facilitate pooling by distributing carpooling information. Establish. voluntary participation targets for employee ridesharing (for example, between 25 percent and 50 percent participation). 5. Traffic Signal Synchronization - Target the installation of intercon- nected traffic signals which are synchronized at the system level in order to facilitate improved air quality by improving traffic flow along selected highways. 6. Energy Conservation - Street Lighting - Direct efforts to replace inefficient lights and fixtures with more energy-efficient fixtures and lights. The control measures are part of countywide efforts and, as such, are , relevant to Bolas, Chica. Accordingly, the LAP shall consider each of these measures as they apply to the Land Use Plan. Cultural Resources ' This subsection provides a discussion of the paleontological, archaeo- logical and historic resources in the Study Area. Of these two categor- ies, only archaeological resources are highly significant with respect to land use planning. The most important archaeological site in the area is Ora-83 whose resources and attendant artifact excavation and protection programs are described in some detail. Paleontological Resources An analysis of paleontological resources occurring within the study area was prepared in July 1980 by Dr. John Cooper of Archaeological Resource Management Corporation, a County-certified archaeological/paleontological firm. The Study Area contains no presently recognized surface occurrences of paleontological resources. A surface examination of sediment exposures in Bolsa Chica revealed locally abundant molluscan invertebrate shell materi- al. This material is geologically young (5,000-10,000 years old) and is not considered to be significant paleontologically. No other surface occurrences of fossils were noted in the field survey. Quaternary deposits along the coastal region of Orange County have pro- duced abundant and significant invertebrate fossils as well as scattered, III-52 significant vertebrate remains. The closest offsite vertebrate fossil locality to the study area is LACK 65113 (along Wintersburg Street in Huntington Beach), from which late Pleistocene mammoth fragments were recovered. Other important offsite localities have been recorded on Newport Beach Mesa and in the S¢al Beach area. No significant surface occurrences of fossils within the Bolsa Chica Study Area are presently recognized. Therefore, the Land Use Plan will have no Impact on any recorded paleontological resources. However, grading and earthwork activities for the project may uncover fossil materials. Archaeological Resources Ora-83 Archaeological Resource Management Corporation (ARMC) conducted a records 1 search and site verification examination for archaeological resources I within the Bolsa Chica local coastal program study area in July 1980. Six archaeological sites on Bolsa Chica Mesa have been located and recorded. Four of them, Ora-83, Ora-84, Ora-85, and Ora-288, are located on the Upper Bench of the mesa and two, Ora-78 and Ora-289, are located on the Lower Bench. ' Ora-83 was discovered in the 1920s and recorded in 1964. Several parties have conducted surface collections and excavations; over 137 cogged stones have been discovered. However, their purpose is unknown. Other artifacts recovered include discordals, projectile points, mans, charmstones and z problematics. Examples of blade, metates and ornaments have also been recovered. In July 1981, archaeological site Ora-83 was proposed for nom- ination to the National Register of Historic Places. However, recent U study of that site conducted by Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. (SRS, 1981) indicated that the site has been severely disturbed throughout most of its extent, primarily as a result of intensive agricultural activities over the past 40 years. Further, the SRS study confirmed that between the 1920s and 1975 the site has been the subject of at least nine (9) surveys, seven (7) surface collections, and six (6) excavation programs. SRS con- cluded that the integrity of the site has been destroyed which thus negates consideration for preservation and/or National Register status. On August 7, 1981, the state Historical Resources Commission rejected the proposed National Register nomination of Ora-83. The SRS study is avail- able for review at the offices of the County EKA, Environmental Analysis Division. In November 1983, the California Historical Resources Commission reversed its earlier negative determination, recommended to the State Historical Preservation Officer that the site be submitted to the keeper of the Q National Register for a determination of its eligibility for nomination to the Register. Both MWD and Signal have objected to its nomination as provided by the National Historic Preservation Act and, therefore, under the terms of the Act the site cannot be considered further for placement t ' on the National Register. The LUP has incorporated the suggestions set forth in the Supplemental EIR (Bolsa Chica EIR 81-250) that any remaining resources of Ora-83 should be 1 carefully salvaged in accordance with the guidelines of County Environ- III-53 mental Management Agency, although some preservation may be considered in this work. Pursuant to these provisions, Signal is proceeding to accom- plish this work and has engaged Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. (SRS) for this purpose. The necessary coastal permit- (Permit No. 5-83-9894) was obtained from the Coastal Commission. A research design for the work was prepared in accordance with the Coastal Commission guidelines, and favor- ably reviewed by EMA, peer reviewers and affected Native Americans. An initial investigation of the site to identify the most promising areas for further investigation and salvage or preservation has been completed. An interim report on this work is in progress. After the report is submit- ted to the Coastal Commission, it is anticipated that a determination will be made regarding the appropriate extent of any further salvage or the extent of any preservation. Other Archaeological Resources Ora-85 was recorded in 1964 and a small excavation was conducted that same year. A total of 56 artifacts, 106 food bones, 310 pieces of chipping waste and many historic intrusive items were recovered. Ora-84 was recorded in 1964 and tested in 1971 by conducting surface col- lection and trenching. The midden was badly disturbed, yielding few arti- facts and little shell. This site was subsequently destroyed. Ora-288 was identified and recorded in 1970. This site was located on Upper Balsa Chica Mesa between Ora-83 on the east and Ora-85 on the west. ' It was tested in 1973 via nine backhoe trenches and showed marked disturb- ance with midden composed of scant shells and few artifacts. This site has been destroyed. Ora-78 is located .at the southeastern tip of Lower Balsa Chica Mesa and was tested in September-October of 1974. Results of the test were not con- clusive. There was very little evidence of Ora-78 actually being an archa- eological site because no artifacts were recovered. Ora-289 is situated in a grove of eucalyptus trees on Lower Balsa Chica Mesa. This site is believed to be an extension of Ora-84. Surficial indi- cations imply this site could be disturbed. However, no excavations or tests have been conducted to date. Although Balsa Chica Mesa has been extensively and intensively investiga- ted by archaeologists for many years, only three of the seven sites on Huntington Beach Mesa have been investigated previously. Furthermore, only three sites are wholly within the study area; parts of the remaining four are within the study area. The seven archaeological sites on Huntington Beach Mesa are CA-Ora-290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 88, and 82. CA-Ora-290 was first recorded in 1970 and was described as a shell midden. The site was test excavated in 1971 and was determined to be a natural shell deposit of little cultural value. CA-Ora-291 was recorded in 1970 and was investigated subsequently in two stages. After investigations, the portion of CA-Ora-291 closest to the ; edge of the bluff was destroyed by burrowing activities. The part of III-54 CA-Ora-291 located back from the bluff edge remains intact. Previous Investigations were not adequate to determine significance. f1 CA-Ora-292 was recorded in 1970 and was visited by consultants in 1977. It . consisted of a thin scattering of shell on the knoll just east of Ora-291. Due to dense vegetation in the area the southern boundary of the site has never been established adequately. Its significance has not been established. CA-Ora-293 was recorded in 1970 and was relocated in 1977 by ARMC. The site is located on the west side of an erosional gully and is defined as being entirely located within the study area. Dense vegetation makes exact identification difficult. This site has never been investigated and r its significance has not been established. CA-Ora-294 was located during the 1970 survey and relocated during the 1977 survey conducted by ARMC. It is located on the east side of the erosional gully across from CA-Ora-293 and is only partially within the study area. This site is an extensive midden deposit with at least two r distinguishable loci (components). Numerous artifacts have been observed; the site appears rich and very complex in depositional character. It is considered significant. CA-Ora-88 was recorded first in 1963 and again in 1970. It is described as a shell midden that has been almost totally destroyed by oil drilling activities. Although a shell midden was observed reaching a depth of 24 inches no artifacts were noted. Only a very small portion of this site is �f within the study area. Recent field verification has not been conducted for this site. CA-Ora-82 was first recorded in 1963 as an extensive shell midden located on the east and west side of Edwards Street. This site lies only partial- ly within the boundaries of the study area. Two archaeological excava- tions were conducted at this site. The first excavation was conducted on the part of CA-Ora-82 located on the west side of Edwards Street. Although only a very small percentage of the site was sampled, interpre- tive information regarding the seasonality of collecting the Pismo clam was obtained. The second study was conducted on the part of CA-Ora-82 located on the east side of Edwards Street. No formal report is available for this study. Based upon proposed land use designations for Bolsa Chica Mesa, there exists the possibility of adverse impact to all recorded archaeological (" resources in that portion of the Bolsa Chica study area. However, three of the sites are not considered significant (Ora-78 was determined not to be an archaeological site and Ora-84 and 288 have been destroyed). The ' remaining three (Ora-83, 85 and 289) are considered significant or poten- tialy significant. More detailed plans will be necessary to determine exactly what impact ' r development on Bolsa Chica Mesa will have on archaeological resources. L Impact will vary in relation to the specific use being placed on the archaeological site. For example, grading for and placement of a struc- ture on the site would amount to loss of the resource while placement of fill and landscaping the site as open space could be considered preserva- tion. III-55 i � i Lands containing archaeological sites or portions of sites within the study area adjacent to the Huntington !Mesa bluffs are designated for open space uses. This designation anticipates use of these areas as part of the proposed Linear Regional Park and thus may result in less potential for substantial impact to resources present. However, eventual implementa- tion and use of the park may result in some disturbance. Those sites on , Huntington Mesa considered potentially significant include Ora-291, 292, 293, 294, 88 and 82). To ensure adequate consideration and treatment of other potential cultural resources sites at Bolas. Chica, the basis for determining identification, evaluation and mitigation measures for cultural/scientific resources shall be in accordance with Orange County EIR Procedures, Report on Cultural/ Scientific Resources for County of Orange (March 1977), Board Resolution 77-866 and cultural scientific resource management materials. These measures include literature and records research; surface surveys; subsur- face investigations (testing); observation during grading by archaeolo- gists/paleontologists; and preservation through maintenance in an undistur- bed condition, through excavation, or through adaptive use. More specifi- cally, these measures entail the following: A. Guidelines for Analysis Manager/Environmental Analysis Division (EAD), EMA Advance Planning, shall determine if project site contains historical, archaeological or paleontological resources; significance; impact; and mitigation mea- sures. , B. Enforcement and Regulation Enforcement and regulation shall be the responsibility of the EAD Manager, unless otherwise specified in approval or permit conditions. Standard conditions are on file in EAD. C. Time Requirements All investigations will be conducted within established state guide- lines and county EIR Procedures, except for those items which the Manager/EAD determines to be appropriate for special review. D. Advisory Committee An Advisory Committee is composed of the EAD Manager as chairman, and nine members representing various interests within the resource and development sector. They review any study or report or provide guid- ance as to the disposition of any archaeological or paleontological issues requested by the Manager. E. Salvage Reimbursement Costs of preservation or site salvage are borne by the project appli- cant or the County as specified in Part IV of Resolution 77-866. Source of funds for the County's costs is determined in Part V of said Resolution. Manager/EAD is responsible for county's salvage reimburse- ment policy. ' III-56 , ' F. Certification of Professionals Archaeological and paleontological professionals shall be certified by t .i the Planning Commission as qualified to perform work, as specified in Part VI, Resolution 77-866. ' G. Depository Artifacts, fossils and other significant remains recovered at county expense are County property. Orange County Historical Commission and Natural History Foundation are responsible for storage and final dis- position. Materials must be deposited in accordance with Board- approved procedures for such action. Ustorical Resources A summary history and evaluation of historical resources was prepared for l. the Study Area in July 1980 by Jeanne Munoz, Ph.D. as part of the cultur- al/scientific resources evaluation by Archaeological Resources Management Corporation. No significant historical resources from the Spanish-Mexican era or previ- ous agricultural activities have been identified in the Bolsa Chica LCP Segment Area. The clubhouse of the Bolsa Chica Gun Club has been destroyed but is well-documented. Remnants of a U.S. Navy coastal defense system installed in the early years of World War II are known to exist on Bolsa Chica Mesa. Although Sun emplacements and other surface features have been removed, two con- crete bunkers and underground tunnels and a command center still exist. Total extent of World War II construction activities presently is unknown I and entrances to various parts have been blocked. A map of the system exists and is considered sufficient for historical records. These facili- ties are the most recent and are not considered significant historical Eresources. 1 e ' III-57 c SECTION III, PART 4: COASTAL ACCESS AND RECREATION/VISATOR-MVIIG FACILMES COMM UM r SMPSIS This section provides descriptions, programs and background analysis of ' the existing and proposed new coastal access and other recreation facilities at Bolsa Chica. Specifically delineated is the overall coastal access plan trail system for the area which is planned as a recreation amenity in itself, and considerations relating to the Bolsa Chica marina, Bolsa Chica State Beach and the ocean entrance, and Bolas. Chica Linear Regional Park. Taken together, these and other facilities form a recreation system of regional and local importance. Their size, location and character have a direct influence upon other proposed land uses. Other coastal access and recreation-related facilities proposed in the Land Use Plan such as naviga- tion channels, roadway systems and the like are described in the sections cross-referenced below: . Shoreline Processes and Structures Component 1 . Transportation Component i ' . Neighborhood Commercial Component Community Design and Visual and Scenic Resources Component I • PROJECT DESCRIMON SUMMM Coastal Access . The following six elements comprise the Coastal Access and Recreation/Visi- tor-Serving Facilities Component: ' 1. The major coastal access linkages proposed for Bolsa Chica identi- fied and illustrated on the Access and Recreation Plan include the following: The Huntington Mesa and lowland segments of the Linear Regional Park trail; Cross-gap corridor from Springdale Street to Pacific Coast ' Highway; The ocean entrance jetties within the City of Huntington Beach; The Wintersburg flood control discharge channel and desilting basin levees; Existing Pacific Coast Highway, Pacific Coast Highway reroute and bridge(s); and ' 0 The riparian corridor on Bolsa Chica Mesa. 2. Bolsa Chica marina berthing basins, the marina landside support/ ' visitor-serving, and other recreation amenities contained in the LUP are presented below with the types and approximate acreage allocation: III-59 I Marina Facilities Approximate Acres 1,300-slip marina 37.0 marina parking 7.5 public launch ramps 5.0 dry boat storage 6.5 miscellaneous support (boat sales, rental, , repairs, chandlery; harbor patrol, fuel dock) 4.0 I Subtotal 60.0 Visitor-Serving Facilities: 150-room motel; 85,000 square feet of specialty retail (including 3 restaurants) and additional square footage and other I commercial; 4 freestanding restaurants; , continuous internal access and passive recreation per LUP policies. Subtotal 15.0 , TOTAL ACRES - 75.0 i 3. Bolsa Chica Linear Regional Park , See Bolas Chica Linear Regional Park Boundary Study, April, ' 1985. TOTAL ACRES - 130.0 4. Existing Pacific Coast Highway and Pacific Coast Highway Re-Route and Bridges Class II trails on both sides of Pacific Coast Highway with ' new connections to ocean entrance jetties and existing Bolsa Chica State Beach Class I trail. 5. Bolsa Chica State Beach-Ocean Entrance Area , I . • Pedestrian/bicycle access on both jetties with direct access onto beach sand area; observation points and fishing opportunities • Additional beach area (sand trap) upcoast of west jetty and downcoast of east jetty New beach parking on old Pacific Coast Highway right-of-way . Relocated structures and facilities for any displaced by entrance channel construction Direct pedestrian and bicycle access connection under PCH to marina 6. Coastal Access for Non-Marina Lowland Interior and Bolsa Chica Mesa Lowland Linear Regional Park bicycle/pedestrian trail system and vista points along central wetland/residential development edge III-60 • Class I trail on seaward side of Bolsa-Garfield connector roadway . Flood control channel levee bicycle/pedestrian trail Riparian corridor bicycle/pedestrian trail . Outer Bolsa Bay/Huntington Harbour Connection channel trail on ' 1 Bole& Chica Mesa COASTAL ACCESS AND RECREATION PROJECTS DESCRIPTION Dole Chica Marinq rcial Facility �. The Land Use Plan proposes an approximately 75-acre mixed use marina/com- mercial complex located in the lowland and the southwesterly corner of Bolas. Chic& Mesa. The marina complex will be the centerpiece of all recreation facilities proposed for the area. The facility will have the ' following features subject to market demand study updates and design refinement in the Implementing Actions Program. 1,300+ boat slip berthing basins separated by the main channel; plus + at least 400 dry boat storage spaces ` l Minimum six-lane boat launch ramp . Marina support facilities including boat repair facility, sales/rental, chandlery, fuel dock and parking at the ratio of 0.6 spaces/boat slip Visitor-serving facilities including four freestanding restaurants, a 150-room motel, and 85,000 square feet of specialty commercial r- including three restaurants. This. proposal is based upon market L demand studies done for the County by INTRA and Williams-Ruebelbeck in 1983 and incorporated in the LCP/LUP Supplement. Recreation access containing the following internal and immediately - adjacent external linkages, in accordance with the Access and Recreation Plan, Exhibit 19. Provision for commercial and/or sport fishing, tour boat facilities consistent with other uses and intensities and market demand. Other facilities for the marina not directly related to coastal access or recreation may include:. € - neighborhood commercial (eg., supermarket(s) , banks, movie theatres, convenience services, etc.) ' - high and/or heavy density residential above or immediately adjacent to the visitor-serving and community uses t.. Nothwithstanding any policy set forth herein for Marina/Commercial ' Facilities, the uses permitted within State sovereign fee owned lands L shall be restricted to those of statewide benefit consistent with the public trust for commerce, navigation and fisheries as determined by the State Lands Commission. It is acknowledged that the other facili- ties listed therein which are not related to coastal access or recrea- tion are not authorized trust uses. III-61 ■w �ww w�. +w w � w w wi w� ww w� ww ww ww ww ww ■w wwi N to ,1t�y.Lt C'c�,{>.c�'Y`��N� 's�� r tam �• S'L,. IN LEGEND ,,�� T�,, :a; v r �, U • wvrn9 SBLRG ROOD C4X rROL ° � - i • 1-J CLASS I BIKE/PEDESTRIAN TRAIL CHANNEUMIXING BASIN TRAIL �y �� o i • CLASS II EIKE TRAIL tvy� �M�'.0 \ �`�j�s` r'y, . i� ^G • ,•` ; , ••• EQUESTRIAN TRAIL clkb its)' !-fli ri• ':1J�ri r� •"� ..� 1lr (� C�.^,,rrTT.• X /J��..rvT"K�• I -_ - �:\\< �7 NATURE TRAIL DESILTING c ,s ^�a r;x r; o •� •., `�• BASIN! O \{• r �' ,s: y •' t i i :'Ll.i,��l�:: t c' ` �- •• SHORELINE ACCESS WETLAND i, r - .� _"' axnO " + r Y�r.�� 4 f CL�st7fiAL-WETLAND WATER ACCESS VISUAL OVERLOOKGAW f �•.r' CTO�I.� - \ ��\� •, , BALSA `pARI(A-LNAl1a1I� RIPARIAN ''� c i f/ —\ ow+WL' f e,�"A A ARK ,. CORRIDOR TRAIL .� i l - — --- —..\ —wa, A�r� :. • ctm a 2 C� i AfJ aREa�ruim l �^ 3 3 QOo� y - • - • . .3 oc fI OUTER BOLSA — O BAYMEfLAND \ f�] 1 O •.PACFIC COAST �K� y mmivi - - _ - - EXPANDED BEACH AREA WEST JETTY n EAST.JETTY NAVIGABLE OCEAN ENTRANCE I TERMMAL BREAKWATER %------------------------------------- -----------_--____._--_-----_---- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I BOLSA CHICA o goo +aoo 0 D NORTH COAST PLANNING UNIT .- �0° �OQ��Q� Q���� �� LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM RECRE OCIE" M P M B ViAX*.4a TAL MAMC414E T AGUICY C y a Or~ EXHIBIT 19 ' This overall mix of uses will establish the Bolsa Chica marina as a facil- ity of regional and local significance. From a regional perspective, the marina will add a supply of new boat berths to meet a small but signifi- ' cant percentage of the current and future regional demand for such facili- ties. More significantly, the provision of the minimum sir-lane boat launch ramp will allow up to a 300-boat/day ocean access capacity for trailered boats. The facility will serve many boaters throughout the region who, by virtue of residence, income, or preference do not store their boats in the coastal zone. This particular group constitutes the largest percentage of all boaters. The number of launch lanes proposed in ' this LAP has been proportionately reduced from that recommended in the LUP Supplement because of the overall reduction in the size of the marina complex from 127 acres to 75 acres. The final number of launch ramp lanes will be determined in the IAP. The dry boat storage facility will increase the marina's berthing capacity to a total of at least 1,700 boats. The storage facility, which will cater primarily to power boats less than 25 feet in length, will likely be designed in a vertical configuration and thus result in acreage effici- encies not possible for in-the-water berthing. While boat berthing and related facilities will be a central focus of the marina, market demand and recreation use studies have shown that the amenity created by boating facilities creates a "magnet" of opportunity for non-marina recreation and visitor-serving facilities. Such studies have also shown that the majority of marina visitors to similar facilities are not boaters. Hence, the proposed specialty commercial, overnight lodging, and restaurants, and passive recreation elements of the marina will ultimately represent the predominant use in terms of recreation visitor-days. As such, the marina will cater to a wide variety of interests and income levels. From a local needs perspective, the potential inclusion of neighborhood commerial and high and/or heavy density residential as an integral part of ' the marina complex will create a community center for Bolas Chica. Properly designed and configured, the marina complex will satisfy basic neighborhood service requirements and set a theme, identity and focus for ' n the urban aspects of the overall Bolsa Chita community. This mixed-use [[, concept will result in efficiency of land use and will provide important revenue potential for public and private sector interests. The basic framework for marina complex implementation, financing and management is laid out in Section III, Part 10: Phasing and Financing Component and in the Implementing Actions Program discussion (Section IV). Bolsa Chita Linear Re gional Park - Buntington Mesa ' The Count has been considers the development of the Bolsa Chica Linear Y considering P Regional Park since a 1977 study was completed indicating the need for and the feasibility of this coastal access and recreation amenity. County EMA has completed a study focusing on determination of a boundary for the Huntington Mesa segment of the park. The purpose of the Boundary Study for the Mesa segment has been to provide the preparation of a general (� development plan. The Boundary Study will be processed at the local level generally concurrently with this LUP. The lowland segment of the Linear Park has also been conceptually identified in this LUP and is also f described in this section. III-63 The Boundary Study has now been completed and will be reviewed by the ' Board of Supervisors as a separate document concurrent with public hear- ings on the LUP. The Land Use Plan and Access and Recreation Plan Indi- cates the proposed Huntington Mesa boundaries of the park and recommended uses therein. Approximately 130 acres will be contained within the park boundaries for proposed uses, including on-going oil production. The proposed program for the Park is a direct result of concepts developed ' during the last decade, the Coastar• Conservancry Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), and the recent discussions with the City of Huntington Beach. , Specifically, the Huntington Mesa segment of the Linear Park will serve the dual purpose of coastal access and environmentally sensitive habitat. The recreational features of the park will be located primarily on the Huntington Mesa bluff top. Pedestrian and equestrian trails will be provi- ded in this area to connect Huntington Central Park with the shoreline. This connection will ultimately occur in two directions. Trail linkages , to the lowland will be provided where the proposed Garfield Avenue exten- sion traverses the Huntington Mesa bluffs. Trails also will be provided on the bluff top and will connect to the State Beach, possibly via a , pedestrian bridge over Pacific Coast Highway. The bluff top trails will be contained within a greenbelt having landscape treatment compatible with and as a visual screen to on-going oil opera- tions. Vista points, rest stops and interpretive stations will be located at appropriate intervals. Environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHAs) will be created to compen- sate for such of those displaced by other proposed land uses in the low- land and on Bolas Chica Mesa. The principal feature of this park element will be a newly created eucalyptus grove for raptor and other habitat. The ecological features and management requirements of this and the other Identified habitats are discussed in detail in the Biological Resources Management Component. From a recreation and access planning perspective, ' the ESHAs will be designed to maximize the visual amenity potential of the park in compatible conjunction with wildlife objectives. Areas of parti- cular focus will be the design of edge conditions between the ESHAs and , bluff top recreation amenities. Also, the distribution of newly created eucalyptus grove areas will be done in a manner which will allow for view corridors to the lowland from bluff top observation points, etc. Trails within the ESHAs will be an option if compatible with wildlife objectives. ' These trails would be primarily used for nature interpretive purposes rather than principal coastal access corridors. The precise location and mix of ESHAs, trails and recreation amenities to be provided in the Linear , Park will be developed in the Wetlands Restoration Concept Plan and the Linear Park Huntington Mesa Segment General Development Plan to be prepared concurrent with the Land Use Plan Confirmation planning phase. Dolma Chica Linear Regional Park - Lowland Linear Park Trail System Trail Location and General Characteristics The Linear Park lowland segment trail system will connect the Huntington Mesa segment of the Linear Park with the marina south basin and State Beach facilities adjacent to the ocean entrance channel. The trail system ' III-64 1 will begin at the base of the Huntington Mesa bluffs and run along the seaward side of the Bolsa Chica/Garfield connector between the bluffs and the Garfield/Talbert Street intersection. As shown in the Access and Recreation Plan, the trail will then traverse the central wetland/urban development edge within the buffer setback and ultimately connect with the ' marina and the ocean entrance jetties. This trail and associated recrea- tion amenities and environmentally sensitive habitat areas will be a func- tional part of the overall Bolas. Chica Linear Regional Park in accordance with the County•s 1977 feasibility studies. As such, this segment of the ' park will be the principal coastal* access linkage in the lowland. The precise boundary and internal uses for this area will be defined in the Implementing Actions Program pursuant to LUP policies. Criteria developed ' in the Wetlands Restoration Concept Plan to be developed in the Land Use Plan Confirmation phase will be used for location and design of the access elements described below. ' The stretch of trail running along Bolsa Chica/Garfield between the Hun- tington Mesa bluffs and the Talbert Avenue intersection will be included in the cross-gap connector right-of-way. Specifically, the trail in this area will be located within a suitable landscaped setback and separated from traffic lanes. The trail will be designed to County Class I trail design standards and the criteria to be developed in the Wetlands Restora- tion Concept Plan. Next, the trail will turn seaward and run along the central wetlands buf- fer setback for approximately one mile between the Bolas, Chica/Garfield- Talbert Avenue intersection and the State Ecological Reserve trail. From here, the trail will connect to the marina/commercial south basin through or around the surrounding high density residential area. Generally, the controlling performance standards for location and design of the trail and vista points in this area involve the buffering of wet- land habitat from human intrusion and disturbance with particular emphasis ' on the protection of endangered species. These requirements are discussed in the Biological Resources Management Component. ' Given the considerable length of this trail segment, at least three vista points and/or access areas are proposed in conjunction with the trail itself. Area 1 will be located at the intersection of Talbert Street and Garfield Avenue. Area 2 will be located at the end and on the landward side of the main boat channel. This area may be appropriate for opportuni- ties for small boat launching and community facilities and will serve as well as for a wetlands vista point. Visual access to the main boat chan- t (' nel will be a key criterion for location and configuration of this area. L Area 3 will be located at approximately 1/4-mile beyond and will be primar- ily a resting and wetlands vista observation point. Visual access through secondary boat channels to the main internal waterway will also be pro- vided in this area. Bolsa Chica/Garfield Connector: Talbert Street to Marina North Basin The Bolas. Chica/Garfield Connector corridor will be designed to urban scenic highway and state noise attenuation standards throughout its length F ' as provided for in the Transportation Component. A suitable landscaped setback of variable width will be located on the seaward side of the trail ' � III-65 i r system between the Talbert Avenue intersection and the marina. A Class I trail designed in accordance with County standards and the Community Design and Visual and Scenic Resources Component will be constructed to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access. This access will be secondary In importance to the central wetland system. At least four vier corridors from the roadway trail system to main and secondary channels will be ' provided along this approximately one-mile stretch. Dols& Wee State Beach at Ocean Entrance Area , The Land Use Plan proposes changes to recreation facilities and trail access in the existing area of Bolas Chica State Beach seaward of the Pacific Coast Highway realignment segment. The construction of the navi- gable ocean entrance will entail reconfiguration of the beach itself, the existing Class I bicycle trail and some parking; and may require reloca- tion of at least one concession stand and restroom structure in this area. ' Although the State beach/ocean entrance lies within the jurisdiction of the City of Huntington Beach, and is under the managment of the State ' Department of Parks and Recreation, the County proposes that the recrea- tion uses and access described below should be implemented in the subject area. Considerations related to jurisdictional management are described in Section IV, Implementing Actions Program. Navigation access is dis- cussed in Section III, Part 2: Shoreline Processes and Structures Com- ponent. First, the existing Class I trail running through the parking area along ' the beach will be retained except at the ocean entrance channel itself. The upcoast and downcoast ends of the bisected trail will be connected to new pedestrian and bicycle access onto the ocean entrance jetties them- selves. The continuous pedestrian and bicycle lateral access lost in this area will be fully compensated for on the Pacific Coast Highway realign- ment and bridge. Direct access from the- jetties to the beach itself will also be provided at appropriate intervals. Observation areas and fishing platforms are also proposed for the jetties. The details of these recre- ation elements will be developed as part of the IAP. , Second, based on existing Corps of Engineers studies and other harbor en- trances along the southern California coast, it is anticipated that sig- nificant additional beach area will be created upcoast and downcoast of ' the ocean entrance by the sand trap and bypassing system. As described in the Shoreline Structures and Processes Component (Section III, Part 2), it is intended that the jetty, breakwater and sand trap design will create , sufficient new beach acreage to offset that lost by entrance channel construction. As also noted in that Section, the entrance jetties and breakwater will be designed to assure that these structures will cause no significant net reduction of beach sand area along the Surf side-Newport Beach shoreline. Third, during the many public hearings regarding the Bolsa Chica plan, , surfing interest groups have expressed concern about the effect on exist- ing surfing opportunities posed by the proposed ocean entrance, jetties terminal and breakwater. The technical issues related to the wave climate to be created by the entrance are described in the Shoreline Structures ' and Processes Component. From a recreation perspective, the ocean en- III-66 ' trance will cause some loss of existing surfing opportunities in the imme- diate breakwater and channel area. However, these structures will be de--- signed to mitigate the loss of existing surfing opportunities consistent l with other planning goals and objectives. It is possible some new higher F ' quality surfing opportunities may result. The technical studies to be developed as part of the Corps' Sunset Harbor Study, and the input of the ' Corps to the Land Use Plan Confirmation Report, are anticipated to address this recreation need. ' Fourth, any recreation concession or restroom structures that may be impac- ted and/or relocated by the ocean entrance will be mitigated in accordance with State Parks and Recreation requirements. This issue will be ' addressed in the Implementing Actions Program. Fifth, the realignment of Pacific Coast Highway along Bolsa Chic& 'Mesa will free up significant acreage currently occupied by the existing road- way directly adjacent to the beach. This area will provide a location to compensate for parking and structures as noted above lost by ocean entrance channel construction, and may allow for new recreation amenities to be pro- vided; in addition, some lands may be utilized for wetlands restoration. The IAP will articulate the details of future uses in this area. Sixth, State Parks and Recreation has indicated a need to address certain operation and maintenance inefficiencies that may be caused by the bifurca- tion of the State Beach following construction of the ocean entrance. The recreation-related consideration will be reconciled as part of the agree- ' ments to be provided for in the Implementing Actions Program. One option would involve assumption of maintenance responsibility for the upcoast seg- . E = sent of the State Beach by the County in conjunction with its on-going beach maintenance facilities at the adjacent Sunset Beach. Pacific Coast Highway Corridor and Pacific Coast Highway Reroute bridge As noted in the ocean entrance recreation discussion above, the Access and Recreation Plan proposes to retain most of the Class I bicycle trail in the State Beach Park. To compensate for the continuous access lost by en- trance channel construction, continuous pedestrian and bicycle access will be provided on both sides of the realigned Pacific Coast Highway segment. The realigned PCH segment and bridges will be designed to provide for pedestrian and bicycle access in the following manner. A Class II trail ' will be constructed on both sides of the new roadway. A Class II trail will also be built on both sides of the bridge spans over the Bolsa Chica main channel and the Huntington Harbour connection channel/Outer Bolsa Bay. The precise nature of such access will be determined in conjunction with the Marina General Development Plan and detailed residential plans for Bolsa Chica Mesa to be developed in the IAP. The Community Design and Visual and Scenic Resources, and Transportation Components provide addi- tional detail regarding the nature of these access linkages in relation- ship to their surroundings. €, Background Analysis Along many sections of the California coast, existing public recreation ' facilities and coastal access are insufficient to meet present and future �- demand. Existing facilities in many areas, particularly in highly urban- ' III-67 ized Orange County, are strained beyond capacity during peak use periods by users from throughout the region. Since much of the southern Califor- nia coast was developed before provision of access to the shoreline and ' public recreation facilities became a mandate of the Coastal Act, there are limited opportunities for such new uses for the state's popoulation, 80 percent of whom live within 30 miles of the coast. ' By virtue of its size and location, Bolas Chica is one of the few areas in southern California which has the potential to increase significantly a diversity of coastal access and shoreline oppportunities. At present, the following coastal access and recreation facilities exist immediately on-site and in the vicinity of the Study Area. Dols& Chica State E¢ological-Reserve Bolsa Chica State Ecological Reserve is located immediately adjacent to ' the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway. Presently, only limited access through the Reserve exists. A parking area at the intersection of Warner Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway is the starting and ending point for a t short loop trail immediately adjacent to the parking lot. This trail and the parking area provide visual access to Outer Bolsa Bay and adjoining Bolsa Chica Mesa bluffs. At the southwestern tip of Bolsa Chic& Mesa, a vista point with nature , interpretation graphics was constructed in 1981. A 3,000-foot loop trail in the lowland area downcoast was established in , the 1978 Phase I Marsh Re-establishment Program. However, these trails were subsequently closed to the public as a result of storm damage. The trail system was repaired but has not been fully reopened to the public. Part of this trail system includes an elevated boardwalk which begins at the Ecological Reserve parking area across Pacific Coast Highway from the entrance to Bolsa Chica State Beach. The boardwalk, half of which is ' presently closed to the public, crosses the Reserve and connects to the aforementioned trail system on the dike constructed for the 1978 Phase I marsh re-establishment. Vintersburg Flood Control Channel and Ialaad Dike Unsanctioned public access occurs atop the Wintersburg Flood Control Chan- ' nel levees between Slater Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway. Bicyclists, joggers, and pedestrians have used the unimproved dirt trails for many years. No estimate of current use rates exists. The Orange County Master Plan of Bikeways proposed this route as Class I Bikeway No. 35. ' Similar unsanctioned use has been observed along the low dike at the edge of existing residential development on the W.B. Grace property (see Ex- ' hibit 4, Ownership). Major access points to the dike are from the Winters- burg Flood Control Channel south levee and the Graham Street stub out. Bolsa Chica State Beach and Pacific Coast Highway ' Bolsa Chica State Beach is the principal existing recreation facility in the area. The state beach extends from Warner Avenue upcoast to the Hun- ' tington Beach pier downcoast. The beach is operated by the State Depart- III-68 ' sent of Parks and Recreation and lies within the jurisdiction of the City of Huntington Beach. The state beach has three entrances along Pacific Coast Highway: a signalized main entrance directly accross from the Ecolo- gical. Reserve, a second entrance opposite the Warner Avenue/Pacific Coast Highway intersection, and a third entrance, opposite the whipstock oil t operatons at the south end of the Bolas. Chica. All other access to the ' beach along this reach is presently precluded due to a fence running along the entire length of the parking area. The state beach contains 2,200 parking spaces (16 acres) available for a $3/day charge. The spaces provide parking for approximately one-half of the total beach capacity (Williams-Buebelbeck Associates, 1979). Parking ' along Pacific Coast Highway within the Study Area was prohibited in 1981, hence reducing beach use capacity. A State Department of Parks and Recreation 1973 analysis of the beach indicated that additional parking could increase the annual carrying capacity from 1,700,000 user days to approximately 2,700,000 user days. In addition to beach use and parking facilities, a Class I bikeway runs within state beach boundaries from the Warner Avenue/Pacific Coast Highway `= intersection to the southern end of the park. A Class II bikeway runs northerly on Pacific Coast Highway on the inland side of the highway. + • , &ntiagton Harbour Huntington Harbour is a boating-oriented residential community with ' approximately 2,200 privately held boat slips associated with waterfront housing and small marinas. All waterways are accessible to the public. In addition to providing boating opportunities, Huntington Harbour con- tains a number of small landside recreation areas. The most extensive facilities are located on Trinidad Island which contains a 2.7-acre green- belt park with a bicycle/pedestrian path, two small vista parks, a fishing ' t dock, and a walkway around the island. Additional public areas located throughout Huntington Harbour include three pocket beaches and three small parks. A 4.1-acre park and beach site in the proposed development oppo- site Peters Landing also as been dedicated to the City for public use. Peters Landing contains a 300-slip marina and associated restaurants and specialty commercial shops. Sunset Aquatic Park Sunset Aquatic Regional Park is a County-operated public, regional boating facility containing a 260-slip marina, three-lane boat launch ramp, harbor- master's office, boatyard sales office, parking, and other supporting facilities. The facility is located immediately adjacent to the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge on the north and Huntington Harbour on the south. The County is presently preparing plans to increase berthing capa- city by 23 percent and to add two launch ramp lanes. Landside support facilities (parking, etc.) and landscape amenities are also proposed. Seac.Uff Country Club The Seacliff Country Club, located on Palm Avenue west of Goldenwest Street, operates an 18-hole golf course which is open to the public. This facility is located adjacent to the study area southeasterly boundary. III-69 i Bicycle Trail ' The Pacific Coast Highway Class I bicycle trail (two-way divided facility ' separated from vehicular traffic) is the major coastal zone bikeway in the site vicinity. Most portions of this facility have already been con- structed within the Study Area except for the stretch east of the main en- t trance to Bolas Chica State Beach adjacent to the whipstock oil facility. Huntington Beach Central Park The Huntington Beach Central Park, largely a man-made recreational re- source built on approximately 285 acres of rolling hills and flat low- lands, is located northeast of the project site between Edwards and , Gothard Streets. The 185 acres presently developed include the central library, cultural center, and Lake Huntington recreation area. This will ultimately be linked to Bolsa Chica State Beach via the proposed Linear Regional Park composed of trails, walkways, picnic areas, and vista points. Further discussion of the proposed Linear Park is provided below. Regional Recreation Demand ' Regionwide demand for new coastal access and recreation in Orange County is enormous, given the observed and documented heavy uses of beaches, open ocean, harbors, and coastal parks for a variety of activities, especially ' during summer months. The ability of the Orange County coastline to meet this demand is limited, particularly with regard to boating facilities and beach access and use. ' Regional recreation demand studies such as the Orange County Recreation Needs and Regional Parks Study (1980) indicate that recreational boating and beach visitation activities currently experience shortages of facili- ties. More significantly, these shortages are projected to increase drama- tically over the next ten to fifteen years. Through Orange County, and specifically in the Bolsa Chica area (County community analysis area 34), ' the County Recreational Needs Analysis revealed shortages of recreational facilities between 1977 and 1995 for the following major activities: sailing, powerboating, beach visitation, ocean swimming, surfing, water , skiing, bicycling, and horseback riding. With regard to boating facilities and opportunities, the Orange County Recreation Needs and Regional Parks Study, and others (eg., Williams- Ruebelbeck and Associates Bolsa Chica Market Demand Stud - 1980), indicate severe shortages of boat slips , -slip deficiency countywide by 2000) and boating access opportunities. Despite the compelling need for new boating facilities, a larger consideration in relation to boating ' and particularly marina development is the demonstrated ability of such uses to provide the basis and catalyst for a wide range of non-boating recreation in conjunction with boating activity. ' III-70 1 SECTION III, PART 5: TRANSPORTATION COMPONENT SYNOPSIS ' This section provides a description of the major existing and proposed transportation/circulation elements in the LUP. Specifically discussed are the proposed major, primary, and secondary arterial roadways to be constructed within the Study Area and the relation- ship of these roadways to the existing traffic circulation system. Also identified are the key traffic and noise impacts of and mitigation mea- sures for the proposed system on surrounding communities, particularly ' with respect to adjacent residential areas and the community of Sunset Beach. The primary issues related to vehicular circulation in the area include: Capacity of planned arterials to provide for both local and regional commuting and recreational traffic (particularly during peak summer periods). 