Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVolume 3 of 7 - Draft Environmental Impact Report - EIR - Bo (25) 1 City of Huntington Beach CITY CLERK'S ' Comment Regarding: COP Y ' 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-W10") ' Submitted by: ' ERVIN, COHEN & JESSUP, as special counsel to the City of Huntington Beach ' On Behalf of: ' THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 1 ' Volume III (Part 2 of A im No. 9) February 17, 19% 1 EC.I ' Ervin, Cohen&Jessup, 9401 Wilshire Boulevard,Suite 900, Beverly Hills, California 90212 DRAFT 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IS/EIR(E ) FOR THE PROPOSED BOLSA CHICA PROJECT iSTATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 91041061 APPENDICES C THROUGH L Federal Lead Agency State Lead Agency U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LOS ANGELES DISTRICT r r AUGUST 1992 r Chambers Group, Inc. r DRAFT EIS/EIR FOR THE PROPOSED BOLSA CHICA PROJECT APPENDICES TABLE OF CONTENTS A =ndix - C EARTH RESOURCES D HYDROLOGY ' E OCEANOGRAPHY, MARINE AND AQUATIC BIOLOGY F TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGY G CULTURAL RESOURCES H TRAFFIC ANALYSIS I AIR QUALITY J NOISE K AFSTH=CS L FISCAL EMPACT REPORT i U O m � � � r � � S � �' � � � S � � � �� � �' APPENDIX C - EARTH RESOURCES CA EXISTING CONDITIONS This report supplements the Bolsa Chica EIS/E P, text by providing an expanded discussion of the existing conditions for earth resources. The earth resources description and analysis was prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. with technical impact and review by Zeiser Geotechnical, Inc. The technical data upon which the EIS/EIR text is based includes numerous recent reports by Woodward-Clyde Consultants and The Earth Technology Corportation as indicated in the references section, in this Appendix and in the EIS/Eat Reference Section (Section 8). C.1.1 Topography The site consists of four general topographical areas, the lowland, the Bolsa Chica lower mesa, the Bolsa Chica upper mesa, and the Huntington Mesa. The approximate locations of the mesa areas are shown in Figure C-1. The lowland comprises the remainder of the project site. The lowland area southeast of the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Flood Control Channel (EGGW) and northeast of the Inner and Outer Bolsa Bays comprises a network of cells divided by roads/berms with various oil field production activities. The elevation of this area varies from -3.9 to +5.2 feet MSL (San-Lo 1986). The upper and lower mesa areas are located northwest of the flood control channel. Existing ground surface elevations in the lower mesa generally range from about +10 to +30 feet. The elevations along Warner Avenue range from +10 to +7 feet. Existing ground surface elevations in the upper mesa (east of the lower mesa) generally range from about +30 to �C +60 feet, with a high point at about +75 feet at the location of a former artillery foundation. The Huntington Mesa is located on the easterly end of the site from the Edwards Thumb parcel to Pacific Coast Highway. The elevation at the foot of the bluffs along the length of the mesa is typically at +0.0 or slightly lower. The Huntington Mesa hereafter is described in terms of southern and northern halves to distinguish features and uses. On the northern part of the mesa the elevation at the edge of the bluff is typically +60 feet and rises to a high point of +74.3 feet east of an oil field power plant. The bluffs typically have a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope. In a few locations the slopes are near vertical. On the south side of the Huntington Mesa, the elevation at the edge of the bluff is typically +30 feet and the high point is about +38.7 feet near the intersection of Seapointe Avenue and Palm Avenue. The slope of the bluffs typically range from 1.5:1.0 to 3.5:1.0, in a few locations the slopes are near vertical. A narrow ravine is a predominant feature cutting the bluff just west of the intersection of Seapointe Avenue and Cherry Hill Drive. C-1 6222D-"2 LEGEND MARINE/TIDAL INFLUENCE Huntington Central Park PRIMARY DRAINAGE COURSES Masonary wall—I! ` SEASONAL POND `-- Springdale 0 Edwards Thumb Pump Station MWD TIDE GATE NArea <: • Huntington �a.,,•w.•�' Beach Mesa FLAP GATE `p,� .�; :•_'>< rV ,. 1 �� �� _T-'��c.,'�'+'•�,':^r�.��•'� �. 7hrat Farm EARTHEN BERM •�--�� r Waste Hand lina Site BLUFF FACE �-T Bolsa Chica v Bolsa Chica Lowland 4°. Mesa— East Garden Grove .F. Shell Gas MWD AREA / Upper Bench A / Wintersbure Flood k�;' Plant No. i Ch Control annel .. N Chy►nel COO South Bolsa Tank Farm Channel Lowland Pocket Moot`Soto ——— // Bolsa Chica Mesa— Lower Bench Bolsa Chica DFG Cell bite Ecological Reserve Eucalyotus GrovesJF _ I :�iiri::��r:ti:c?�•.,,t< **Huntington � H n i u tin on SeacliR Bt .. :R..aaa...i ! Hela �• Da � � f•)• -r`ia.1" � Country Club Bd a S Outer�Bolsa Ba lillllll w • w I111 Whipstock I ells a t+ecne Co.><H'd'n Prarie Cant aa�s..r Inner Bolsa Bay Bolsa Chica State Brach � i / I Bolsa ChicaStudy Area Boundary _--_�--�_--� FEET BOLSA CHICA AREA 0 o Sao tatoo EXISTING FEATURES Source: Boles,Chica Local Coastal Program by Florian Martinez Associates FIGURE C-1 we .40 .11111111 WK 1m oft 41111111 "Ill 1400 so (so MW M iiiiiiiii M M The EGGW separates the MWD property and the Bolsa Pocket from the Lowlands. The channel levee is typically +10.0 feet high along its length through the site and empties through one-way flapper gates into Outer Bolsa Bay. Outer Bolsa Bay is northwest of the Bolsa Chica Lowlands and is recharged by tidal flow from Huntington Harbour. Southeast of Outer Bolsa Bay is Inner Bolsa Bay which is a muted tidal area. Freeman Creek traverses southwest from the end of Springdale Street to the north berm of Inner Bolsa Bay just east of Rabbit Island. To the southwest of the Inner and Outer Bolsa Bays is Pacific Coast Highway which maintains an elevation of +5.7 feet to +14.6 feet. The highway separates the site from Bolsa Chica State Beach which is a gently sloping sandy beach typically 200 feet in width but narrowing to 100 feet near the Huntington Mesa. Parking lots and public facilities occupy the most landward �. 50 feet of the beach. rC.1.2 Stratigraphy Throughout the Pleistocene geologic time period, sands, silts, clays, and occasionally gravels were deposited throughout the area by stream, nearshore and offshore depositional processes. Consolidation occurred in the late Pleistocene period with continued deposition. Tectonic forces including those associated with the Newport-Inglewood Zone of Deformation resulted in uplift along the zone. These sediments are exposed as the Bolsa Chica and Huntington Mesas. As a result of this uplift, the deposition of additional sediment was dramatically reduced and soils began to form. The Bolsa Chica Mesa has a thick clay rich pedogenic soil believed to be more than 100,000 years old (Woodward-Clyde, 1987) after which no sedimentation has occurred. During the last Pleistocene time (about 120,000 to 10,000 years before present), the Santa Ana River, the primary drainage course for the San Bernardino Mountains and much of Orange County, has shifted its discharge point between Huntington Beach and Newport Mesa. During this time the river cut deep canyons into the Pleistocene sediments at Bolsa Chica and the modern Santa Ana River in response to the lower sea levels that were present during the glacial epoch. In the early Holocene geologic period (circa 10,000 years before present), following the latest glacial episode, the sea level rose and the ancient river backfilled the canyons. The Bolsa aquifer, 60 to 100 feet below mean sea level (MSL), is comprised of sand and gravel sediments deposited in the bottom of an ancient canyon(the Bolsa Gap) by the ancient Santa Ana River. A period of low energy deposition followed. Intertidal flats and lagoon environments developed where discontinuous layers of silts, organic and inorganic clays, and occasional peat deposited. Lenses of fine sand were contributed to the sedimentation by tidal channels and local streams. These combined layers are as much as 25 feet thick and are interfmgered seaward with coarser beach sand. The near surface soils are about 30 to 35 feet thick and predominantly consist of discontinuous lenses of fine sands, silts and clays that appear to be of a more recent cycle of fluvial dominated deposition. C-3 An approximately 1 to 8 foot: thick surface layer of soft organic clays, loose to medium sands and silt, and local peat is typical of the present intertidal and tidid flat sedimentation in the lowlands. C.1.3 Tectonic Setting The Bolsa Chica area lies over the northwestern nose of the Huntington Beach anticline and associated oil field. Both the anticline and the Bolsa Chica area am traversed by the northwest trending Newport-Inglewood Zone of Deformation. The North Branch Fault is the primary fault trace treading through the project situ:. The Newport-Inglewood Zane of Deformation is a zone of discontinuous faults, folds, and topographic highs that extends southeasterly across the Los Angeles Basin from northwest of Inglewood to the area of Newport Beach. This zone overlies a deep seated right lateral-strike slip fault that has been active for the past 5 to 6 million years, which has more or less continually offset and distorted the overlying Pliocene and Pleistocene r sediments as they have filled the Us Angeles Basin. In the vicinity of the project site, the Newport-Inglewood Zone of deformation is thought to be comprisu:d of three faults: the North Branch fault, the South Branch fault, and the Bolsa Fairview faults. It is currently believed that the North Branch fault is the primarl, and active fault within the zone. The South Branch and the Bolsa Fairview faults are potentially active. w n The sediments on either side of the North Branch fault have been slowly displaced. Horizontal displacement of the older and deeper Miocene units has been evaluated by WCC, 1991 to be offset about 3 to 4 km while Fisher and Mills, 1991 indicate that an average of 7 km of right lateral displacement has occurred since early Pliocene time. Younger units show progressively less displacement and the most recent tidal deposits show little or no displacement. C.1.4 Soils A subsurface exploratory program was undertaken by Woodward-Clyde Consultants in 1987 to characterize the lowland and Bolsa Chica Mesa. The subsurface soils in the lowland area consist of alluvial deposits comprised of highly interbedded layers and lenses of silt, clay, and sand interbedded with local organic material. Table C-1 provides a generalized. soil profile for the lowland based on 80 borings to as deep as 75 feet, and Table C-2 provides soil properties information. r The subsurface soils beneath the Dolsa Chica Mesa consist of ,alluvial, marine, and locally ae olian deposits comprised of highly interbedded layers and lenses of silt, clay, and sand. Figure C-2 presents strata of ten mesa soil borings. Since the suxfiments are older than those found in the lowland, they are of a more stiff and dense consistency and are less compressible than those in the upper 30 feet of the lowland alluvium. The friction angle of the sands is estimated to range from 34" to 45". The cohesion of the clayey soils, from limited testing, ranges from 1,000 to 8,000 psf; and the soils range from low to high plasticity (WCC 1987). C-4 Table C-1 GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE OF LOWLAND SOILS Approximate Level Range Elevation Stratum (Feet) 1 +2 to -8 Very Soft to soft organic and inorganic cohesive soils, interbedded with loose to medium dense silty sand and sandy silt. 2 -8 to -35 Loose to medium dense silty sand and sandy silt with occasional layers (2 to 3 feet thick) of silty to sandy clay and clayey silt. 3 -35 to -60 Medium stiff to very stiff inorganic and occasionally organic cohesive soils (silty clay and clayey silt of high plasticity and of low to moderate compressibility), interbedded with dense to very dense silty sand, sandy silt, and gravelly sand. 4 Below -60 Very dense gravelly sand, with occasional lenses of very stiff to hard silty clay. Source: wcc, 1987 Table C-2 GENERALIZATION OF PROPERTIES OF LOWLANDS SOILS Effective Cohesion Unit Level Soil Type Friction Weight (��s) ( � (PCF) 1 Silty Sandy and Sandy Silt 28 to 34 115 to 125 1 Organic and Inorganic Clayey Soils 200 to 500 90 to 115 2 Silty Sand and Sandy Silt 28 to 34 115 to 125 3 Organic and Inorganic Clayey Soils 1,000 to 115 to 125 3,000 3 Silty Sand and Sandy Silt 35 to 43 1 1 125 to 135 4 Gravelly Sand and Silty Sand 37 to 45 125 to 135 Source: WCC, 1987 C-5 6222C-"2 SECTION K-K' K LOOKING NORTH K' +60 +so B-175 B-186A +50 - 5 B-184 B-189 1 +80 B-414 +40 +40 +30 +30 +20 +20 B-104 B-209 +10 6!B-169 1 + +10 m Li �. m 0 0 M m rn -to a: -10 C m E -20 -20 n °` -3o -30 p -40 ♦• i �� -40 :. , ca • _��' -50 • A- -60 Li Li e -70 � .70 y0 I LEGEND p Ground Water Level In the Lowland Varies 11 Sand, Silty Sand and Clayey Sand from-1.0 to -8.0 ft. In the Fall and from -0.5 to -4.0 ft. in the Spring (reference section 4.4) aj Sandy (nonplastk) SIR pp FEET NOTE: Bodnfocatlon eho ad onto the Section K-K' SECTION K-K OT�0 ® Organic and Inorganic Clay and clayey Sill BOLSA CHICA MESA SOIL STRATA Source: WWC,1987 FIGURE C-2 i The Huntington Mesa would be expected to have similar soil strata and composition as the Bolsa Chica Mesa. At the sand bar southwest of Pacific Coast Highway, soils borings indicated that the subsurface consisted mainly of sand and silty sand with local thin silty clay layers or lenses. Above elevation -20 feet, the sandy soils are generally medium dense with occasional loose zones. The sands below elevation -20 feet are generally dense to very dense and were observed to the depth of the -75 foot borings. The MWD parcel consists of alluvial deposits similar to those described for the lowland area. P � C.1.5 Faulting and Seismicity Southern California is seismically active and the Newport-Inglewood Zone of Deformation is one of several active regional faults (Ziony 1985). Displacement on the southern portion of the zone produced the 1933 Long Beach Earthquake, Richter magnitude M 6.3. The North Branch Fault was found in the site in exploration trenches and slope exposures excavated by Woodward-Clyde Consultants (WCC, 1984a). The fault zone was found to be approximately 10 feet wide in the Pleistocene sediments that form the Bolsa Chica Mesa, and up to 80 feet wide in the Pleistocene sediments that form the Huntington Mesa. In the lowland, the North Branch Fault widens into a shatter zone up to about 700 feet wide in the Pleistocene zone (Hazenbush and Allen, 1958). It is believed that the North Branch fault of the Newport-Inglewood Zone of Deformation is still active and that it could produce a moderate earthquake with possible accompanying surface rupture. However, the Bolsa Fairview and the South Branch of the Newport-Inglewood Zone of Deformation, do not appear to be Holocene faults capable of surface rupture in the project area (WCC 1984a and 1984b). In accordance with the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act of 1972 (Hart, 1989), the California Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) defines faults along which special geological studies must be done to investigate the hazard