1 fit . Need for additional vertical access to the coast between Warner Avenue • and Goldenwest Street. Need for a "cross-gap" connector to: - handle local traffic; 1 _ complete City/County Master Plan of Arterial Highways; and, provide public access to the site, including the marina/commercial complex. �L- Effect on the existing community of planned arterials and improvements to existing arterials; 1 Need to increase capacity of PCH to accomodate/enhance vehicular access consistent with wetlands restoration and public recreation facilities requirements. Provision of parking facilities for coastal-dependent uses. i • I 1 Policies governing the Transportation Component are found in Section II, Part 5. Additional major discussion relevant to traffic circulation is found in: 1 E . i� Coastal Access and Recreation Component New Residential and Neighborhood Commercial Component Community Design and Visual and Scenic Resources Component ' PROJECT DBSCRIPTION SLIOARY f ' The major Transportation elements of the Land Use Plan are shown on Exhibit 20: Circulation Plan, and include: Upgrading of existing Pacific Coast Highway between the downcoast cor- ner of the LCP Segment boundary and the ocean entrance area to a modi- a:. III-71 LEGEND �fp��"S'��``�,.-,��f�,is'c�,�.y�,ar({.. .,c. �• ���'` � �. MAJOR ROAD.6 LANES DIVIDED PRIMARY ROAD:4 LANES DIVIDED SECONDARY ROAD,.4 LANES UNDIVIDED ' COMMUTER ROAD 2 LANES UNDIVIDED NOTE: Q� / PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY IS A PROPOSED Sq MODIFIED MAJOR ROAD,1W R.O.W. _ ,� •, ' BOLSALHICA-GARFIELD CONNECTOR IS A PROPOSED SCENIC SECONDARY ROAD,90•R.O.W. ` .41 DESILTING ' BASIN/ WETLAND ,�/ r r f' J r o =E v -CENTRAL WETLAND ` LINEAR`�� REGIONAL PARK 1 - a BOLA 3 . . , 't r �pND mc I CENTRAL WETLAND RIPARIAN ARF� 1 / x / I I RIPARIAN 11Rf A/WE TLAND / 3 3 MC / MC el LC110. CIIANN� L / 3 ��� .La _�' := wT.cTON // OUTER BOLSA //� i �;' .\ n to• ——— BAY/WETLAND ,C MC � ;f[ _ PACFIC COAST "a-w 1Y BOLSA CHICA STATE BEACH } NAVIGABLE OCEAN ENTRANCE 1 I �_ __BOUSIRACHICA ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________.________________________________________________________________._______________________________-__._____________________________________________________� f NORTH COAST PLANNING UNIT ° ow 1aw low LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM CO RC U L�°T9OO m p° ENVIR(NrENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY Ca,.,,a O,. e EXHIBIT 20 ' fied major arterial (six lanes divided within a 100-foot right-of- way). ' ( Realignment of Pacific Coast Highway to traverse Bolsa Chica Mesa between the existing Warner Avenue/PCH intersection and the ocean entrance area. Roadway to be built as a major arterial. Provision is made for a 45-foot minimum navigable bridge clearance over the Bolsa Chica main channel and a minimum 25-foot navigable bridge clearance over a Huntington Harbour Connection Channel. ' A corridor in the lowland, located between 500 and 950 feet from exist- ing neighborhoods, to accommodate a standard or perhaps modified pri- mary arterial (four lanes divided). The roadway and trail system will connect Bolsa Chica Street with Garfield Avenue (Bolsa Chica/Garfield Connector). The purpose of the Bolsa Chica/ Garfield Connector is to provide a shorter, alternate route for local traffic currently using PCH and to serve project-generated traffic. Road will be built to fj urban scenic highway standards and will encompass sufficient right-of- way to include a Class I pedestrian and bicycle trail within a land- scaped setback along the seaward side of the roadway. All noise atten- uation requirements for new development will be met. Maintenance or improvement of noise levels in the surrounding existing neighborhoods will be a major criterion for precise location and design of this ' roadway. I . Extension of Springdale Street, Graham Street and Talbert Avenue to ' ff' the Bolsa Chica/Garfield Connector. E . Realignment of Warner Avenue to intersect with the realigned Pacific Coast Highway on Bolsa Chica Mesa. New intersection design will ' reflect pressing needs to improve traffic circulation and turning movements at this junction. ' t Secondary arterial connections between Bolsa Chica Street and Pacific E.' Coast Highway adjacent to the marina/commercial complex; and an addi- tional secondary arterial connection across Bolsa Chica Mesa between Warner Avenue and the Bolsa Chica Street/PCH connection. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Pacific Coast Hig`hvay - Sxistiag Segtaeat The Circulation Plan calls for existing Pacific Coast Highway between the downcoast corner of the LCP Segment boundary and the ocean entrance area to be upgraded to a modified major arterial designation. This designation will allow for the addition of one new lane to each direction of travel for a total of six lanes separated by a 10-foot median strip. The need for six lanes of travel on PCH is due to the projected 1995 traffic vol- umes which will necessitate such improvements to maintain an appropriate Level of Service (D) even if the Bolsa Chica project were not to be built. The project will not substantially increase PCH traffic volumes either in the study area itself or in Sunset Beach. The increase in ultimate traf- fic through Sunset Beach with the development of the project is estimated ' to increase by 3,000 ADT over current levels or to 35,000 ADT by 1995. Documentation for these conclusions may be found in EIR 81-250. The exist- III-73 ing Class I (off-road) bicycle lane will be retained. The modified major designation has been chosen to avoid any significant encroachment on the Ecological Reserve or State Beach parking facilities. Also, given occasional sea flooding in the area, the PCH roadbed will ' likely be elevated in certain segments of the existing right-of-way to mitigate this problem. In its existing alignment, PCH lies within the jurisdiction of the City of Huntington Beach. However, pursuant to the provisions of the Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) , the County may make changes in regionally sig- nificant roadways in consultation with affected municipal jurisdictions and Caltrans (Exhibits 21 and 22). Accordingly, an MPAH amendment for this segment will be processed concurrently with the approval of this LUP by the Board of Supervisors. Determination of the exact nature of the PCH improvements will be accom- plished in the Implementing Actions Program in consultation with the HCP parties and other involved interests (eg., California Department of Trans- portation, City of Huntington Beach, and State Department of Parks and ' Recreation). Pacific Coast Highwaz - Realigned Segsent The Circulation Plan proposes a realignment of Pacific Coast Highway to , traverse Bolsa Chica Mesa between Warner Avenue and the ocean entrance area. This proposed segment of roadway will be entirely within the ' County's jurisdiction and will have the following features: Designation as a standard major arterial and provisions for, at a , minimum, Class II bicycle trails on both sides of the roadway. 45-foot clearance bridge spanning the Bolsa Chica main channel. With a Huntington Harbour connection channel, a minimum 25-foot clear- ance bridge over Outer Bolsa Bay. The horizontal and vertical alignment of the new PCH segment will be ' guided by the following considerations which will be reflected in a pre- cise circulation plan to be developed as part of the IAP. Horizontal Alignment - Location and configuration of the ocean entrance, Bolsa Chica main ' channel, Huntinton Harbour connection channel and marina Elevation relationship between Bolsa Chica Mesa and the lowland ' Consideration of impacts upon wetlands restoration requirement - State highway road geometry standards - Warner Avenue fire station access III-74 1 LEGEND ESTABLISHED ALK�JJ�T MAJOR � � \:/ TO GOLDEN WEST PRBNARY STREET ' SECONDARY CONCEPTUALLY PROPOSED ALIGNMENT care " MAJOR PRIMARY / - i \,-j SECONDARY � �' " v: ,,,/ PROPOSED SCENIC HIGHWAY \ SOLM a GNAMM cowry NASM PLAN � •° {`�Q �-J !�T" � _ OF ARTERIAL NmKWAVS,IMP.1979 l�"� "i'�r-�C wwwwwom soloB If --------- - _ ------- ---------- OU /KNaMTON HARBR i \�-` ��� '•f I _—.J J I L — �; r III, � � /(0094�✓+. _ -—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—_—-_-- _ ��s, �_ ��, �.i, `_, . \ ...• ;� —% ' _� 1 � ' _ - oo0ou.00..w.r U. C]— .... ^ _cam✓, 1 I: - l .= � {.,� I - 757 - .. .. —r `-- bd�°•,•e o� r,.I r err.. TDPOCitACNC DATl1! tEVEl _.jr � TopO(igAPlltl:dtANOEY C �9�! BOLSA CHICA NORTH COAST PLANNING UNIT O 610 1220 30 8 ORANGE COUNTY LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM Wn F.NVRIONEMAL.MANAC.MFffAGOCY COW"OF MAP" I I.I. C gRCU MOO M ELEMENT NT EXHIBIT 21 �t i LEGEND ESTABLISHED ALIGNMENT •Q j ! / `�. r MAJOR PRKARY � d Q �, \\ ,J; ` o / TO GOLDEN WEST ::. STREET SECONDARY CONCEPTUALLY PROPOSED ALIGNMENT MAJOR PRIMARY ` SECONDARY l'j/ +[ /+ Old�. O�'•40 kp ape `�;'�:. F (7p ,�y;.� .� ,-! PROPOSED �/yr b/ :J i' •v .�,fJ 17j�' p�,�'� 'CCU ty lM'' YS YklY �W-" .: � 1Ll� � � '' ` ` `Ay / ,\ SCENIC FIGiiWAY \ 201RY OI OiUMO!COIMfr IM779 RYI a^.'G. ,Q,J :ry n. •K,q'�^`"Y r� 7:�5 .,ryyC,1J� +° I �� \ \? ` ~ Mr8iK M01r�YS Wrlg4 0• O } V7.5 �r1' �+ paCLJ- \. r �/ \� `r4_r�.�-•\ -__ n gai R�'p arx,rA'"� c J��-.=goo `r Fes!. ' •°. `\' \\ / `1 /' J LL l✓> ----------- Fll�fl�l(iTON HARBOUR —-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-— —-— =-- ^-!�// \ - yam `�_ i •� JPAQ,&� -! moo n,i�rl� � - —'r--? �lol -. .........�J-� - •-'� =—�i `�� - ._.�_`._:' _ .�_�_ 4•i�w•••�OOOOO°°es0000'qgaeuoeoea......co>0000>000coaoacco a e0000 D l.� J - I TOPOGRAA�C DATtJ1t Tovocan_w�:a:A_rt''E'L'bu.�+, BOLSA CHICA NORTH COAST PLANNING UNIT 0 610 1220 1830 HUH70N TOO N BEACH LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM �\W (URC�U 19 H CEL�C�M1�A EW avno�►rtAL w►ucoRo�r AGENCY COUNTY OF ORANGE EXHBIT 22 r - Lines-of-sight and safety considerations Connecting intersection geometrics r � Vertical Alignment Bridge spans clearance for Bolsa Chica main channel and Huntington Harbour connection channel Lines-of-sight and safety considerations rSolna Chica/Garfield Connector The key internal roadway for the Bolas Chica project will be a standard or perhaps modified primary arterial (four lanes divided) which will connect Bolsa Chica Street and Garfield Avenue. The Circulation Plan designates a 450-foot-wide corridor between the Bolsa Chica Mesa bluffs and Springdale Street. This corridor, located between 500 and 950 feet from the LCP Segment inland boundary and existing resi- dences, will be the area within which the Bolsa Chica/Garfield connector [� will be precisely located during the Implementing Actions Program planning phase. Although the roadway has not yet been precisely located in this area, the County has made the following conclusions which will guide future plan- ning: Sa its 1. Traffic volumes on the Bolsa Chica/Garfield Connector are predicted to not exceed 18,000 ADT (average daily traffic), if the maximum of 5,700 dwelling units and the marina/commercial complex are built as planned. This ADT prediction, derived from analysis of the Countywide traffic model predicts a need for only four lanes of travel in this area, even though sections of existing Bolsa Chica Street and Garfield are desig- nated as major arterials on the Master Plan of Arterial Highways. 2. The potential impact of the Bolsa Chica/Garfield Connector on noise ' levels in existing and proposed new neighborhoods has received special scrutiny in the planning process. Noise studies and predictive model- ing conducted at the request of the County during 1984 have produced the following conclusions. The noise studies indicated that if the Connector centerline were to be located at 550 feet from existing residences (the closest possible alignment within the corridor) and medium density development were built as planned in the intervening area, noise levels in existing neighborhoods due to the connector traffic alone would be lower at pro- ject buildout than noise levels from all sources at present. The anal- ysis therefore concluded that 1995 traffic flow on Bolsa Chica/Gar- field connector would incur no noise impact on these neighborhoods. ;•: Baseline data to document this conclusion is found in this section L below. 3. In locating the Bolsa Chica/Garfield Connector during the IAP planning phase, the County recognizes that several additional considerations .y must also be taken into account. III-75 1 First, the K.R. Grace parcel seaward boundary may dictate the pattern and/or phasing of lowland residential development in this area. Accordingly, any intervening area between the W.R. Grace parcel boun- dary and the alignment of the Bolsa Chica/Garfield Connector should be configured to allow for efficient use of land under the residential density designations shown on the Land Use Plan. Second, as discussed in greater detail in the New Residential/Neighbor- hood Commercial Component, the Habitat Conservation Plan parties recog- nized the value of locating the Bolsa Chica/Garfield Connector in a more landward location to allow for additional water-dependent residen- tial uses in the lowland. The County understands that the largest feasible area of navigation- ally, unencumbered high-value waterfront residential can increase the potential assessment base and incentives for private sector contribu- tion to wetlands restoration and other water-dependent public pro- jects. Third, the following additional considerations will be taken into account in precisely aligning the Bolsa Chica/Garfield Connector. . Constraints imposed by existing oil facilities in the lowlands and on the Huntington Beach Hess; . Bluff topography at both ends of the connection; • Linear Park plans at the edge of Huntington Beach Mesa. • Effect on the amount of acreage for wetland remaining in the "Edwards Thumb" area versus Central Wetland. . Effect of the cross-gap connector on adjacent existing residences including noise, security, safety and other values and concerns expressed by affected property owners. Local Street Extensions to Bolsa Chic&/Garfield Connector ' Traffic studies completed over the last five years and updated during the HCP process have indicated that the extension of Springdale Street to the Bolsa Chica/Garfield Connector is essential from a system-wide traffic flow perspective. From the standpoint of convenient and appropriate vehi- cular access, the extensions of Talbert Avenue and Graham Street to the Connector are considered desirable, especially with respect to emergency access. However, surrounding neighborhood interests have expressed con- cern about the effect that increased volumes of through traffic would have on the area. Accordingly, the Circulation Plan indicates extension of Springdale Street conceptual extension of Talbert and Graham to the Bolsa Chica/Garfield Connector. However, if future studies indicate that Talbert Avenue and Graham Street extension are not necessary then a future amendment to the HPAH could be made. III-76 1 - Bolsa Chica/Garfield-PCH Connection The Circulation Plan shows a secondary arterial connection between the realigned PCH and the Bolsa Chica/Garfield connector. This four-lane undivided roadway will have two purposes. ` .. to existing ambient noise levels, based on the measurements reported i earlier. (Note that these existing levels may vary by 1-2 dB from day to day and may vary by 1-2 dB throughout the community.) As can be seen from the table, in all cases the future noise levels generated by Connector traffic are below existing noise levels. COMPARISON OF NOISE EBPOSUREs Projected Existing Locationl 1995 CNEL, dB2 CNEL, dB3 i Bolsa Chica Street-Graham Street 49 55 Graham Avenue 48 55 Talbert Avenue-Springdale Street 49 55 Springdale Street-Edwards Street 54 59 Estimates were also made of the future noise exposure that would be expected from traffic on the proposed Pacific Coast Highway realignment. Because of the great distance from PCH to the existing community, it was found that the future noise levels would not contribute to the future noise environment in this community. i , Finally, the traffic noise effect on the local streets through the commu- nity, which are now stubbed out, but which under the LUP some or all may 13 intersect with the Bolsa Chica/Garfield Connector, was examined. These streets include Graham Street, Springdale Street, and Talbert Avenue. Estimates of the future noise exposure were developed, assuming an average speed of 25 miles per hour and no heavy trucks on these streets. The street with the highest future traffic assignment and, therefore, the high- est future noise levels, is Graham Street, with a projected average daily traffic for 1995 of 7,000 vehicles. Along this street at the closest resi- dential location, the projected CNEL would be 58 dB, 3 dB above the exist- ing CNEL in the community. This increase over existing noise levels would not be considered significant, according to the previous criteria discus- sion. In summary, the noise exposure in the existing Huntington Beach residen- tial area will increase in future years, primarily as a result of in- creased traffic on those local streets which may intersect the Bolsa Chica/Garfield Connector. The traffic on the Connector itself will not be a major contributor to the future level and the traffic on Pacific Coast Highway will have no effect on the noise levels. The total CNEL at the closest residence to the Connector will range from 57 to 61 dB, depending on location. Since these levels are below the 65 dB criterion, and the increase over existing levels is typically in the range from 2 to 5 dB, a noise impact would not be expected. 1 Applies to closest existing residence. 2 Resulting from traffic on the Bolsa Chica-Garfield connector. 3 Based on measured ambient levels. � :. I I I-77 1 4. poise Exposure of New Residences Precise development plans for the new proposed residential areas within the project boundaries will be prepared as part of the IAP and in subsequent tentative tract plans. As the IAP and subsequent plans are developed, noise estimates will be made for key locations and compared with noise established attenuation criteria and standards. If projected noise exposure is above accepted limits, a variety of mitigation measures will be required to reduce noise to acceptable levels. Possible measures include use of noise barrier walls, landscaped buffer strips, and increased setback distances. Existing Traffic Transit Conditions This subsection presents a discussion of existing areawide and local traf— fic and transit conditions and needs when entered into the formulation of the LUP Circulation Plan. The Bolas Chica LCP Segment Area is undeveloped and there are no existing public thoroughfares into the site. Public vehicular access opportunities are limited to visitor parking areas for the State Ecological Reserve, one located off Pacific Coast Highway and the other off Warner Avenue near Pacific Coast Highway. Arterials of note in the vicinity of Bolsa Chica are Pacific Coast Highway on the southwest, Warner Avenue on the north, Golden West Street to the southeast and the stubbed ends of Bolsa Chica Street, Graham Street, Springdale Street, and Edwards Street. The nearest north—south arterial which is continuous between the San Diego Freeway corridor and Pacific Coast Highway is Golden West Street. Bolsa Chica street also provides access to the San Diego Freeway. The San Diego Freeway is the principal regional commuting route in the northwestern Huntington Beach area. Bolas Chica lies approximately three miles south and west of the San Diego Freeway. Pacific Coast Highway also serves as a coastal access route of primary regional importance. In the immediate vicinity of the Study Area (Golden West Street to Warner Avenue), Pacific Coast Highway is currently classified as a "primary" arterial highway and provides direct access to Bolsa Chica State Beach. At present, PCH is a typical four—lane roadway cross—section (two lanes in ' each direction), divided by a raised median. The posted speed limit is 50 mph. There are three existing traffic signals along this reach of Pacific Coast Highway: Warner Avenue, Bolsa Chica State Beach parking lot; Golden West Street. There is no parking allowed either on the north or south sides of Pacific Coast Highway within the LCP Segment Area. The PCH corridor also serves as a secondary commuting facility between the coastal communities north and south of Huntington Beach including Long Beach, Seal Beach, Sunset Beach, Costa Hesa, Newport Beach, and Huntington Beach itself, and serves as a regional lateral coastal access route of great importance. When the County and City plan an arterial roadway system, standard prac— tice requires use of Level of Service C for link capacities (a link is the portion of the roadway between two arterial intersections), with the III-78 Intent of maintaining Level of Service D through intersections. The fol- lowing table shows the roadway capacity values the County and City use for circulation analysis of each type of facility. ROADWAY CAPACITY VALUES* ' i Freeway/Transportation Corridors At Level of Service Freeway Sizes _ D* E 4 lanes 65,000 115,000 6 lanes 115,000 127,000 8 lanes 145,000 161,000 10 lanes 175,000 194,400 Arterial Highways At Level of Service Type of Arterial A B C _ D E F Major 6 lanes divided 36,000 40,500 45,000 49,500 54,000 - �� Primary 4 lanes divided 24,000 27,000 30,000 33,000 36,000 - Secondary 4 lanes undivided 16,000 18,000 20,000 22,000 24,000 - �� Commuter 2 lanes undivided 5,000 7,500 10,000 12,500 15,000 - (? * Maximum average daily traffic (ADT) i , EXISTING CIRCULATION SYSTEM ADJACENT TO THE STUDY AREA County City of Huntington Beach Arterial Status MPAH Master Plan PCH Primary Primary (proposed Primary t� upgrade to Modified Major) Warner Primary/Major Major Major � . Golden West Primary Major Major 1 Bolsa Chica Secondary/Primary Major Major Graham Secondary Secondary Secondary Talbert Secondary Primary Secondary �1 Springdale Secondary Primary Primary Ellis Commuter Primary Primary Garfield Commuter Major Major t 1. Warner Avenue Warner Avenue is one of two direct coastward access routes to Bolsa Chica. f , Warner Avenue is designated as a major arterial highway, but presently �. varies in width between four and six lanes in the Huntington Beach area. In the immediate vicinity of Bolsa Chica, Warner Avenue varies between four and six lanes. Warner also defines approximately one-half of the northerly LCP Segment Boundary. The intersection of Warner and Pacific Coast Highway at the upcoast boundary of the LCP Segment contains somewhat awkward turning geometrics and is the source of major congestion at peak traffic periods. However, current average daily traffic levels on Warner Avenue are below the capacity of the roadway's classification. The City of Huntington Beach is currently administering a Federal Aid Urban (FAU) project addressing Warner Avenue and its current roadway cross-section constraints in an effort to upgrade Warner Avenue to its Major arterial roadway classification. III-79 2. Bolsa Chic& Street Bolsa Chica Street provides direct major arterial access from the San Diego Freeway to the northern boundary of the LCP Segment area. Northward from the Bolsa Chica Street/Warner Avenue intersection, this roadway serves both regional and local travel demands. South of Warner Avenue, Bolsa Chica Street contains one block of roadway built to less than major arterial cross-section. 3. Garfield Avenue West of its intersection with Golden West Street, Garfield Avenue is class- ified as a major arterial highway. However, its developed portions cur- rently functions as a secondary roadway. Garfield Avenue presently ends , at Edwards Street on Huntington Mesa, but an existing easement extends to the LCP Segment boundary adjacent to Gas Plant No. 11. 4. Springdale Street , Springdale Street is a north-south primary arterial highway which cur- rently extends south of Warner Avenue and terminates at the edge of the LCP Segment. Throughout the entire length south of Warner Avenue, Springdale is developed to full primary arterial standards. 5. Ellis Avenue Ellis Avenue extends westerly from the San Diego Freeway to the Study Area southeast boundary and is currently classified as a primary arterial from Gothard Street to Edwards Street. It currently functions as a secondary arterial and terminates at Edwards Street on Huntington Mesa. 6. Talbert Avenue Talbert Avenue is currently discontinuous in the vicinity of Huntington Central Park. West of Edwards Street, Talbert Avenue functions as a , secondary arterial and terminates west of Springdale Street at the LCP Segment boundary. South of Huntington Central Park, Talbert resumes at Golden West Street and continues easterly to Gothard as a secondary arterial, then easterly to the eastern city limits as primary arterial highway. • The City of Huntington Beach Circulation Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways classifies Talbert Avenue as a secondary arterial west of Gothard and as a primary arterial east of Golden West Street (Exhibit 22). . The County Master Plan of Arterial Highways classifies Talbert Avenue as a primary arterial highway and shows a continuous link from Bolsa Chica boundary through Huntington Central Park to the eastern city limits (Exhbit 21). 7. Graham Street Graham Street is a north-south secondary arterial which serves residential development south of Warner Avenue. Graham is built out to the full right-of-way width in this residential area and terminates at the edge of the Bolas Chica LCP Segment area. III-80 Key Trip Destinations and Traffic Generators The arterial highway network in the Bolsa Chica vicinity serves a variety rip purposes and traffic movements of t ve nts that are associated with various ik major traffic generators in the area. These are highlighted below as a guide to understanding the traffic composition and relative importance of the various routes: Bolas Chica State Beach - Vehicles destined for the State Beach parking areas must traverse some portion of Pacific Coast Highway adjacent to the project area. PCH is therefore both a connector to Warner Avenue and Golden West Street for inland traffic and the only regional and local coastal traffic facility serving the State ' Beach. Sunset County Beach - Sunset County Beach is a county recreation ► , area located along Pacific Coast Highway just north of the project ' L site, and is a significant recreational attraction. Beachfront residences and commercial establishments fronting Pacific Coast Highway are also concentrated here. The Sunset Beach community relies heavily on and is significantly affected by Pacific Coast Highway for access. Sunset Beach also relies on Warner Avenue for travel to and from west, central, and north-central Huntington � ? Beach and other communities in central Orange County. Traffic patterns for this area as a result of future Bolsa Chica land uses have been an important LCPAUP planning consideration. Huntington Harbour/Peters Landing - Huntington Harbour contains � - residential and commercial development and Sunset Aquatic Park- ways.. Huntington Harbour relies on Pacific Coast Highway, Warner Avenue and Edinger Avenues for primary roadway access. Residential Development South of Warner - South of Warner Avenue r - and away from major arterial street intersections, land uses are t almost exclusively residential. These residential areas rely on the north-south and east-west arterials discussed above for access to shopping and employment opportunities to the north and east. ' Warner Avenue and, to a lesser extent, Slater Avenue, serve this demand as east-west travel corridors. All of the north-south arterials located northeast of the Bolsa Chica area as described above are affected similarly. Par Parking conditions in the vicinity of the Bolsa Chica area relate to the supply and demand for pp y parking spaces associated with beach and other coastal uses along the western and northwestern perimeter of the site. Parking along Warner Avenue near PCH is currently prohibited. Current available parking supply in the study area vicinity includes 260 t streetside parking spaces on the seaward side of PCH between the LCP Segment downcoast boundary and the Huntington Mesa bluffs, 2,200 offstreet parking spaces at Bolsa Chica State Beach, and two designated offstreet , . parking areas for visitors to the Ecological Reserve located southeast of the Warner/PCH intersection and along PCH near the center of the 'r Ecological Reserve (118 spaces total). ' III-81 Throughout most of the year the amount of parking available surrounding ye p g g the Bolas Chica area is more than adequate to accommodate the demand for beach use. However, during peak summer periods parking facilities are , heavily congested by visitor demand. Transit Service Four routes in the Orange County Transit District's system provide bus ser- vice to the Bolsa Chica vicinity. Two of these, (Routes 70 and 72) serve Warner Avenue at the northwest edge of the area. Route 1 serves Pacific Coast Highway; and Route 25 operates on Golden West Street north of Bolsa Chica. The following is a summary of all current OCTD transit services in and around the Bolsa Chica study area: . Route 1 - operates from Warner Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway at the northwest corner of the Bolsa Chica area, serving important destinations in the north-central Huntington Beach and central ' Orange County areas including the Huntington Center, Golden West College and the Santa Ana Transit Terminal. . Route 25 - operates on Golden West/Knott Avenue, the northeast section of the Bolas. Chica area. The route continues from the Huntington Beach Pier through the City of Huntington Beach and inland terminating at California State University, Fullerton. Key , destinations along this route include Huntington City Beach, Golden West College, the Westminster Mall and the Fullerton Park-N-Ride facility. Route 25 also provides several transfer points to major east-west arterials. . Route 29 - provides north-south service on Beach Boulevard from the Huntington Beach Pier to the Brea Mall. Destinations which can be reached by utilizing Route 29 include La Habra Fashion Square, Knott's Berry Farm, Golden West College and Huntington City Beach. . Route 70 - operates from Warner Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway at the northwest corner of the Bolas Chica area, serving important destinations in north-central Huntington Beach and central Orange County. . Route 72 - operates along Warner Avenue from Pacific Coast Highway to the Santa Ana Transit Terminal. The route provides east-west transit service offering several transfer opportunities to north-south routes in OCTD's arterial grid system. . Route 74 - operates near the Bolsa Chica area. The service oper- ates from the Huntington Beach Civic Center to the city of Irvine (Town Center at the University of California, Irvine) along Tal- bert Avenue. The route also provides service to John Wayne Air- port and the South Coast Plaza area. . Route 76 - operates to the east of the Bolsa Chica area from 17th and Orange in. Huntington Beach to the Saddleback College in the City of Irvine. Route 76 also serves Orange Coast College, Orange County Fairgrounds and the John Wayne Airport. III-82 r Current service frequency on the seven lines identified above is summar- ized in the following table. Service frequency varies between commuting peak and midday times on weekdays. Service is less frequent (or non-exist- ent) for certain lines on Saturday and only two of the lines currently operate on Sundays. P ' } Y TRANSIT S LSA CHICA AREA SI SERVICE FREQUENCY IN THE BO February 17 to June 15, 1985 Headways (Time Between Arrival of Buses in Minutes) Route Weekday Weekday Number (Peak Period) (Average) Saturday Sunday 1 35 35 60 60 25 35 35 60 29 20 20 20 30 70 17 17 25 25 72 30 35 50 50 74 30 30 60 60 76 30 30 65 — The Orange County Transit District, in cooperation with the City of Hun- tington Beach, is considering possible development of one or two "trans- portation centers" in Huntington Beach, which would be focal points of { ' OCTD and other transit carrier service (public and private) in the area. The district has approved a feasibility study identifying two candidate locations for possible center development: 1) in the immediate vicinity ' of Gothard Street and Center Drive near Golden West College and Huntington � . Center, and 2) near Pacific Coast Highway and Lake Street, in Huntington Beach's central coastal areas. As conceived, both of the centers (if developed) would be directly accessi- ble to the Bolsa Chica area via one or more of the existing OCTD routes described above. From the transportation centers, transit users would ' t have direct access to a variety of regional and local public and private transit services, such as airport service, Park-N-Ride, common carriers such as Greyhound or Continental Trailways, as well as convenient access ' to other OCTD routes and services. Nikewayss 4 Bicycle and related non-vehicular access is discussed in detail in the Coastal Access and Recreation Component. The County's master plan of bike- ways depicts the Algonquin-Warner (Trail number 26), Slater-Winters burg + (Trail number 30), and 38th Street (Trail number 34) bikeways which will interconnect to other areas and to other bikeways in the County's proposed system. The Huntington Beach master plan of bikeways provides for a comprehensive network of trails throughout the City. Hajor bikeways existing in the project vicinity include: 1) the section t, of the Pacific Coast Highway trail between the entrance to Bolsa Chica State Beach and Warner Avenue, 2) the Algonquin-Warner bikeway leading to Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue, 3) a portion of the proposed Slater bikeway along the Wintersburg Flood Control Channel, and 4) bike- ways along Edwards and Garfield to the east of the project vicinity. • III-83 y Vehicular Circulation Model ' The 1995 Huntington Beach transportation baseline forecasts the estimated ' citywide traffic assignments on the arterial street network (based on anticipated future land use patterns) by the year 1995. These projects were developed utilizing the Huntington Beach Transportation Demand Model, a computer-based transportation planning tool developed specifically for the City. As a baseline for comparison, 1995 traffic projections were run for the arterial streets previously identified surrounding the Bolsa Chica area assuming no change in land use or development within the site. The results of this run indicated that by 1995 some of the surrounding roadways will approach or exceed their planned capacity levels. In particular, PCH was shown to be carrying up to approximately 35,000 vehicles per day between Golden West Street and Warner Avenue, a level of traffic above the conventional upper limit of capacity for a four-lane primary arterial. Warner Avenue was shown as another heavily traveled street with average daily traffic volumes in the vicinity of the Study Area, between Bolas Chica Street and PCH, estimated to range from 25,000 to 35,000 vehicles per day. Planned major arterial status for these roadways would provide ample capacity to accommodate projected 1995 baseline traffic volumes. Other arterials forecast to carry traffic volumes substantially higher than present-day conditions were Golden West Street and Garfield Avenue. For these and other arterial streets in the vicinity (ie., Springdale Street, Talbert Avenue, etc.), 1995 baseline traffic volumes were projec- ted to be within the planning capacity limits of their current MPAH desig- nation. Implementation of the LCP Land Use Plan will result in the generation of additional traffic volumes on the circulation system surrounding Bolsa , Chica. Based upon the provisions of 5,700 dwelling units, a public marina with other visitor-serving commercial and recreational uses, ultimate development is expected to generate approximately 66,500 vehicle trips per ' day in the Bolsa Chica area. III-84 SlCTION III, PART 6: INERGY PACILITIBS COMPONENT �i SYNOPSIS rc • This section provides a detailed discussion of existing and projected future oil production activities in the Bolan (pica Study Area. Specifi- cally emphasized are: . The functional character of existing facilities and operations; and attendant operating agreements and permits; . Issues pertaining to the interrelationship of oil production, proposed wildlife habitat enhancement and urban development; Scenarios for accommodation of proposed uses with ongoing oil extrac- tion; The energy resources and extraction facilities associated with Bolas Chica are highly significant, with the overall Huntington Beach oil field being �- the seventh largest in California. The present energy resource infrastruc- ture in place at Bolas Chica is complex with regard to both the facilities themselves and the agreements governing their operation. The oil resources remaining to be tapped both onsite and offshore are sig- '�� : nificant and extraction activities are expected to continue at high levels for many years. Such extraction and attendant processing thus represent a major long-term capital investment by the oil field operators. �t r Given these factors, the Land Use Plan and its accompanying policies and f., programs have been significantly shaped by energy facilities operating patterns and procedures, particularly with respect to proposed wetlands restoration concepts, urban development patterns, and the phased implemen- tation of both. • These relationships of existing to proposed uses will be addressed in a detailed Energy Facilities Plan to be prepared in the Implementing Actions ' Program. Policies regarding the Energy Facilities Component are provided in Section T II. Related major discussion may be found in t� Biological Resources Management Component Public Works Component New Residential and Neighborhood Commercial Component This section is divided into the following subsections: ® A. Project Description and Issues Discussion ® 1. Introduction 2. Relationship of energy facilities to wetlands 3. Relationship of Energy to Residential/Visitor-Serving Uses 4. 