of primary surface rupture and creep-type rupture. The evaluation of a given site with regard to the potential hazard of surface fault rupture is based extensively on the concepts of recency and recurrence of faulting along existing faults. DMG Note 49 states: "...faults of known historic activity during the last 200 years, as a class have a greater probability for future activity than faults classified as Holocene age (last 11,000 years) and a much greater probability of future activity than faults classified as Quaternary age (last 2 million years)." The act defines an active fault as one which has had surface displacement during Holocene time, and a potentially active fault is one which has had surface displacement during Quaternary time. Pursuant to the request of the DMG, the fault zone across the site was investigated as a preliminary evaluation of surface faulting at the site for planning purposes, and served as additional input to the DMG during their re-evaluation of the entire Newport-Inglewood fault, in part for Aquist-Priolo zoning purposes. As a result of WCC efforts, in 1986 the DMG published a revised edition of the Seal Beach Alquist-Priolo Quadrangle map. The revised map I identifies a special studies zone only along the North Branch fault. C-7 i� The geological investigations to comply with the Alquist Priolo Spmial Studies gone Act and to address the surface fault rupture hazard at the site were completed by WCC (1987a and 1991). Those investigations includel a series of complementary investigative to-.hniques that were used together to refine the substuucture location of faults and access their recent movement. Deep geologic structure was investigated through the interpretation of oil well electric logs. Structure in the 100- to 600-foot deep interval was investigated by marine and terrestrial +� geophysical profiles (acoustic reflection). The near surface zone was investigated by borings, cone penetration tests, and trenches. In addition, previous hiformation was used from excavations, lineaments from aerial photos, and information from a subsurface structural map 'I prepared by PIC, 1986. From the interpretation of this data it was concluded (refer to Figure C-3 compiled from reports N%ICC, 1987a and 1991): ► The highest potential for surface fault rupture is on the North Branch fault of the ' Newport-Inglewood Zone of Deformation. The projected ,surfaces traces are shown in Figure C-3. ' ► In the western portion of the lowland, the fault is observed from aerial photography located just southeast of the Bolsa Chica Mesa, with a relatively narrow, nearly vertical fault beneath this lineament. ► Across the Bolsa Chi-m Me L the fault trace is relatively straight and nano. ► Several minor (splay) faults found north of the main trace Of the North Branch fault on Bolsa Chica Mesa are not judged significant surface rupture hazards since they either do not show displacement in the near surface stratigraphy of the soil profile or show very limited displacement at depth. ► Future surface fault rupture in the lowland will most likely occur on the two en echelon P Y main traces of the North Branch fault (fault traces Me and Mw). The Mw fault trace probably projects to or near the ground surface in the lowlands northwest of Freeman Creek. The bifurcation of Mw fault trace southeast of Freeman Creek has significantly less displacement potential. Northwest of the oil well row 90, the Me fault does not appear to reach the surface and does not present a surface fault rupture hazard. ► Fault 0, a south dipping splay fault located northeast of Fault Mw, represents a potential surface rupture hazard. Faults P and R located on the souit.h side of the main Mw fault trace are also believed to represent potential surface rupture hazards. C.1.6 Tsunamis Tsunamis are discussed in Appendix E. C-8 ow wo An 6222E-IMI LEGEND APPROXIMATE OR INTERPRETED LOCATION OF FAULT QUERIED WHERE FAULTS EXISTENCE IS L .� QUESTIONABLE LIMITS OF BUILDING SET-BACK ZONE EDWARD3 `. k\ :; THUMB AREA%, `.!RUNTINGION MESA BO loop 4� �? 1 LOWLANDS _ h;� for,0- + ��, A \ (/. iq ,:'t P �J, .,.. r• ,ram. Al'+� .� ,.` Mw!•! 1s' �.c-•yam 1, . . Vpl s i `P /r ��'�' �cP / �\ OIL It .► J Mw (�: s SET BACK ZONE �c (' ,\:J�`1 ^ +' �:b.` f ;,r''• NOT ESTABLISHED 6�= EAST OF FREEMAN"s' CREEK N. FEET 00 r 0 no 1000 BOLSA CHICA SURFACE FAULT MAP Source: WCC 1989&1991 reports FIGURE C-3 I C.1.7 Liquefaction Liquefaction is a process by which water-saturated sand and/or silty sediments lose strength and may fail during strong shaking from an earthquake or other mechanical means. Liquefaction- related ground failures damaged parts of Compton, Huntington Bench, and Long Beach during the 1933 Long Beach earthquake of Magnitude 6.3 (Barrows, 1974). The epicenter of this earthquake was located offshore near-Newport Beach. Specifically,a liquefaction-related ground failure caused slumping and cracking along the former Bolsa Bay causeway which was located near the existing tidal gate at the, end of the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel (Figure C-4). The types of ground failure assockited with liquefaction include lateral spread, flow failure, ground settlement, and loss of bearing strength. Lateral spreads are caused by lateral displacement of a surficial block of sediment over a subsurface layer that undergoes liquefaction. This can happen on slopes greater than 0.3° as gravity and inertial forces moving the overlying i mass down slope. This can severely damage utilities or structures with shallow foundations. Flow failure is comprised of large downhill displacements of the liquified soil and/or blocks of material on top flowing down hill when the slope exceeds Y. J Ground settlements occur if liquefaction occurs at depth and lateral displacement is constrained by slope or surrounding strictures such as a cofferdam or marine cut off wall. The ground surface may deform over a liquefied zone which provides support for the overlying strata. This is a common type of failure. Loss of bearing strength will allow foundations to settle and if it is differential there can be tipping. Underground structures with positive buoyancy such as pipelines and tanks can potentially float up through the liquified medium. Liquefaction susceptibility is a function of the relative density, depth, and particle size of the sediment and the depth to ground water, including perched ground water. Perched groundwater refers to unconfined ground water s(;parated from an underlying main body of ground water by an unsaturated zone. The criteria in Table C-3 are applicable to liquefaction susceptibility with respect to groundwater (Youd and Perkins, 1978). C-10 6222E_1v91 PO Damage to causeway across Bolsa Bay northwest of Huntington Beach as a result of the 1933 Long Beach earthquake. Slumping and cracking of the road were probably due to liquefaction of the underlying fill orthe Holocene sediment of Bolsa Bay. Gun Club seen in background. (Photograph from the City of Long Beach Public Library Historical Collection.) BOLSA BAY CAUSEWAY Source: Ziony, 1985 FIGURE C-4 C-11 Table C-3 GROUNDWA17ER DEPTH VS. LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL Groundwater Depth Maximum Possible Susceptibility < 10 feet Very High 10 to 30 fe ct High 30 to 50 feet Low >50 feet Very Low Source: Youd and Perkins, 1978 y In general, analyses of historical occurrences of liquefaction indicate that the more recently a sediment has been deposited., the more likely it is to be susceptible to liquefaction and that certain types of deposits, such as river-channels and flood-plain deposits, are more susceptible to liquefaction than other dq osits or