1986 Energy Facilities Baseline 5. Future Energy Facilities Scenarios ' III-85 a) Non-Directional Drilling Scenario ' b) Partial Directional Drilling Scenario 6. Energy Facilities Plan - consistent with the IAP Wetlands Restora- tion Implementation Plan B. Data Base and Existing Conditions 1. Field history 2. General discussion of oil wells and recovery methods 3. Oil and gas leases 4. Surface use agreements 5. Oil production facilities 6. Oil production trends 7. Future production plans 8. Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) 9. Subsidence 10. Abandonments/reabandonments 11. Other issues PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND ISSUES DISCUSSION , The key conclusion that can be reached with respect to Bolsa Chica energy facilities is that planning should be done on a facility-by-facility basis consistent with wetlands habitat restoration, recreational and residential development objectives and all established oil operation leases and agree- ments. Although there remains much uncertainty as to the actual future trend of oil production, it is possible to develop energy facility scen- arios based on the available data. In addressing energy facilities, the key baseline planning consideration pertains to existing surface use' agreements which allow for the removal or relocation of oil-related facilities in specific ways (see Part B below). On Signal-owned lands, if Signal determines it desirable to remove a given , well, Signal would first be obligated to pay well-reabandonment costs. Next, for its development purposes, an evaluation of relocation (re-dri11 ing the well from a new location) costs versus the cost of paying Phillips the value of remaining oil reserves would be made, with Signal having the ' right to exercise either option. On state-owned or state-leased lands, the State also would be obligated to pay reabandonment costs for wells (or facilities) it wished removed for marsh restoration or other purposes. However, the State only has the option to relocate wells, but does not have the option to purchase the remaining reserves. Relationship of Energy Facilities to Wetlands ' Oil production at Bolsa Chica is regulated by the state according to estab- lished permits and regulations. With regard to the relationship between oil-related activities and wetlands restoration, the focus of planning has been on both phasing and on various mitigation scenarios. The 1982 Land Use Plan contemplated the construction of a full tidal range marsh that would have required extensive levees along oil access roads and wellsites. In the Habitat Conservation Plan, the HCP parties found that greater ecological values could be achieved by the design of a system of a muted tide range water regime and other varieties of habitat. III-86 t ', With respect to energy facilities this wetlands restoration concept would have the advantage of considerably reducing the costs of earthwork needed to protect oil field facilities from full tide range flooding. Neverthe- less, in accordance with the various surface use agreements, these costs would be directly attributable to wetlands restoration. The County has therefore proposed a muted tide range emphasis for wetlands restoration because of its ecological benefits, cost effectiveness and compatibility with existing and future oil operations. ' Although a muted tide range wetland water regime offers important ecologi- cal and economic benefits to wetlands and energy production, optimization ' of ecological values within the restored wetlands will require special focus on the potential for relocation and consolidation of wells and rela- ted facilities. Specifically, any relocation of oil-related facilities required by the Energy Facilities Plan shall be fully consistent with the Biological Resources Management Component Policies (1. through 15H, inclu-sive), provided that no such facilities shall be relocated into areas that have been restored. Although consolidation of the field is limited to some extent by physical E ' and technical constraints, balance between the need for creation of new ecological values and the cost of consolidation of oil production facili- ties must be struck. For example, if all wells in the wetlands restora- tion area were proposed to be consolidated for wildlife purposes, but the cost of consolidation exceeded the value of the wells themselves then such an approach would likely not be feasible from an oil operation perspec- tive. Further, since the very significant costs of such consolidation would have to be borne as part of the wetlands restoration costs, cost/ benefit assessment of such a strategy would probably reveal the impracti- cability of this approach from a restoration funding availability stand- point. The County therefore will require that the Wetlands Restoration Concept and Implementation Plan clearly show that enhanced ecological values can be achieved at reasonable cost levels. Exhibits 23 and 24 give a conceptual picture of the potential patterns of future oil production under this cost-analysis approach. ' Annual Christmas bird counts at Bolsa Chica seem to support a determina- tion that current oil operations are not adversely affecting the number and variety of bird species utilizing the existing Ecological Reserve and other areas within the Bolsa Chica designated in this LUP for marsh/wet- L lands restoration. Programs can nevertheless be designed for greater com- patibility of oil operations with the expanded wetlands area. Such plans and programs include both physical and operational changes. Examples of ' s the types of changes that might be adopted include specific plans for removal of uarequired or redundant sections of oil access roadways. Opera- tional changes could, for example, include limitations on the use of un- shielded lights at night. Such plans and programs will be developed in the Energy Facilities Plan. Relationship of Energy to Urban Development The Bolsa Surface Use Agreement provides the opportunity for the removal s or relocation of oil facilities as required to allow for urban develop- ment* In response to this opportunity, the County has identified concep- III-87 c 1 M teal "consolidation islands" which could logically accommodate relocated wells within urban development (see Exhibit 24). The Energy Facilities Plan will verify and detail the location, size and design of such "islands" in consultation with the oil operators. Additionally, Exhibit "D" of the Bolsa Surface Use Agreement specifies the ' operating conditions to become available as soon as buildings are con- structed within one-thousand (1,000) feet of any drill site, well site, or production site. Such operating conditions may be sufficient (along with certain existing local ordinances, such as County and City noise ordi- nances) to provide the framework for compatibility between oil operations and new development. The LAP Energy Facilities Plan will include any new ordinances and regulations needed to assure such compatibility. r1986 Energy Facilities Baseline As a means of projecting future energy facility scenarios, the County has ffestablished a 1986 baseline condition. No non-energy-related development activity will occur prior to this time. The County assumes that any new or reworked facilities developed prior to the full certification of the ' t Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program will be located at the discretion of the oil operator rather than at locations specified by the State, the County or landowners. However, once the LCP is fully certified, oil production activities and adjustments will be coordinated with State, County, and landowner development activities. Exhibit 25 illustrates 1986 facilities with the exception of pipelines, which generally parallel existing oil field roads. The wells shown on this exhibit include all active wells, plus planned redrills, and/or new production wells and new injection wells for secondary and tertiary recovery through 1986. However, the County recognizes that an operating oil field is constantly undergoing changes. ' Thus, the 1986 baseline represents an approximation of the field at that time. The circles and rectangles illustrated on Exhibit 25 to define well loca- tioas reflect agreements and lease terms between the State and Phillips, and Signal and Phillips. The Bolsa Surface Use Agreement between Signal and Phillips reserves a 20- by 50-foot well site within a 100- by 150-foot easement around each well. The well site area must be kept clear at all times. The remaining easement area may be paved and used for temporary surface uses. Within the 530-acre State fee and lease parcels, the terms of the agreement between the State and Phillips grants Phillips the right to use of the surface within a 110-foot radius from each well site as well as certain designated roads and utility corridors. Also indicated on Exhibit 25 is the boundary of the North and South Bolsa y leases held by Phillips, as well as the location of the two Chevron leases. Many new wells were drilled in the South Bolsa lease area between 1970 and 1982. These more recently completed wells will add to the diffi- culty of consolidation because they will not normally require redrilling for a significant period of time. Through the end of 1983 the North Bolsa lease consisted primarily of older wells. At that time no major new drill- ing had been conducted on that lease in the previous 13 years. Subsequent 1= to the buy-out of some 90 percent of the BTIC remaining interests in the North Bolsa lease at the end of 1983, the oil operator has expanded the III-89 "All LEGEND 0 • 2005 NON-DIRECTIONAL WELL LOCATION IN STATE ECOLOGICAL RESERVE- SOUTH FIELD(t10'RADIUS SETBACK FROM WELL)-PHILLIPS LEASES 2005 NON-DIRECTIONAL WELL LOCATION IN RESIDENTIAL OR RECREATIONAL AREAS- �•� ° ° ` NORTH FIELD(100'x 150'SETBACK FROM WELL)-PHILLIPS LEASES o t • 2005 NON-DIRECTIONAL WELL LOCATION-CHEVRON LEASES '• "C., o� O O p a Ono ° �°7�p� I] �" . \ '4°j �(Oo o�p ate° -�. •. . EXISTING OIL FIELD ROADS TO REMAIN ��o` ,- °°o°J,, ��oa� ��G�o � • :,� / Q �♦ PROPOSED ROAD �i° o�°o ❑°o ppO °O ' %' �; / ��o %� °°° ��o°god oo°°O� s� •. * \ , \ ' BOUNDARY BETWEEN PHILLIPS NORTH AND SOUTH BOLSA ' o�° � ° At, Can Qfl° °°D '�a °� •• •` , ' 0; �'<a 'cfl°b�,",ate. �jptX�.-oG'�Y• o°° °v`Y� •, '� `.y\ - �o D/ ?S C '•, .��QO���A°Qj �Co a�"_�a6np/�da/ gyp= oo�<� a°° • • 40 ��4 � • ,�J-��r p�}�'7[Qj(} •���LG}. 4'^Q � a. 3iaraw'^'p, fl0'`O�ypC1�k ��\� `� • •• ••'•.�� , //// 7. fl`,Q�Y „a¢;6QCL' A CAM Q 6� •" `�. !,�1 -''� �.i �I � • ' . ";, . � � ;; :,__ Yam. : _ �� . �,: �.Y \' -' _ ..',.- • J)_-1 ._ y 1.� PHILLIPS GAS PLANT Iti t S ,1;s' •1. 7d, j/ - 4`•,f / ,, I rI�M ' S - ..�• SOUTH SMSA ]ANK FARM M NEUCOREN AREA e t / , ; -- = y , / * IWAxs iCK a us ►ANC¢30 WILL SITE - Fy BOUSPRIN CHICA NORTH COAST PLANNING UNIT o 600 1200 1800 LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM ; EMERGY FQMMES PLAN ENVIROMIENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY C�:,of a+nv. EXHIBIT 23 I i i i LEGEND o\ Q0.�`...... 2005 NON-DIRECTIONAL WELL LOCATION IN STATE ECOLOGICAL RESERVE- � Y SOUTH FIELD(110'RADIUS SETBACK FROM WELL)-PHILLIPS LEASES � / ° ~ 2005 NON-DIRECTIONAL WELL LOCATION IN RESIDENTIAL OR RECREATIONAL AREAS- 10 �� ° NORTH FIELD(100'x 150'SETBACK FROM WELL)-PHILLIPS LEASES i s • 2005 NON-DIRECTIONAL WELL LOCATION-CHEVRON LEASES POTENTIAL CONSOLIDATION AREA FOR DIRECTIONALLY DRILLED WELLS(DIAGRAMATIC ONLY) tea, ipt EXISTING OIL FIELD ROADS TO REMAIN '��/^ o�,°,�o° ,r:•' v �p �°l�pac��.� • l'/ : :- -` �.' ♦ PROPOSED ROADr �' o �J .°`°o�000�° o00 °� • \ T. Q l ♦♦ ,v°. 00�0 oho<<�-0 n amG' \' l O' BOUNDARY BETWEEN PHILLIPS NORTH AND SOUTH BOLSA LEASES .gno°/q/r¢'/Oro°o J�� oDo\�0000' ���J�a� • =�• •`L i �};" � ppp°p':,D iV 0 6T;:. � W 00 0 �S"`� �•• ' • '�t�,�/ .- ` 1 C p:," .. ;o� �IpQQ"/,y�.•�,�{,'• ,�, o �+�, oop000•.. ',^ �•. • t 1 S v ° •4� °GO` S��JD�J �i+ � p�.,Q00tN,,-,""_, 4opO Ov ss'Un ' ✓`r-f```�` n 'Ci 0 6 - Z�� M lit C °Q41WNORTH TANK ,�>;G'azl`,f_` - l I i• l�, a ` ; `• PHILLIPS CAS PLANT S � / �/ -1 t �!-,•�. TAM FARM �/` �, - - --- ' \ 1 mucoprof f� O I — _ � A`�` UTILITY Allii � LEASES 103 .a 42f •II •!. Y I ARCEL 30 ORAL Srrf BOLSA CHICA NORTH COAST PLANNING UNIT 0 600 1200 1800 '.' LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM ; CENL � L�G°,C��L��OC� ° U NRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY c_'y a o-w Q Q O D O D I U D Q p ► 2�000� PDAR QL� �o FEC�' ALA �[)[�L[lff� SC�C MAM EXHIBIT 24 � ) i o, ,off.�- / � •i LEGEND � �� o� \� % � ,o. •; • 1985 WELL LOCATION-STATE FEE AND LEASE LANDS (110'RADIUS SETBACK FROM WELL)-PHILLIPS LEASES 1985 WELL LOCATION-SIGNAL BOLSA CORP.LANDS � � (100'x 150'SETBACK FROM WELL)-PHILLIPS LEASES • 1985 WELL LOCATION-CHEVRON LEASES oo °�moo'` °cj �°o a� coop°� EXISTING OIL FIELD ROADS TO REMAIN '4b� ° ` o °`b4'a °0�0 °nil' • /, f V 3450 / �F, o BOUNDARY BETWEEN PHILLIPS NORTH AND SOUTH BOLSA LEASES { o� �,° 04°90 °�°aJa S$ v010 • d �O o°o o0o Opo79 go��doo 1 .;. ••'\r�c ) `� �0�'�0$ •,'J od��••� ,pw5 .:s'� 1i88 _ �o�v. 000 0o d�o no r. •. , - �t p�'� by COW 8F. pQDrc"' _ Qoo N po ,• • t.,p, �..;. 04 Bg 0 0 x. -- •dvur--o ;8. oa"''i�_:,;.-ocfr� `! • • s •t o I ' PHILLIPS GAS PUNT doll SJj �•'�O ✓ •�, ` i/ .1--� ./.- .TANK FARM o. ----------- - OPTIR - I — — -- LANDING f /AREA - . UTILITY (!HIES 160..,4 2 0 ARM 20 DRILL SITE (pG c �lD a BOLSA CHICA NORTH COAST PLANNING UNIT 0 600 1200 1800 CN[1 'pGJC / pG�3 oO�JCC�UCD LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM W AGE ENERGY FAC�OL�[JMES T° o° o BJVFiONrENTAL MANAGEMENT NCY ca..v a o..ro. IL y �, EXHIBIT 25 extent of activities on this lease. In addition to reactivating several dozen idle Wells during 1984, at least ten wells were drilled or replaced during that year as well. Despite lower oil prices, there were thirty E ' more active wells on the North Bolas, lease in December 1984 than there were in December 1980. Future Energy Facilities Scenarios To estimate the life expectancy of oil production facilities and to deter- mine the feasibility of consolidation, the oil operators provided the County with general information on the currently projected economic life of wells and other facilities. They also indicated preferred locations ' for longterm well sites assuming no directional drilling is requested by the State, the County or the developer.l A "long-term" end year of 2006 was selected for the energy facility scenarios. This time frame repre- sents a beet guess for the potential patterns of energy facilities to be s in place with ultimate buildout of wetlands restoration and urban develop- ment. Two scenarios are presented. C` Non-Directional Drilling Scenario The first scenario (Exhibit 23) assumes no directional drilling. Existing ' wells that will reach the end of their economic life between 1986 and 2006 will be removed. Some existing wells will be redrilled and new wells will ' be drilled. The remaining wells and a road access network to serve them is also shown. The two tank farms and the Gas Plant also are essential long-term facilities. However, due to the substantial change in ownership 1 , of the North Bolas lease, consideration of consolidation of the two tank farms at the current South Bolas Tank Farm location may now be possible. ' By contrast, the Gas Plant is expected to remain in place as long as the l field remains productive. F , The North and South Bolsa leases could be operated as separate fields with ' F limited connections for pipelines and access. The south field is located E� primarily within the restored wetlands. Old roads and well pads would be removed as operations are phased out but no financial commitment by the State would be made to consolidation under this scenario. Water level management and spill prevention programs to be developed in the IAP would maintain wetlands ecological values. Individual wells would be located within urban development areas and screened to ensure compatibility with adjacent uses. No road system is shown here because detailed site plans will provide for direct access on a well-by-well basis. Conceptually, pipelines and road access would radiate from the Bolsa Chica/Garfield Connector. Partial Directional Drilling Scenario Any number of possible consolidation/relocation scenarios which use direc- tional drilling to cluster wells could be developed. Any scenario which 1 Directional drilling refers to wells that are "slant" drilled from a i, location on the surface at an angle to an offset bottom hole location in the oil producing zone. 1 III-91 proposes to consolidate energy facilities must, in part, address the rela- tionship of the cost of directional drilling and other facility modifica- tions to the value of land newly unencumbered by the removal of oil-rela- ted facilities and the burden which proposed uses such as wetlands restora- tion Mould bear as a result of such changes. The cost for drilling a well at Bolas. Chica ranges from $800,000 to $1,200,000. Accordingly, in order for a given area of restored wetlands to be freed of existing oil wells, ' the oil field operator would require payment of the cost of abandonment, as well as the cost of a new well drilled directionally back to the ori- ginal producing zone. Costs related to wildlife enhancement or urban development would include well abandonment, new drilling ($0.8-$1.2 mil- lion), and up to and additional twenty percent of the new well cost for directional drilling ($200,000 average). If, however, the oil operator were planning to rework the well anyway, only the incremental costs of directional drilling on the new well, plus the original abandonment costs would be required. Similarly, the oil operator would allow proposed new wells to be relocated prior to drilling, provided compensation is made for additional drilling costs. In addition to these econamic considerations, there are also several geo- technical constraints to consolidation which must be considered. In the Chevron Bolsa leases, wells bottom in very shallow formations. The shal- lowness of this oil producing zone severely limits the feasibility of directional drilling and well consolidation. Hence, no consolidation scen- arios have been developed for this area. In the Phillips Bolas leases, the geologic structure limits directional drilling in different producing zones to certain areas on the surface. Exhibit 24 illustrates a scenario for partial consolidation of new redrilled wells between 1986 and 2006. Potential consolidation areas are identified in both the North and South fields. Consolidation may be easier in the North field because of the number of redr ills and/or replacement wells that are scheduled or possible with the proposed waterflood project. '. Recent completions in the South lease will decrease the number of wells that will come up for redrilling over the next twenty years. New wells in , the South lease could be drilled directionally. Exhibit 24 represents a "minimum cost" consolidation effort for the South lease. Under this con- cept, approximately fourteen wells would be relocated into each of the potential consolidation areas. Consolidated wells would be new (1986 or later) wells or redrills. Unconsolidated wells remaining are long-term production and injection wells which could cost in excess of $1 million per well to consolidate. The estimated cost for this partial consolida- tion of the South field ranges from $3 to $5 million in 1982 dollars over the 20-year period between 1986 and 2006. This assumes that advantage is taken of consolidation opportunities as they occur. In the restored wetlands, a protective berm consistent with muted tide ranges and other water regimes would be built around the core of consoli- dated oil facilities in the South field. Various slope designs and mater- ials would be used depending on the water regime or edge condition desired. Exhibit 26 illustrates this concept. Implementing Actions Prograin ' RneM Facilities Plan The TAP Energy Facilities Plan will provide a detailed analysis of the ' overall patterns of existing and projected oil facilities/production in III-92 , HARD SUBSTRATE77-11 HABITAT .. I y ..... .i III h •, --- -----a -- -- -�� •--1 '' Jlt ' %/• (RIP RAP EDGES �., ,: I�, y PETROLEUM UTILITY ' CORRIDOR SEASONAL PONDS ' I MUTED TIDAL WETLANDS OIL----------- { ----------F -- - LEASE t P x � L. SETBACK AREA x•- � f , . `i " ' ~ PROTECTIVE PROTECTED BERM -,3 �, r.� j I BERM PETROLEUM UTILITY CORRIDOR ''�''�':.Syr " / ^ ' ';. .`1 � -' K•- � 1 / J•ryv_A17vS1 aa_ •• inYwar-A1WK , BOLSA CHICA NORTH COAST PLANNING UNIT LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM TYMCAL ODL WELL SALT MARSH EDGE COND[InON ENVW"SANTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY COUNTY OF ORANGE EXHBIT 26 1 the contest of proposed LIIP land uses to identify precise planning Para- ' meters. Additional data on resource economics and technical considera- tions will be requested from the operating oil companies. The Energ y Facilities Plan will be prepared in coordination with the State Lands Com- mission, California Resources Agency (including Departments of Mines and Geology, Fish and Game, and Division of Oil and Gas), oil operators, land- owners, and other appropriate parties. Individual oil facilities will be examined on a case-by-case basis to determine bow each will be dealt with in relation to planned land uses. This examination will lead to a decision as to i+hether the facilities should be relocated and/or consolidated , accommodated in-place concur- rently with development, converted to a new land use then productive life has ceased, or abandoned at the outset of development. Criteria for making these decisions are listed in the fbtlowi.ng portion of this pro- i gram. The three approaches to energy facilities planning in the context of ' wetlands restoration and urban development are described below: Relocation Consolidation of Oil Facilities Use of the consolidation option wilt occur primarily when: 1) the proposed land use provides significant economic returns; 2) the oil resource has long-term production potential; and 3) the oil resource can feasibly be reached from a more centralized location. Wells in the whipstock area along PCH and the Gas Plant are not considered feasible to relocate or consolidate. The folloving planning considerations will be. used in development of the L Energy Facilities Plan: 1. Risks and costs of relocation versus value (public and private) of proposed land use causing relocation. (� 2. Effect of relocation/consolidation on construction costs, includ- ing concurrent natural habitat restoration and urban development. 3. Effect of land use phasing sequence, site planning and marketing ' considerations (ie., efficient use of land and sound planning and design practice). 4. Oil facility access, maintenance and replacement of equipment con- sideration. S. Relationship of pipelines to proposed circulation, waterways and land uses. 6. Design standards regulations and ordinances needed. Accommodate with Proposed Land Uses in Exieting. Location ' In contrast to relocat ion/reconsolidat ion, accommodation of oil facilities in their existing locations is much less costly. For example, berming, fencing and screening a well is considerably less expensive than redrill- ' . III-93 1 ing in a new location further from the oil resource. In many cases where relocation/consolidation is technically or economically infeasible, and ' concurrent in situ accommodation cannot be made compatible with a proposed use, the oil production facility may remain as is for an undetermined period of time until economic factors change or it reaches the end of its productive life. , The planning guidance above will be accompanied further by the following considerations: , 1. Environmental , visual , economic impacts of retained/buffer facili- ty on surrounding land uses. 2. Costs of concurrent accommodation of oil facility to achieve compa- tibility with proposed land use; assignment of cost responsibility (developed in the Phase II and III Management and Financing Plan). ' 3. Access and maintenance requirements of oil facilities and effects on adjacent land use. ' 4. Effect of accommodation of facility on site planning, marketing considerations and development phasing plans. 5. If concurrent accommodation is dete=ined in the Energy Facilities ' plan to be undesirable on the basis of criteria 1-4 above, assessment of phased conversion to proposed land uses will be ' made. Abandonment Abandoning existing oil facilities represents a third major option for ' treating oil production in the implementation of the LUP. The difference between abandonment and phased conversion is that abandoning the well , and/or ancillary facility implies immediate conversion to a new land use and losing, in perpetuity, the remaining oil resource potentially produced by that facility, Qiereas phased conversion implies allowing the facility to run out its useful economic or physical life. The following criteria ' will be considered with to using this option in the program. 1. Loss of resource and future drilling potential assessment. , 2. Compliance with Coastal Act and other regulatory agency(ies) policies. 3. Assessment of cost to party/use causing abandonment. , 4. Benefits and/or values gained with regard to land use, site plan- ' ning marketing and phasing considerations. 5. Well shut-in and other safety standards pursuant to local and ' Division of Oil and Gas. The following section provides the detailed documentation which provides the basi s for the Energy Facilities planning programs above. ' III-94 ' i DATA EASE AND gISTING CONDITIONS i Field History rThe Huntington Beach oil field underlies much of the City of Hunting- ton Beach, the Bolsa Chica site and offshore waters in a long, narrow arc several miles long . The field is composed of many oil zones, sepa- rated vertically from each other by impermeable strata, and sometimes horizontally by faulting and folding. The Huntington Beach oil field ' is the seventh largest in California, producing approximately three percent of the state's oil in 1978 (City of Huntington Beach Depart- went of Development Services, 1980). r Since its discovery in 1920, the Huntington Beach oil field has been continually developed as new producing zones are discovered and new technologies became available. The offshore extension of the field 4� was discovered in 1930. Between 1930 and 1934, several wells were l "slant" drilled from shore to strata beneath the ocean. Some of these wells (later referred to as "trespass wells") produced oil from the zones which are today part of the State leases 392 and 91 . Slant drilling of wells under the ocean was halted by the state during the years 1934 to 1938. The State Lands Act of 1938 established the State Lands Commission and provided the framework for management of the tide and submerged lands of the state. A more orderly development of the offshore Huntington Beach oil field followed with issuance of the state leases. By the end of 1983, over one billion barrels of oil had been produced from the Huntington Beach oil field. The oil producing section in Bolsa Chica ranges in geologic age from Pliocene to late Miocene. The Pliocene Pica and Repetta formations rest upon Miocene Puente sediments. Deepest penetration of the sec- tion occurred in the South Bolas, S-1-D well which bottomed in the Puente formation at a depth of 11,669 feet. Exact relationships of ' several of the oil producing zones is uncertain. Producing sands vary from fine to coarse-grained , usually are poorly sorted grade from soft to well consolidated, and generally are silty. Much of the sand is in thin stringers, separated by dense platy shales. The Bolas Chica portion of the Huntington Beach oil field is composed of structural features which affect the location and character of oil ' in the ground. Folding and faulting have created a vertical displace- went along the Inglewood-Newport fault zone,varying from very little near the center of the area to several hundred feet near the edges of the field. Oil production also occurs within the New port-wport-Inglewood fault zone. Oil Wells and Becavery Methods: General Description Oil is extracted from the ground through wells drilled by the rotary method. A large steel bit, attached to metal pipes, drills into the earth. A derrick is erected above the wells to hold the pipes that will be lowered as the bit drills deeper. Either natural pressures or r a pump lift out the oil. Vhen the fluids (oil, gas, water) reach the ' a surface they are separated , measured and treated. Wells are often ' III-95 drilled at an angle ("directionally drilled"). The angle can be up to 70 degrees. This capability explains why many well pumps can be ' located close together. "Primary production" refers to oil discovery and extraction solely by drilling and pumping. Fifteen to twenty percent of the oil in a zone , can be extracted this way. The rest remains coated on sand grains in the rock. In order to release this residual oil, water is pumped under pressure through the well, into the oil-coated stratum, hence ' forcing additional oil from the reservoir. This technique is called "secondary production," "injection," or "flooding" and allows for an additional 30-35 percent more oil to be removed. Gas is used some- ' times instead of water to build pressure; and if the oil is very vis- cous, steam may be injected. "Tertiary production" can be used to remove even more of the remaining oil. However, tertiary methods are expensive and were not generally used until crude oil price increases in prompted their use. In terti- ary production, steam or chemicals are usually injected into the well ' to facilitate extraction. Recent and future technological advance- ments in tertiary recovery could result in increased usage. At Bolsa Chica, most wells are located in the lowland , while some are , located on Bolsa Chica Mesa. Most of the producing wells utilize con- ventional rod pumping units, though a number of wells are being pro- duced with (down-hole) electrical submersible pumps. Much of the oil , produced from the South Bolsa field comes from wells supported by secondary production operations. Some of the wells operated by Phillips Oil Company are directionally drilled. ' Bolsa Chica Oil and Gas Leases By 1938, title to an area of Bolsa Chica totalling approximately 2,100 ' acres was held by the Bolas Chica Gun Club. In development of oil and gas extraction at Bolsa Chica, the predecessors of Phillips Oil Com- pany, the current oil operator, entered into three main agreements ' with the Bolsa Chica Gun Club and its successors in interest: 1. Permit dated August 25, 1938 ("Bolsa 392 Permit") 2. Oil and gas lease dated June 12, 1940, covering 1,043 acres r ("North Bolsa Lease"); and 3. Oil and gas lease dated December 1, 1943, covering 1,061 acres ' ("South Bolas Lease"). The interests of the Bolsa Chica Gun Club were eventually arranged so that individual owners of the Bolsa Chica Gun Club (known legally as the Bolsa Tenants in Common) ended up owning the lessor interest in the North Bolas lease, the South Bolsa lease and the Bolsa 392 Permit. ' The remainder of the fee interest in the Bolsa lands was conveyed to five separate corporations. On January 31 , 1970, the following transactions became effective: ' III-96 ' 1 � r 1. South Bolea Lease. All but 16.5/40000ths of the lessor's interest Was sold to Signal Oil and Gas Company. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. owns ' ► ? a 1.75 percent overriding royalty in production from the South Bol- sa lease and the North Bolsg Strip. The South Bolsa lease is held by production and has a term which extends as long as oil and gas is produced. The lease also grants the right to drill from the surface of the Bolsa area (the 426/163 Drillsite) to the adjacent offshore leases in return for a 25 percent net profits interest as r to those wells. ! 2. North Boles Lease. The lessor's interest in a strip comprising a portion of the southerly most portion of the North Bolsa lease con- taining nineteen wells was sold to Signal Oil and Gas Company ("North Bolsa Strip"). Chevron U.S.A., Inc. owns an overriding royalty of 6.1 percent in the North Bolsa lease. The North Bolas lease is held by production and has a term Which extends so long as oil and gas is being produced. The lessor's interest in the lease was owned by approximately 400 individuals (Bolsa Tenants in Common). An amendment to the North Bolsa lease provides that if the owner of the surface requires the use of the land, the wells r can be abandoned by paying the future value of royalties and net profits to Phillips, Chevron, and the Bolsa Tenants in Common. ' 13. Other Fee Interest. The rest of the fee interest was sold to the Signal Companies, Inc. This interest is now owned by Signal Bolsa T Corporation, its affiliated companies and others. Under the Bolsa ' 392 Permit, Phillips is permitted to drill wells from a triansu- lar-shaped portion of the extreme southeast corner of the Bolsa Chica lands, which wells are to be bottomed in a portion of state E Lease 392.1. The Bolsa Tenants in Common receive a payment of five percent of the gross proceeds from such wells. ' [ BTIC Acquisition EIn October 1983, Aminoil , Inc. made an offer to acquire the remaining interests of the Bolsa Tenants in Common (BTIC) in the oil production in the North Bolsa lease. Through this offer, Aminoil purchased approximately 87 percent of the BTIC units. Prior to this acquisition, Aminoil could not financially justify any oil significant development activity on the North Bolas lease. The lease was burdened with both a 42.1 percent royalty (36 percent to BTIC and 6.1 percent to Chevron) and a 50 percent net profits payment ' (:? to BTIC. w Surface Use Agreements By the Bolsa Surface Use Agreement dated September 2, 1971 , Signal Bolas. Corporation and Phillips predecessor entered into a comprehen- sive agreement dealing with use of the surface of the Bolsa area. Certain areas were designated for oil and gas use, with the remainder of the surface quitclaimed to the surface owner. The surface owner has the right to require the oil operator to relocate its facilities at the cost of the surface owner. In addition, the surface owner has ' the right to require the oil operator to abandon any well. In addi- R III-97 i � . r r tion to the payment of the cost of the abandonment, the landowner would be required to pay the oil operator for the value of oil and the ' fair market value of the total production of oil , gas and other hydro- carbon substances from such well from the time of abandonment that would otherwise be produced if the well were left on production until ' it was no longer economic to operate. The Bolsa Surface Use Agreement was amended in 1975, further defining the surface area to be used for oil and gas operations. Agreements with State of California r In connection with the 1973 Settlement and Exchange Agreement, the following agreements affecting oil and gas operations in the Bolsa Chica area were entered into: 1. Lease of Right to Use and Option to Acquire Real Property - This agreement requires the State to use the 230-acre State lease par- cel adjacent to the Ecological Reserve so as not to interfere unreasonably with the ongoing oil and gas operations. ' 2. Oil and Gas Lease and Agreement (state lease no. 4736) - This agreement leased approximately 70 acres of the state mineral lands to Phillips' predecessor and unitized the entire Bolas field. In , return for the lease, the state was to receive a royalty based on 1/6th of .3177 percent of the total North Bolsa lease oil produc- tion plus 1/6th of 6.2379 percent of the total South Bolas. lease oil production. This oil and gas lease granted the right to use the surface of the state lands and leased lands within a 110-foot radius from each of the well sites, along with certain designated ' roads and utility corridors. The State is given the right to require relocation of oil and gas facilities at its own expense. 3. Drillsite Agreement - In order to develop state leases 426.1, 163.1 and 3177.1, two drillsite parcels were granted on state lands: - Drillsite 163-426 granted in order to develop state leases 163 ' and 426, and - Drillsite parcel 20 granted in order to develop state lease ' 3177.1. In addition, subsurface easements were granted to drill wells from ' the two aforementioned drillsite parcels to the applicable state offshore lease. Recent Changes in Ownership In 1984, R.J. Reynolds Industries, Inc. announced that it intended to sell its energy subsidiary, Aminoil, Inc. In October 1984, Aminoil ' was sold to Phillips Petroleum. On January 1, 1985, Aminoil was merged into Phillips and thereafter ceased to exist as a corporate entity. Phillips Petroleum now operates the South Bolas lease, the r North Bolsa Strip lease, and the North Bolsa lease. III-98 ' The other significant oil lease in and adjacent to the Bolsa Chica is owned and operated by Chevron USA, Inc. Oil Production Facilities The following table summarizes the change in well count and status from December 1980 to the end of December 1984: Oil Wells Injection Wells Active/Idle Active/Idle ' ! Lease 1980-1984 1980-1984 1980-1984 1980-1984 Phillips Oil Co. North Bolsa Lease 49 79 77 48 0 1 1 1 ' North Bolaa Strip Lease 14 10 5 9 0 0 1 1 South Bolsa Lease 35 40 38 35 7 11 12 8 426/163 Drillsite 25 41 39 32 11 8 4 8 Bolsa 392 Permit Area 8 7 8 5 6 4 0 6 Chevron Bolsa b C Leases 42 36* 34 41* 0 0 0 0 Indep. Explor. Co., Inc. 16 13* 2 5* 0 0 0 0 eTOTALS 189 226 203 175 24 24 18 24 * August 1984 data; idle wells include wells which could be included in future enhanced oil recovery (EOR) programs. ' Parcel 20 Drillsite State Oil and Gas Lease PRC 3177, which is the productive area of PRC 3177, consisting of the seaward 1,871 acres (now PRC 3413 lease), was sold to the Union Oil Company of California (now l UNOCAL). In November 1972, the balance of the lease was assigned to Edwin Pauley and the Pauley Petroleum Company. It is understood that the PRC ' 3177 lease has been, or soon will be, quitclaimed back to the state. Together, State Oil and Gas Leases PRC 3177 and 3413 constitute Parcel 20. E , The Parcel 20 drillsite was granted to the oil operator in the Bolas Sur- , E face Use Agreement dated September 2, 1971 and its location is shown on Addendum Exhibit "C" to the Addendum to Bolas Surface Use Agreement, dated April 29, 1975. In general , the Parcel 20 drillsite is located on a por- tion of what is now the State Ecological Reserve on state fee land as shown in Exhibit 25. Since the Parcel 20 drillsite was created to service an offshore oil and ' gas lease that is currently undeveloped it is unlikely that the Parcel 20 drillsite as sited in the previously referenced agreements could, or would be, utilized in its current location. It is possible that a mutually agreeable alternative location could be provided, should, in the unlikely event State Oil and Gas Lease PRC 3177 ever be released and oil and gas resources be discovered thereon. This issue will be examined in the IAP Energy Facilities Plan. Storage and Processing Facilities ' In addition to the oil wells listed above, other facilities located within the study area include: North Bolsa Tank Farm 6„ South Bolsa Tank Farm State lease 426/163 Tank Farm ' III-99 Each tank farm consists' of various tanks, separators and associated equip— ment as necessary to dehydrate, store and ship the crude oil and natural ' gas produced on each lease. Connecting the various wells to the tank farms are pipeline gathering and distribution systems including: oil gathering system wet gas gathering system waste water gathering system fuel gas distribution system injection water distribution system fresh water distribution system and source wells Other facilities located in the study area include: electric power distribution system , well access roadway system Heliport (for crew access to offshore oil platforms Emmy and Eva) ' South Bolsa solids waste handling facility idle and surplus equipment storage yard tubular equipment storage yard Gas Plant #11 is located on the Huntington Mesa bluff edge within the LCP , segment area. The Gas Plant receives and processes most of the natural gas produced from the Phillips' leases as well as natural gas produced by ' Union Oil Company from its platform Eva. Additionally, Chevron gas from platform Edith from the BETA field is handled here. south Bolsa Solid haste Handling Facility ' Drill cuttings generated by drilling activity and suspended solids removed from water produced from Phillips' Huntington Beach production operations ' (both onshore and offshore) are dried at the South Bolas. solid waste hand— ling facility located in South Bolas lease. This facility is operated under the provisions of the NPDES permit No. CA 0106615 issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. Initially issued as a two—year permit in March 1981, it was renewed for five years in March 1983. The NPDES permit was reviewed and concurred in by the Region IR office of the federal Environmental Protection Agency. Numerous operating , limits and conditions are imposed upon the operator by the NPDES permit, including regular sampling, testing and reporting of constituent material and both ground and surface waters. The facility is inspected periodi— cally by the Santa Ana Regional Suter Quality Control Board staff and monthly by the Orange County Solid Waste Management Agency. Permission for this facility was granted to the oil operator in the 1971 Bolas Surface Use Agreement. The license granted in that agreement for this facility (and several others including the heliport) are revokable upon one year's written notice. As a requirement of the 1981 NPDES permit hearing, Aminoil prepared a wetlands restoration plan for the site. The plan has been approved by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) and will be implemented upon the eventual removal of the facility. In addition to specifying the criteria for restoration, the ' agreement provides a funding mechanism to assure the SARWQC Board and III-100 ' I and other interested parties that actual restoration of the site would be accomplished. Annual contributions to a 'restoration fund" of approximate- ly $50,000 are being made by the oil company. In December 1984, the balance of the f and was approximately $221,000. Additional contributions to the fund will continue to be made until the balance including accrued interest reaches approximately $700,000 in 1982 ' dollars (that is, adjusted for inflation). As provided in the restoration agreement, if all or a portion of this f and is not required for site restoration the funds are to be utilized for water quality improvement pur- poses within the Bolsa Chica area. Oil Production Trends ' Oil production within the Huntington Beach oil field declined somewhat from 1925 to 1940 and then increased steadily to 1955. From 1955 to the early 1970s oil production had been fairly stable, but at a lower level ' than in 1955. Initiation of major waterflood programs in the offshore f.� portion of the field in the early 1970a provided a large increase in pro- duction levels. Overall production levels in the Huntington Beach Field have been declining since 1971 or 1972. Oil production from the Bolsa , Chica area has followed a pattern similar to that of the Huntington Beach field except for the large increase in production levels from the North Bolsa lease since January 1984. The followingtable compares actual production for the month of December Pa 1984 with production levels reported for the month of December 1980: Leases BOPD December 19801 BOPD December 1984 _ Phillips Oil Co. North Bolas 1,078 1,997 �. North Bolsa Strip 297 222 South Bolsa 513 496 : • State PRC 426 1,058 1,787 State PRC 163 98 28 Bolas 392 Permit Area 171 202 Chevron-Bolas b C Lease 313 302* ( ' Indep. Explor. Oil, Inc. 83 64* Total Oil Production from Bolsa Locations 3,611 5,098 ' ' * From August 1984 data 1 BOPD - Barrels of Oil per Day { Future Production Plans The most significant future project currently proposed which may affect oil production in the Bolsa Chica area is the proposed Lower Ashton Zone Waterflood on the North Bolas lease. The waterflood project includes the drilling and/or redrilling some 20 to 30 wells (optimization studies yet ' to be done will determine the exact number). The project has the poten- tial for significantly increasing the current production level from the lease. This change of conditions will be an important consideration in 1 the development of the Wetlands Restoration Implementation Plan. III-101 Bahanced Oil Recovery (BOR) Over the last five years, reference has been made to enhanced oil recovery projects which held promise for expanding oil production in the area. Projects in this regard included the injection of carbon dioxide (CO2) conducted in a portion of the North Bolsa Strip lease and the Alkaline Flood Pilot project conducted in part of the state offshore lease 392. The 002 Pilot Project and Alkaline Flood Pilot Project have been completed. The Alkaline Flood project was able to show the mobilization of some oil, but not enough to warrant the further application of this technique to areas beyond the limited pilot project area at this time. ' The drop in California oil prices has dimmed the prospect of feasible application of enhanced oil recovery techniques for the foreseeable future. Now at approximately $22.75 per barrel , most independent experts project that California crude oil prices will remain relatively flat over the next few years with only modest gains in later years. The consequence of this is continued uncertainty regarding prediction of "sunset" dates for energy facilities in Bolsa Chica. Accordingly, the Land Use Plan pro- vides for planning flexibility around energy facilities in both developed and habitat restored areas. Subsidence The State Division of Oil and Gas has previously expressed its concern re- , garding the potential for damage to property to be constructed within the Bolas Chica area as a result of subsidence. Such concerns were previously recognized. The LCP provides for subsidence monitoring programs and use of monitoring data in land planning and design (see also Subsidence in the Geotechnical Hazards section of this LCP). Final EIR 81-250 incorporated DOG's recommendation by reference as required mitigation for subsidence hazards. ' In addition, the Division of Oil and Gas Supervisor has the power under Division III, Article 5.5 of the California Public Resources Code at Sec- ' tions 3315 et seq. to make a finding whether the provisions of the Califor- nia Subsidence Act are applicable to Bolsa Chica. Such a finding, if sus- tained, would require the development of a subsidence mitigation plan. A mitigation plan which generally requires the establishment of a subsurface ' pressure maintenance program by oil operators in the affected area. To date, however, the California Subsidence Act provisions have been ' applied only to parts of Long Beach, which overlays the East Wilmington oil field. Total maximum deflection in the Long Beach area due to oil extraction was twenty-nine (29) feet. Total maximum deflection in the Huntington Beach oil field is approximately three (3) feet and is con- ' siderably less than that within the Bolsa Chica study area. Subsidence considerations will be explored in greater detail in the Imple- menting Actions Program. Presently, the initiation of a waterflood by Phillips Oil in the Lower Ashton Zone of the North Bolsa lease may have a positive influence on the control of subsidence in the area. Abandonments/Reabandoments ' The State Division of Oil and Gas has expressed its concern that the ' development of the project area may result in situations where permanent III-102 ' 1 � ' structures are constructed over previously abandoned oil wells that subse- quently leak. In a February 1985 letter to County EMA, the State Division of Oil and Gas set forth its position on this matter as follows: "Although all wells abandoned under the supervision of the Division of Oil and Gas during the past sev- eral years have been abandoned alder the more strin-gent requirements established for wells in urban areas, a considerable number of wells, abandoned many years ago in %fiat was then remote or rural areas, ' were abandoned under less stringent requirements. However, even with today's advanced technology, we can never be absolutely certain that any well that produced oil or gas is abandoned in a way that will guarantee that leakage of oil or gas will never occur under any circumstances." ' The Division of Oil and Gas has developed the following general guidelines for such situations and requests that they be included in the Bolsa Chica land use plan and in later building permitting procedures: When there is a development planned within an oil- or gas-producing • area (either active or abandoned), a map of the proposed development should be examined by Division engineers prior to commencement of ' development operations. i . Any unabandoned well, or any well not abandoned to current Division of Oil and Gas specifications and requirements, which will be overlain by any permanent structure, or will be in close proximity to a permanent t� structure, should be evaluated by Division engineers who will estab- lish requirements for abandonment or reabandonment, if necessary. �. The layout of structures within a proposed development site should be so arranged that access to any well, not properly abandoned , shall be maintained. The Count has incorporated the intent of these policies in the Land Use Y rp Plan and will address this matter phase in the IAP Energy Facilities Plan. Other Issues t ' Addendum Exhibit "B" of the Bolsa Surface Use Agreement dated September 2, 1971 contemplated additional future sites for oil and water source wells. It would be appropriate to reconcile current well counts and locations with those previously authorized and, to the extent possible, locate any ' additional wells that are required for new projects such as the 20 to 30 wells proposed for the North Bolsa Wkterflood project. se III-103 r i � �, � � � � w � � � � ® � � � �/ � � v o .r �. •-' SECTION 111, PAIL! 7: PMMIC WORKS Ca1PDX= Synopsis is This section provides a description of the basic requirements and programs for conventional utilities (eg., water, wastewater, electricity, etc.) needed to serve the project; Wintersburg Flood Control Channel improve- ments, and Metropolitan Water District interests in the Study Area. Specifically discussed are policy considerations for location of major utilities within urban development and wildlife habitat areas; alterna- tives for 100-year storm protection and their relationship to wetlands ' restoration; and the County's ongoing and proposed cooperative planning effort with MWD to facilitate resolution of that agency's concern over land uses allocated for its fee ownership and easements. Additional major discussion of public works/utilities-related project ele- ments may be found in: . Biological Resources Management Component Shoreline Processes and Structures Component L' 0 Energy Facilities Component ( Progras Description Summer" c , UTILITIES E, 11 Water The Bolas Chica Study Area lies within the jurisdiction of the Orange County Water District (OCWD) and the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC). The site does not presently have access to a domestic water supply. Some localized groundwater pumping is used to support oil production operations on the site. A variety of alternatives jurisdic- tional and functional means are available to provide domestic water supplies to Bolas Chica, including: Annexation to the City of Huntington Beach Connection to adjacent municipal water agencies Groundwater extraction Direct supply by Municipal Water Districts of Orange County (MWDOC) These alternatives will be explored and a preferred approach finalized in the Implementing Actions Program. The IAP Master Plan of Utilities will indicate the location and size of major water lines needed to serve the a project area. Wastewater '# The Study Area is not located within the jurisdictional boundaries of a local wastewater management agency, although there are numerous sewer facilities and stub outs which could be used to serve Bolas Chic&. The areas surrounding the project site are served by County Sanitation Dia- tracts of Orange County (CSDOC) No. 11. Major existing CSDOC No. 11 facil- III-105 ities in the proximity of the study area are the Springdale and Slater- Springdale trunk sewers, both located to the east. In addition, the City of Huntington Beach, whose sewer systems ultimately connect to CSDOC facil- ities, operates a trunk sewer in Warner Avenue, directly north. This sewer is currently operating at capacity with plans approved by the City to provide a relief trunk facility (City of Huntington Beach, 1980). Coast Trunk Sewer The Master Plan of Sewer Facilities for Sanitation District No. 11 pro- poses the construction of several sewer facilities in the vicinity of the Bolsa Chica study area. A key feature of the master plan is the Coast ' Trunk Sewer, an eight-mile interceptor system comprising six reached extending from the sanitation district's treatment plant no. 2 at Brook- hurst Street to Los Patos Avenue near Warner Avenue. Reaches 1 and 2, extending from treatment plant no. 2 to Lake Street (approximately 2.7 miles south of the Bolas. Chica area), are in operation. Reaches 3 and 4 extend from Lake Street at Pacific Coast Highway to Sea- cliff IV development. Reaches 5 and 6 of this system are proposed to extend, respectively, along the Huntington Beach Mesa and the eastern periphery of the Bolsa Chica Study Area. As a condition of their coastal development permit, the Sanitation District will provide service to Bolsa Chica development only after certification of this LCP. The County Sanitation Districts of Orange County (CSDOC) preliminary Sewage Collection Master Plan (December 1982) and a draft environmental Impact report (October 1983) for the plan provide the following additional data pertaining to the reach of the coast trunk sewer proposed to traverse the Study Area. The Master Plan contemplates locating a 72-inch gravity sewer line running along Edwards Street generally following the base of the Huntington Mesa bluffs. The lowland portion of the line would connect to a pumping sta- tion in the lowland generally in the vicinity of the Palm Avenue/Seaview Drive intersection which is currently under construction as a part of the Seacliff IV development. Wastewater would be conveyed from the pumping station to a proposed line on Huntington Mesa which would connect with the existing coast trunk sewer which presently terminates at Golden West Street. The proposed facility has been sized to correct existing and ' future capacity deficiencies in Huntington Beach immediately inland of the Study Area and to accommodate the additional effluent to be produced at full implementation of the Bolsa Chica LCP. Should CSDOC ultimately decide to construct the sewer in the area proposed on the master plan, the County will assure that certain guidelines are met pursuant to Biological Resources Management and Public Works policies pertaining to location of utilities within wetlands areas. Wastewater generation figures were developed for the 1982 Land Use Plan and are found in EIR 81-250. Updates of these generation figures for the Land Use Plan will be made in the Implementing Actions Program. Other master planned sewer facilities in proximity to the Bolsa Chica study area include the proposed westerly extension of the Springdale trunk III-106 r . newer and the proposed construction of a trunk sewer in Edwards' Street. Both of these facilities are shown extending to the easterly study area boundary to connect ultimately with Reaches 5 and 6 of the Coast Trunk Sewer. The above-noted and other utilities and services will be provided in accordance with the listing of considerations and agencies below. r . PUBLIC flORO/ 03 PROGM The Master Plan of Utilities will evaluate the adequacy of services to the project area and mitigate impacts pursuant to LUP policies. The following plan elements/issues will be addressed in the development of the Master r Plan. I . Location of existing services/stub outs 0 Emplacement of facilities in major roadway corridors lJ . Potential for consolidation of utility lines/easements with oil field (� lines and other easements onsite t.J . Timing of Coast Trunk Sewer project onsite relative to development and wetlands restoration phasing plan j grequirements agreement ect Pro a . Potential options for water supply County EMA will work closely with the following agencies in the develop- went of the IAP to ensure that adequate service and lands are available: Water City of Huntington Beach Metropolitan Water District } Municipal Water Districts of Orange County I J Other agencies to be determined Sewage treatment County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Schools Ocean View Elementary School District Huntington Beach City School District Huntington Beach Union High School District Fire protection/emergency medical Orange County Fire Department Huntington Beach Fire Department Police protection Orange County Sheriff Huntington Beach Police Department Solid waste Rainbow Disposal Company L Electricity Southern California Edison Company Natural gas Southern California Gas Company Telephone General Telephone Company rIII-107 11' WPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT , background Discussion The Metropolitan Water District holds fee title to approximately 80+ acres of land to the north of the Wintersburg Flood Control Channel.- Approxi- mately 40 of these acres comprise a 400-foot-wide corridor of lowland and upland within the Bola& Chic& LCP Segment boundary within County jurisdic- tion. The corridor extends westward from the Study Area boundary to the terminus of the existing flood control channel tide gates at Outer Bolsa Bay. The remaining 42 acres are a trapezoid-shaped parcel within the jur- isdiction of the City of Huntington Beach. Surrounding land uses are pri- marily single-family residential. The County does not have LCP planning authority for this area. Therefore, while not part of the Bolsa Chica LCP Segment, the switchyard parcel is considered part of the Study Area. The County understands Coastal Commission's November 29, 1984 decision on the Study Area to be precedent for any future Commission action with respect to the subject area. In addition to these fee title lands, purchased by MWD from Signal Land- mark in 1974, the District in 1967 received a tidelands grant from the State for 860 acres of mostly submerged land seaward of Pacific Coast High- way near the north end of Bolsa Chica State Beach. The tidelands grant permitted MWD to use the property for a nuclear power plant and seawater desalinization facility to be constructed on a 125-acre man-made island, which would be connected to the shoreline via a 60-foot-wide causeway. The section of the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve lying between the MWD offshore and onshore parcels is owned by the State of California. In order to obtain access and/or use rights in this area, MWD must secure a lease from the State Lands Commission. Although MWD no longer proposes the specific mix of uses noted above, the District desires to retain its use options in the area, which will likely include a desalinization facility as a means of meeting future regional water supply demand. The need to retain such options has become increas- ingly important since the ballot proposition to build the Peripheral Canal to supply water to southern California was defeated in 1982. Further, since southern California is expected to lose approximately 50 percent of Its Colorado River water upon the pending completion of the Central Arizona Water Project, the need to develop new water supply sources to meet future demands will become increasingly important during the next 20 years. At this time, MWD has no specific plans for its property. However, MWD staff indicate that both offshore easements and onshore lands might be used for the deep burial of intake pipes which would convey seawater to a processing/distribution facility located on the 42-acre MWD parcel within the City of Huntington Beach. Accordingly, MWD requires that surface uses over both the tidelands grant and fee title property be limited to those which would not impede or preclude construction and maintenance (eg., exca- vation) of water supply facilities. The County and MWD have been in con- timing dialoge regarding MWD's prospective uses on its Bolsa Chica lands. The County intends to continue this dialogue during the Land Use Plan Confirmation planning phase and subsequently as required to satisfy the following policy intent. III-108 Policy Intent Public Works Component policy no. 107 states: "Prior to LUP confirmation, the County, with asais- � : tance from the Coastal Conservancy, shall work with MWD and other affected parties, including the City of Huntington Beach, to identify appropriate means or alternative development sites to meet MWD's goals. A Project Agreement or other agreement(s) shall be the means by which the use of MWD land or compensatory financing shall be reached." . It should be noted that MWD has officially objected ected to the Coastal Commis- sion's suggested modification allocating 35 acres of wetlands on the � J' switchyard parcel. The County has shown thise use on the Land Use Plan J exhibit in accordance with DFG wetlands determinations. However, the County cannot make general planning level decisions on lands outside of its jurisdiction. The City of Huntington Beach is presently undertaking a t � one-year program to complete its LCP planning for the switchyard parcel. In discussions with MWD staff, the County understands that while MWD also objects to the present configuration of land uses proposed in the tranamis- sion corridor within the LCP Segment Area, MWD does not object to the coop- erative planning approach embodied in the above policy and described below in detail. This approach is substantially the same as that developed in the 1983 LCP Supplement. The above-cited policy is intended to: 1. Assure that all fee title and tidelands grant rights currently enjoyed r , by MWD in the Bolsa Chica are protected; L 2. Provide for compatibility between MWD's prospective uses/needs and other planned land uses in the area. ' E Under these protections, the County intends that future planning for the I. area both within and outside of its jurisdiction be facilitated in accord- ance with the design guidelines below. Design Guidelines Given MWD's rights and water planning needs, and the LCP land uses, final i� location and design of all facilities for the area will be guided by the following process and design criteria. General Procedures Prior to completion of the Land Use Plan Confirmation planning phase 1 # or issuance of development permits for construction immediately adja- L cent to MWD fee title or tidelands grant property, the County will assist the City of Huntington Beach and MWD to determine jointly whether such plans or activities are compatible with the district's a use rights. r I rIII-109 i • As detailed designs for visitor-serving, navigation, and flood control 1 facilities are developed in the W, the County will consult with MWD on MWD plans which would affect other land uses in the area. ; . If during this process (ie., Land Use Plan Confirmation Review), it is determined by the participating parties that an alternative location _ on- or off-site for the MWD tidelands grant and transmission corridor will meet the MWD needs, the County will work to facilitate agreement on a substitute location by mutual consent of the owner thereof. Site Specific Considerations Tidelands Grant Area Surface land uses over the MWD tidelands grant area compatible with MWD use rights include: existing beach parking and access; roadways; flood control improvements; navigable bridge spans with no abutments or piers; beach sand areas; and navigable ocean entrance and channels. Permanent structures such as jetties, buildings and other fixed structures within and parallel to the easement "corridor" extending offshore to the remain- ing tidelands grant area should be located outside the existing or any substitute corridor easement. Transmission Corridor Surface uses on the existing (or equivalent substitute) onshore transmis- sion corridor which would be compatible with MWD use rights and water sup- ply facilities to include parks, greenbelts, open space, wildlife habitat, roads, flood control channels, desilting basins and parking areas. Marina basins, permanent landside support and visitor-serving structures (eg., launch ramps, commercial retail buildings) should not be located within the existing transmission corridor (or equivalent substitute) area. Detailed assessments of compatibility of these and other uses with MWD water supply planning for the area will be part of location and engineer- ing de sign of all proposed facilities prior to issuance of any development permits. ' Flood Control Existing Setting The Study Area is crossed by Reach 1 of the East Garden Grove- Wintersburg Flood Control Channel (Exhibit 4). This facility is owned by the Orange County Flood Control District and is operated by EMA. The channel extends in a northeast-southwest direction through the northern margin of Bolsa lowland. The entire flood control channel extends approximately twelve miles from Chapman Avenue in Garden Grove to its outlet at Outer Bolas Bay. The drainage area serviced by the channel encompasses approximately 18,000 acres (28 square miles) of urban watershed located mostly within the cities of Garden Grove, Santa Ana, Westminster and Huntington Beach. Within the Study Area the existing flood control channel is predominantly a 70-foot-wide, 14-foot-high trapezoidal earthen structure that widens to 120 feet at its Outer Bolsa Bay outlet. A series of tide gates controls discharge and prevents inland sea flooding. III-110 The channel was originally designed to carry 65 percent of 25-year storm runoff. However, development within the tributary water-shed since channel construction in the last 1950s has increased runoff rates to an extent where adequate flood protection cannot be provided during heavy rainfall. Present Orange County Flood Control District hydrologic criteria specify a 100-year storm channel design for areas between 4,000 and 20,000 acres. The Flood Control District in 1977 evaluated alternative improvement plans for the subject channel to provide necessary 100-year flood protection. Feasible design options examined for Beach 1 were 1) a 15-foot-high trape- zoidal earthen channel; 2) a reinforced concrete rectangular channel with 11-foot-high walls and three feet of earthen freeboard; 3) a reinforced concrete rectangular channel with 13-foot-high walls and one foot of earthen freeboard; and, 4) other hard and soft edge condition designs. All options will have a design discharge capacity of 7,900 cubic feet per second (calculated total 100-year storm runoff). Selection of a channel design will be dependent in part upon the wetlands/mixing basin (see Biological Resources Management Component) and marina development plans to r be developed in the Land Use Confirmation Review and the IAP. With improvements to the Wiutersburg Flood Control Channel, the Land Use Plan will provide protection from 100-year flood hazard posed by inland area runoff. As noted in detail in the Shoreline Processes and Structures Component, another aspect of flood control is the existing hazard that exists from sea flooding. Much of the Bolsa lowland exists at elevations .1 ' which are at or lower than sea level. These areas are currently protected from sea flood by a series of dikes and other protective topographic fea- tures. However, in the winter of 1983, storm waves combined with extreme l� high tides breached Bolsa Chica State Beach and flooded Pacific Coast High- way and portions of the oil field. Because of the many oil-related facili- ties are also at or below sea level, careful consideration will be given in the Implementation Action Program (IAP) to protection of these facili- ties or the relocation or elevation of them to protect against sea flood conditions within both the urban and wildlife habitat areas of the Bolsa lowland. The Energy Facilities Component considers these issues in some 1 (� detail. The master grading plan (see Community Design and Visual and Scenic Resources Component) will provide for elevations and drainage char- acteristics onsite that will provide protection against both inland and sea flooding hazards. p • III-111 �I N r-1 1 I H SECTION III, PAS? S. NEW RBSIDEATIAL/PEIGBBOSHOOD COMMERCIAL COMPONENT n SYNOPSIS f ; This section presents a discussion of the residential and neighborhood commercial development proposed for the Bolas, Chica Planned Community. Proposed residential uses at Bolsa Chica are shown on the LUP as medium, high, and heavy density residential in accordance With the County General Plan designations described herein. The LUP provides for neighborhood ' commercial and residential uses within the varina/commercial complex. I The focus of residential neighborhood planning has been on the lowland , where high-value waterfront housing is proposed as an incentive and a financial basis for enhancing the feasibility of public projects, includ- ing wetlands restoration. The LUP proposes a 5,700-dwelling unit maximum in the LCP Segment Area. However, due to the large acreage being given over to wetlands restoration and other public projects, it is anticipated that the total number of ,Q units ultimately built may be less than this total. Nevertheless, support- ing traffic studies and circulation system designations have been devel- oped using the 5,700-unit maximum. ' Policies regarding the New Res idential/Neighborhood Commercial Component of the LUP are provided in Section II. ff Related major discussion of new residential aspects of this plan is provi- ded in Section III as follows: . Community Design and Visual and Scenic Resources Component Biological Resources Management Component Physical and Cultural Resources Component . Transportation Component Energy Facilities Component Phasing and Financing Component PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY The following key residential features are included in the Land Use Plan: A maximum of 5,700 residential dwelling units are proposed within the LCP Segment Area. Residential units will be constructed in both the lowland and Bolas (pica Mesa areas. A wide range of densities and product types will occur. Densities will be distributed in the following jpneral plan density categories and approximate acreage breakdown: III acres at heavy density ( 18.0+ d.u./acre) 92 acres at high density (6.5 to 18.0 d.u./acre) - 303 acres at medium density (3.5 to 6.5 d.u./acre) '. The marina/commercial complex will reflect a mixed use concept, • allowing high/heavy residential uses to be incorporated. ' III-113 Lowland residential development will be separated from the central wetland by fences, grade separations, roadways, trails, moats, vegetated areas or other forms of buffering. This area will serve as a habitat buffer and public aceessway, pursuant to the Biolo- gical Resources Management and Coastal Access and Recreation Com- ponents. Residential Community Concept Residential development in the LCP Segment Area will take a variety of forms and densities in accordance with market trends locational and comma- , nity design criteria. The Land Use Element of the County General Plan and the policies herein provide the guidance for residentia3, uses as follows: 1.4 Medium Density Residential Neighborhoods Character The general character of this category is single-family detached dwelling units on standard-sized lots. Categories: Dwelling Unit/Acre Area Per Unit 1.4 3.5-6.5 9,300 to 5,000 sq.ft. 1.5 High Density Residential Neighborhoods Character This category is designed to encourage more intense development than , typical single-family detached units allow. Townhouse, condominium, duplex, triplex, and multi-family units are dominant. High-density development is proposed at Bola& Chica primarily on Bolas Chica Mesa in close proximity to the marina/commercial complex. Categories: Dwelling Unit/Acre Area Per Unit 1.5 6.5-18.0 5,000 to 1,800 sq.ft. 1.6 Heavy Density Residential Neighborhoods Character The general character of this category is intense multiple-family residential development which will be located contiguous to and pos- sibly within the marina/commercial complex as part of a mixed-use concept. Categories: Dwelling Unit/Acre Area Per Unit 1.6 -18. Less than 1,800 sq.ft. With respect to specific location onsite, the Bolas Chica residential community may be described in terms of four general areas. Lowland Medium Density Waterfront Residential The residential community will be located in the lowland areas on either side of the proposed main channel and seaward of the Bolas Chica/Garfield Connector corridor. III-114 ' Housing proposed for the main channel area will be primarily medium densi- ty or approximately 3.5-6.5 dwelling units per acre. This density range is roughly equivalent to existing neighborhoods nearby and in Huntington Harbour. r The housing product in this area is anticipated to be of high market value with navigable waterfront orientation. The community will likely have a ' general orientation toward the main channel and away from wildlife habi- tat. This product type will require numerous navigable secondary channels radiating off the main channel shown in the LUP. The location of the secondary channels, all of which will be accessible to the public by water, will be delineated in the IAP and at subsequent tentative tract levels of planning. Key design considerations for this area will be: . Maximization of lineal feet of water frontage balanced with site design requirements; 0 High quality architectural and urban design standards to maximize pro- perty values and project-specific assessment potentials, and to pro- vide visual amenity benefits to the public; a Edge conditions adjacent to wildlife habitat consistent with the Bio- logical Resources, Management Coastal Access and Recreation, and Commu- nity Design and Visual and Scenic Resources Components; is Design of secondary waterways consistent with water quality objectives and acoustic considerations; and Geotechnical hazards mitigations. The fundamental purposes of establishing the residential character and design criteria as noted above are two-fold. First, the requirement that Bolas. Chica be a self-supporting project with 1 respect to the expenditure of County general funds implies that allowed urban development provide sufficient incentives for conveyance of private lands for public uses. Second, and more importantly, the large area being given over to non-rev- L enue producing wildlife habitat requires that numerous project-specific financing mechanisms of sufficient basis be established. Since wetlands restoration at Bolsa Chica represents a costly development project in Itself which cannot pay back incurred costs through its own negligible revenues, assessment potential of waterfront residential for the costs of [� infrastructure (eg., tidal waterways) which mutually benefit both urban elements and wildlife habitat is one means for accomplishing State-manda- ted wetlands restoration objectives. This basic concept was examined and confirmed in the Habitat Conservation Plan. This crucially important project funding consideration also illustrates why for financial feasibility reasons alone it is desirable to locate the Bolas Chica/Garfield Connector as close as practicable inland to the Segment Area boundary. The further inland this roadway is located, the greater is the assessment potential available to public projects from private sector development. However, as noted in the Transportation Com- ponents and below, the location of this arterial must be balanced against other residential land planning considerations. III-115 Lowland Residential Inland of the Bolsa Chica/Garfield Connector Corridor The Land Use Plan designates a. band of. primarily medium density residen- tial housing between the inland aide of the Bolas Chica/Garfield Connector and existing residential neighborhoods. This area will be at least 500 feet wide measured from the LCP Segment Area boundary to the edge of the Bolas Chica/Garfield Connector corridor. While the residential character of this area is expected to be similar to that of adjoining neighborhoods, housing with orientation to navigable .waterfront or non-navigable, muted or non-tidal range waterways are a future design possibility. The develop- ' meat of this residential subarea will serve to complete the existing neigh- borhood pattern; and, along with other mitigation measures delineated in the Transportation Component, will provide an effective barrier to noise generated by the Bolsa Chica/Garfield Connector. The Fieldstone Company, which holds a development option on the W.B. Grace property in this area, has already proposed such use on its parcel. Heavy Density Residential - Marins/Commercial Caaplex Area ' The Land Use Plan designates heavy density residential product types to surround the marina/commercial complex in the lowland and on Bolas Chica Mesa. The LUP policies for the marina/commercial complex will allow for residential uses to be included within this area as well. This would allow for a mixed-use community core which could also include neighborhood commercial along with the County marina and the other visitor-serving recreation uses. The heavy density residential immediately adjacent to the marina will like- , ly include townhomes and condominiums or apartments. Any residential pro- ducts to be developed within the marina complex itself would have a verti- cal orientation in conjunction with other planned uses. Since this area will be a relatively intense area of local and regional importance, spe- cial consideration will be given in the IAP to locating and designing mixed uses to assure mutual compatibility. The overall intent of the mixed use concept is to create a focal point and strong identity, for the overall Bolas Chica Planned Community as well as to utilize scarce urban acreage in an efficient manner. This use concept will be fully articula- ted in the ZAP. Sol" Chica Mesa Bolsa Chica Mesa outside of the marina urban activity center has been designated primarily for medium and high density residential uses. The character and pattern of these uses as shown on the Land Use Plan is intended to provide a compatible transition between the existing medium density homes north of Los Patos Street and the high density condominiums facing Huntington Harbour north of Warner Avenue. Affordable Housing Developers of residential areas in the Bolas Chica Planned Community will be required to conform to the affordable housing regulations contained in the County Housing Element at the time of development. Traffic Impacts Traffic studies which have been done to date have used the 5,700 dwelling unit maximum to determine vehicular volumes and consequent needed roadway III-116 ' ' system designations. Design for traffic impacts of the proposed residen- tial uses will be refined in the IAP. Final densities will be assigned so as not to require any additional roadway capacity or any diminution of levels of service beyond that designated in the Circulation Plan and amen- ded Master Plan of Arterial Highways. Residential development will be constructed in accordance with the follow- ing phasing criteria, with the relationship to wetlands restoration imple- mentation being of top priority: . Phasing of residential development pursuant to the Biological Resources Management and Phasing and Financing Components policies and Programs; 0 Ocean Entrance construction financing; Energy facilities infrastructure patterns and considerations; 0 Marina/commercial implementation schedule; and t Market demand and development absorption factors. .tz 1 (; a r III-117 SECTION III PART 9: COMMDIM DESIGN AND VISUAL AND SCENIC RESOURCES MPOEW j SDIOPSIS 1 This section provides discussion and illustration of the historical, pre- sent and proposed landform and attendant visual characteristics of the Bolas, Chica LCP Segment Area. Also discussed are the overriding urban design elements to be developed more fully in the IAP. Policies regarding this component are found in Section II, Part 9. Additional related major discussion of community design and visual resources are found in: r ` Biological Resources Management Component (wetlands/urban edge) Physical and Cultural Resources Component (geotechnical hazards) ® J Coastal Access and Recreation Component (scenic overlooks, etc.) U J Transportation Component (scenic highways) Public Works Component (grading and drainage) Energy Facilities Component L New Residential and Neighborhood Commercial Component . PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY t ' The key elements of the Community Design and Visual and Scenic Resources Component are policies and programs requiring preparation of a Feature Plan as part of the Implementing Actions Program. As provided for in Sec- tion IV of this document, the Feature Plan for the Bolas, Chica Planned Com- munity will contain a number of detail and area plans which will expressly pertain to overall community design. These are: Landscape Master Plan The landscape master plan will provide illustrative detail for public y facilities (ie., marina/commercial, Regional Linear Park, arterial road- ways and major intersections, energy facilities, edge conditions between Q public facilities and private residential) and all other landscape ele- ments. This will be prepared as part of the IAP. Generally, the Land Use Plan policies pertaining to the Landscape Master Plan call for landscape design of public facilities and highly visible private uses to conform to aesthetic standards equal to or surpassing those required for urban areas as set forth in the County Resources Element (Scenic Highways). The design of wetlands edges, ESHAs and buffers will also be required to Q meet these same standards consistent with biological enhancement objec- tives, so as to enhance the visual quality of urban development. Grading and Drainage Play/Landfora Modification `--' The construction of the various areas within Bolsa Chica will require extensive modification of the existing landform in order to reach established objectives for both wildlife habitat and urban development. T' III-119 1. Wetlands Restoration/ESHAs/Buffers The restoration of 915 acres of wetlands, 86 acres of ESHAs and appropri- ate acreage of buffers will require significant sculpting of the existing landform in order to establish new wildlife habitat consistent with Bio- logical Resource Management Component policies and programs. Major antici- pated changes to these areas include: - Removal of certain oil field access roads over time ' - The excavation of non-navigable channels to create subtidal habi- tat and new water regimes for muted tidal and fresh/brackish water habitat - The recontouring of certain areas to create appropriately diverse intertidal, upland, and endangered species habitat. This may include modifications, if needed, to the Huntington Mesa bluffs in order to create suitable conditions for several types of wetland t and non-wetland environmentally sensitive habitat. 2. Urban Development ' Several major modifications will be made to existing landform in areas slated for urban development. Exhibit 27 illustrates the existing land- forms and site features. In the lowland, existing landform will be modi- fied as follows. The creation of a new navigable ocean entrance channel between the Pacific Ocean and the Bolsa lowland represents a significant change to the LCP Segment Area. As described in the Shoreline Structures and Processes Component, construction of the entrance will necessitate removing approximately a 900-foot-wide swath of land currently at the Bolsa Chica State Beach; two jetties and a terminal breakwater of signifi- cant visual importance will be built. The precise location of the ocean ' entrance as well as the specific details of the form of its attendant structures will largely depend upon studies to be conducted by the Corps of Engineers through the use of hydraulic models. However, the LUP contains policies which are intended to assure that the ocean entrance will be a visual and useful amenity for the general public. The Bolas. Chica Main Channel will be excavated generally as shown on the Land Use Plan. The excavated material will be used as fill to raise low- land urban development areas to sufficient elevation (up to 10'-12' MSL) at the wetlands and channel edges to protect against high tides/sea flood- ing, storm runoff from the flood control channel, and long-term effects of maximum probable subsidence in the area. The elevated area will be configured and designed to promote visual access , to waterways and urban runoff drainage patterns that will be most pro- tective of overall water quality and wildlife habitat, consistent with sound civil engineering practice. Elevations will be established at the LCP Segment Area landward boundary that will be aesthetically and function- ally compatible with existing development and allow for extension of arter- ial and internal roads consistent with County and City of Huntington Beach , design standards. A number of significant changes to Bolsa Chica Mesa and its immediate lowland (Outer Bolsa Bay) environs are proposed in the LUP. III-120 ' HUNTING'FQPC EACkI :% ' 'CENTRAL`PARk*� /� v , l .;,+•, ter° _ P,e /l ? O v, ,.