other deposits such as alluvial fan deposits (Youd and Perkins, 1978). Liquefaction susceptibility dixreases as the depth of water incn,.3ses because the saturated I� sediments tend to be older and more compact and to have increased density and normal stress , (Youd and Perkins, 1978). The standard penetration test (SPT) is commonly used by engineers as an index to show how densely spaced the sediment is. For a given particle size distribution, the more loosely the packed the sed anent, the lower the penetrometer resistance and the more likely the sediment is to liquify during earthquake shaking. C.1.8 Site Investiglttions for Liciuefaction I The potential for liquefaction in the Bolsa Gap has been thoroughly investigated. The most recent report concerning this is a geote:chnical investigation as reported by The Earth Technology Corporation (TETC, 1990). Other reports concerning this ainm from which data was incorporated into the recent TBTC rx:port were done by Woodwani-Clyde Consultants (WCC, 1983, 1987a, 1987b, and 1987c)and by TETC (TETC, 1988, 1989a, 1989b, and 1990). These reports cover the site excerpt for the Edwards Thumbs lowland area which was covered in a supplemental report by TETC, 1990. , 1� The recent TETC, 1990 report established the following parameters and methods for their analyses: Standard Penetration Test (SP'1) blow count data was evaluatexi for liquefaction potential ` using a method by Seed and Idriss (1971, 1982). C-12 ,`' ► Based on probablistic seismic hazard analysis (WCC, 1983) estimated a peak horizontal acceleration of 0.25 g associated with a Magnitude 7 earthquake. This ground motion was estimated to have a return period of 200 years corresponding to a probability of not being exceeded of about 60 percent (which agrees with the design criteria for public schools). ► Cone penetration test (CPT) data were also used for liquefaction evaluation using the same method by converting CPT data to SPT blow counts. This was done with a correlation between CPT and SPT field data (Douglas et al., 1981, Martin et al., 1991). ► The water table was assumed to be -1.0 foot mean sea level (MSL) while the existing ground surface at the site averaged at 0 foot MSL. ► The factors of safety of 1.0 was used for settlement calculations and 1.25 for evaluation of surface manifestations. The liquefaction analyses by TETC concluded that the top 30 to 35 feet of the surface contains potentially liquefiable strata. Many of these strata would be expected to reach the point of liquefaction during the design earthquake, resulting in settlement and surface manifestation effects. Tables C-4 and C-5 (TETC, 1990) show the calculated post-liquefaction settlement and the potential for surface manifestation for the existing condition with a conservative water table elevation of -1 foot MSL and with a theoretical 5 feet of fill used for future construction of building pads, roadways, etc. The estimated post liquefaction settlement ranged from 2 to 5 inches, while the placement of fill did not reduce surface settlement appreciably. The potential for liquefaction may be greater than estimated by The Earth Technology report if the magnitude of the earthquake is higher and results in a larger peak horizontal ground acceleration. This may be the case if a method using deterministic results is used instead of the probablistic seismic hazard analysis used by TETC. ZGI as part of their limited analysis, calculated the maximum probable event (MPE) for selected faults using the slip rate method, as described by Joyner and Fumal (1985) using a 100 year return period and slip rates obtained from Wnouski (1986). A MPE is defined as an earthquake with a 100-year recurrence interval which is associated with a 10 percent exceedance probability for a 50-year period, and is the standard used for seismicity evaluation for non-critical �I structures. The MPE values derived from the slip rate method were used in the attenuation equation of Joyner and Fumal (1985) to obtain estimated on site Peak Horizontal Ground Acceleration (PHGA) values associated with the MPEs on the selected faults. The Repeatable High Ground Acceleration (RHGA) values were obtained using the method of Ploessel and Blossom (1974). MPE values are given in Moment Magnitude (Mw) and PHSA and RHGA values are given as a fraction of gravity (g). The magnitudes of MPE for selected faults and the estimates of the on-site PHGA and RHGA are presented in Table C-6 �, C-13 Table C-4 RESULTS OF LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION FOR EM STING CONDITION (NO FILL) Depth of Ground Improvement Required (ft) CPT Settlement �;surface To Reduce To Mitigate Maximum Sounding/ hes Manifestation Settlement Surface of Borehole (inc2 ) Cfes/No) to 2 inches Manifestation Columns No. 1 3 4 5 4 and 5 CPT-10 3.0 Yes 16 - 13 16 I' CPT-12 4.3 Yes 20 8 20 CPT-14 6.2 Yes 27 - 15 27 CPT-16 4.2 Yes 15 12 15 CPT-20 3.5 Yes 17 10 17 CPT-21 3.8 Yes 16 12 16 CPT-22 3.1 Yes 14 13 14 CPT-23 2.6 Yes 12 12 12 CPT-24 5.8 Yes 23 13 23 C-236 4.5 Yes 16 12 16 C-237 3.7 Yes 14 10 14 C-238 3.5 Yes 18 8 18 C-239 4.0 Yes 17 14 17 C-240 5.6 Yes 29 - 15 29 B-241 3.5 No 8 0 8 B-242 3.9 No 1 17 - 0 1 17 Source: TETC, 1991 C-14 Table C-5 RESULTS OF LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION FOR FILL HEIGHT OF 5 FEET Depth of Ground Improvement Required (ft) CPT To Reduce To Mitigate Maximum Sounding/ Settlement Surface Settlement Surface of Borehole (inches) Manif3 tation to 2 inches Manifestation Columns No. 1 4 5 4 and 5 CPT-10 2.2 Yes 10 10 10 CPT-12 3.7 Yes 18 9 18 CPT-14 5.4 Yes 27 11 27 CPT-16 3.8 Yes 14 9 14 CPT-20 2.9 No 15 0 15 ' CPT-21 3.5 Yes 15 9 15 CPT-22 2.7 No 14 0 14 CPT-23 2.4 Yes 12 9 12 CPT-24 5.2 Yes 21 11 21 C-236 3.7 Yes 15 9 15 C-237 3.2 Yes 13 8 13 C-238 2.8 No 17 0 17 C-239 3.7 Yes 16 9 16 C-240 5.0 Yes 29 11 29 B-241 3.0 No 5 0 5 B-242 3.3 No 1 17 0 17 Source: TETC, 1991 C-15 l� Table C-6 1 GROUND ACCEUERATION OF ASSOCIATED FAULTS I� I Moment Distance of 1 Fault Magnitude Site PHGA (g) RHGA (g) (Mw) (Km) Elsmore/Wlntti 6.10 28.0 0.08 0.05 er ; Newport- 6.30 0.0 0.38 0.25 Inglewood Raymond 4.00 44.0 0..02 0.02 San Andreas 7.30 80.5 0..04 0.04 San Jacinto 6.60 79.5 0..03 0.03 Source: Zaiser Geotec6n:ical, Inic., 1992 C-16 �1 Based on the maximum probable earthquake magnitudes and distances to the site from these faults, the most significant seismic event likely to affect the site would be an earthquake of moment magnitude 6.3 on the active Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone. Such an event would be capable of not only causing ground rupture, but also generating a Peak Horizontal Ground Acceleration (PHGA)of 0.38 g, and a Repeatable High Ground Acceleration of(RHGA)0.25 g. [It should be noted that the 1933 Long Beach M6.3 event did not cause surface rupture.] Referenced reports reviewed for this project have used a lower PHGA for the analysis of liquefaction and seismicity. The value for the PHGA cited in the reference reports (TETC, 1990; WCC, 1983; and WCC, 1987) has been 0.25 g as opposed to 0.38 g. The two RHGA factors developed represent a difference of opinion among experts. Resolution of this issue, including what factor to use in project design, will be made by the California Division of Mines and Geology. C.1.9 Subsidence Ground subsidence can be defined as the gradual changes in elevation of land surface which is measured in total subsidence or as a rate in inches per year. Common causes for subsidence are: 1) withdrawal of oil, gas or water from underlying formations, 2) decomposition of buried organics, 3) increased consolidation of underlying poorly consolidated material from seismic activity, 