�k� q^ , n 1 f HUNTINGTON b EEACH 5'/a •%.r�" -�^ ��/C y ` �� a :t Jt v n . j•`,. ^�.D�� fir;;'! ?� �N.\v}r 1,•f x.t7�� y/�•'� v;;x " V „ x ESA r Q/ •� �� } ✓ t.t r y r J j' [ � Jr�.��`}� t ...:. �. IYJiTvl�l/h A � � •. Cisr, BL41 UFF$ �� vyy;-• �Z4��� ��, f;: �� �, - t`\�\ - v\ t�i�` ��: �/~ham+ - ` - ^` - . \�,��,�vJ,. j - - ,�`•..- .,:�\; �\ Yr.. .lam, . - i 4',;• /� { - i ; 'EUCALYPTUS,"_ GROVES - ^`�r.�: `� '.� ,;� AM "A - lR.�>\� ! `• '� \' i�� '•lam \�. _ � .w •�, i ♦' .'•PLAW NO. �)�^+',6, ., r., t)j,r.�. ..�> .. -�,. mil\. :\/ � '.- ✓ C , ,\� �/� y.�^ ' �,." � �f BOLSA.CHICA --x ` `f.. B ` � k` -4WLA ,r ESA, JU l •'j..�'..:{t /. � - J.�:�' �. :t-"�\ �' .'i _._C'.•�,�"�_..r .r •�—_-T-r_""L`�-ci—�'^l—_ •,'�J-�.tr a �:� `'' I t ,t rA ULM r _ OLSA- �- r fs•? ? !1 _ / �— .�... e ,•'ti�J��'� �/ '— _ y� E �`,'f•' �..y.. .. ...__. ..., : .. .•. f=�_ SEACLIFFHUNTINGT ON. BOLS CHICA M SA COUNTRY CLU B OLS� C�lCA.E =UCt ALOWER BENCH TIDE . L RESERVE "GAT � { DIKE HELIR� r4 ' % EUCALYPTUS ., ��� GROVES �% _ 'RABBIT . . 4v i I ISLANDJw �� C•� `� ate' /yuu .oso a......_. i• - r ��r, L 4 - ;„ i { ++ y > WH TOEK 6IL �h►�6�L$ '<{ -- — - y I I G ._ , . ATES tier ` .� °:10trrER $6&:U BAY INNER IIOLSA7 BALE Carta,R��� BOLSA CH C-A �7/�TE-B �ACH •� \` "` PNOYOCJUMETTY:SEPTEWER T Y,IWO BOLSA CHICA NORTH COAST PLAN UNIT r0 555 1110 1685 LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM N4440,00M lums EINFA ItAEWAL MANMEMOR AGENCY COUNTY OF ORAP" {L �' EXHIBIT 27 The construction of a realigned Pacific Coast Highway and bridges and the excavation of a Huntington Harbour Connection Channel will entail signifi- F; cant changes to the landform and visual character of the area. Although LUP policies require the maintenance of a distinct elevation ' difference between Bolsa Chica Mesa and the lowland, the landform resul- ting from the construction of the marina/commercial complex, PCH and atten- dant bridges will be considerably different from that existing today. rThe PCH Bolsa Chica Main Channel bridge abutments will likely be set at elevations ranging from the existing contours found at its proposed loca- tion on Bolsa Chica Mesa (approximately 26 feet MSL) to 45 feet MLLW at the beginning of the bridge span upcoast; and rising from the existing elevation of PCH (approximately +10 feet MSL) to 45 feet MLLW for the downcoast abutment. Depending upon the result of detailed designs to be prepared in the IAP, the bridge abutments may contain sufficient additional earthwork to incorporate marina commercial/mixed uses on either side of the new PCH ' roadway. Both the abutments and the main channel bridge span itself will be designed to scenic highway and superior architectural design standards. ' The Huntington Harbour connection channel is proposed to be constructed at i . the landward edge of Outer Bolsa Bay. In order to retain the greatest possible acreage of existing wetlands, the channel will probably require excavation of a significant length of the existing Bolas Chica Mesa ' bluffs. The landward edge of the channel will be flanked by medium den- �� sity residential and a bridge span over the channel itself. Given the location of this area in the realigned PCH corridor, all design treatments f' here will also be designed to scenic highway and superior architectural t� and landscape standards to be developed in the IAP. Bann COMMONS AND BACKGROUND The topography of the Bolsa Chica area was formed by the ancestral Santa Ana River as it flowed through the Huntington Beach area to the Pacific (1 Ocean and created the two and one-half-mile wide Bolsa lowland. The lowland (also referred to as the Gap) is bounded by the Bolas Chica Mesa on the northwest and by the Huntington Beach Mesa on the southeast (see Exhibits 28 and 29a-29c). Throughout the early period of European colonization of southern Califor- nia the Santa Ana River drained through the Bolas, Chica lowland and emp- tied into the Pacific Ocean. During floods in 1825, the river changed �+ course and the Bolsa lowland was left with a relict drainage pattern. The coastal portion of the lowland was occupied by a small tidally connected lagoon with fringing salt marsh which transitioned landward into fresh- water swamps. The swamps were fed by remnant surface drainage from smaller watersheds such as Freeman Creek and rising groundwater (artesian springs). Throughout the early and mid-1800s, extensive tracts of land in the region (including Bolsa Chica) were used for cattle ranching and sheep grazing. ' In the 1860s the ranchos began to experience economic g p problems precipita- ted by declining beef prices and severe drought. By the 1890s, most of ' t III-121 r OD cq NY Ti I!! o - 11 1 \ 111 .0 1 ��a,Y,�ioO Noe ° co 40 IMA `IL��(�;��(� a AD = rz ' n00 Cl) A G2 tf jl� pp A �f•d{J�A Yf I s /G'y.� Y s l :' 11 t ' . AP ya Ali 'P,s f�i1 �<s�r J1�i `S `� 1.. • •� ` �} Al P P�" • '� tiX u � �<' •r { is i 7V 1jn'1 Ali. Yt '`GicS l r _ i 1 If . h: ZA J a Z W .`•. C� All I CVo {: r>> N , d Ip� �'•r Co t! MUL Y� s �•yi.`'� .e=+p r_..f•',�.•�•�v n.i; C [:��?n ,�.r�s w•�.'•,+ •.�--.ty^" _ h ..7 z� d ,i�♦i'. - I.., i r - ol. +, r .yam "G.�����.I� hr'1 slr't � ,,r t.�., sr- ♦ ... __ ".`�-. - " -� w� ^t► �.�� e^r��•D_2y_ � .� C - a r ��'I Ii+.... �a� .O31 ci • ' � - T��, E ,fix '• .-c♦T:4yA ;~* __- • �� j'•�"y�y ) . . fit' �`• �r (_ .. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •'!yr� t2" / 'rF'•:��'41 441 }y�1' Div lk t t;E „ fib � fir,/ f �) R � .I r r � ! •� �� lr ��:� .Y�fr7 3 1. f t�0• .^t', 1� � i`!t rti4f? �,�., '� � •;I r a�7�t?�� ,.�_ f ; (t{• is ' ;� '!lilt x �l '• �, wit �' f V S O 2 Bolsa Chica's freshwater marshlands had been sold. Settlers constructed ditches to drain swamps and to convert many inland freshwater marshes to agricultural uses. These agricultural drains conveyed freshwater input to Bolsa Bay. Only tidal marshes along the coastal strip remained relatively ' unaltered by the late 1890s. Alterations to these remaining salt marshes followed. Hunting clubs were organized to hunt large numbers of game birds that utilized coastal marshes. One such organization was the Bolsa Chica Gun Club. The Gun Club applied to the State in 1895 for a concession to reclaim the tidal marshes in Bolsa Bay. In 1899, the Gun Club constructed a dam with tide ' gates extending from the southeast tip of Bolsa Chica Mesa to the coastal sand dunes in order to reclaim marshlands. The dam and tide gates restric- ted entrance of saltwater into the Bolsa Chica lowland but permitted drain- age of fresh water from the lowland during low tides. r � The Los Patos channel which connected the lagoon to the ocean filled with sand during construction of the tide dam. A new channel was excavated across a seaward spur of Bolan Chica Mesa to connect the Bolsa lowland to Sunset Bay (now Huntington Harbour) and Anaheim Bay. The restriction of tidal influence at Bolan Chica resulted in significant changes to the lowland ecosystem. Further changes occurred in some areas when the Gun Club constructed access roads and dikes to create waterfowl ponds. Freshwater input to the lowland remained from such sources as Freeman Creek and artesian springs. This water supplied the altered sys- tem of shallow, meandering remnant sloughs behind the tide gates. How- ever, in the 1920s, groundwater extractions for domestic and agricultural uses progressively reduced water supply from artesian sources. i Urbanization of the area began in the early 1900s. Small resort communi- ties were established that eventually would become the cities of Seal Beach and Huntington Beach. The area was linked to Los Angeles and other inland areas by the Pacific Electric Railroad - constructed along the beach in 1904. In that year the extensive Huntington Beach oil field was discovered; in 1925 oil was discovered beneath the Bolsa Chica study area. In the early 1940s construction of drilling pads and oil well access roads began in the Bolsa lowland and continued for a number of years. Construction of these facilities further altered the topography and sur- face drainage of Bolas Chica. The extensive network of bermed access roads resulted in a compartmentalized system of impoundments. Remnants of previous drainage channels such as Freeman Creek (channelized prior to ti 1933) and portions of the earlier lagoon system were segmented. Rapid urban development in southern California had little impact on Bolsa Chica until the 1960s and subsequent years. The State acquired land com- prising Bolsa Chica State Beach. The East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Flood control channel was constructed through the site within an easement acquired by the County. The Ocean View School District acquired a site : . for future educational facilities on Bolsa Chica Mesa. In 1974, the Metro- politan Water District of Southern California acquired 88+ acres north of the flood control channel as part of a proposed seawater desalinization project. The Sunset Bay tidal marsh was dredged for development of the Huntington Harbour marina/residential complex and residential tracts were f 8 III-123 i constructed to the north and east of Bolsa Chica. The Bolas Chica study area today exhibits a largely open character in the lowland as well as on the mesas. , III-124 I SECTION III, PART 10: PHASING AND FINANCING COlO' IMT SYNOPSIS This section summarizes the issues and programs pertaining to the overall ' phasing and financing of the various projects identified in the LUP. Due to the complex interrelationships between existing oil production, wet- lands restoration, and the availability over time of capital required to ' construct the identified projects, phasing and financing are critically important elements to the successful implementation of the Land Use Plan. Policies and additional major discussion related to phasing and financing ' are found in: . Section II, Part 10 . Biological Resources Management Component . Shoreline Processes and Structures Component . Energy Facilities Component Section IV: Land Use Plan Confirmation and Implementing Actions Pro- gram PROGRAM DESCRIIPlION SUMMARY s , Specifically discussed herein are: Overall project phasing programs 1 The Phase I Management and Financing Plan Update to be reviewed concur- rently with, but separate from, this LUP. The Phase I PFMF Plan Update serves as a comprehensive financial framework for the LCP Imple- menting Actions Program. The Plan delineates the potential short and long-term management and financing responsibilities related to the various project plan components. The Phase II Management and Financing Plan to be prepared concurrently with the Implementing Actions Program. The Phase III Management and Financing Plan to be prepared prior to the approval of any land divisions. � PROGRAM DESCRIPTION Phasing Appropriate phasing of wetlands restoration, tidal reintroduction, urban development, and existing energy facilities has been identified as funda- mentally important to the successful implementation of the Land Use Plan. All of these project elements are highly interrelated. Phasing is important from a wildlife habitat standpoint as discussed in detail in the Biological Resources Management Component. Key considera- tions are the onsite establishment of new habitat for endangered species prior to the displacement of existing habitat areas needed for non-wet- ' ' lands purposes. The phasing of wetlands restoration will also be heavily influenced by the character of phase-out of existing energy facilities operations in the lowland. ' III-125 A general phasing plan for wetlands restoration will be developed in the Land Use Plan Confirmation planning phase. More detailed phasing plans ' will be prepared for the restoration project in the Implementing Actions Program. These plans will be reflected in the Phase II Management and Financing Plan. From a purely economic standpoint, phasing of the capital-intensive Bolsa , Chica plan is important because the public and private sector funds required to construct both urban development and wetlands restoration will , not all be available at the start-up of the project. And given the requirement that the project be generally self-supporting, non-revenue producing elements such as wetlands will require funds generated from onsite revenue-producing development and/or external grant funding avail- , able over time. Mnaacing: Phase I and II Phblic Facilities Management and Financing Plans The evaluation of the Bolsa Chica Land Use Plan from an economic and finan- cial viewpoint was accomplished in the 1982 Bolsa Chica LCPAUP through the preparation and concurrent processing of a Fiscal Impact Report and Phase I Management and Financing Plan, Report (Phase I PFMF Plan). More- over, the financial analysis undertaken as part of the Habitat Conserva- tion Plan process in 1983-1984 generally confirmed the appropriateness of the financial framework and capital improvements costs delineated in the Phase I PFMF Plan. ' The Phase I Management and Financing Plan has been updated to reflect this revised Land Use Plan. A Phase II Management and Financing Plan will be prepared concurrently with the IAP. A summary of the historical and con- ' templated future management and financing plan process is described below. The Orange County Board of Supervisors adopted the Phase I PFMF Plan along with its action to approve the 1982 LCP/Land Use Plan. The Phase I PFMF Plan described the potential funding sources for each public project component and also delineated the projected capital costs for each plan component. The Plan was based on Section 4P of the Orange County Board of Supervisors Resolution 81-479, dated April 8, 1981, which called for the Bolsa Chica Project to be financed without encumbering any County General Funds other than those already allocated for the Linear Park. An Updated Phase I PFMF plan has been prepared for the revised LCP/Land Use Plan. The Phase I M&FP Update is based upon the State Coastal Con- servancy's adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (October 1984) which, in ' turn, has become the basis of this Land Use Plan. The Phase I M&FP Update presents a detailed outline of the projected fund- ing requirements for each type of capital improvement, and a potential funding source of each based upon historic precedence for the capital improvement. The capital improvements are categorized into three main groups: non-marina, marina and Huntington Harbour connection channel. ' The total capital costs and anticipated funding from federal, state and local sources are summarized below: III-126 TOTAL NET CAPITAL COST Huntington Non-Marina Marina Harbour Channel Total Capital Cost $84.3 million $78.6 million $17.9 million $180.8 million Less: Antici- pated Funding 19.3 million 33.3 million -- 52.6 million Net Capital ' Cost $65.0 million $45.3 million $17.9 million $128.2 million The Phase I MbFP Update specifies various additional funding alternatives Ir that can be used to underwrite the remaining net capital cost of $128.2 million. The exact combination of these contributions, in the form of grants, loans or other mechanisms, will be determined as part of the Phase II M&FP. These contributions may be project specific financial structures such as revenue bonds, special assessment bonds, federal project repayment districts, developer land dedications, and/or grant funding, among others. `i The annual operating costs of the marina and ocean entrance will also require funding as follows: Annual Operating Cost $ 2.0 million Less: Anticipated Funding .4 million Net Operating Cost $ 1.6 million A substantial portion of this required funding should be generated by the annual marina leasehold revenues from the marina and commercial landside improvements. It is anticipated that visitor-serving commercial areas adjacent to the proposed marina will be included in a special assessment district to provide payback on marina capital costs and to provide for ongoing operation and maintenance of the marina complex at no net public expense. is The specific annual operation and maintenance costs for the non-marina components will be detailed as part of the Implementing Actions Program and the Phase II PFMF Plan. The specific financing and management mechanisms needed to implement the Land Use Plan will be determined in the Phase II PFMF Plan. This Plan will be prepared concurrently with the Implementing Actions Program and will incorporate the results of a series of negotiations between the various participating parties with interests or potential involvement in the process. Likely participants include the County; Metropolitan Water District; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; State of California State Lands ' Commission; State of California Department of Fish and Game; State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans); State of California Department of Boating and Waterways; landowners; and others. Pursuant to the Orange County Board of Supervisors Resolution 81-479, Section 4q, the Phase II Public Facilities Management and Financing Plan ` shall include: r._ I11-127 i Identification of all facilities, services and land area involved, ' to include all other public project and marina capital projects as outlined in the Fiscal Impact Report and Phase I PFMF Plan, and any other similar projects, if any. Identification of all agencies, private ownerships and associa- tions responsible for management of the above facilities, services and land. The costs associated with each of the above facilities, services ' and land. Preliminary funding mechanisms for all of the above facilities, ' services and land. A plan for financing the unfunded portion of capital improvement costs including identification of specific sources, methods and , reasonable possibilities of securing such amounts. The Board of Supervisors also stipulated that the Phase II PFMF Plan would be subject to Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors approval. Further, pursuant to Board Resolution 81-1806 dated December 16, 1981, the Phase II Plan shall include an assessment of the fiscal impact of the Bolsa Chica project on the City of Huntington Beach. Phase III of the Public Facilities Management and Financing Plan will be prepared and approved prior to, or concurrently with, the approval of any ' land division and/or development of the subject property, and will contain contractual arrangements for the phasing, funding, construction, operation and maintenance of facilities identified in the Phase II Public Facilities Management and Financing Plan (Orange County Board of Supervisors Resolu- tion 81-479, Section 4r). The Phase III agreements will largely be tract map planning level documents which will be prepared after the entire LCP has been fully certified by the Coastal Commission. These documents would be the exact agreements entered into by the major parties participating ing Bolsa Chica project development. r III-128 SECTION IV: 11 USE PLAN CO1 MUnON AND I PROGRAM SMOPSIS This section describes the County's program for the completion of the LCP following certification of the Land Use Plan (Exhibit 30 illustrates the process). There are two major steps Which are required Land Use Plan Con- firmation Review and Implementing Actions Program. 1 �. The Land Use Plan Confirmation Review has been required by the Coastal Commission as an interim planning step between certification of the Land Use Plan and completion of the Implementing Actions Program. LUP Confirma- tion will address the following three general areas of concern: 1. Completion of technical studies demonstrating the overall feasibility of the navigable ocean entrance. 2. Preparation of a Wetlands Restoration Concept Plan. 3. Preparation of a Huntington Harbour Connection Channel Plan. ' The Implementing Actions Program will include three basic elements: 1. Preparation of Planned Community District zoning and regulations for the Bolsa Chica segment of the LCP. ;� - 2. A Feature Plan for the Bolsa Chica Planned Community District. 3. One or more agreements regarding the phasing, financing and implementation of the Bolsa Chica Land Use Plan. The activities associated with the Land Use Plan Confirmation and the Implementing Actions Program are complex, multi-jurisdictional, and will require several years of intensive work to complete. The details of these two planning phases are presented below along with descriptions of the ' scoping process and coordination of various governmental regulatory _ requirements; the Corps of Engineers Sunset Harbor Study; other planning efforts to be undertaken by the County not directly related to Coastal Act requirements, but needed to meet local objectives; and the public partici- pation program. u • LAND USE PLAN CONFIBMAYIOB .i• As part of the Land Use Plan Confirmation process, the County will develop a Land Use Plan Confirmation Report in consultation with the Corps of Engineers, the State Department of Fish and Game and other pertinent public and private sector agencies and interests. The LUP Confirmation Report will demonstrate that the navigable ocean entrance is technically and financially feasible and that the associated impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable level. The Confirmation Report is anticipated to be coordinated with the comple- tion of the Department of Fish and Game's finding regarding wetlands iden- tification pursuant to Section 30411 of the Coastal Act and the Sunset Harbor Study being conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The iv-i s M L D AM um F LAM �� R�INN/rt� GA%M/56/GI✓ C,�145T�1' GD�/�l/S�Ya✓ Iwo ago 00-� 00 y BOLSA� �CHICA LCP PLANNING PROCESS 1 � L 0 u2E UaE F[,�A'H ca\\FM fZroN/rw GGt/M/66/Gl✓ am5ml,GD9/lsc�v1✓ on, i�M'N/�sCD�/%�E6��1✓ CDf15 9 � > > 4-4 ,YOM7rY6'lDN.�1 fAgF79yRE �Gf'N/� 57gGYE3 ... � . SWING PROCESS C D ° 0 1 1 ' Tom- C,�'iy�A✓ - ���VN/rYfCDiyiy/55/AI�/ C"��T� CDiIiI/�5�� - - ,jV170/9 ... i ... . �VO�kT1i�V6 10 i srwr Land Use Plan Confirmation Report shall be submitted for approval to the Coastal Commission as a condition precedent to the Coastal Commission's approval of the Implementing Actions Program of the LCP for the Bolsa Chica area. The Land Use Plan Confirmation Report will include the following specific studies: ' Preparation of a Wetlands Restoration Concept Plan which will deline- ate the general type, nix, acreages and locations of restored wetlands, environmentally sensitive habitat areas and buffers to be created. This plan will be prepared by the Department of Fish and Game in coordination with the HCP parties as provided for in LUP Policies in Section II; and Completion by the Corps of Engineers, and others as required, of • technical studies regarding the overall design, feasibility, and shorelines process mitigation requirements for the navigable ocean �J entrance. !(' Evaluation of the Coastal Commission-approved non-navigable alterna- tive. These technical studies for the Land Use Plan Confirmation Report will address the following subjects: t . 1. Navigable Ocean Entrance System Design: a. Criteria for design wave, navigation, tidal circulation, boat traffic regulation; ' l b. Location, channel depth, width, and basic structural features; recommended referred design. Incorporation of mathematical P gn. Po hydraulic model to be prepared by Corps of Engineers Waterways ( Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi; and c. Cost estimates for construction, operation and maintenance; and ' assessment of liability exposure. El 2. Littoral Drift Considerations: a. Performance standards for beach sand management; b. Future beach profile calculations and projections; C. Characteristics and operations of sand bypassing mechanisms, and preparation of preliminary designs, cost estimates, and mitiga- tion measures; and d. Selection of preferred bypassing mechanism and preparation of impact analyses. 3. Agreements and Coordination: a. Financing, operation and maintenance programs, including a possible operating agreement(,) among the affected agencies; and IV-3 b. Coordination with Corps of Engineers Newport Beach Federal Beach j Erosion Study and County Shoreline Structures Study. 3. Beach Recreation and Access Mitigations: a. Assessment of impact on surfing opportunities and development of mitigation measures; and b. Formulation of mitigation approach for loss/relocation of beach sand, beach parking area, and beach lateral access. 4. Wetlands Restoration Concept Plan: a. General type, location, and mix of wetland habitat to be restored in conjunction with ongoing oil field operations; b. ESHA and buffer element; c. Phasing element indicating the sequence of areas to be restored and the relationship to phasing of urban development; and d. General wetlands financing and management element. 5. Huntington Harbour Connection Channel Plan: a. Location and depth; b. Wetlands mitigation requirements; and c. Financing mechanisms and sources. The County will also undertake the following work concurrently with the studies noted above: 1. A General Development Plan for the Bolsa Chica Linear Regional Park Huntington Mesa segment. Z. Negotiation of a mutually acceptable agreement with the Metropoli- tan Water District with respect to its landholding interests and easements within the Bolsa Chica Study Area and relationship to proposed land uses. ACTIONS PRAGRAK After the Land Use Plan Confirmation studies have been completed and the feasibility of the navigable ocean entrance proposed in the LUP has been substantiated in accordance with performance standards delineated in the Land Use Plan; the County will prepare the Implementing Actions Program (IAP), the final phase of Local Coastal Program for the Bolsa Chica seg- ment. Upon completion and approval of the IAP by the Coastal Commission, the Local Coastal Program will be deemed certified and the coastal permitting authority for the area will return to the County. In general, the County will develop the Implementing Actions Program (IAP) pursuant to Section 30513 of the Coastal Act. The Implementing Actions Program will be organized to reflect the components delineated in this LUP and will contain at least the following elements: IV-4 1. Incorporation of Land Use Plan Confirmation Report and its support- ing documentation and findings; 2. Bolsa Chica Planned Community District zoning ordinances and regulations; and ' 3. A Feature Plan for the overall LCP Segment Area. The Feature Plan for the Bolsa Chica Planned Community District will con- twin the following functional and area plans and programs as noted below. Component elements and studies developed in the Land Use Confirmation Report will also be incorporated into the Feature Plan. 1. Wetlands Restoration Implementation Plan (see Sections II and III: Part 1A) will address: IJa. Preliminary engineering design of overall restoration areas and water management regime, and accommodation program of energy facil- ities; it b. Detailed ESHA and buffer plans; and c. Acquisition, phasing and financing plan, management agreements and land use regulations governing wetlands and ESHAs. f 2. Site Specific Water Quality Objectives and Standards (see Sections II and III: Part 1B): a. Objectives and standards for tidal circulation/flushing character- .! istics for all navigable and non-navigable full tidal waterways; L b. Objectives and standards for water quality in muted tidal, brackish and freshwater habitat areas and means for attainment; and c. Debris/runoff control and management plan. . 3. Comprehensive Shoreline Structures and Waterways Plan (see Sections II and III: Part 2): � 1 Refinement of ocean entrance engineering concepts/design and miti- gation measures developed in the Land Use Plan Confirmation �- Report, b. Design of interior waterways, navigation aids and appurtenances; c. Specific consideration of and mitigation measures for control of potential seawater intrusion into groundwater resources; d. Cost estimates and identification of sources and commitments to funding of construction and maintenance costs; and r . e. Phasing schedule for waterways development and negotiation of ? necessary agreements. i IV-5 4. Geologic Hazards Program (see Sections II and III: Part 3A): a. Develop mitigation measures and engineering design standards pursuant to State Department of Mines and Geology requirements. 5. Air Quality Program (see Sections II and III: Part 3B): a. Develop an Air Quality Program pursuant to local, state and federal standards and practices 6. Cultural Resources Program (see Sections II and III: Part 30: a. Develop a Cultural Resources Program pursuant to County and State regulations and practices. 7. Marina/Commercial General Development Plan (see Sections II and III: Part 4)• ' a. Preparation of a General Development Plan including the Marina Feasibility Study (Phases I and II) as provided for in 5-Year County Capital Improvements Program. b. Revision and update of recreation needs and market demand analyses for all marina/commercial area facilities and land uses. c. Determination of feasibility of mixed-use project to include neigh- borhood commercial and residential products. S. Detailed Coastal Access Plan, including a Linear Regional Park lowland segment General Development Plan and an Ocean Entrance Recreation Amenity Plan (see Sections II and III: Part 4). 9. Master Traffic Circulation Plan (see Sections II and III: Part 5). a. Precise alignments and cross-sections of all new arterial roadways including landscape master plans, entry and intersection treat- ments, and relationship to public trail systems; b. Noise attenuation programs and design treatments; and c. Parking plans for all public facilities. 10. Energy Facilities Plan (see Sections II and III: Part 6): a. Update of analysis of short and long-term oil production trends, patterns and requirements; b. Development of detailed economic and technical criteria to test feasibility of production phaseout scenarios and relationship to wetlands restoration; c. Spill prevention and water level management measures; and d. Development of regulations and guidelines for accommodation of oil production within urban development areas. IV-6 11. Master Plan of Utilities and Flood Control (see Sections II and III: Parts 2 and 7): a. Master plan for undergrounding of major utilities, including idea- ' tification•of Coast Trunk sewer location, and identification of mitigation measures required for wildlife habitat protection and l enhancement; and b. Master plan of improvements for Reach 1 of Wintersburg Flood Con- trol Channel (Graham Street to Bolas, Chica main channel discharge) in conjunction with Wetlands Restoration Implementation and Coastal Access and Recreation Plans. �. 12. New Residential and Neighborhood Commercial Area Plan(s) (see Sections II and III: Part 8): ' •� a. Definition of Feature Plan subareas; b. Overall residential development phasing schedule in connection ff with wetlands restoration phasing, economic and market require- ments; and c. Architectural guidelines and development standards. l ' 13. Urban Design and Guidelines and Standards (see Sections II and III: Part 9): a. Master landscape plan for all public facilities, major arterial roadways and bridges, residential and wetlands edge conditions, and bluffs, and other open spaces; and b. Urban design plans) delineating architectural themes, spatial relationships, structural massing setbacks and scale. 14. Master Plan of Grading and Drainage (see Sections II and III: Part 7B and Part 9): a. General elevations of urban development and general drainage patterns for on-site areas, aside from Wintersburg flood control channel plan. S In conjunction with the development of Planned Community District Zoning and Feature Plan, one or. more agreements may be entered into among the various project proponents and jurisdictional entities providing for, ` among other things, the following: I. The conveyance of lands for public uses and purposes; 4 , 2. The financing of various project elements; L3. The operation and management of the major public facilities areas; 4. Amendment of the 1973 Agreement and agreements relating to the Corps of Engineers study; S. The phasing of the implementation of the various project elements; IV-7 r 6. Assurances to private as well as public sector interests regarding various elements of the general plan (including those provided by development agreements under state law); 7. Other provisions relating to the implementation of the general plan; and 8. Pre-annexation agreements between the County, City and landowners. EMMAGR= PROJECT COORDINATION AND PROCBSS Overall Planning Frammmrk: The Scoping Process The numerous entities involved with the Bolas. Chica Plan encompass many diverse and independent local, state and federal agency and other inter- ests beyond those directly responsible for local coastal program planning per se. Accordingly, a comprehensive "umbrella" framework is needed to assure that LCP Implementing Actions Program objectives are met. To accom- plish these objectives, the County intends to conduct the various future planning activities under its purview in a manner similar to and coordina- ted with the scoping process delineated in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. Section 4321 et seg. As an environmental impact statement (EIS) will most likely be prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sunset Harbor Study, whose results and recommendations will be crucial to the issuance of construction permits, the County pro- poses to utilize the scoping process provided by NEPA, 40 C.P.R. Section 1501.7, to organize the local, state and federal studies and activities necessary for comprehensive planning of the project, including the techni- cal studies required by the Coastal Commission and the Sunset Harbor Study, the public participation programs and the LAP. This process is also compatible with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Because of the large number of agencies involved in planning and permit- ting 8 P 8 Pe ting within the Bolsa Chica area and the markedly divergent views of a number of interest groups regarding the planning for and development of the area, the scoping process is particularly suited to the public partici- pation, Land Use Plan Confirmation, and Implementing Actions and other pro- grams set forth in this section. The constituencies involved in the pro- cess include, at the federal agency level, the U.S. Army Corps of Engi- neerss the U.S. Coast Guard, Environmental Protection Agency, National Marine Fisheries Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They will play key roles with respect to permit and review authority under federal water quality, endangered species and/or other laws and regulations. The individual areas of interest and responsibility with respect to the planning process for Bolsa Chica are as follows: Federal Agencies U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - issues dredge and fill permits; con- ducts design studies for ocean entrances and salt marsh restoration; and reviews navigation aspects of the project. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - retains final authority to determine jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; dredge and fill permits subject to EPA-issued guidelines, review NPDES permits issued by the California Water Quality Control Board. IV •8 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - provides consultation with Corps of Engineers, EPA on dredge and fill permits, Sunset Harbor Study; authority With respect to endangered species. U.S. Coast Guard - reviews navigation aspects of projects. National Marine Fisheries Service - review authority over projects having potential impact on coastal fisheries. State Agencies In addition to federal agencies, there are a number of state agencies whose input can be obtained through the scoping process. These agencies and their areas of interest and responsibility with respect to the project are as follows: California Coastal Commission: Reviews and approves the County Local Coastal Program as required under the Coastal Art. California State Coastal Conservancy: Has consultation responsibility and certain approval authority under the Habitat Conservation Plan pro- cess provided by Section 30237 of the Coastal Act; Conservancy grant programs for wildlife enhancement and coastal access are an important potential funding source for state/local projects at Bolsa Chica; and � . is one of the parties to the Bolsa Chica Habitat Conservation Plan. i; California Department of Boating and Waterways: Administers loan and grant programs for navigable waterway and marina construction. California Department of Fish and Game: Manages State Ecological Reserve; has authority over fish and wildlife and state-listed endan-gered species; is one of the parties to the Bolsa Chica Habitat Conser- vation Plan. California Department of Parks and Recreation: Manages Bolsa Chica State Beach. Will provide input to design of facilities related to the navigable ocean entrance system. California State Lands Commission: Has authority over lands owned by the State on-site. �- California Water Quality Control Board: Issues NPDES permits pursuant to Clean Water Act and issues state water quality permits. California Department of Transportation: Has authority over Pacific Coast Highway. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology: Has authority over geotechnical matters for the Bolsa Chica Project. California Division of Oil and Gas: Has authority over oil-related matters, including induced subsidence. California State Attorney General's Office: Has legal counsel func- tion over State-related matters and actions. f IV-9 Local Agencies At the local agency level, the County has lead planning' authority and the City of Huntington Beach has sphere of influence authority for the LCP Segment. Several areas, including the ocean entrance location, the MWD switchyard parcel, and portions of the Linear Regional Park are within City jurisdiction. City of Huntington Beach Jurisdiction Since the Bolas, Chica LCP segment is an unincorporated County "island," the City of Huntington Beach has sphere of influence authority over the area with concomitant legally defined rights of review and participation in the County planning process. In addition, the implementation of the Land Use Plan will require that several areas within Huntington Beach city limits be a part of several Bolas Chica projects. These areas were included within the Habitat Conservation Plan Study Area boundary and include: 1. The ocean entrance area seaward of Pacific Coast Highway at Bolsa Chica State Beach The ocean entrance is within a coastal zone area whose LCP has received full certification by the Coastal Commission. Permit authority was returned to the City by the Coastal Commission as of March 14, 1985. However, future permits granted by the City for this area may be appealed to the Coastal Commission under-present law. 2. The Metropolitan Water District Switchyard Parcel This 42-acre area within City boundaries was proposed for primary use as wetlands and floodwater detention in the Habitat Conservation Plan 915- acre wetlands compromise. Also, while not a part of the Bolsa Chica LUP Segment, this area was included in the 1,292-acre area studied by the Department of Fish and Game in making its wetlands determination pursuant to the Coastal Act and is part of the Bolsa Chica Study Area. Further, any Commission action with respect to the Bolas. Chica LUP would be con- sidered precedence for future actions on this parcel. The switchyard parcel is presently zoned by the City of Huntington Beach for residential use, but has not been included in the certified City Local Coastal Program. The City is presently in the process of developing its LCP for the switchyard parcel. The Metropolitan Water District has objec- ted to the wetlands/flood detention use suggested by the Coastal Commis- sion. The County has recommended to the City that a joint County, City and California State Coastal Conservancy cooperative planning effort be undertaken prior to confirmation of the County Land Use Plan in order to resolve outstanding issues. 3. Bolsa Chica Regional Linear Park-Huntington Mesa Development of the Bolas, Chica Linear Regional Park Huntington Mesa seg- ment in accordance with the Land Use Plan will involve certain properties within the jurisdiction of the City of Huntington Beach, most of which lie within the coastal zone boundary. The City also owns ten acres of pro- posed linear park area near Edwards Street and Talbert Avenue. iv-10 i In order to construct the Park as shown in the Linear Park Boundary Study and the LUP, fundamental planning decisions must be made by the city and ' private sector interests with respect to roadway locations, future open f space dedication requirements, oil production, and residential develop- ment. The County proposes to work with the City, Coastal Conservancy, Department of Fish and Game and others during the next two phases of LCP I planning to formulate the Linear Park general development plan which will finalize future use patterns for the area. Corps of Bngineers Sunset Harbor Study The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has been studying the feasibility of federal financial participation in the construction of a navigable ocean entrance in conjunction with a smallcraft harbor and wildlife enhancement program since 1964. These studies ("Sunset Harbor Feasibility Study") have been conducted pursuant to 1964 and 1976 congressional resolutions and annual funding appropriations through 1985. At present, the County and the California Department of Fish and Game, the local co-sponsors of the Study, are intent on re-negotiating a proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that will allow completion of the fea- sibility study. The Board of Supervisors, via Resolution dated March 12, 1985, has requested the federal government to direct expeditious comple- tion of the Sunset Harbor Study. The County anticipates that the Study will encompass comprehensive, technical documentation/evaluation of a series of alternative plans for an ocean entrance and related uses; cost- benefit analyses of the alternatives; an Environmental Impact Statement/ Report prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and a recom- mendation to Congress as to whether the federal government should partici- pate financially in the construction of navigation features, including the ocean entrance, breakwaters, jetties, and main navigation channels. The Corps of Engineers has estimated that, based on the most recent MOU draft, the entire study will require approximately 21 months to complete once re-initiated, but that certain technical studies related to ocean entrance feasibility can be completed within six months. These studies are anticipated to provide the necessary details that the Coastal Commis- sion and the County have required to assure the overall feasibility of the ocean entrance and coastal shoreline protection. This documentation will € ` be incorporated in the Land Use Plan Confirmation Report. The Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District concluded in its 1983 progress report that a navigable ocean entrance is technically feasible. Subsequently, the ! ' Corps of Engineers district staff indicated that from a navigation stand- point, the design criteria set forth by the County for the ocean entrance represent good harbor engineering design practice for the southern Califor- nia coastline. Other issues to be addressed by the Corps of Engineers include the charac- ter of the tidal hydraulics that will ensure shoreline and wave run-up protection and appropriate entrance design criteria for the construction of the ocean entrance. The County also intends to request that the Corps of Engineers confirm the Department of Fish and Game's testimony before f the Coastal Commission on November 29, 1984 that the navigable ocean ! entrance like that proposed in this LUP is the most feasible means to assure a continuous, adequate tidal source for the restored wetlands. IV-11 The County also has expressed its support of the U.S. Navy's desire for an alternate ocean access for the pleasure craft presently using the Anaheim Bay entrance immediately adjacent to the Naval Weapons Station ammunition ' loading and storage facilities. In this respect, the County believes that the Bolsa Chica ocean entrance will provide important national defense benefits. The Sunset Harbor Study will also set forth the comprehensive basis upon which state and federal permits for dredging and filling, endangered species protection, and other issues will be issued for project ' construction. These permits include: Section 404 permit under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Section 1344, , to permit the discharge of dredged or fill material into the navigable waters of the United States. Section 10 permit under the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. Section 403, to permit the construction of structures such as a harbor, pier, breakwater, bulkhead, etc. in the waters of the United States. Consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. Section 1536, pursuant to the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, a federal agency must consult with the Fish and Wild- life Service to ensure that any action authorized, funded or carried out by such agency will not jeopardize the continued existence of an endangered or threatened species or adversely modify the critical habi- tat of such species. Similar consultation requirements with the California Department of Fish and Game may be triggered by the State Endangered Species Act. Bolsa Chica Advisory Co=lttees and Public Participation The documentation related to both Land Use Plan Confirmation and Implemen- tation will be subject to public hearings at both local and state levels. Since the Bolsa Chica Project will have a variety of significant effects on the surrounding communities and will be a center of regional signifi- cance, community input to the planning process remains a key County objec- tive. Accordingly, as part of the scoping process, the County has estab- lished a structure for public participation, technical input, and communi- ty liaison for both the Land Use Plan Confirmation Report and the Implemen- ting Actions Program, pursuant to Board of Supervisors Minute Order of January 29, 1985. Citizens Advisory Committee The Citizens Advisory Committee consists of at least twenty-one members and two alternates: three members of the Huntington Beach City Council or their designees; nine residents of Huntington Barbour; three residents representing the homeowners associations (formerly known as Citizens Against Re-Routing of Pacific Coast Highway) of neighborhoods adjacent to the lowland; two members of the Sunset Beach Association; three representa- tives and one alternate of the Amigos de Bolsa Chica; and one representa- tive and one alternate of the Citizens for Bolsa Chica Marine Park. IV-12 County EMA staff will informally notice, schedule, and coordinate meetings of this committee with City of Huntington Beach planning/administrative staff. EMA will conduct these meetings at appropriate points in the devel- opment of the Land Use Plan Confirmation and Implementing Actions Pro- f grams. The purpose of this' Advisory committee will be to keep Orange County EMA staff apprised of the groups viewpoints, community sentiment regarding the Plan, and to comment upon LCP documentation, including this Land Use Plan, prior to hearings by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Committee members may participate in meetings at their - option. No officers will be elected. No quorum is required and all meet- ings are open to the public. EMA expects most meetings to take place within the Huntington Beach area and to be scheduled during evening hours. Landowners Committee The County has also established a Landowners Committee consisting of repre- sentatives from Signal Landmark, Inc., Fieldstone/W.B. Grace, State Lands E Commission, Department of Fish and Game, Oceanview School District, Metro- politan Water District and the City of Huntington Beach. EMA staff will informally notice, schedule and coordinate meetings with this group. This . � committee will have a function similar to the Citizens Advisory Committee. Technical Advisory Committee The Technical Advisory Committee consists of twelve public agency and pri- vate sector groups. This committee is intended to act as a forum in which local, state and federal interests may air their respective agency view- points and provide technical expertise to detailed project planning. Com- mittee meetings are also intended to provide a forum for agency representatives to receive updates and technical data related to such planning and engineering. Orange County EMA will establish topical subcommittees and their operating procedures at the first meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee. Meet- ings of the whole committee will be informally noticed and scheduled from time to time and will be open to the public. ri A master mailing list developed by ERA will be used to keep interested i� parties informed of the activities of all three committees. IV-13 rH �"�� ' 1 RESOLUMON CT 'PHE BOARD OP SUPERVISORS OP Oat71Nd COUNTY, CALII►ORNIJI j 2 May 22, 1985 3 ' On motion of Supervisor Nieder , duly seconded and carried, the 4 following Resolution was adopted: S MREREAS, the County of Orange has elected to prepare a Local Coastal Program in accordance with the Public Resources Coder and 6 WHEREAS, Section 30511(b) of the Public Resources code provides for 7 the separate processing of Land Use plans and Implementing Actions Program; and 8 t AS, with respect to the Bolsa Chica area the Environmental l; 9 Management Agency has coordinated with appropriate agencies including the City of Huntington Beach and has provided ample opportunities for the interested 10 public to provide comments and input through public workshops and meetings in r the areal and 11 WHEREAS, land use planning for the Balsa Chica area began in 1973 with ! r� 12 the execution of a Settlement Agreement between the State of California and { i the Signal Companies ("Signal') which provided for the potential conveyance of 13 up to 530 acres to the State for the restoration of salt marsh habitat and the development of a public small craft facility= and l.i 14 . WHEREAS, the State of California confirmed in Signal title to its lands free from regulation for public trust purposes, which purposes included wildlife habitat preservation= and 16 i °: WHEREAS, the County has previously prepared a Land Use Plan ("LUP") � 109 17 for the Bolsa Chica area, which was approved and adopted by this Board it " � pursuant to Board Resolution No. 82-102 dated January 20, 1982s and 18 WHEREAS, such LUP was thereupon submitted to the California Coastal 19 Commission for certification= and 20 mmy4 S, after hearings by the Coastal Commission on April 22, 1982, June 18, 1982, July 30, 1982, and August 26, 1982 at which the Commission 21 found substantial issue with the County's LUP; and 22 WHEREAS, on November 10, 1982, the Board of Supervisors directed and L the Environmental Management Agency did withdraw the LUP from Coastal 23 Commission considerations and U24 WHEREAS, in 1963 a Supplement to the LUP was prepared which clarified and amplified the character and intent of the LUP in response to the Coastal 25 Commission substantial issues determination: and L C e 26 WHEREAS, in December 1983, the LUP and Supplement were authorized for h submittal to the Coastal Commission by the Board of Supervisors; and t 27 ! 28 Resolution No. 85-790 Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan JRG:db -1 1 WMW.M* in August 1983 Governor Deukmejian signed into law Senate 2 Bill 429 (Coastal Act Section 32037) agth.rising the Department of Fish and Game and the Coastal Conservancy upon petition of the County and any landowner in the Balsa Chica area to prepare a Habitat Conservation plan ('HCP•) for the 3 areal and 4 1QIZREAS, such petition was made and a HCP was prepared by the Department of Fish and Cane, the Coastal Conservancy, the County and S landowners in cooperation with others, including the City of Hunt and the Coastal Cammissiont and 9 Beach 6 7 1Iry-1 S, on July 190 1984 the Board of the Coastal Conservancy adopted , the HCP and adopted supplemental information on the Balsa Chica HCP on 8 October 18, 1964; and 9 MR Commission the MCP, as supplemented, was forwarded to the Coastal Coon for its consideration and possible recommendation for incorporation 10 into the County s local coastal program; and NRERZAS, the Coastal Commission on November 29, 1984 after 11 consideration of the HCP and the resubmitted 1982 County LUP and Supplement denied the County LUP as submitted, found substantial issue with the RCP and 1' recommended conditional certification of the LUP if modified in accordance 13 with staff suggested modificationst and ' 1MREREAS, the County has now orepared a LUP in accordance with the 14 Coastal Commission staff modifications which is presented herewith and f: d contained in the document entitled Dols& Chica Local Coastal Program Land Use 15 plan (LCP/LUp) dated April 1985; and v y 16 MRZREAS, adoption of the LUP only covers the unincorporated area of _ : Balsa Chica and does not include other incorporated areas identified in the 00 17 HCP; and 18 WHEREAS, the County of Orange has adopted General Plan including Land 19 Use, Transportation, Resources and Recreation Elements; and 20 WMREAS, the General Plan Amendment (CPA) to the Land Use, Transportation, Resources and Recreation elements of the General Plan of the 21 County of Orange with respect to the Balsa Chica Area designated as Community Profile County Island 8-10 has been proposedt and 22 118EREAS, the Orange County Board of Supervisors approved a report by , 23 the Environmental Management Agency entitled "Balsa Chica Regional Park - A Feasibility Study' by Resolution 77-1022 on June 21, 1977; and 24 iRZREAS, the Board of Supervisors also executed Agreement D79-102 25 dated November 27, 1979 between the County of Orange, the Orange County Harbors, Beaches and Parks District and the City of Runtington Beach providing e for cooperative planning and implementation of the Balsa Chica Linear Regional N 26 Parkt and N 27 r ,28 -2- 1 1 MMIM S, since 1977 planning for the Bolas Chica Linear Regional Park has been an element of the larger planning activity to produce a Local Coastal . � 2 Program for balsa Chicat and 3 MMREAS, the Orange County Planning Commission has conducted public 4 hearings on April 16, April 30, and May 7, 1985, to receive comments and consider the GPA and the LCP/LUP for the balsa Chica areal and ' s 185ERpU, this board has conducted a public hearing on Nay 22, 1985, to 6 consider the GPA and the LCP/WP for the bolsa Chica great and 1OMMU, Section 21080.9 of the Public Resources Code and Title 14 ' 7 Section 15265 of the California Administrative Code exempt from the California 8 Environmental Quality Act (`CZ9A.6) activities and programs by local governments necessary for the preparation, approval and certification of a �j 9 local coastal programs and 10 WHEREAS, notwithstanding the exemption from CZOA, a Final Environmental Impact Report 81-250 ('Final EIR 81-2500) was previously 11 prepared concerning Amendment po. 81-1 to the General Plan and this Board has previously certified Final EIR 81-250 pursuant to board Resolution 82-100 12 dated January 20, 1982 as complete and accurate and in compliance with CEQA E and the CZQ% Guidelines with respect thereto in that it systematically 13 identifies the significant environmental effects of the general plan amendment as well as mitigation measures and alternatives to the project which can avoid ! , 14 �; or significantly reduce such significant effectst and J,. IiHEMPAS, the land uses proposed by the LCP/LDP are within the spectrum I ( o ; 15 of alternatives addressed by EIR 81-2501 and Ly V ` w. 16 WREREAS, the Legislature, in Section 30007.5 of the Public Resources 17 Code, recognized that conflicts may occur between one or more policies of the JW Act declared that 'in carrying out the provisions of (the Coastal Act) such 18 conflicts shall be resolved in a manner which on balance is most protective of significant coastal resourcea't and 19 WHEREAS, this section also provided that 'broader policies which, for i. 20 example, served to concentrate development in close proximity to urban and employment centers may be more protective, overall, than soecific wildlife ' 21 habitat and other similar resource policies't and 22 NREIMAS, the state Attorney General's office has advised that the minimum wetland acreage which could be viewed as consistent with the 23 requirements of the Coastal Act is 913.5 acre; and 24 iMUMAS, it has been agreed that the 915 acres of wetlands to be provided within the Bolsa Chica Area will satisfv the restoration requirements 25 of the Coastal Act set forth in Section 30233 and 304111 and . _ 26 WHEREAS, the inclusion of a small craft harbor, related new navigable N ocean entrance system and visitor-serving tourist recreation/commercial uses 1 0 27 in the GPA and LCp/iuP is considered of great importance in providing for coastal access and improving public recreation opportunities; and ® 28 1 VXMW7S, the possible inclusion of a navigable connection from the 2 proposed imv navigable ocean entrance system to Huntington Harbor in the , LCP/LQP will provide improved access to the ocean for Huntington Harbour 3 boaters, improve tidal flushing in Huntington Harbour, improve bay water quality, facilitate Joint harbor patrol coverage and relieve a safety hazard , 4 to boaters who must otherwise traverse the current munitions loading area at the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Stations and s WAS, tourist recreation/ccmmercial and a reasonable amount of ' 6 residential and commercial land uses are found to be appropriate to provide for a balanced community and financial support for the public recreation 7 facilities and ecological reserve uses included in the CPA and LCP/LQP; and , 8 WHEREAS, the project proponent has submitted an updated Phase I Balsa Chic& public facilities management and financing plan dated October 1985 for 9 Planning Commission and Board of Supervisor's approval addressing the Balsa Chica Local Coastal Program dated April 1985; 10 MMUEA.S, restoration of 915 acres of wetlands and 86 acres of other 11 environmentally sensitive habitat areas in the Balsa Chica area is considered desirable in order to preserve and enhance the biological productivity and 12 diversity of the area; and 13 MMRZM• the restoration of wetlands and other environmentally sensitive habitat areas and establishment of the Linear Regional Park will ' 14 enhance open space and recreational values and provide additional coastal access opportunities; and M- ;'o is WMRZAS, the rerouting of a portion of Pacific Coast Highway within �W r the Balsa Chica area and the establishment of a cross-gap connector is found I 16 to be a- = ppropriate to provide for the transportation needs of the public under *2 17 the land uses proposed; and � o 18 WMMMAS, the Planning Commission has duly reviewed and considered the proposed GpA and LCP/LDP and found that the public interest, health, comfort, 19 convenience, safety, order and general welfare will be served and provided for ' thereby and recommended its adoption by this Board; 20 NOW, ARE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board finds: ' 21 1. Section 21080.9 of the Public Resources Code exempts the 22 preparation and adoption of Local Coastal Programs from the California Environmental Quality Act. 23 2. The Balsa Chica LCP/LOP dated April, 1985 is consistent and 24 conforms with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act of 1976 in that it provides for the following (in addition to other policies and programs ftr 25 described in the LCP/LUP): 26 a. In General. N N e 27 1. Restoration of a biologically productive saline, brackish ® 28 and fresh water wetlands system, development of a public 1 ; 1 r 1 small craft facility, dedication of a linear park, and provision for a maximum of 5,700 dwelling units. 3 2. The development of the Area in a fashion 'which will preserve, restore, enhance and maintain the biological 4 resources of the Area while addressing the need for additional recreational opportunities and public access to s the sea. 6 3. Identification in the Phase II Public Facilities ' Management and financing Plan of specific sources of funding for financing public infrastructure improvements with no county tax dollar expenditure other than those 8 funds already allocated for the Dols& Chica Linear Regional Park. J 9 b. Biological Rescurces/Habitat Management ,( 10 1. Preservation and maintenance of a 915 acre wetlands 11 system. 12 2. Protection of environmentally sensitive habitat area values within the Bolsa Chica Area. 13 3. Protection of enda ngered species and enhancement of their 1i 14 ' habitats. 4 i= 15 c. Coastal Access �tl 16 1. Protection and enhancement of existing shoreline access 3- areas for public use. oo 17 2. Provision of public access to the restored wetlands system in a manner which is consistent with the biological 18 resources/habitat management policies and programs of the 19 LCP/LUP. 1' 20 3. Development of scenic overlooks, in conjunction with .� access ways. 21 4. Provision of access to the ocean shoreline and public 22 recreational areas in conjunction with new residential or commercial development. 23 S. Development of a network of off-road and on-road 24 bicycleways, equestrian trails and pedestrian access linking Huntington Beach Central Park, Dols& Chica Linear 25 Regional Park, Dols& Chica Mesa visitor-serving N facilities, a public marina, Bolsa Chica State Beach and 26 the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve. N ' - 27 ® 28 t -5- 1 6. Provision of a new navigable ocean entrance system to , 2 provide new and enhanced recreational access opportunities to the ocean. Provision for a non-navigable ocean 3 entrance remains should a navigable entrance not be ' approved by the California Coastal Commission. 4 7. Provision of public launch ramps and other small craft s facilities and boating access to all navigable waterways. 1 6 d. Recreation 7 1. Design of public recreation areas to maximize compatible , multi-purpose objectives of open space and other land use 8 i planning. 9 ' 2. Provision of appropriate public parking facilities for all recreation and visitor-serving uses. 10 3. Location, design and operation of visitor-serving 11 establishments to serve the needs of coastal-dependent uses and to serve all income levels. 12 4. Design of boating facilities to provide public launch 13 ramps and opportunities for non-boating waterfront access and recreational uses within public recreation areas. ' J > 14 S. Linkage of the visitor-serving/public marina facilities by :s trails and bikeways to the Linear Park, Bolsa Chic& State ; 0 15 Beach, and other trails. 16 6. Development of a minimum of 1,300 boat slips and 400 dr = i por P Y 09 1: V boat storage spaces. O 18 7. Provision of other visitor-serving facilities including hotels, motels, visitor-serving commercial shopping, , 19 restaurants and cafes, waterfront walkways and passive recreational open space, bicycle and hiking trail system 20 connected to an overall transportation trail network. , 21 e. Landform 22 - !Maintenance and enhancement of the physiographic character of the Bolsa Chica area, including its bluffs and lowland. 23 t. Ceolo�y 24 Preparation of geotechnical studies to fulfill the seismic 25 safety requirements of the Alquist-Priolo Act and State Department of Mines and Geology and to provide appropriate 26 mitigation measures. N N O 27 r 28 1 .i q. Drainage/Plood Control 2 ! 1. Preparation of a drainage plan to address drainage course 3 stabilization, erosion control and effects of all new ' drainage systems. 4 1 ' 2. Inprwesent of the East Garden Grove-llntersburg Flood i s Control Channel to provide 100-year flood protection, aediment and water quality control, and compliance with 6 navigation safety requirements. ' 7 h. Tidal Avdraulics g 1. Location and design of the navigable ocean entrance system ; �. to balance needs for optimum hydraulic functioning of the g Bolsa Chiea/Huntington Harbour waterway system with those needs related to traffic, coastal access, and beach and 10 boating recreation. 11 2. Design of the ocean entrance channel system to assure #� continued beach stability and mitigate potential adverse 121. effects on littoral drift. 131 L. Water Quality 1. lstablishment of run-off pollutant standards and programs which protect water quality and biological resources. r ,,0 2. Development of pollution control measures for all aspects 16 1 of recreational boatinq activities; measures to focus on protecting water quality, biological resources, and ;0 1' navigation safety. lg 3. Monitoring and protection of groundwater quality. ' 19 j. Air Quality 20 1. Requirement that proposed land uses be consistent with all existing local, State and Federal air duality laws and 21 regulations. 22 k. Viewshed Management 23 1. Visual linkages of Pacific Coast Highway to trails and other recreation/open space areas. 24 2. Design of view corridors and vista points to enhance 25 coastal views. g 26 1. Cultural Resources 0 27 1. Compliance with Orange County Board of Supervisors ® 28 Resolution 77-666 as related to cultural and scientific 1 resources to insure that all reasonable and proper steps , 2 are taken to achieve the preservation of archeological and paleontological remains, or in the alternative, the 3 recovery, identification and analysis, so that their , scientific and historical values are preserved. 4 m. Transportation S 1. Design of arterial highways to reasonably accommodate all , 6 designated modes of transportation. 7 2. Design of arterial highways to provide for regional and , local transportation needs generated by the various types 8 of existing and proposed land uses. 9 3. Location of new arterial highways and collector roadways to meet the circulation needs and access requirements of 10 the LCP/LQP, and praaide linkages to adjacent neighborhoods and regional transit facilities. 11 4. Accommodation and encouragement of alternative forms of 12 transportation with an emphasis towards providing public transportation. 13 n. Public Works/Services , 1411 1. Upgrading of East Carden Grove-Wintersburg Flood Control 12� 15 Channel to provide 100-yeas flood protection. 'O� I 2. Preparation of detailed hydraulic analysis of the :;� 16 navigable ocean entrance system and channel to Huntington � 17 Harbour and the visitor-serving marina complex in o� �° accordance with Q.S. Army Corps of Engineers methodology. , 18 0. Energy Facilities 19 , 1. Protection of the productivity of the Bolsa Chico oil 20 operations against significant diminishment by proposed land uses. 21 2. Identification of energy facility requirements as a major 22 criterion in the develapment of the Bolsa Chica Phasing Plan. 23 3. Conversion of oil production facilities to wildlife 24 habitat and wetlands as these facilities are phased out over the long-term. 25 4. Minimization of impact of activities associated with oil 26 field on the restored wetlands system consistent with the N Energy Facilities Plan and the Biological Resources 0 27 Management Program and wetlands Restoration Plan. ® 28 r i 1 ' S. Provision of adequate buffer area, screening, setbacks - ; 2 and aesthetic treatments to minimize hazards and/or conflicts between proposed land uses and major oil 3 operations or facilities. 4 p. now Residential/Commercial Development S 1. Limitation on the number of dwelling units to 5,700 for the Salsa Chica LCP/LUP Area. 6 2. Compliance of new development with all provisions of the 7 Orange County Sousing Element. i g 3. Compatibility of new development with the capacity of the proposed transportation network, public works system and 9 other municipal services. i 10 4. Location of high-density development in close proximity to transit stops to improve transit system effectiveness. ' - 11 4. As required by Public Resources Code Section 30007.5, on balance, 12 the provisions of the LCP/LUP are most protective of significant coastal resources. 13 ' S. Valuable social and public benefits will flow from the � = 14 implementation of the LCP/LUP, which benefits include restoration of a saline, brackish and fresh water wetland system, dedication of a Linear Regional Park, � = 15 development of public recreational marina and related facilities, and development of the remaining lands in an environmentally sensitive manner and "-o 16 with a combination of uses that will enhance the recreational and housing opportunities of the region. 17 111 6. The 915 acre wetland system restoration and the dedication of 18 lands for the linear park offsets the potential adverse environmental impacts of the LCP/LUP which are not otherwise mitigated. 19 7. Based on all of the above, and other evidence reviewed by the 20 Board the LCP/LUP is consistent with Public Resources Code Section 30233 and ' the other policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act in that: �1 21 a. The LCP/LUP provides for restoring a 915 acre saline, brackish ' r 22 and freshwater wetland system in conjunction with the development of a navigable ocean entrance system, boating 23 facility, residential and commercial develomentf 24 b. The wetlands restoration will enhance the overall biological productivity and diversity and wildlife habitat values of the 25 Balsa Chica Area by providing for a full range of wetland habitats including tidal, muted tidal, brackish, freshwater 26 and seasonal flats habitat. 0 27 c. The wetland restoration will protect endangered species and 28 their habitats by enhancing the habitat values of endangered � -9- 1 ,species and by providing a butter to minimize disruption of 2 these species. 3 d. The LCP/LUP will significantly increase recreational , opportunities in the coastal son* and public access to the sea 4 through the establishment of public boating facilities (including visitor-serving, tourist recreation/commercial 5 facilities), a Linear Rag tonal Park, a bicycle and hiking trail system, fishing jetties and additional parking 6 facilities= 7 e. The development of the public boating facility, the visitor- serving commercial recreation facility, and a reasonable 8 amount of residential and commercial land use to provide a ' funding source to protect, enhance, maintain and restore 915 g acres of wetlands within the Bolsa Chica area; and 10 f. The six of land uses provided in the LCP/LUP is, on balance, ' most protective of significant coastal resources in light of 11 the Coastal Act policies which encourage the concentration of development in close proximity to urban and employment 12 • centers. 13 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Board approves the document referenced as the Land Us* Plan of the Local Coastal Program for the Bolsa 14 Chica Area of the north Coast Planning Unit and directs the Environmental Management Agency to transmit same to the California Coastal commission for 15 ' final certification. W 16 " BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Director of Planning of the ifEnvironmental Management Agency is authorized to represent the County at o ; 17 necessary proceedings on the LCP/LUP. , I 18 j BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 19 1. The Board has considered the proposed GPA, the premises set forth , above, other information and testimony submitted, including but not limited to 20 the information submitted in connection with the proposed adoption by this Board of LCP/LVP for the Bolsa Chica area submitted to this Board on May 22, ' 21 1985, as well as those set forth above. 22 2. The General Plan Amendment includes: 23 a. Amendment of the Land Use Element of the General Plan of , Orange County which includes the following: 24 ,i. The General Plan Land Use Element Map for the Bolsa Chica 25 area: 26 it. The General Plan Community Profiles Map for the Bolsa Chica areas e 27 ® 28 , -10- j 1 ' W. The land use policies and programs set forth in the Balsa t � 2 Chica Local Coastal Program/Modified Land Use Plan, dated April. 1985 which is hereby adopted as a Land Use Element j 3 supplement for the Dols& Chic& area and which is deemed to be part of the policies of the General Plan applicable to 4 the Bolsa Chica area. 5 b. Amendment of the Transportation Element, Master Plan of ' Arterial Highways of the General Plan of the County of Orange 6 with respect to the Balsa Chica area; 7 c. Amendment of the Resources Element of the General Plan of the County of Orange with respect to the Balsa Chica areas I 8 d. Amendment of the Recreation Element of the General Plan of the 9 County of Orange with respect to the Balsa Chica area. 10 3. The Board has reviewed and considered the proposed CPA and finds that upon adoption, it will be consistent with the other portions and elements 11 of the General Plan of the County of Orange and carmlies with the requirements for general plans as set forth in Government Code Sections 65302 and E"303. 12 j I � I� 4. The Board has reviewed and considered proposed CPA and heret:• 13 : approves the same subject to the following modifications: E 14 ;' a. Delete "unmitigable" from Land Use Plan Policy 23, Paragraph 3, Page IZ-6, May 21, 1985, Addendum to the Staff Re g port, as shown i ; 15 on Attachment I. o e �! ' Iai. 16 b. Add a fourth paragraph to Land Use Plan Policy 24, Page II-7, May 21, 1985 Addendum to the Staff Report to read as follows: 0. 17 "The County shall request that the Corps of Engineers conduct comprehensive physical modeling on any recommended navigable entrance as part of the Sunset Harbor Study." 19 This is shown on Attachment II. 20 c. Delete references to the Bolsa Chica/Garfield Connector as a E ` 21 primary arterial and identify it as a Viewscape Scenic Secondary Roadway, in Land Use Policy 81, Page 11-15, May 21, 1985 22 ,. Addendum to the Staff Report. Revise the language as shown or. Attachment III. 23 0� d. Amend the Transportation Element, Master Plan of Arterial Highways - 24 and Scenic Highway Component of the General Plan of the County of Orange with respect to the Balsa Chica area to incorporate changes 25 in Policy 81 which identifies the Bolsa Chica/Garfield Connector as a Viewscape Scenic Secondary Roadway no more than 90 feet 26 in width. • N ' t 27 / e r 28 / -11- 1 r.. I 1 S. This Board hereby authorises and directs the Directnr of the Environmental Management Agency to slake technical, conforming and correcting revisions of the 2 supplemental Bolsa Chica area policies included in the General Plan Amendment and to incorporate said policies into the Land Use, Transportation, Resources and 3 Recreation Elements of the General Plan, 4 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County shall request that the Corps of Enginee: conduct comprehensive physical modeling on any recommended navigable entrance as part S of the Sunset Harbor Study. 6 BE IT FU aMER RESOLVED that this Board adopts the Bolsa Chica Linear Regional , Park Boundary Study dated April 1985 as the guidance docent for acquisition and 7 development of the proposed park. 8 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Board approves the Phase I Bolsa Chica Public ' Facilities Management and Finance Plan dated October 1984. 9 BE IT MCMER RESOLVED that this Board finds the Phase I Bolsa Chic& Public ' 10 Facilities Management and Finance Plan dated October 1984 is satisfactory as a detail outline of potential costs, management responsibilities and financing options and tha- 11 it carries out the intent of Board of Supervisors Resolution 81-479, Section 4. 12 / 13 � 14 " / J 1 w. 15 �o "Yw 16 o z AYES: SUPERVISORS HARRIETT M. WIEDER, BRUCE NESTANDE, ROGER R. STANTON, 'o 0 17 RALPH B. a", THOMAS F. RILEY Y 18 NOES: SUPERVISORS NONE 19 ABSENT: SUPERVISORS NONE 20 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ' ) as. 21 COUNTY OF ORANGE ) 22 I, LINDA D. ROBERTS, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange , County, California, hereby certify that the above and foregoing 23 Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the said Board at a regular meeting thereof held on the 22nd day of may , 24 19 , and passed by a unanimous vote of said Board 25 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 22nd day of May , 19 85 R 26 e 27 -�� LINDA D. ROB BATS , ® 28 Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California -12- ' 4 374 1548 ' 07-19-93 04:28PM POI J� City of Huntington Beach 2=MAIN sTREET CAUFORNIA 9260 C �r DEPAR MENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 11 Puma-brand fax tranemlttsl memo 7e11 . o+a.o«►'S. G 5 Ct I. D e 13 July 12, 1993 OWL •� 'Z'� r Thomas 3. Mathews Director of Planning, I= P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 ' Re: NOTIC8 Or PRZPAIiATION: DRAFT EIR 90. 551 - BOLSA CBICA Dear Mr.. s: �r•• ' Tha you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preparation for the Draft EIR for the Dolsa Chico project. In a letter directed to you on May 18, 1993, the City staff outlined a list of City concerns that should be incorporated into one or more of the alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIR. The purpose of including these items in the analysis is to provide options which give the decision-makers a broad spectrum of alternatives from which to choose. That list of concerns was based on verbal understanding of the County's "co-equal" alternative, and is reiterated below for your convenience. In addition, staff has identified several additional concerns based on the written project descriptions contained in the Notice of Preparation, and requests that these items also be addressed in the Draft EIR. 1 City Concerns from May 18, 1993 LantL yee ' Residential development should reflect a compatible building density and type with neighboring city residences. ' If approvable by State and Federal agencies, development in the Lowlands should consist of single family detached dwellings, compatible with adjacent single family neighborhoods . i _ 141 1 07-19-93 04:28PM 374 1540 P02 .Page Two 1 Thomas S. Mathews • Residential development on the portion of the site adjacent ' to Los Patos Drive should be analyzed at a maximum density of 7 du/sc, and should be compatible with existing single 1 family homes along Los Patos Drive. Proposed development should provide view corridors for existing homes on the mesa. • Residential development on the portion of the Mn site , adjacent to existing single family homes should be analyzed at a maximum of 7 du/ac, and should be compatible with existing adjacent single family homes. ' The open space character and wetlands values of the Edwards Thumb area should be preserved by limiting the intrusion of , residential development into this area. • A minimum 10 acre commercial/community serving node should be analyzed on the Solsa Chica Mesa. , • The mesa connector road should serve, as the dividing line and buffer between development on the inland side of the road, and open space (park and/or natural bluff ' preservation) on the seaward side. • If approvable by State and Federal agencies, the proposed Fire Station in the lowlands should be analyzed in combination with a commercial/community serving node. • if approvable by State and Federal agencies, a second ' neighborhood -commercial node should be analyzed at Graham Street and the Cross-Gap Connector. • All required park acreage should be provided in ' neighborhood parks, community parks, and/or open space amenities along the Bolsa Chica lowlands, mesa top and bluffs. Dedication to the currently proposed 106-acre Linear Park should be in addition to these neighborhood and ' community park responsibilities. Circulation • if approvable by State and Federal agencies, the Lross-gap connector should be analyzed as a modified primary arterial. Graham Street, Talbert Ave. , and Springdale ' Street should be connected to the cross-gap connector. • The cross--gap connector should be located no closer then 960 feet to existing homes. ' • Analyze a bicycle/pedestrian trail system which would connect Warner at PCH to Huntington Mesa and Central Park. 142 374 LSQ 01-19-93 04:28PM P03 Page Three Thomas H. Mathews • An alternative should be analyzed that includes no cross-gap connector. Such alternative should analyze resulting impacts to traffic and services in the City of Huntington Beach. ' Natural Tonoaranhv and Features • The natural topography of the mesa should be maintained by limiting grading, terracing building designs, or other similar methods. • Existing mature trees on site should be preserved, rather than replaced. • The bluff faces, along with a buffer area on the mesa, should be retained as open space. public serving amenities ' such as trails, benches, overlooks, etc. , may be included in this area. The mesa connector road should serve as the dividing line between development and open space. I ' Wetlands Restoration ' • Prior to any development on the mesa or MWD site, the applicant should deed the entire wetlands restoration area to a designated agency or organization. • Prior to any development on the lowland, the applicant ' should obtain approval of a wetlands restoration plan for the entire wetlands restoration area, restore the Wetland as required for mitigation of fill, and/or guarantee restoration of the -entire wetlands. ' No lowland development or wetland restoration plan should cause seepage or inundation, or increase potential for liquefaction on adjacent residential property. • The benefits and adverse impacts of a tidal inlet should be discussed by including alternatives both with and without ' the inlet. In addition, alternative means of supplying ocean water to the wetlands should be analyzed (such as underground culverts) . • Any Wetland Restoration Plan should be a cooperative effort between the County, City and Developer. Other • The City is concerned about the separation of the EIR and EIS process since all the issues are interrelated and should be addressed concurrently. 143 374 1540 07-19-93 04:28PM PO4 , Page Four ' Thomas B. Mathews • The City encourages the County to include an alternative for Open Space, to include both the mesas and the ' lowlands. This could include, for example, natural and developed parkland, ecological reserves, or other open space amenity. • The City requests that, for all development scenarios ' analyzed, the proposed development standards be comparable to those required by the City of Huntington Beach. ADDITIOPAL ITEM FOR CONSIDERATION IR TIC DRAFT EIR • Analyze the project's impacts on City services and ' programs. Although the project area is not currently proposed to be annexed, the future residents will utilize City services. Analyze impacts to City police and Fire services, parks, beaches, libraries, water service, street , maintenance, code enforcement, and other affected programs. Since some City services, such as fire and police protection, are impacted by the presence or absence of the cross gap connector, impacts should be assessed ' under both conditions. • The traffic impacts of the Roll Company's proposed "modified cross gap connector" need to be fully analyzed, and compared to conditions with and without the cross gap connector. • The environmental checklist indicates that the local school ' districts will be impacted and cannot accommodate additional students. These impacts should be assessed in light of the number of closed school sites within each district. • The Draft EIR should contain a complete analysis of the Koll Company' s and the County's proposed wetlands , Restoration Plans, and comparison with previously assessed restoration plans. • Analyze the impacts of wetlands fill required for the , County's proposed extension of the Linear Park in the lowlands. 144 ' 374 1540 07-19-93 04:28PM P05 ' Page Five - Thomas e. Mathews 1 • A portion of the "study area" is located within the City of Huntington Beach and is currently zoned for single family homes and open space. The County's and Roll's alternatives show this area proposed for medium density residential development. However, since the Koll Company has withdrawn ' entitlement requests from the City to change the General Plan and Zoning in these areas, the Draft EIR should analyze the land use and aesthetic compatibility between the proposed project and existing permitted land uses ' within the City's jurisdiction. • Approximately 200 letters were received in response to the Army Corps' and City's Draft EIS/EIR. The County should address these comments and respond to issues insofar as they relate to the current project and alternatives. Again, thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Notice of Preparation. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me or Laura Phillips of my staff. Sincerely, Mike AAdILM81 Director of Community Development zc: Mayor Winchell & City Council Members Shirley Detloff, Planning Commissioner Ray Silver, Assistant City Administrator ' Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director Hal Simmons, Senior Planner Laura Phillips, Associate Planner Paul Lanning, OCEMA Environmental Planning Division MA:LP:j r (7158d) ' 145 STATE OF CALIFORFJIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY ME WILSON, Governor ' DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 330 GOLDEN SHORE, SURE SO e ' *ONG BEACH, CA %802 ,310) 590-5113 FrCclIfED' July 19, 1993 JUt 2 2 1993 , Paul Lanning County of Orange, Environmental Management Agency . Environmental Planning Division JUL 2 2 ���3 300 N. Flower- Street, P.O. Box 4048 0Phi,.uc%,UjiiI! EMA ' Santa Ana, California 92702-4048 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DIVISION Dear Mr. Lanning: ' Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report #551 Local Coastal Program for Bolsa Chica, Orange County ' The Department of Fish and Game (Department) has reviewed the referenced document relative to impacts to biological resources. To enable Department staff to adequately review and comment on the proposed project, we recommend the following information be included in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) 1. A complete assessment of flora and fauna within and adjacent to the project area, with particular emphasis upon identifying endangered, threatened, and locally unique species and sensitive habitats. a. A thorough assessment of rare plants and rare natural communities, following the Department's May 1984 Guidelines for Assessing Impacts to Rare Plants and Rare Natural Communities (Attachment) . b. A complete assessment of sensitive invertebrate, fish, amphibian, reptile, and wildlife species. Seasonal variations in use of-the project area should also be addressed. Focused species-specific surveys, conducted , at the appropriate time of year and time of day when the sensitive species are active or otherwise identifiable, are required. Acceptable species- specific survey procedures should be developed in , consultation with the Department and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. c. Rare, threatened, and endangered species to be , addressed should include all those species which meet the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) definition (see CEQA Section 15380) . 146 5 �'_LHT11=_ -L � ?�� _? - �'��- 1�•1 _L` 1` DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY N l01•NOEIES 011TAICT.CORPS O.tNOtNEENS PO SOXIM LOS ANOEIES CAUfOANIA 900 3 71J1 ' r 1 September 14, 1993 pEPtr To ' ATTENTION OF Office of the Chief Regulatory Branch The Koll Company Attn: Ms. Lucy Dunn 4343 Von Karman Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 Gentlemen: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Koll Company have held several discussions over the past few months regarding project purpose for the proposed Bolsa Chica project. As you are aware, the Corps has the responsibility to determine the proposed project's basic and overall purpose to ensure compliance with the 404 (b) (1) Guidelines and for our public interest review. The basic project purpose is the fundamental, essential or irreducible purpose of the project. The overall project purpose further defines the basic project purpose to logically describe the applicant's specific project. ' I understand the Koll Company's position on this subject is that the project purpose is to implement the Bolsa Chica Planning Coalition's concept of balanced use for the Bolsa Chic& lowlands. This includes the eventual restoration of the majority of the lowlands, residential development of an area in the lowlands adjacent to existing homes, and modifications to the Wintersburg Flood Control Channel. I also understand the Koll Company's position is that restoration of the lowlands will not occur unless a Department of the Army permit is issued for the residential development. The Koll Company sees the residential ' development of a portion of the lowlands as a means to effect the restoration, and suggests restoration would not otherwise proceed because of a lack of funding sources. It is my opinion that a financial nexus alone is an insufficient basis to forge independent components into an "integrated" project. There must be a functional and/or logistical relationship. After discussions among Headquarters, South Pacific Division and District Regulatory staff, I have determined the basic 2roJ ect u ose, for determination of water dependency under the 4 4 (b) (1) Guidelines, is three-fold and includes housing, habitat restoration, and flood control mprovemen s. a overa 1 project purpose, for evaluation of pro ect alternatives under the Guidelinesis to imo emen a compre ensive plan that incorporates components of residential housing, habitat _ 2 _ r restoration of the estuarine marsh and modifications to the , existing Wintersburg Flood Control Channel. I am also aware that the Koll Company believes that for r purposes of our review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) , the Corps should limit the scope of "project area" to ' that area of the lowlands dominated by jurisdictional waters of the United States. I have determined that the appropriate project area to examine for NEPA purposes is the same project area examined for impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act, i.e. the Bolsa and Huntington mesas, as well as the lowland wetlands. I hope this information will allow the NEPA process to move ' forward toward an eventual resolution of this permit action. If you have any questions, please direct them to Bruce Henderson of my Regulatory staff at (213) 894-0351. Sincerely, aVanAntwerp ' Colonel, Corps of gineers District Engineer 1 1 r i 6 _-� .e-y MICHAEL M. RUANE 4 U NTY O F DIRECTOR.EMA 2 t T THOMAS B.MATHEWS 5 3 DIRECTOR OF PLANNING RANGE - LOCATION: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY 300 N.FLOWER ST. PLANNING THIRD FLOOR January 13, 1994 SANTA ANA,CA MAILING ADDRESS: P.O BOX 4048 SANTA ANA.CA 92702-4048 Mr. Daryl D. Smith, superintendent TELEPHONE 17'-)834-4643 Park, Tree and Landscape FAX z 634 7 City of Huntington Beach DPC 834.4772 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Smith: On December 21, 1993, the Orange County Environmental Management Agency released the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Bolsa Chica project. That document, which addresses a wide range of issues, is available for review and comment. The Bolsa Chica Draft EIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), with the County of Orange acting as Lead Agency. In that capacity, the County is responsible for ensuring that all issues for which the County has jurisdiction, including those of local and state-wide importance, are adequately analyzed in the Draft EIR. In an effort to be responsive both to the requirements of CEQA and to the concerns and issues raised by responsible agencies and interested organizations and individuals, the County reviewed all of the comments submitted during the Notice of Preparation period as well as those comments provided by public agencies, organizations and individuals on the Draft EIS/EIR prepared by the City of Huntington Beach and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in December 1992. Please note that the Draft EIR now available for public review and comment analyzes the project as currently proposed by the applicant, Koll Real Estate Group, and addresses those concerns identified in the initial study, comments received on the Notice of Preparation (NOP), and comments on the previous Draft EIS/EIR. It must be understood, however, that the Draft EIR does not address federal issues or those issues associated with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Rather, such issues will be the subject of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which will be prepared for any aspect of the project requiring a federal permit. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will act in the Lead Agency capacity for the preparation of that document which will be completed in the near future. The Notice of Completion for the Draft EIR prepared by the County was issued on December 21, 1993 and a 60-day public review period was established for the project which will end on February 18, 1994. 1 The Draft EIR is available for review at several locations, including the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department, all city libraries in Huntington Beach and Seal Beach, and the Orange County EMA, Project Planning Division. We believe that the issues and concerns which have been identified both in the NOP comments and in comments on the previous EIS/EIR have been adequately addressed in this very comprehensive Draft EIR. However, if you have additional concerns related to the adequacy of the environmental analysis presented, please submit your comments to the County of Orange EMA no later than February 18, 1994 at the following address: Orange County Environmental Management Agency Environmental Planning Division 300 North Flower Street P. O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 ATTN: Mr. Paul Lanning Should you have any questions regarding this letter or on:fie Draft EIR, Mr. Lanning can be reached at (714) 834-3686. Very truly ours, f omas B. Mathews Director of Planning cc: Paul Lanning, Environmental Planning Division 7 ANNEX NO. 7 The following table summarizes certain problems with the mitigation measures stated in Chapter 8 of the DEIR prepared by the County of Orange for the Bolsa Chica development. This table is not intended to summarize the infirmities of the DEIR or of the mitigation measures under CEQA and reference is made to the comment letter, dated February 17, 1994, delivered to the County of Orange by Ervin, Cohen & Jessup, in its capacity as special counsel to the City of Huntington Beach, for full particulars. Not Shown to ee Mitigation Text of Mitigation Meaeurs Improper Msswre Not Ecommlowly,or Measure Reliance on Shown to Technically No. Future Mitigate Fe"bls Study Impeat 4.1-1s The OSPCCP and OSCP enacted between the oil field operators and X X appropriate state agencies will remain in effect for the duration of the oil activities at Elolea Chico. These plans will be amended as required for each Residential Planning Area and require the approval of the state contracting agencies at that time. 4.1-lb All potential buyers of onsite residences shall be notified of the X potential hazardous conditions associated with onsite oil production activities. Such information shall be disclosed in the Department of Real Estate reports prior to unit sales. g4;2•la Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall submit e X X through - geotechnical report to the Manager,Development Services,for 5a approval. The report shall include the information and be in a form as required by the Orange County Grading Manual,Section 5.4 and the Orange County Excavation and Grading Code Section 7-1-819. 4.2-lb The Applicant's grading plan shall provide stabilization of X through manufactured slopes to the satisfaction of the Manager, Development 5b Services and may include,but is not limited to, buttressing of fills, rock bolting, grouting, slope gradient laybacks,and construction of retaining walls;and for natural slopes,use of drainage control and establishing vegetation. 4.2-6 Measures to satisfactorily mitigate compressible/collapsible soil X X (PDF) conditions may include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) Omission of removal and recompaction of identified compressible/collapsible zones, geotechnical (2)fill surcharging and settlement monitoring, snd(3)compaction reports from the grouting or foundation design which utilizes deep piles. Speck DEIR makes it measures shall be based upon surface and subsurface mapping, impossible to laboratory testing and analysis by the project gootechnical consultant. determine the The Applicant shall incorporate such measures in the site-specific feasibility of this Tentative Tract Map Review and Rough Grading Plan Review reports mitigation prepared by the project geotechnical consultant. The geotechnical measure. consultant's site-specific reports shall be approved by a certified engineering geologist and a registered civil engineer and shall be completed to the satisfaction of the County. i Not Shown to Be Mitigation Text of Mitigation Measure Improper Measure Not Eoorwmioolly or Measure ReSance on shown to 7aobinIcaAy No. ' IFuture Mitigate Feasible Study Impact 4.2-7a Speck measures shall be implemented to eliminate any significunt X X X adverse effects of trenching for utilities. These measures shall be Omission of goo- designed to alleviate the effects which groundwater may have on technical reports existing or future bluffs, slopes,and structures. These measures may from the DEIR include techniques to prevent'sloughing-in' or the accumulation of makes it water or to remedy the effects of such incidents so that there is no impossible to risk of loss of integrity of bluffs, slopes,or structures. Examples of determine the such measures include shoring of trench face,laying back of trench feasibility of this side slope if recommended by the certified engineering geologist, and mitigation pumping of standing water. Before grading permits are issued for the measure. Bolas Chica Mesa, the County shall determine the specific measures to be implemented on the basis of a report prepared by the Applicant's geotschnical consultant which shall address all salient geotechrwcal issues,including groundwater. This report shall include site-specific reviews of the tentative tract maps and grading plans and addreso the potential for ground subsidence on the sites and properties adjacent to the sites if dewatering is recommended. On the basis of the review of the tentative tract maps and grading plans, this report shall make specific recommendations of the appropriate measures to be implemented.These recommendations shall be approved by a certified engineering geologist and registered civil engineer and shall be completed to the satisfaction of the County. 4.2-7b All project construction elements shall maintain the standards set forth by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Section 1926.652 4.2-8a DDC for ground improvement shall be designed by a Registered Ci,41 X X X IPDFI> Engineer and Geotechnical Consultant so that vibration levels do nat Omission of damage adjacent structure or provide unacceptable nuisance levels as standard for determined and approved by the County. determining acceptable nuisance level renders analysis of this measure impossible 4.2-8b As an alternative to the DDC method of compaction, and provided that X X X vibration[el meet the same standards as applied in the Mitigation Option of rolling Measure 4.2-8a,the Applicant's consultant shall evaluate using a surcharge method rolling surcharge method and dewatering of near surface soils with well not analyzed in points. The final technique shall be approved by the County for DEIR-Where will compliance with this mitigation measure before grading permits are surcharge issued. materials come from -Z- Nat Shown to as Mitigation Text of Mitigation Measure Improper Measure Not Economically or Measure Rebance on Shown to Ta"oally No. Future mtJoate Feasible Study Impact 4.2-9 All onsite generated waste that meets hazardous materials criteria shall X X be stored,manifested,transported and disposed of in accordance with This mitigation the California Code of Regulations Title 22 and in a manner measure merely satisfactory to the Manager, HCA/Hazardous Materials Program. requires Storage,transportation, and disposal records shall be kept onsite and compliance with open for inspection by any government agency upon request. generally applicable law and is not shown to reduce the risk from remediation of active oil operations and wastes immediately adjacent to a sensitive receptor such as Koll's proposed residential development 4.2-10a Prior to the recordation of a final parcelttract map or the issuance of X X X IPDFi any grading or building pemwts, whichever occurs first,the Applicant This mitigation shall provide,in accordance with criteria supplied by OCEMA, a measure merely 'Hazardous Materials Assessment"and a'Disclosure Statement" requires covering the property which will be offered to the County of Orange, compliance with for review and approval by the Manager,Development Services,in generally consultation with the Manager, Environmental Resources. applicable law and is not shown to reduce the risk from remediation of active oil operations and wastes immediately adjacent to a sensitive receptor such as Koli's proposed residential development -3- Not Shown to Be Mitigation Text of Mitigation Measure Improper Measure Not Economically or Measure Reliance on Shown to Taohnfeally No. Future Mitigate Feasible Study Impact 4.2-10b All onsite generated waste that meets hazardous materials criteria X X X (PDF) shall be stored, manifested,transported and disposed of in This mitigation accordance with the California Code of Regulations Title 22 arw!in a measure merely manner satisfactory to the Manager,HCA/Hazardous Materials requires Program. Storage,transportation and disposal records shall be kept compliance with on-site and open for inspection by any government agency upon generally request. applicable law and is not shown to reduce the risk from remediation of active oil operations and wastes immediately adjacent to a sensitive receptor such as Koll's proposed residential development 4.2-11tr Measures to mitigate expansive soils conditions shall be implemented X X X by the Applicant. These measures include,but are not limited to, specialized foundation design(such as post-tensioned slabs),removal and replacement of expensive soils,presaturation of footing and slab subgrade soils prior to foundation construction, or other appropriate methods as determined by the project geotechnical consultant. This County shall approve all such measures before they are implemented. 4.2-1 1b The Applicant shall incorporate measures to mitigate expansive arwl X X X (PDF) corrosive soil potential as outlined in Measures 4.2-13a and 4.2-12tb in Omission of the site-specific Tentative Tract Map Review and Rough Grading Plan geotechn ical Review reports prepared by the project geotechnicel consultant. reports from the Recommendations shell be based on surface and subsurface mapping, DEIR makes it laboratory testing and analysis. The geotechnical consultant's site- impossible to specific reports shall be approved by a certified engineering geologist detamtins the and a registered civil engineer,and shall be completed to the feasibility of this satisfaction of the County. mitigation measure. 4.2-12e Measures to mitigate corrosive soil conditions shall be X (POF) implemented by the Applicant. These measures include,but are not As noted in the limited to, specially formulated cement for concrete placed in content comment text, '"""'•"> with corrosive soils, and cathodic protection or specialized coatings to this mitigation 16OW PIN .WV A chww__: prevent corrosion of metals in contact with corrosive soils. measure does not = assess the impact of Measure 4.9-3 on the feasibility of implementation 4.2-12b The Applicant shall incorporate measures to mitigate expansive and X X X (PDF):- corrosive soil potential as outlined in a site-specific report to be prepared by the project geotechnical consultant. Recommendations shall be based on surface and subsurface mapping, laboratory testing and analysis. The geotechnical consultant's site-specific reports shtdl be approved by a certified engineering geologist and a registered civil engineer, and shall be completed to the satisfaction of the County. -4- I Not Shown to 8e Mitigation Text of Mitigation Measure Improper Messum Not foot omioally or Measure Reliance on Shown to Tedwomy No. Future M itigrata Feesible Study Impact 4.12-13 Prior to construction of the 9-million-gallon tank by the County of X X The DER Orange,a geologic investigation shell be performed to determine the implicitly suitability of the site. assumes that a suitable site for the reservoir is available 4.2-14a A new sewage lift station is proposed on Warner Avenue to pump X X sewage collected from gravity lines from the Boise Chica Mesa Seismic dangers residential neighborhood. The force main from the pump station will and impacts run eastward along Warner Avenue and cross the active fault zone. To remain from prevent discharge of sewage should the force main be sheared the potential rupture following design measures are recommended:(1) a backflow preventer even after the could be installed immediately east of the potential area of breakage, proposed 12)the lift station Iwet well)could be oversized to accommodate extra mitigation; capacity until the broken main can be repaired,and (3)an automatic however,the breaker installed in the pump circuit to shut off the system in the even DEIR improperly to severe seismic movement. labels the impacts insignificant 4.2-14b Other utilities that are expected to cross the fault would be natural gas X for residential use, water,telephone,electrical power,and storm Seismic dangers drains. When possible these should be routed to prevent traversing the and impacts fault. Otherwise,the natural gas line(s) could have automatic shutoff remain from valves installed which would actuate in the event of severe seismic potential rupture movement;the watermain(s)should have manual valves located either even after the side of the fault;phone and cable services could have junctions boxes proposed on opposing sides of the fault which could provide for emergency mitigation reconnection during repairs of underground lines; while similar installations could be made for electrical power,sanitary sewer line crossing the fault zone should be constructed of ductile iron pipe. Little can be done to prevent damage to storm drains because of their size and locations. 4.3-1 The Applicant's Civil Engineer shall provide a design and construction X X (PON schedule to reroute the Boles Chica pump station discharge water without disruption. The County shall review and approve this design prior to issuance of grading permits for Development Areas V and VI. 4.3-2 A construction phasing plan for RPA 1 A will be prepared to show the X Even after the (POF) EGGW Channel levees to be removed after April 15 and the tidal inlet implementation of to be opened prior to the following October 15. This phasing plan will this measure,a be reviewed and approved by the County prior to issuance of mass significant impact grading permits for RPA IA. is possible if _ construction is delayed or rains occur earlier than expected -5- Be Miti tion Text of Miti tion Measure Not Shown to r mitigation ga Improper Measure Not Eoonomioally or Measure Reliance an. Shown to „ Teahnioslly No. Future fiAltigats = Feasible Study Impact 4.3-3` To prevent degradation of groundwater due to tidal inundation, the X X X Applicant's Geotechnical Consultant shall provide a detailed study that The potential evaluates the impact of saltweterintrusion into the upper Pleistocene impact on local Alpha and Beta Aquifers, and provide recommendations to groundwater prevent this if either a full tidal or muted tidal area is constructed in the supplies is very Bolas Pocket. significant if sea i water intrusion occurs;however, since the report required in this measure has not been prepared, the DER does not provide Information to evaluate the impact 4.3.4 Prior to issuance of a grading permit for RPAs 3A, 4A, 5A, and 5C,the X X X Applicant's Geotechnical Consultant shall develop detailed studies to The DEIR only evaluate the potential occurrence of natural near-surface groundwater requires future and artificially induced groundwater to determine the potential of study of the shallow groundwater recharge to the adjacent area caused by the various devices wetlands restoration. Studies shall include,but shall not be limitel to, which are subdrains,impermeable soil caps on finish grade, subsurface barrioirs intended to such as cutoff wells or interceptor drains, or French drains with mitigate this dewatering wells. The preferred mitigation shall be approved by the problem—no County and implemented by the Applicant. standard for performance is set forth—no study or data regarding the probable efficacy of these measures is presented 4.3-5 To prevent adverse hydrological impacts in the Edwards Thumb area, X X X the Applicant's Geotechnicel Consultant, prior to wetlands restoration, The DER only shall evaluate transmissivity and other hydrogeologic characteristics in requires future the Edwards Thumb area and the lowlands near the existing residential study of the neighborhood in order to evaluate the impacts of irrigation and various devices impounded water on groundwater levels in the existing residential which are neighborhood. Such an investigation would,at a minimum,be intended to expected to require the installation of monitoring wells and the mitigate this performance of pump test for data collection. This detailed study shall problem—no include but not be limited to the following mitigation measures: standard for subsurface cutoff well,subsurface drains,and French Drains. Through performance is this process,it is important that a definitive geotechnical design be set forth—no approved by the County which would assure that no significant study or date adverse impacts would result from changes in groundwater level. The regarding the specific mitigation will be approved by the County and implemented by probable efficacy the Applicant. of these measures is presented Not Shown to Be Mitigation Text of Mitigation Measurs Improper Measure Not Economically or Measure Reliance on Shown to Technically No. Future Mitigate Feasible Study Impact 4.3-8 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the Regional Park,the Park X X developer shall incorporate design measures,in a manner meeting the There is no approval of the County, that prevent additional runoff caused by new indication of the Park development from further erosion to the Huntington bluffend extant to which impacting the sessonal ponds in the Lowland. erosion control will be required or the extent of erosion which will be permitted to remain after implementation 4.3-7 The project shall incorporate specific design measures such as X X subdrains,impermeable soil caps on finished grade,subsurface barriers The specific such as cutoff walls or interceptor drains,and French Drains to prevent design features any substantial seepage of surface groundwater into subterranean cannot be structures. To achieve this,before grading permits are issued for the evaluated as the MWD parcel,the project Geotechnical Consultant shall provide to the report on which County a report recommending speck design features which will they will be identify the specific measures to be employed. The recommendations based has not of the Geotechnical Consultant are subject to review and approval by been prepared or the County. made available for public review 4.3-8 Same as Mitigation Measure 4.3-5. X X X (PDF) -7- Not Shown to Be Mitigation Text of Mitigation Measure Improper Measure Not Economically of Measure Reliance on Shown to- Tsohnioally. No. Future Mitigate Feauibis Study Impact 4.3-9 Santa Ana River Floodplain X ' (FOR: The measures If the Santa Ana River floodplain within the project limits is may not not removed by the joint Orange County/Federal Govenvment mitigate all funded Santa Ana River Project(SARP)at the time of grading impacts to for proposed buildings,structures,and residential insignificance developments within the existing Santa Ana River floodplain, --Future appropriate additional mitigation measures,including tivo filing CEQA review of FEMA Elevation Certificate shall be required for each in the form of building, residence,or structure within the existing Santa Ana an EIR will be River floodplain, which demonstrates that the as-built lowest required floor is at least 1 foot above the 100-year flood elevation. This shall be accomplished prior to receiving Use and Occupancy Certification, in a manner meeting the approval of the appropriate local jurisdiction. To the extent required by CEQA, these midgetion measures will be developed through a supplemental and focused environmental review under(:EGA. Residual Floodplains-EGGW Channel and Others Additionally, as appropriate, mitigation against flooding-)f any proposed buildings, structures, and residential development from any known residual floodplain(i.e.,other than the Santa Ana River)shall be provided in a manner meeting the approval of the appropriate local jurisdiction before grading permits are issued for the proposed buildings, structures,and residences within the delineated residual floodplain. Furthermore,if these residual floodplains are shown on FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate Maps(FIRM) when the Santa Ana River floodplain map is revised as a consequence of SARP,then a certified elevation certificate which demonstrates that the as-built lowest floor is at least 1 foot above the 100-year flood elevation of the FIRM in tiffect shall be submitted or a Letter of Map Revision(LOMR)from FEMA for revising the FIRM shall be obtained,then the LDMR shall be processed through FEMA in a manner meeting the approval of the appropriate local jurisdiction prior to receiving Use and Occupancy Certifications for these buildings, structures,and residences. To the extent required by CE(]A, these mitigation measures will be developed through* supplements/and focused environmental review. 4.3-10 Before grading permits are issued for parcels which are adjacent to or X X X are impacted by the existing EGGW Channel,the Developer/Applicant Not Clear The use of No standards are shall design and construct the EGGW Channel within the County LCP whether the 100-year given for Area(upstream limit is the Graham Avenue Bridge)and to and tidal inlet flood event determining when including,the proposed tidal inlet shall be constructed in accordance must be rather than OCEMA would with OCFCD criteria and standards.The EGGW Channel shall be constructed standard approve the plan capable of conveying the discharge resulting from a 100-year storm prior to project flood and,accordingly, over the EGGW Channel's fully developed tributary watershed in a grading understates it is not possible manner meeting the approval of OCEMA. these the true to evaluate this parcels impact mitigation measure Non-County portions will not ,improved Not Shown to Be ' Mitigation Tex#of M dgstion Msseura Improper Measure Not. Economically or Measure' Reliance on Shown to Technically No. z Future Mitigate F*"Ibia Study Impact 4.44a The Applicant shall implement the Construction Monitoring Program X X iPDF1: described above as a PDF. The DEIR The DEIR supplies contains no insufficient requirements information for implemen- regarding tation of the scope particular of mitigations monitoring during construction 4.4-lb To reduce impacts to the water quality of tidal waters from existing X X X contaminants in sediments in the Lowlands,the Applicant shall The DEIR conduct a program of sediment toxicity testing. Representative areas in does not the Lowlands proposed for grading and/or inundation with tidal specify the waters,as well as similar areas whose location and characteristics sampling Indicate susceptibility to contamination, shall be sampled and the methods,the 1 sediments tested for toxicity to aquatic organisms.Any sediments acceptable found to have a substantial and adverse effect upon aquatic organisms level of shall be remadiated or removed from the site. contamination ! or the proposed location for dumping con- taminated sediments 4.4-2 During construction of the tidal inlet, measures shall be implemented to X reduce introduction of sediments and creation of turbidity in nearshore coastal waters.These measures would include insuring that no excavated material would be stockpiled on the beach where it could be introduced to the ocean during high tides,using barriers to confine the majority of excavated sediments within the landward side of the tidal inlet and pumping all waters from the dewatering process into a sediment basin and not into the ocean. All such measures must be approved by County Environmental Management Agency before construction of the tidal inlet begins. 4.43 To reduce to insignificant the impacts of resuspended sediments during X X maintenance dredging silt curtains or other forms of barriers shall be used to confine turbid water to the immediate area of the dredging activity. 4.7-la, The WRP provides for establishment of a program to place fences and X X WON posted signs in selected areas to minimize visitor disturbance. Human Fences and signs intrusion also are not always portends effective to intrusion by eliminate human cats,dogs instrusion once a and other path into the pets—This vicinity is impact is provided as is neither proposed considered nor mitigated -9- Not Shawn to Be Mitigation Text of Mitigation Measure Improper Mosasum Not Economically or ' Measure Reliance on Show"to Teohnicalhy No. Future Midgets Feasible Study Impact 4.7-lb A management plan shall be developed and incorporated into the LCP X that specifies how public visitation of the natural areas will be It is not controlled or managed.The plan shall include, at minimum: possible to evaluate Methods for public education on sensitive habitats and the plan plants. since it was Identification of the group or agency which will enforce not access restrictions and the restrictions to be employed in the provided various habitats. for public Restriction of people from internal trails during the nesting comment or season(March 15 to August 15)of federal and state listed review endangered and threatened bird species. 4:7-2a The WRP provides for weed eradication and habitat restoration and X X {POFI creation. Mitigation of loss of upland grassland not considered or provided 4.7-2b A management plan shall be developed that specifies how habitats X X X shall be maintained and managed over the long tern.TNe plan shell be No erosion There is no included in the WRP Long-Term M&M Plan.The plan shall include, at a control plan indication that minimum: is provided the plan would and the have any effect Methods for ongoing weed eradication.It is unluta/y that the potential on private landscaping practices of private homeowners can be for landowners controlled, and therefore an ongoing program of monitorng significant wishing to plant and weed eradication shall be essential for long-term vegetation exotics in their preservation of native habitats. impacts private Methods for public education, including information regarding end landscaping invasive exotica that homeowners could avoid planting in impacts their yards. from An erosion control and storm runoff plan shall be preperod increased No funding for prior to construction(see Chapter 4.4.3.4).If straw bales are turbidity the long term used for erosion control, rice straw or equivalent weed-free remain management is straw shall be used to prevent additional introduction of even provided exotic species into native habitat. though the DEIR mis- character- izes the impacts as insignificant 4.7-3a The WRP establishes a mitigation and monitoring program involving X X X (PDF) coordination with the CDFG on trapping and other efforts to minimize the continuing impact of the red fox. i Not Shown'to as Mitigation Text of Mitigation Measure Irttpropor Messurs Not Irconornically or Measure Reliance on Shawn to Technically No. Future Mitigate Pa"lble study Invoct 4.7-3b A[mitigation and monitoring program] will be implemented by the X X X Applicant in consultation with CDFG and USFWS to determine the The use of What mitigation effectiveness of the coyote as a control spent for the red fox at Bolsa the coyote as methods would Chica. If the coyote's effectiveness is found to be significant,a plan a control be used to shell be developed and implemented which will encourage the agent is protect bird continued presence of the coyote as a control agent for the red fox at based on nesting areas if Bolsa Chico.The plan shall include specific measures designed to "personal the coyote is not create and/or maintain adequate habitat for the coyote in the communi- effective at undeveloped portions of the project site so that the coyote may cation"only— controlling red maintain its ongoing role so a control agent for the red fox. OCEMA no technical fox predation? shall approve this program before restoration of the lowlands. or scientific NOTE:LANGUAGE IN BRACKETS DoEs NoT APPEAR IN CHAPTER 4.7(SEE P. support is 11 4.7-59) given 4.7-4 If raptors begin to prey upon nesting sensitive target species or other X X X sensitive species,the Applicant shall consult with CDFG and USFWS The DEIR gives and prepare a relocation program for these raptors. no information regarding how this mitigation measure would be implemented— �� further information is required before the significance of the impact could be measured 1t 4.7-S Before the destruction of the two western snowy plover nesting sites X X X (PDF) in RPA IA.two new nesting sites shall be established in the area known as RPA 2A.These sites shall be constructed prior to the nesting season(March 15 to August 15). It 4.8-1s Prior to the start of construction for each phase of development,the X Applicant shall fund a Construction Traffic Control Plan,to be prepared by a registered traffic engineer and submitted to the County of Orange for approval.Approval shall be required prior to issuance of grading I� permits.All traffic control work for construction shall conform to the ++ latest editions of the State of California Department of Transportation Manual of Traffic Controls, Standard Plans,Standard Specifications, and Special Provisions. 4.8.1b Notes indicating the need to obtain County approval of a construction X traffic routing plan/construction access plan will be placed on the No No Standard grading plan and included in the construction bid package.M standard is is provided for determined necessary by the Manager, Development Services, given for the placement OCEMA,that a construction/grading haul road must be established, the determining or Applicant/subdivider shall indicate this on all grading plans.Further, the when a construction construction bid package shall also include the need for a haul road of the road or construction/grading haul road. will be limits on its required use 11 �1 Not Shown to Be Mitigation Text of M dostion Measure Improper Maetsure Not Economically of Measure Regance on Shown to Technically No. Future Wigate sasibie Study Impact 4-8.2 If the appropriate agencies do not elect to upsize Pacific Coast X X X Highway,it will be necessary to develop a Deficiency Plan in No showing is accordance with the requirements of the CMP.CMP legislation made that the recognizes that not all projected roadway system deficiencies aro deficiencies avoidable through local actions and decisions.When a deficiency is created by the identified, however,a jurisdiction must undertake specific acdonr if it Project(on PCH _. is to comply with the CMP. One of the mechanisms for identifying and elsewhere) potential deficiencies is through a specific development traffic irrpact would be analysis. In the case of state highways,the California Department of corrected or Transportation(Caltrans)has primary responsibility for preparing addressed by the deficiency plans.The plan must identify the need for isolated location Deficiency Plan— or an areswide deficiency plan, with areswide deficiency plans being notwithstanding the preferred approach.There are several other requirements, the likelihood for including: continuing construction decide on lead agency in multi-jurisdictional area, period and post- identity facilities to be included which are off the CMP Highway build-out impacts, System and establish a means of balancing additional the DEIR capacitylbensfits provided against the on-system deficiencies, concludes that identity deficiency causes, with the identity improvements and costs needed for both direct corre,:tion exception of of deficiencies and overall improvements(including air quality PCH,traffic benefits)if direct correction is not possible,and impacts are not formulate action plan to address deficiency. significant The plan must then be adopted at a noticed public hearing by the CMP Agency. -12- Not Shown to Be Mitigation Text of Mitigation Measure Improper Measure Not Economically or Measure RaGanoe on Shown to Tachnically No. Future "agate Feasible Study Impact I� 4.8-3 Implementation of ATIP:The proposed ATIP program prevents the X X X (PDF) occurrence of numerous significant traffic impacts which otherwise No funding would result from the Proposed Project. Nonetheless,it is appropriate mechanism to supplement the'Standard Mitigation for All PDFS"to provide requiring Koll to assurances regarding ATIP implementation.The following conditions fund the ATIP in will be included as part of project approvals: advance is required ATIP shall be implemented on the terms and conditions set forth in the Proposed Project.Any modification of ATIP shall be subject to further environmental review. Before the approval of the first final subdivision for a phase of development or the issuance of the first building permit for a phase of development, whichever happens first,the Applicant shall irrevocably offer for dedication the necessary construction easements and ultimate rights-of-way which are located on property that is(1) owned by the Applicant, (2) within the 11 proposed phase of development, and (3)required for ATIP improvements. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each phase of development,the Applicant shall submit a traffic analysis and plans for the implementation of all PDFS and phases of ATIP which are applicable to that phase of development.The traffic analysis and implementation plans shall be approved by the County and shall include construction phasing and traffic management plans. Before approval of permits for the implementation of any phase of ATIP,a preliminary review of the proposed action shall be conducted in the manner set forth in Section 15060 of the CEQA Guidelines.That preliminary review shall determine the necessity for further environmental review of the implementation of ATIP.If additional environmental review is required,the County shall 1� determine whether permit issuance requires a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration,subsequent EIR, supplemental EIR, addendum, or other documentation. 4.8-4 Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map at each phase of X X development proposed under the Master Phasing Plan(Figure 3.4-1),a The funding of traffic analysis shall be prepared in compliance with ATIP conditions the required analyzing the implementation of PDFS and all ATIP improvements traffic proposed for the Master Planned phase of development. Should the improvements 1' traffic analysis indicate that the proposed ATIP improvements do not may not be I adequately achieve current GMP and CMP requirements,additional economically ATIP improvements may be provided satisfactory to mitigate project feasible—The impacts or the phased level of development(i.e., number of dwelling DER provides no �Lunits) will be reduced until suitable mitigation is achieved.The criteria information on ifor evaluation shall be the achievement of current County adopted this issue GMP and CMP standards. 