4) increased consolidation of underlying poorly consolidated material by construction of heavy man-made structures (i.e., tall tanks, buildings, etc.) or very large storage piles, and 5) tectonic consolidation. Local subsidence has been noted in the Huntington Beach area by the U.S. Geological Survey (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), and the Orange County Environmental Management (1987). An investigation of the site was conducted to determine a basic understanding of the nature of local subsidence (WCC, 1984c). This investigation reviewed the following reports: 1) Bechtel Corporation (1967), 2) California Division of Oil and Gas (CDOG, 1973), 3) Leighton-Yen (1974), 4) Morton and others (1976), and Lawmaster (1980). After local oil production began in 1920, a subsidence bowl developed at the intersection of Golden West Street and Pacific Coast Highway which dropped an estimated 5 feet during the following 53 years (Morton and others, 1976). However, CDOG, 1973 indicated this was only 3 feet for the same period. Water floodingof the oil producing zone was initiated and continued henceforth from 1959, after P g which the rate of subsidence in the bowl reduced to a rate of 0.15 feet/year for the period from 1955 to 1968, and to 0.05 feet/year from 1968 to 1972 (CDOG, 1973). From the period of 1976 to 1982 the rate of subsidence in this area was 0.09 feet/year according to a survey done by the Orange County Environmental Management Agency (OCEMA) in 1981. �. C-17 i Based on the OCEMA report and additional data, WCC estimated the amount and rate of local subsidence in Bolsa Chica. Figure C-5 maps the average annual subsidence rate from 1976-1982 and the WCC, 1984d findings are discussed as follows: (� ► The average annual hate of .subsidence for the period from 1976 through 1982 in the Lowlands ranged from 0.005 to 0.035. ► The subsidence gradient across the Bolsa Chica area increases from northwest to south east. In other words., the gradient increases towards the center of the depression bowl at Pacific Coast Highway and Golden West Street. ► In the area north of the MIND Parcel the subsidence rate greater than the local site gradient was attributed to local water well withdrawal and oxidation of suspected shallow peat deposits (Morton and others, 1976). ► The averse annual rate of subsidence was 0.02 feet/ ear ear for the 6- period. g Y Y ► It was recommended to remove significant peat deposits and/or organic clays within 10 feet of the surface: in areas to be improved. In those improvement areas where the peat and/or organic clays are duper, (soil boring B-18 from WCC, 1983) it was recommended that foundation piles be placed below the organic layers. Subsequently, WCC in 1986 evaluated additional survey data from OCEMA from 1982 through 1985 (Figure C-6) and found that: ► The bulleted items above for the period 1976 through 19:32 were essentially the same except for minute differences in elevation caused by different numerical rounding procedure. ► The average rate of subsidence decreased substantially in the:MWD parcel and decreased t� slightly on the rest of the site for the period of 1976 through 1982. ► For the period of 1982 through 1985, the average annual nite of subsidence ranged from a slight rise in elevation at the MWD parcel to as much as 0.025 ft/yr of subsidence in the vicinity of the Huntington Mesa. This report concluded that based on the average rate of subsidence from 1982 through 1985 and the anticipated yearly sea level rise, the apparent rise of mean ;sea level at the site will be 0.015 ft/yr (0.75 feet in 50 years). Bechtel, 1967 mentions that: tectonic settlement involves a long-germ subsidence of the entire basin area surrounding the site as -well as the site proper and is anticipated to be 0.01 ft/yr. Because of the substantial change in tectonic theory since this report was written, there would be no appreciable change in tectonic settlement during the life of the project. C-18 i 6222C-;2/P i EXPLANATION .12-?O ® Approximate location of bench mark. - IJ-50-61 Bench mark identification. .0033 Average annual subsidence rate in feet -018 Z Contour fine of equal subsidence rate. AID-81-69 I. \J \ 1-34 w' p .043 ir -w GRAHAM 0 .,�. .035 • o o, / N { s Yi= u ' ID-95-71 \ a 8 o0 - m H82041 .015 E GOO _ ' � :•, `,� ) -- ;-� '{ l is �.� .- �"-'. �% /', '-. ,/•' : 1 �f' �j o �ll�•,.c y '•ice` ID-82-69 �u %j •,, �y� � �. �`. 1023 O� N.� -I{$Z'- �.. ,. .024,' I V371 SIGNAV H- Rp S ' ` I♦Ap1 !' CM O C H:3 _ .. • a • ' , ' � , t � t!�:'"-T'' row +_.ufly;a;.+%�1.•i! •7 1-69 -SMIAL''BOLSA_CQ lO-96 71 SC OCEAN YIEVII �i' ' $ \ 6 � '' •. �� B213-71 �. �rf J. ' HOOL �0 1 •P�� .` a �� ,I .021.0065 DISTFUCTs?c UD111 2 .051 TIDAL IDA -J • .STATE OF CALIF08NQ�� — - 8 IJ� 29�8 t �J69-�1J� - IZp _'— _ -- l '�, - = IJ-50-69 t_ '$3''4 .170� '� _._ — — — '�.1 _.. 0 U ��' AVERAGE ANNUAL SUBSIDENCE RATE �z P 0 500 1000 1976-1982 �urce: WCC, 1984c � C-19/20 FIGURE C-5 .. t6222E-5/92 NOTES r12� HB 157-60 • COY �. ` • � 1. Data source: Orange County E.M.A., County Surveyor's Office. '',.�.� a�'` �P'� •' � ICJ�o 01 D-81.69 -0 001 •' y i -����.r� lq, a -'� �J�j 5.1 1-34 GRAHAM rr7` t r4• G'=Y _- � -0.004 CMM H-14 .0-r. �y`Qo`a, °�gC•�, �� -95 ' -0.W4 `�- , ' �'c =J-co�b�:0' �'ir-, S�o`R j]" ''"� v H6204-71 -D.E. GOODEL =CMM H-13 £ �o•� �\' � \`^ o-- � �- CMM H-6 i •�� i: . - /' \. �H6210 71, ; W.R. GRACE _0.002 t \ 1. _,. 0.002 � ��\. . /I i � ti). 'V•�: -•ins — � ��. \ SIGNAL BOLSA CORPORATION / 1 D 82-69 0,'L' � /" ` \ �,^�•� CM O H 5 a003 o a � !,,��,?``��:HB-210.71 �"' � 8 r�..- ,� �i`S��,a "w�� ''!�✓t��•� _ H B J160 CMM H-4 _i _ �•. - CMM H-7 ,•., .� SIGNAL BOLSA.,•_.. ' ±.-_ 0.010-- •.. 0.0f0 0.012 0.0 a . V371 H B 204 71 _ CORPORATION ;1 ti� �� i �•, CMM H 8 / . ..CMM H 3 a� 1?�✓ �' :�% _ 1 V - . �•,r - -HB 162-69 - r I CMM H-12 ',J SIGNAL BOLSA CORP. LEAS D TO STATE OF CALIF 1 j CMM H-2. �- �_` r _ _ s7 'CMM H-9 �_ `�� - ��� °•: OCEAN VIEW' 1D-96 71 --�-- !;' _ ,� 0.006 4 '__ —__—_^__ HB-211-71 HB213.71 SCHOOL `J ' ao08 DISTRICT -� ' - _ �� ... _ _ --- = _�,�_��� 0..0f0 ���0.021 Q 1 �'..:O=CMM�H•10" - { - _CMM ... �. / -�'l CD CMM H-11 - , ,,_ ESTATE OF CALIFORNIA � 0.013 �s- :. ( ` _ ••``o IJ-43.69 TIDAL2 LOS PATOS RM 2 ,STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1J-50-69 a�1J 28.68 1J 49_s '-1J 29-68 _ - _ _._,,,�_ ...:._._.,.,•:..,,,_:....,._ __•,- am R 62 ...TIDAL 1 -'- 1J 51-69 _ ' ' t'=--=`— _. ._ao13 �;ti_ 1J-30.68 ,t s. ' ; 1J-45-69 • Q ,F0.008 2 ' 0.014 - �Q 0.014 - 0.014 _ _.-..cL: 1 J-48-69=0.009 0 163-4 - -� 0.014 LOS PATOS - O M 4-7� -- —04 o O EXPLANATION NOTES: Average annual subsidence Was calculated / � Approximate location of bench mark. by subtracting the 1982 elevation from 1 the 1985 elevation and dividing by 3 years. FEET 1J 50 61 Bench mark identification.r--�� Negative subsidence indicates a rise of the AVERAGE ANNUAL SUBSIDENCE RATE L/ 0 so0 1000 aoo33 Average annual subsidence rate in feet. ground surface. i 1982 TO 1985 am-- Contour line of equal subsidence rate. urce: WCC, 1986 FIGURE C-6 C-21/22 ----- i ------------ i ' C-1.10 Hazardous Materials Conditions The potential presence of hazardous materials on the Bolsa Chica property is generally related to past and present oil production activities. Recreational use of the ponds for bird hunting has not occurred for 40 years. Portions of the site were also briefly used for military purposes as a battery during World War H. All that remains of this military activity are concrete foundations. Most of the site is underlain by producing zones of the Huntington Beach oilfield. The oilfield is composed of many oil zones, separated vertically from each other by impermeable strata, and