1� 4.8-5 Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.8-3 and 4.8-4 above will X mitigate vehicle miles and hours of travel impacts to a level of This is not No justifi- insignificance. a mitigation cation or —it is a analysis conclusion supporting not this statement supported appears in the by evidence DEIR 1 -13- 'Not Shown to Be Mitigation Text of Mitigation Measure Improper Meeisute Not Economioallyor Measure Reliance on Shown to Technically No. Future Mitigate Feasible Study Impact 4.9-1 Mitigation for both heavy equipment and vehicle travel is limited. X ' However,to the extent feasible by the Applicant's contractor, exhaust Site emissions from construction equipment shall be controlled in a manner inspectors that is consistent with standard mitigation measures dictated by the generally do SCAQMD.The measures to be implemented are as follows: not have the capacity to use low emission onsite mobile construction equipment; check diesel maintain equipment in tune per manufacturer's specifications; timing or use catalytic converters on gasoline-powered equipment; whether low retard diesel engine injection timing by 4 degrees; emissions fuel use reformulated,low-emission diesel fuel; is being used substitute electric and gasoline-powered,and, where applicatle, methanol-and propane-powered equipment for diesel-powered A further and equipment where feasible; explicit where applicable,equipment will not be left idling for prolonged system of periods (i.e.,more then 2 minutes);and mitigation curtail (cease or reduce)construction during periods of high monitoring , ambient pollutant concentrations li.e., Stage 2 smog alerts). must be provided in The County shall verify use of the above measures during normal the DEIR to construction site inspections. assess this measure Table Table 4.9-7 presents the construction emissions for the combined X 4.9-7 infrastructuretbuilding erection phase,the anticipated efficiency of This is not these control measures,and the residual impact for those impacts that mitigation—it are to be mitigated. Note that the impacts for both NO2,and ROES are is merely a reduced, but remain significant. conclusion not adequately supported by evidene 4.9-2a Prior to approval of a grading pemdt, the Applicant shall demonstrate X DEIR does not to the Manager, Development Services,that the actions that will be Even if consider the taken to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which requires that thore be project were proximity of no dust impacts offsite sufficient to cause a nuisance, and SCAQMD consistent sensitive Rule 403, which restricts visible emissions from construction shall with AOMP, receptors appear on each grading plan under the General Notes Section.Specific PM,o emission (ESHAs, measures will include premoistening of soil prior to grading,daily will remain at residences)or the watering, washing truck tires,covering loads of dirt, early paving of 3 times the potential for PM,a roads, cessation of grading during periods of high winds,and level of emissions to revegetation of graded areas after soil disturbance. significance include hazardous even after materials or mitigation wastes i i t -14- ot Shown to Be Mitigation Text of Mitigation M"Oure Improper Maevire Not ; Eccoeomicsuy or 'I Measure Reliance on Shown to Toohnioally No. Future iWtigate Fe"ble Study Impact l' 4.9-2b In addition to the standard measures,the Applicant shall implement X X (PDF) supplemental measures to reduce fugitive dust emissions to the extent The DEIR The DEIR The DEIR uses feasible during construction operations.To assure compliance,the presents no does not limit general standards County shall verity compliance that these measures have been information the surface for basin-wide implemented during normal construction site inspections. regarding area of soil impacts without phasing of which may be noting the status - spread soil binders on the site,unpaved roads,and in parking develop- disturbed in of the South areas; ment and any single day Coast Air Basin 11 - water the site and equipment in the morning and evening; therefore and, as a federal reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding the DEIR accordingly, non-attainment and watering, except in wetlands restoration areas; relies on there is no area and without pave onsite haul roads; the future assurance taking into phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion creation of that the account the over extended periods of time; phasing amount of presence of schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated plans to PM„ sensitive soil during and after the end of work periods; mitigate the emissions will receptors dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local potential remain below including the ordinances and use sound engineering practices; for significance ESHAs and restore landscaping and irrigation that are removed during significant thresholds residential construction in coordination with local public agencies; impacts on even though communities sweep streets on a daily basis if silt is carried over to adjacent the nearby the developer directly adjacent 1t public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling; residents would adhere to the proposed suspend grading operations during high winds in accordance with to SCAQMD grading arose. Rule 403 requirements; rules of wash off trucks leaving site; general maintain a minimum 12-inch freeboard ratio on haul trucks;and application cover payloads on haul trucks using tarps or other suitable means. Note that in accordance with Table 4.9-7,these measures are expected to reduce the impact to a level of adverse,but not significant. 4.9.3 The Applicant shall specify the use of emulsified asphalt or asphaltic X X cement, neither of which produce significant quantities of VOC No consideration emissions, of whether such material win also resist the soil corrosion cond- itions noted in Section 4.2 of the DEIR 4.94 The Applicant shall specify the use of high-volume, low-pressure or X X �I manual application of paints and coatings on structures.Where applicable,prefinished or pro-primed and sanded wood molding and trim products and pre-primed wallboard shall be used.Additionally, where applicable,the Applicant shall specify the use of nonpolluting powder-coated metal products. 4.9-So The Applicant shall assist the County in implementing Transportation X X X �I Demand Management measures related to the Proposed Project(ref: "A Reference Guide to Transportation Demand Management") published by SCAG.Such measures shall include coordinating transit service to the development through provision of bus stops,transit stops, shuttle stops,bus shelters and turnouts, and bicyclehransit interface. �I -15- Not Shown to Be Mitigation Text of Mitigation Measure ltmpropar Measure Nor Econotrdtially or Measure Regan"on Shown to;; TeohWhally No. future Woes Feasible Study. Impact 4.9-Sb The Applicant shall incorporate,as part of the PDFs,pedestrian X X , MOM pathways,bus stops, and bikeways to encourage use of alternate What is the forms of transportation.Verification of such programs shall be made by standard for the County prior to issuance of occupancy permits. approval? Measures to reduce traffic congestion and its associated air emissions consistent with the design of the AQMP will be incorporated into the project.These measures include methods of improving traffic flow(i.e., ATIP and lane and intersection improvements)and methods of stimulating alternative forms of transportation(i.e.,bicycle routes and bus turnout lanes). 4.9-6 The Applicant shall provide mitigation for secondary source smicsions X X X (i.e., emissions associated with stationary sources within the The extent The reference development) through the measures listed below. During design to which to Table 4.9-8 review and prior to issuance of building permits,the County will assure each of is not a , confirmation that the measures have been incorporated to the these mitigation maximum extent feasible.As stated previously, the project will comply measures measure. with Title 24 energy-efficient design regulations and shall incorporate are feasible to the maximum extent feasible,the following design measures: in a The residential conclusion include energy costs in the capital expenditure analyses; develop- that only incorporate appropriate passive solar design; ment certain minimize electricity distribution losses; including emissions limit installed lighting loads; low and would be install lamps that give the highest light output per watt of moderated significant is electricity consumed; density not control mechanical systems or equipment with time clocks or units is not adequately computer system; considered supported recycle lighting system-or process-heat for space heating during by the DEIR cool weather,and exhaust this heat via ceiling plenums during warm weather; cascade ventilation sir from high-priority(occupied spaces)areas to low-priority(corridors,equipment,and mechanical spaces)areas before being exhausted; facilitate the use of electric yard maintenance equipment through the placement of exterior outlets both front and rear for all single- family dwellings; provide shade trees to reduce building heating/cooling needs; and reduce the production of particulate matter by installing fireplaces designed to burn natural gas to the exclusion of wood where , applicable. Table 4.9-8 presents the anticipated efficiency of the mitigation measures where proposed and the residual impact.Note that the , impact would remain significant for CO, NO2, and ROG. -16- �f Not Shown to Be 1� Mitigation Text of Mitigation Measure r Imp open Measure Not Economically or Measure Reliance on Shown to Tachnioslly No. Future Mitigate Fe"bla Study Impact I' 4.10-11 s The Applicant shall implement measures to protect existing residential X areas from high noise levels during construction.Assurance of the How does In addition to implementation of these measures shall be provided to the County as one determine requiring the follows: what is'as notations on the for as grading plans,the Prior to the issuance of any grading permits,the project Applicant practicable"? measure must shall produce evidence acceptable to the Manager, Development identify the Services, What effect location and 11 I does the nature of All construction vehicles or equipment,fixed or mobile,operated maintenance sensitive noise within 1,000 feet of a dwelling shall be equipped with properly of mufflers receptors in the operating and maintained mufflers. have on area and 11 engine and periodically All operations shall comply with Orange County Codified Ordinance non-engine monitor both the Division 6(Noise Control). construction contractor's noise activities and the 1� Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as sources? resulting noise practicable from dwellings. levels actually No mitigation experienced in Notations in the above format,appropriately numbered and is provided for the filed included with other notations on the front sheet of grading plans, noise 11 will be considered as adequate evidence of compliance with this transmitted to condition. wetlands and ESHAs 11 4.10 In accordance with the Orange County Code, onsite construction X activities shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m.and 9:00 Not effective p.m.except in emergency situations,and not permitted at all on to mitigate Sundays and federal holidays. impact on wetlands and ESHAs 4.10-2 Prior to opening the GCSE to through traffic, the Applicant will conduct X X I' an acoustical analysis to confirm noise impacts and determine the extent of specific noise reductions measures necessary to achieve the 45 dBA interior noise level in residences adjacent to Bolas Chica Street between Warner Avenue and the BCSE. i' I' 11 I' it II Not Shown to as Mitigation Text of Mitigation fMessurs WVtoper MNpwa Not Economloolly or Measure Reliance on Shown-to- Teohnioally No. Future Mitigate Feasible Study Impact 4.10-3a All new residential lots and dwellings shag be sound attenuated against X X , (PDF) present and projected noise which shall be the sum of all noise There is no No analysis of impacting the project so as not to exceed an exterior standard of 60 analysis of the event dBA Ldn in outdoor living areas and an interior standard of 45 dBA Ldn the existing generated in all habitable rooms.Evidence prepared by a County-certified baseline noise(e.g., acoustical consultant,that these standards will be satisfied in a conditions one-hour L„) manner consistent with applicable zoning regulations, shall be presented has been or submitted as follows: nor any will be ' reason to provided Prior to the recordation of a final tract/parcel map or prior to the defer the issuance of grading permits,as determined by the Manager, gathering Development Services,on acoustical analysis report shall be of such No analysis of , submitted to the Manager, Building Permits,for approval. 7bg information or mitigation report shall describe in detail the extarior noise environment and for noise preliminary mitigation measures.Acoustical design features to The noise impacts on achieve interior noise standards may be included in the report in report wildlife, which case it may also satisfy the next measure below. should be wetlands or made ESHAs Prior to the issuance of any building permits for residential available construction, an acoustical analysis report describing the acoustical for public design features of the structures required to satisfy the Manager, review and Building Permits,for approval along with satisfactory evidence comment which indicates that the sound attenuation measures specified in prior to EIR the approved acoustical report have been incorporated into the certification design of the project. and must consider Prior to the issuance of any building permits,all freestanding noise acoustical barriers must be shown on the project's plot plan impacts at illustrating height, location,and construction in a manner menting all phases the approval of the Manager, Building Permits. of constru- ction 4.10-3b Prior to the issuance of any certificates of use and occupancy for X , multifamily dwelling units,field testing in accordance with Title 2.4 Regulations may be required by the Manager, Building Inspection,to verity compliance with FSTC and FIIC standards.In the event such a test was previously performed,satisfactory evidence and a copy of the ' report shall be submitted to the Manager, Building Permits, as a supplement to the previously required acoustical analysis report. 4.11-la The research design for the Bolsa Chico region currently in preparation X X (PDF) ; shall be completed.The research design shall contain a discussion of How can important research topics that can be addressed employing date From this report the Boisa Chico sites.The research design shall be reviewed by at bast be oval- three qualified archaeologists,as required by CCC guidelines. uated by the public if , it is not yet prepared? -18- Not Shown to as Mitigation Text of M dastion Measure Improper Marion Not Econorrdcally'or 11 Measure Reliance on Shown to Technically No. Future Mitigate Feasible study Impact 'I 4.114b Mitigation of impacts to important prehistoric archaeological sites in X X (PDF) areas proposed for urban development shall consist of data recovery There is much excavations.The scope or work for the data recovery excavations shall controversy be determined by the project archaeologist and reviewed and approved regarding by the three qualified peer reviewer archaeologists established Koll's pursuant to CCC permit conditions.The data recovery excavations compliance shall be completed prior to issuance of a grading permit. In addition to with the hand excavation in the grove area of ORA-83/144,data recovery at requirements this site shall include controlled grading by the project archaeologist of of law with the field area to recover any cogged stones or other important artifacts respect to the which may remain in this disturbed portion of the site. Mitigation of the archaeological impacts to these two sites shell be considered complete when the peer resources at review group that reviewed the regional research design concludes that the site— the data recovery excavations have been completed in accordance This measure with its approved scope of work.Once data recovery excavations have leaves been completed,a report of the data recovery program shall be mitigation prepared by the project archaeologist and reviewed by the peer review wholly in team,and submitted to appropriate governmental and academic Koll's hands institutions.Data recovery investigations,testing,analysis,and reports without shall be completed at the Applicant's expense. Government review or control 4.11-2 The historic components of ORA-78,-831144, and-85, as well as all X X X (POFj other facilities,structures and features more then 45 years old within CEQA Many of the the LCP Area shall be evaluated for significance by a qualified historical specifically historic and archaeologist and/or architectural historian.This evaluation shall be states that archaeological conducted at the Applicant's expense and the Applicant shall NRHP criteria resources have implement the recommendations of the historical archaeologist and/or are not the already been 1t architectural historian regarding significant historical cultural resources. only yardstick disturbed Significance criteria to be employed should be the eligibility criteria for for measuring pursuant to the NRHP. historic demolition impacts—the permits granted 1 separate by the County in analogous 1991 —these requirements permits are the of the first approvals for California the project Register construction (focusing on items of significance in 'I California history)must also be used 4.11-3s The research design for the Bolso Chico region currently in preparation X X (PDF) shall be completed.The research design shall contain a discussion of important research topics that can be addressed employing data from the Bolea Chice sites.The research design shall be reviewed by at least three qualified archaeologists,as required by CCC guidelines. it -19- 1 Not Shown to Be Mitigation Text of Mitigation Measure Improper Mossura Not Economically at Measure - Reliance on Shown to Technically No. Future WOW* Feasible Study Impact 4.11-3b Sites on Huntington Beach Mesa that will be affected by construction X X ' of the Bolsa Chice Regional Park shall be tested under a coordinated program that evaluates each site as a whole using the regional This Mitigation research design to assess significance.Because the development of Measure indicates ' Soles Chica Regional Park will be the County of Orange's that the County responsibility, the County shall be responsible for funding and testing will fund all of those portions of each site within the LCP. For those sites testing and determined to be significant,preservation shall be considered the mitigating as ' preferred mitigation measure,or if preservation is not feasible,impacts needed within the will be mitigated in accordance with the State guidelines and LCP Area but no provisions under the GDP/Resource Management Plan for Bolas C:hice source of the Regional Park.The County shall be responsible for funding any funds required to mitigation of impacts for portions of site@ within the LCP Area.The do so are , County shall also adhere, to the cultural resources mitigation measures identified. set forth in the EIR that was prepared and certified for the Linear Regional Park.These measures are as follows: Prior to approval of the grading plan, a test-level investigation of all noted sites, with the exception of CA-ORA-290, which has totally been destroyed, shall be conducted by an archaeologist who meets the qualifications of the County of Orange approved list of archaeological consultants.The investigation shall include subsurface testing of deposits through auger holes and test pits to determine vertical depth, horizontal distribution, and internal complexity of the cultural deposit.Subsurface investigations shall comply with appropriate local, state and federal guidelines for Native American involvement and be acceptable to the Manager, Harbors,Beaches,Parks/Program Planning Division. Based on the results of the test-level investigation, a comprehensive archaeological resource management program acceptable to the Director, Harbors,Beaches,Parks shall be submitted by archaeologist who meets the qualifications of the County of Orange approved list of archaeological subconsultants which shall include such requirements as further analysis of sites, resource recovery, or in situ preservation.Measures to protect resources in areas proposed as open space will also be included. ' The program shall be implemented according to a schedule which conforms to the proposed phasing of development. Additional recommendations may be made upon completion of test-level investigation or at the professional discretion of the consulting archaeologist conducting the test-level work. ' -20- Not Shown to Be Mitigation Text of Ntlpation Measure Improper Maisie Not J Economiomlly or. Measure> Refiance an , Shown to Teohniaally No. future Woes l adsible Study Impact 11 4.11-4 The County shall evaluate all historic components of ORA-88, and- X X X 385,as well as all other facilities,structures and features more then CEQA Many of the 45 years old within the LCP Area.A qualified historical archaeologist specifically historic and and/or architectural historian shall be engaged to conduct this states that archaeological evaluation.This evaluation shall be conducted at the County's expense NRHP criteria resources have and the County shall implement the recommendations of the historical are not the already been archaeologist and/or architectural historian regarding significant only yardstick disturbed historical cultural resources.Significance criteria to be employed for measuring pursuant to should be the eligibility criteria for the NRHP. historic demolition impacts—the pernits granted separate by the County In analogous 1991 —these requirements permits are the of the first approvals for California the project Register construction (focusing on Items of significance in California history) must also be used 4.11-5 The two potential archaeological sites in the lowlands, ORA-1308 and- X X (PDF) 1309, and the lowland component of ORA-86,shall be tested to Will the NRHP determine whether they represent cultural deposits.If they are found criteria be to be cultural deposits,they will be evaluated to determine their used to judge significance using research questions in the regional research design. the If found to be significant, mitigation measures consisting of significance 11 preservation in open space or date recovery using a data recovery plan of these shall be implemented at the expense of the Applicant.All data recovery sites? excavations shall be completed prior to issuance of a grading perrttit for lowland wetlands restorations activities or lowland urban development activities for these sites. 4.11-6 A systematic cultural resources survey of the lowlands shall be carried X (PDF) out by a qualified archaeologist to determine if they are cultural and,if so,to evaluate their significance.If found to be significant,mitigation measures consisting of preservation in open space or data recovery using a date recovery plan shall be implemented at the expense of the Applicant. All data recovery excavations shall be completed prior to issuance of a grading permit for lowland wetlands restoration activities �I that may impact any sites discovered. I' I' -21- �I 1 Not Shown to Be ' Mitigation Text of Midoation`Messurb Improper Measure Not EconoMc ally or Measure Re6snos on Shown to Teohnioally No. Future "We Feasible Study Impact 4.11-7 A reburial agreement for prehistoric Native American human rerrutins,if X X , WDF) any, that may be encountered on the Boise Chics property under the There has This appears to Applicant's control shall be negotiated with the Most Likely already been be in confect Descendant designated by the Native American Heritage Commission a significant with Mitigation to address Native American concerns in the event human remaimi are controversy Measure 4.11-3b discovered.The provisions of the reburial agreement shall be raised which indicates implemented at the Applicant's expense.The provisions of the reburial regarding the that the County agreement currently in force for Huntington Beach Mesa shall be handling of would be implemented at the Applicant's expense for any human remains found this issue— responsible for within the LCP area. Further, Koll such costs has acknowledged ' that human rearnins were located at the site as early as 1991 — there is no mention of this discovery in the DEIR , 4.124a Landscaping,including use of native vegetation, and setbacks from X Warner Avenue and Los Patos Avenue shall be used to break up long linear views of houses from offaits. 4.12.4b Prior to issuance of any building permit, the Applicant shall X X demonstrate that all exterior lighting has been designated and located No approval Lighting will so that all direct rays are confined to the property in a manner meeting criteria still affect ' the approval of the Manager, Building Permits. given wildlife especially along the GCSE 4.12-le Prior to issuance of any grading permit or recordation of any applicable X X tract/parcel map,the Applicant shall submit subject to approval of the No approval County Manager HBP Program Planning Division, an urban edge criteria treatment plan which includes but is not limited to:building height and given setback emits;landscape and fuel modification treatments;provisions for wells,fences or berms;slope gradients and ratios(i.e., 2:1 -4,: 1) proposed:slope drainage structures,and architectural or landscape design themes. ' 4.12 td As part of the Development Agreement for the Proposed Project, the X X (PDF) , Applicant shall implement the Local Parke and Recreation Facilitielr No information described in this EIR in Chapter 3.2.2.7.The OCEMA shall ensure re:financial implementation of this POF through its Development Agreement impact on the monitoring program. development is provided 1 1 -22- 1 Not Shown to Ba Mitigation Text of Mitigation Measure Improper Measure Not £cone nicaUy or Measure Reliance on shown to Technically No. Future Mitigate Fosslbte study InVact ' 4.14-1 The Applicant shall enter into a secured agreement with the County to X X provide Sheriff law enforcement services such as facilities, equipment, The police No information or other infrastructure necessary for adequate law enforcement services re:financial services to the Proposed Project. which can be impact on the provided by development is the County provided are not sufficient to meet County standards for response time 4.14-2 The Applicant shall be required to enter into a secured fire protection X X agreement with the County or its successor fire protection agency.The Even with the No information agreement shall include the following: construction re:financial of a new impact on the - Provision for dedication of an adequate site within the project area station,the development is ' for construction of a fully equipped and furnished fire station, fire protection provided subject to the approval of the Orange County Fire Department or services successor agency; which can be provided by ' - Provision for funding of land acquisition,construction, equipping the County and furnishing the new fire station and adequate firs access, water are not distribution, and other supporting infrastructure by the Applicant; sufficient to and meet County standards for- Provision for commencement of fire station operation in accordance response time with development phasing. 4,15-2 Prior to issuance of building permits for construction of the tidal inlet. X the Applicant shall provide for an additional lifeguard and lifeguard No information tower for Bolen Chica State Beach nearthe tidal inlet in a manner regarding the meeting the approval of the California Department of Parks and funding for the Recreation. required lifegaurd is provided 4,15-3 A visitor access and interpretive program for the wetlands will be X X X developed by the County of Orange Harbors,Beaches and Parke Fencing Department in consultation with the CDFG, which restricts public would not be access to interpretive trails in the wetlands and to other wetlands adequate to areas to the period from October 1 through March 31.Fencing and/or control human ' other means to control access shall be used to reduce disruption to and pet sensitive species. intrusions 1 4.15-4 A visitor access and interpretive program for the wetlands will be X X X developed by the County of Orange Harbors,Beaches and Parke Department in consultation with the CDFG, which restricts public access to interpretive trails in the wetlands and to other wetlands areas to the period from October 1 through March 31.Fencing and/or other means to control access should be used to reduce disruption to sensitive species. r -23- Not Shown to Be M(tigetion Text of Mitipation Measure Improper, Measure Not Econ"Wea v or ' Measure Re"noa on Shown to Teohnically . No. Future Mildipts Feadble Study Irr"t 4.15-5 An interpretive program will be developed by the County Harbors, X X X ' Beaches and Parks Department which avoids public kayak/canoe Controlling outings during hours of potentially dangerous tidal fluctuations. access during dangerous conditions will be difficult 4.16-1 Any grading operations on the Woo Chica or Huntington Beach Mesas X , (PDF) , shall be monitored by a qualified paleontological field observer under Control of the direction of an Orange County certified paleontologist and at the mass Applicant's expense.The paleontological field inspector shall be able to excavation divert equipment to avoid destruction of significant fossils that may be and grading , discovered during grading.Assistance may be required for the sedvage by a single and removal of large specimens or concentrations. It is recommended professional that any fossils collected during the development phase be donated to will be the Natural History Foundation of Orange County for appropriate impracticable disposition. , 1 1 M 127A 213NI.:b -24- 8 -� ' ANNEX NO. 8 ' The following table sets forth a summary analysis of the alternatives considered in Chapter 7 of the DEIR prepared by the County of Orange for the Bolsa Chica ' Development and notes certain of the problems and infirmities under CEQA of the DEIR's alternative project analysis. This table is not intended to summarize the infirmities of the DEIR under CEQA and reference is made to the comment letter, dated February 17, 1994, delivered to the County of Orange by Ervin, Cohen & Jessup, in its capacity as special counsel to the City of Huntington Beach, for full particulars. Alternative Description Commeta on Aftermid"and A"Vand k►iomwttan Required ' DEIR's Reasons for"Dismissal Alternstive A — Discussion notes potentially The DEIR omits: Pork/ — Mixed open space and recreational significant impact from increased ' Lowland uses with EGGW channel retained as a human intrusion and loss of upland 1. A statement of the purchase price Restoration public facility; no new housing habitat; however,these impacts which would be paid to acquire the DEIR provided were discounted in the analysis of Meas or the Lowlands under this CH. 7.Z1 the proposed project(which alternative. Accordingly,it merely — Oil operations in Lowland would includes park uses)in Ch. 4 of the assumes that funding would not be ' continue until voluntarily abandoned by DEIR available without considering the degree the oil operators of funding required. — Acknowledges significant traffic — Road constructed on Balsa Mesa to impacts from 4,000 weekend trips 2. Consideration of the potential for ' access recreational use but cross gap combined with beach traffic—no only a portion of the Study Area to be connectoriBCSE would not be built funds contribute toward ATIP purchased for recreational or conservation purposes in order to — Contemplates a recuirement that — Alternative acknowledges that decrease the impacts by(a)reducing the entire site must be purchased by a the incompatibility of the proposed residential density and the overall private organization or governmental project with existing development number of units while making the entity and surrounding uses but this was project more compatible with the not identified as a significant existing neighborhood surrounding the Impact in the DEIR and should hew project and(b)preserving ESHAs such been as the Warner Pond and(c)avoiding the disruption of significant archaeological Reasons for Diamlesel— This sites on the Mesa. ' alternative was dismissed boo it: — fails to fulfill the objective of providing a mix of housing on the Lowlands and the Mass; — does not provide a definitive meens of wetlands expansion and ' restoration;and — does not provide a definitive plan to bring the wetlands into Public ownership Conclusion:Since no funding of the recreational uses is provided, the alternative will not fulfill its objectives of providing additional ' recreational space. Alternative Desork;6ort Comments on Alternative end Addi kwW Infamtstion Required DEIR'*Re"ons for Dismind ' Altem&*m$> — Virtually the entire site would bi Reasons for Diandesal— This The DEIR omits: (1) A statement of Blodivers" dedicated to conservation purposes alternative was dismissed because the purchase price to acquire the site. Park it: Accordingly,it merely assume*that ' CH. 7.2.2 — Generally is compatible with funding would not be available without surrounding lard uses although the — provides no housing considering the degree of funding 'Environ- enhanced wildlife habitat might cause — provides no definitive moans of required; (2)Consideration of the mentally some conflict with the surrounding wetlands expansion and potential for only a portion of the Study ' Superior residential uses restoration; and Area to be purchased for biodiversity Alternative. — provides no definitive plan to park purposes in order to decrees*the — Would permit creation of significant bring the wederxls into public impecto by la)reducing residential passive recreation opportunities ownership density and the overall number of units while making the project more — Some funding may be available for Conclusion:Since this plan would compatible with the existing acquisition of the site from USFWS require either the cooperation of neighborhood surrounding the project the landowners or the completion and(b)preserving ESHAa such as the of eminent domain proceedings Warner Pond and(c)avoiding the followed by the development of a disruption of significant archaeological restoration plan,the time frame for sites on the Mesa and(3) A implementing this plan would comparison of the timing for the ' extend beyond the time frame implementation of the WRP versus the identified by Koll to achieve timing for the acquisition and restoration goals. implementation of the biodiversity park alternative. The DEIR(page 7-21.In. 19-24)merely states that the timing for ' such implementation exceeds the time frame desired by the Applicant. This does not make this alternative Infeasible within the meaning of CECIA. ' -2- ' Alternadvo l?eeorbOort Conenento on Alternative end E WgOr4rdon Required DEIR's Reasons for Diann" Alternative C Reasons for DMmiessl— This The DEIR's analysis of this altemative is Commercial —500 room luxury hotel with support altwnstive was dismissed because particularly suspect in that it assumes ' Resort and conference facilities it: (for no apparent reason)that We Naming — provides housing on the Mess project would not include any traffic Altematk* —tennis courts/recreation facilities in only partial satisfaction of the improvement or mitigation and Including an 18-hole golf course objective of providing a mix of erroneously states that the impacts on CH 7.2.3 (depicted in Figure 7.2-3 as being housing on the Meee anti the the environment would be greater than ' constructed on the Lowlands-DEIR Lowlands under the proposed project. Page 7-28. notes at page 7-24,In.I 1-15 golf — provides no means of wetlands In.29 is misieading since the Kell project course is unlikely to receive approval) expansion and restoration;and restoration timing may not be — provides no definitive plan to significantly different from the timing —200,000 sq.ft.of commercial shop, bring the wetlarde into public here. restaurants ownership The DEIR omits: — 1,500 residential units in a high Conclusion:Page 7-27 states that density configuration although this alternative would 1. Consideration of this alternative if fulfill many of the objectives of the the development were conditioned on —hiking trails and interpretive center project, Kell is not interested in establishment and at least partial pursuing this alternative,in part funding of an AT1P as contemplated ' —construction of roadways and due to concerns regarding the under Koll's project. utilities:but no cross-gap connector competing resorts within the would be constructed market. The DEIR also notes that 2. Consideration of We alternative with wetlands restoration could proceed a low-rise development(such as the —Lowland restoration right occur but under this alternative in the some Red Lion Hotel on Santa Borbare ' would be separately furled and manner as under the project, with beachfront) which does not have the separately considered funding coming from the aesthetic or New impacts of the development. DEIR erroneously proposed project and with buffers and states, without support,that the theme well(es relied for mitigation of ' impacts of this project are greater land use impacts in the proposed Koll then Koll's proposed project with project). the exception of air quality and traffic. The DEIR assumes no ATIP 3. A comparison of the likely phasing would be Included In the and timing of the restoration under this alternative. alternative versus the timing and phasing under the Kell proposal. ' AlternatIve D This alternative substantially masts —CCC staff has noted that the 1986 all of the objectivea of the project LCP land use plan would no longer be Marine/` —5,700 mixed residential housing and implements the 1986 LCP. compatible with CCC goale and policies, Housing units in the Lowlands and on the Mess yet tie plan is relied on in Section 4.1 Development per 1986 LCP Reasons for Diemiasal— This of the DEIR when assessing consistency alternative was dismissed became with Coastal Act policies and —Marina with navigable channel it: consistency with the County General CH 7.2.4 access —would have greater adverse Plan. This is a blatant internal Impacts then the proposed plan in inconsistency in the DEIR. —Cross Gap Connector will be terns of noise,traffic, air quality constructed together with realignment and loss of a further ESHA at —The DEIR is also inconsistent in that it ' of PCH inland Rabbit Island rejects this alternative based on the difficulty of obtaining federal permits —would require the Corps to issue while it ignores the sane Issue in its Section 10 and 404 permits which analysis of Koll's proposed project. ' would be difficult to obtain -3- i Atternative peso Feet CoffvrdR to on Ahwrwdw and AddfOwWO.faart .d.on RegtirW DE(R's Reaone for OisMad Alterngtive E —4.286 dwelling units on the Mass This alternative sireumes The analysis of this alternative correctly and in limited pocket area(38 acres) implementation oif the ATIP to states that many of the impacts from Lowland immediately adjacent to the Mass and mitigate traffic impacts which are the project would occur here with equal ' Reaid*ntW on a portion of Edwards Thumb similar in scope to the impacts from severity. Development the project. In Pocket —non-navigable tidal inlet would be The timing of wetlands restoration Area wW constructed as in the case of the This alternative fLdfWs the might be longer under this alternative Edwards project objectives of the project and is than under the Koll plan;however,there Thumb similer in scope and nature to the is no way to judge the relative timing —Would require higher densities(over project;however,the DEIR implies because no projections of timing are 36 d.u./acre)in order to yield 4,286 that Koll might not willingly fund given either for the project WRP or for units without development on the WRP under this alternative. the alternative. Lowlands arose other then the pocket and Edwards Thumb as indicated on This alternative will require OCFCD Figure 7.2-5 to reconvey the E3GW channel easement. ' —Cross Gap Connector would not be constructed but a more intense road Development of the pocket is system would be constructed on the dependant upon t1w purchase of Mesa,into the pocket and access portion@ of that property from ' would be provided into Edwards MWD Thumb Reasons for DismiseW-None given —Would Include limited neighborhood , commercial uses 1 [Alt'arnativat ativtr Oes Comments on A1te�ve and Addi W"bdipmuM or!Requited OEM's Ressons for Dismieaaf n�w ff — 1,000 low density units on the Mesa p.7-42 In.32-33-the DEIR omits DEIR notes that this alternative is not considerstion of future restoration consistent with Coastal Act policies Density —No Cron Gap Connector of the wetlands from this favoring restoration of the wetlands but ' alternative without justification for omits to note•.0 Unitell —No Lowlands development doing so. —Koll'a proposed plan is similarly .3.1 —No restoration or tidal inlet but Even though the traffic generated inconsistent with' Coastal Act policies Lowlands are retained as open space by this alternative is 25%of the which discourage filling of wetlands for projected traffic generated by Koll's residential development proposed project,the DEIR assumes(without support)that —This alternative would retain the ' regional traffic impacts of this option for future restoration by project would nonetheless be the preserving the Lowlands as open space same as for the project. The DEIR until a funding source for the restoration assumes no ATIP for this could be located ' alternative without explanation or justification for doing so. The DEIR omits: —An explanation of the project-related Reasons for Diendnal— This impacts which would be mitigated in ' alternative was dismissed because the wetlands under this alternative. it: — provides housing on the Mesa in only partial satisfaction of the objective of providing a mix of housing on the Mess and the Lowlands — provides no means of wetlands expansion and restoration;and ' — provides no definitive plan to bring the wetlands into public ownership Conclusion:Page 7-44,In.23-30 indicates that this alternative assumes that only project related impacts would be mitigated and no ' requirement or plan for wetlands restoration would be implemented. ' -2 500 units aver 8 d.u./scre SAME AS ALTERNATIVE F SAME AS ALTERNATIVE F rns ve averaging ' Mediu"ow -max density of 38 d.u./sore Density Realdendal no Lowlands development Development` ' -no orose-gap connector CH 7.3.2 Alternative H —Assumes that some development The use of the term'No Project —The DEIR should explain exactly what would proceed,but orgy in accordance Alternative' for this alternative is development could occur under the No Project with existing zoning designations misleading and is not in accord existing Zoning and the potential Ahemativ► with customary CEGA practice. locations of that development. —Scope and locution of the CH 7.4.1 development permitted under this Ressorrs for Dismissal: This —The DEIR omits consideration of the project is not specified alternative would fulfill none of the Inconsistency of the current toning with project objectives the General Plan 1 Alternative vseolipt Ccmrr»nts'on Alowtadve And Adds mil Werrnodoe RsqukW DEIR's Reasons far Dtsmisssi Alternatlyo t —No development would occur on the Ressars for DiernInal: This sits alternative would hMI none of the ' No project objectives Developnsnt —This alternative is commonly referred 'Alternative to as the'no project alternative' under CECA CH:7.4.1 ' _� i