horizontally by faulting and folding. The oilfield has been under petroleum production since its ' discovery in the early 1920's. Aerial photos from 1927 reveal numerous oil derricks, and several storage tanks in the Edwards Thumb area and along the Huntington Mesa. In the 1930s, a network of roads was built throughout the wetlands east of Freeman Creek. Pipelines and sumps also appear on aerial photographs of this area from the 1930's. By 1949, a system of levees, dikes, culverts, and more roads were built over the tidelands and approximately 214 oil wells were placed in Bolsa Chica. Limited oil field activity occurred on the Bolsa Chica Mesa (SDA, 1991). Other energy-related facilities on the site include water injection wells (used to reduce ground subsidence caused by oil withdrawal), product and water pipelines, product storage tank farms, a drilling mud disposal site, a gas processing plant, and other facilities. Shell Western Exploration and Production, Inc. (SWEPI) has been the current oil field operator since 1986 and ' has not reported any spills during this period. Chevron has inactive wells located in the Edwards Thumb parcel and to the southeast. Oilfield operations are regulated by the California Department of Conservation Division of Oil and Gas (CDOG), and the City of Huntington Beach. Bolsa Chica, has been the subject of the geotechnical and site assessment reports concerning hazardous materials described below. The areas covered by these reports are shown on Figure C-7. ► Woodward-Clyde Consultants (WCC, 1987) In 1986, WCC conducted a geotechnical investigation on the Bolsa Chica Mesa and the Lowlands. During drilling, organic vapor analyzer (OVA) readings of over 500 ppm were measured in the headspace of soil samples found in the northern part of the Lowlands. No OVA readings exceeding 100 ppm were measured in the Bolsa Chica Mesa. Without chemical analysis of the soil, the source of the OVA readings was not assessed. Organic vapors can originate from decomposing peat or organic days, or from Edistilled petroleum products (i.e., gasoline, solvent, oil and grease). ' C-23 6222E-12/91 LEGEND WOODWARD CLYDE CONSULTANTS(1987) © THE EARTH TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION(1988) .:. ; �.: ® Y !> .': THE EARTH TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION(1990) SCHAEFER DIXON ASSOCIATES,INC.(1991) ,J ;. A. 7. _ i 1 1 � i. .5�,,,� �"),:y:: !' Wes• ..1 '�� ��� — c z� µ, .J. G + r 4. r -3 ssS.: r � -Q— N J - L•i'- T i v 4r Ni�Y .Y 1' I' _ tt� ao n s.. • > yh....::.........::::........:.::::.. . 1. :::::....:�::� :,.::�: .....,::�.,:.x-:�. ...:.......... ...,...•:...'c\.,:::::.:,s:..;::,ii::::; �Y:`:"i:::':'�:,, r .......... - .- +..,,........n..�::::n:iii;;._+:':w.v::;::i:.iiiiY;<.i:�:�i....... '<:Y,:... � ..-i':n•.:v...... • '• - r,;s::•:•.�..............::.:::::::::::::.:: .. <.fir.Y�.<'tt. ..+::::+.. .:.'h S;'.�,;A.,.I.; _ FEET ' o 800 1800 LOCATIONS OF PREVIOUS HAZARDOUS WASTE INVESTIGATIONS Source: Williamson and Schmid,August 2, 1989 FIGURE C-7 1 ' ► The Earth Technology Corporation (TETC, 1988) TEX in 1988 assessed the origin of the high OVA readings of WCC's 1987 investigation. TETC drilled in six locations and hand augured three coinciding with prior WCC borings to an average depth of 25 feet and 'h foot respectively. Laboratory ' analyses indicated TPH soil concentrations in two locations with levels of 93 ppm and 410 ppm. OVA readings were likely due to naturally occurring methane in soils at levels that are not dangerous, as opposed to repeating a source of by hydrocarbon ' contamination. ' ► The Earth Technology Corporation (TETC, 1990b) In 1990, TETC assessed the MWD parcel and the Bolsa Pocket. The MWD parcel was identified as having been used for agriculture and horseback riding. The Bolsa Pocket had an abandoned petroleum well and two operating ones, with associated sumps removed in the 1960's. Soil samples taken from the area of the two operating wells were reported to contain TPH concentrations from 120 ppm to 7,500 ppm. Pesticide testing for the MWD parcel for the group DDD, DDE and DDT in the soil exhibited concentrations up to 133.6 ppb. TETC concluded that the high TPH level 7 feet below ' ground surface constitutes a hazardous condition, but that the pesticide levels were below the established threshold limit of 1,000 ppb. ► Schaefer Dixon Associates Inc. (SDA 1991). SDA evaluated the Signal Bolsa Property in the Lowlands, and Huntington Mesa for volatile organic compounds. The Bolsa Chica Mesa and Fieldson Property was excluded ' from sampling and testing by SDA. Sampling locations were selected on field observations and interpretation of aerial photographs, for which 85 locations were hand augured and the screening of 300 samples was accomplished using a portable ' photoionization detector (PID). Based on field observations and the field headspace analyses of the soil samples, SDA grouped areas of the site into the following three categories with those of concern and potential concern delineated in Figure C-8: i - Areas of Concern - Soils were visibly oily and/or headspace (measurement of airspace above the soil sample) readings for volatile organics exceeded 50 ppm. ' - Areas of Potential Concern - Soils were not visibly oily; however, a headspace reading above background but less than 50 ppm was measured. - Areas of No Apparent Concern - Soils were not visibly oily and no headspace readings above background were recorded. SDA concluded, that while high headspace values were generally indicative of elevated hydrocarbon content in the soil, no direct correlation could be inferred between the ' C-25 6222E-12/91 LEGEND �. AREAS OF CONCERN ® AREAS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN 1' � {/ .,1 : ti, vim'! _ '. �1'!•.'._, `�_ X. 7. FEET o �o ,� POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS LOCATIONS Source: Schaefer Dixon Associates,Inc. :991 FIGURE C-8 r� r r r r r � r r �■ �■ r r r r r r r r values and actual soil concentrations of volatile hydrocarbon compounds. However, since much of the oily wastes have been there for a very long period of time the volatile ' fraction has most likely volatilized, leaving behind the heavier hydrocarbon and semi- volatile fractions. Based on site observations, SDA also concluded that some surficial contamination is likely associated with each oil well due to pump maintenance, worn ' seals, leaking joints, etc. Similarly, some localized contamination is likely associated with the many miles of product pipelines and valves. Large patches of dried oil a few inches thick were encountered surficially over limited portions of the site from previous ' spills. ' C.1.11 Site Remediation Activity SWEPI initiated environmental assessment and remediation work in 1991 on the following ' locations: a hydrocarbon seep below the Gas Plant on Huntington Mesa, an area of hydrocarbon impacted soil beneath a wet gas pipeline on the Bolsa Chica Mesa, and, four groups of oily open sumps (SDA, 1991). This system was placed in operation in December of 1991. SWEPI recentlyremoved oil sumps and their contents in four locations on the site in compliance P with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). These sumps were located ' at: State Lease Sumps, Three Row Sump, South Bolsa Tank Farm Sumps, and the Gas Plant Sumps. Soil samples collected from the sump berms indicated TPH levels to 2,670 ppm. Organic volatiles levels tested in groundwater samples near these sumps were not above regulatory agency action levels. Additional site assessment work has been required by The Orange County Health Care Agency (SDA, 1991). ' A hydrocarbon seep was discovered in April 1990, along the hillside below the Gas Plant on the Huntington Mesa, originating from condensate from a former plant gas scrubber (SDA. 1991). TPH was measured in the associated soil and groundwater up to 18,000 mg/kg and 100,000 ug/L, respectively (GT, 1991b). These levels are very high, indicating that site remediation is necessary. An associated monitoring well on the Huntington Mesa produced a ' one-inch thick layer of floating product. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board- Santa Ana Region (CRWQCB) is currently regulating clean-up of this spill (SDA, 1991). ' Elevated hydrocarbon concentrations in the soil were identified beneath a wet gas pipeline on the Bolsa Chica Mesa (GT, 1989 and 1991a). In the 1991, SWEPI conducted several phases of assessment and was in the process of installing a vapor extraction remediation system under the auspices of the CRWQCB (SDA, 1991). ' C.2 SELECTED REFERENCES Espanosa, A.F., 1982. "Ml and Mo Determination from Stong Motion Accelerograms, and Expected Intensity Distribution, USGS Professional Paper 1254, p.433-438. C-27 1 Fisher, P.J. and Mills, G.I., 1991. 1 "The Offshore Newport-Inglewood-Rose Canyon Fault Zone, California: Structure, Segmentation and Tectonics, in Environmental Perils in the San Diego Region, San ' Diego Association of Geologists, Patrick L. Abbott and Willuam J. Elliot, Eds. Huang, M.J. et al., 1990. ' "Second Interim Set of CSMIP Processed Strong-Ground Records from the Santa Cruz Mountains (Loma Prieta) Earthquake, of October 17, 1989, CDMG report No. OSMS 90-01, February 1, 1990. ' Huang, M.J. et al., 1990. "Third Interim Set of CSMIP Processed Strong-Ground Rec.ords from the Santa Cruz ' Mountains (Loma Prieta) Earthquake, of October 17, 1989, CDMG report No. OSMS 90-05, August 15, 1990. Porcella, et al., 1982. ' "Strong-Motion Data Recorded in the United States, USGS Professional Paper 1254, p. 289-318. t Porter, 1982. "Data-Processing Procedures for the Main Shock Motions Recorded by the California t Division of Mines and Geology Strong Motion Network", USGS Professional Paper 1254, p407-431. Reichle M.S. et al 1990. ' "Preliminary Analysis of Processed Stong Motion Data from the Lome Prieta ' Earthquake" CDMG Special Publication 104, p.47-58. Seed, et al., 1990. "Preliminary Report on the:Principal Geotechnical Aspects of the Octobe 17, 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquakk", Report No. UCB-EERC-90-05, University of California, Berkeley. Shakal, A.F. and Ragsdale, J.T., 1983. ' Strong-Motion Data.from the Coalinga, California Earthquake and Aftershocks, CDMG Special Publicaion 66, p.321-326. , Shakal, A.F., et al., 1990. "Strong Ground Shaking from the Loma Prieta Earthquake of October 17, 1990, and its Relation to Near Surface Geology in the Oakland Area", CDMG Special Publication 104, p.29-46. C-28 ' w O a s 0 r� �r � � r � rr � r � �r i■r � ■■� � � � rr � 1 APPENDIX F-1 SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES SURVEY OF THE ' BOLSA CHICA PROJECT AREA ' Nepared by: ' Dr. Edith Read CHAMBERS GROUP, INC. 16700 Aston Street Irvine, California 92714 (714) 261-5414 1 OCTOBER 15, 1991 1 ' APPENDIX F-1 - SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES SURVEY OF THE BOLSA CHICA PROJECT AREA TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Pgge INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 i METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 F1-i i ' APPENDIX F-1 j SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES SURVEY OF THE BOLSA CHICA PROTECT AREA INTRODUCTION ' There have been numerous floristic studies of the Bolsa Chica wetlands and surrounding upland habitats (Dillingham, 1971; Shapiro and Associates, 1981; Williamson and Schmid, 1989). Of these studies, the Dillingham study was the most complete because it included sampling of ' representative habitats in the entire project area, whereas the later studies were focused primarily on the wetland and dune habitats. Although the Dillingham study was complete in terms of the habitats investigated, the survey methodology consisted of selected study sites within each habitat that were studied quantitatively. This kind of study in selected areas may not detect rare species, if they are present. Rare plant survey guidelines, recommended by the California Native Plant Society and the California Department of Fish and Game, ask for surveys that thoroughly cover ' the project area and are floristic in nature, rather than focused only on particular species. Additional guidelines specify further details of the methodology, such as conducting the survey at the appropriate time of year to detect the species. To date there has been no systematic survey ' for rare plants that has followed these guidelines. For this reason, Chambers Group, Inc. contracted with Joy Nishida of Nishida Botanical Consulting to conduct a systematic rare plant survey in the project area. Ms. Nishida worked in association with Dr. Edith Read of Chambers Group in defining the project area, developing a list of the species that could potentially occur, and conducting the field work. Table Fl-1 provides a list of rare plant species that are known to occur or potentially occur in the Bolsa Chica project area. This list was developed from a search of the California Natural Diversity Database, the California Native Plant Society's Inventory of Rare and Endangered ' Vascular Plants of California, and prior knowledge of species that are known to occur in coastal southern California habitats in general. ' This report summarizes the methodology and results of the survey. A copy of Ms. Nishida's report to Chambers is provided in Attachment 1. METHODOLOGY ' The surveys were conducted on seven dates from May 12 to June 8, 1991. One additional visit by Dr. Read on October 4, 1991, was conducted in order to check areas of suitable habitat for species that are known to flower in late summer. ' The surveys were conducted by walking the project area along the perimeter as well as transects across the project area. In the marsh areas and Rabbit Island, transects were approximately Fl-1 Table F14 TffitEATENED, ENDANGERED AND SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES THAT POTENTIALLY OCCUR IN THE BOLSA CHICA REGION SpedalCommon Name Federal State CLAPS RED Code Remarks Status Stator Status Aphad n w bUtoldes C2 - 3 ?-?-2 Annual in the goosefoot family. Found along bluffs,coastal sage scrub,coastal strand aphorism& habitats. Not observed in project area. Flowers April-May. Astragalm pynoswchys var.lanosissinuar CI IA - Perennial in the pas family. Historically,found in consul salt marsh habitat in Ventura,Los Ventura marsh milk vetch Angeles,and Orange Counties. Historical collection at *LA Bolsa'. Believed extinct due to loss of habitat. Not observed in project area. Flowers late spring-early summer. He uYi(lw nuaa ii vii.pad-Wi .^i i.'. ........ v'«v:"::y,v.:w:•:-Gi.'i a......:1 .l:gC:" ^.o:.gv :.G uir�uci.riuii.3 Los Angeles sunflower Counties. Believed extinct. Not observed in project area. Flowers August-October. Cordykutthus marldmus up.maridmus FE CE 1 B 2-2-2 Annual in the figwort family. Parasitic association with coastal salt marsh species,especially sP sp Y salt marsh bind's beak a:l:s..::. llistolic:l collection ir.1;.-laa Chic:resion. ":ot obaarved ir.Y.- •i io5. f vwcla 3jii� May-October. Hemizonia austmGs 3 ?-?-3 Annual in the sunflower family. Found in consul grasslands and lowlands. Reported at Solsa qj southern urpluit Chico by Dillingham(1971). Flowers June-September. ►.. N !incur acuttar var.sphaeroca►pus - 4 1-2-2 Perennial in the rush family. Found in moist saline habitats,coastal salt marsh. Fairly spiny rush common at Bolas Chico. Flowers May-June. Federal Status(determined by U.S.Fish and RrlO&Ses e) RED Code FE =Federally listed,eedw*ered. C1 =Designation as endangered is pending. Rarity C2 = Possibly endangered but more information seeded. 1 =Rare but is arfficisntly widespread that potential for unction is C3B =Previously considered as a candidate but taxonomic low at present. validity is in question. 2 =Ocemnvace cootmed to several populations or to one extended VAr - Prvwkms v considered as a candidate but does not annear DOanlati0e. to be threatened at this time. i 3 =uccnrYence limiter!to one or a few bhft restricted popuistlons. " State Stages Endangerment CT =State listed,threatened. I =Not endangered. CC -State fisted,endangered. 2 -Endangered in part of range. 3 =Endangered througboutrange. CLAPS Status IA -Presumed ezdect in California. DstrAwtion 113 =Rare dwottghoat the range of the speties. 1 =Widespread outside California. 3 -Rare in California but common elsewhere. 2 -Rare outside California. 3 =More information needed before assignment to categories 1, 3 =Endemic to Catifornis. 2,or 4. 4 = fired in distribution;does not appear to be threatened at present but most be monitored. � � r� rr rr rr �r rrl �r rr r rr r rr ■r rr r r rr ' 15 meters art. In the dune habitat along Pacific Coast Highway, surveys were conducted in apart. g 8 Y� Y a zig-zag manner twice across the habitat. Ruderal areas, such as along the edges of roads within the Shell property, as well as the dense grasslands on the mesas, were surveyed with a combination of walking and slow driving to search for potential habitat, especially natural clearings or areas with sparser cover by grasses. All plant species encountered during the surveys were noted. Attachment 1 provides lists of the species encountered in each habitat. RESULTS No listed threatened, endangered, or candidate plant species were detected during the surveys, ' although one species on the California Native Plant Society's "watch" list was observed and its occurrence in the marsh has been documented continuously since the Dillingham (1971) study. This species is spiny rush (Juncos acutus var. sphaerocarpus). The "watch" list means that the ' species is presently common from a statewide perspective but its numbers may be declining. At present there are no data available with which to determine whether or not the population of spiny rush at Bolsa Chica is increasing in size, decreasing, or remaining stable. The negative results for the other species listed in Table Fl-1 can be attributed to lack of suitable habitat for some species, and for others the probable effects of the long history of habitat disturbance at Bolsa Chica. For species that are associated with coastal scrub habitat (aphanisma, many-stemmed dudleya, sticky dudleya), it is probable that the coastal scrub habitat in the project area is too densely covered by shrubs to provide a suitable environment for these species. There is an historical collection of the Ventura marsh milk vetch at "La Bolsa", a term that is probably equivalent to "La Bolsa Chica" shown on 1896 and 1902 topographic maps. The collection was next to a railroad siding, which at that time ran parallel to the coast where Pacific 1 Coast Highway exists today. It is likely that intense disturbance of the Bolsa Chica region, including constriction of Pacific Coast Highway, has eliminated this species, as well as the salt marsh bird's beak that was also known to occur at Bolsa Chica in the past. The same is probably true of Los Angeles sunflower, although to our knowledge there have been no collections of this species in the project area. ' In the case of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, there is no suitable habitat for this species in the project area. Last collected in Orange County in 1902 with no specific location data provided (Reveal and Hardham, 1989), this species is believed to be extinct. Historically, this species occurred in sandy areas, particularly on alluvial surfaces in washes and on gradual foothill slopes. Our experience with spineflower species in general indicates that potential habitat for this species at Bolsa Chica would be on the mesas in natural clearings, away from ' dense cover by grasses. Such habitat was not observed during the surveys. F1-3 Southern tatplant was reported b Dillingham (1971) as occurring ni disturbed bare areas such , � Y g as near the tidal gates. This species has not been reported since that time, and no individuals were observed during the surveys. The nearest known populations are to the south, at Upper Newport Bay and on the University of California, Irvine campus. CONCLUSIONS , We conclude from our survey that there are no listed threatened or endangered plant species in , the project area, nor are futun; surveys likely to detect such species. It is possible that marsh restoration could result in suitable habitat for the reintroduction of salt marsh bird's beak, a federal and state listed endangered species. It is also possible that southern tarplant, on List 3 of the California Native Plant Society, may be rediscovered in a fixture survey, although our observations and lack of references to this species since the Dillingham (1971) study would , suggest that it has been extirpated from the area. LITERATURE CITED Dillingham Corporation, 1971. ' An Environmental Evaluation of the Bolsa Chica Area. Tbxee volumes, submitted to Signal Properties, Inc. Reveal, J.L. and C.B. Hardham, 1989. A Revision of the Annual Species of Chorizanthe (Polygonaceae: Erigonoideae). Phytologis 66(2):98--198. Shapiro and Associates, Inc., 1981. Bolsa Chica Vegetation Study. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. Williamson and Schmid, 1989. , Vegetation map for Bolsa Chica. F1-4 , ATTACEMENT 1 ' BOLSA CMCA BIOLOGICAL STUDY By: NLSHIDA BOTANICAL CONSULTING JOY NISHIDA I ' Bolsa Chica Biological Study by Joy Nishida The following is a report on the various plant communities with the plants encountered during the surveys. The lists are not complete ' since the survey was done during the months of May and June 1991. Surveys should be done throughout the year for a more accurate assessment of the vegetation. Surveys were done by traversing the site along the perimeter and running parallel transects. In the marsh areas and Rabbit Island, the transects were done ca. 15 m. apart. Special attention was paid to the areas with saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) for the salt marsh bird's beak (Cordylanthus maritimus) . Though there was suitable habitat for the Cordylanthus maritimus, no plants were ' found. The marsh has been altered and disturbed for a while with the oil pumping activities, and this may have had a detrimental effect on this endangered taxes. rOn the property leased to Shell Oil Company, the narrow roads along the wet areas had plants only on the road edges. Many of the road edges were walked, but later were done by driving at a very slow speeds. If clumps of Distichlis were encountered, inspection would then be done on foot. Since the survey was done during the nesting season of the black-neck stilts, American avocets and terns, walking these roads became somewhat of a challenge. I am glad I was forced to wear a hard hat. A intensive survey was done for the narrow sandy area along Pacific Coast Highway for plants. Since the area was so narrow, the "sand spit was traversed in a zigzag manner by walking south and then going back north. For the ruderal areas, the site was traversed several times on foot, but not with the same intensity as Rabbit Island. 1 1 Ruderal Areas The ruderal areas consist of the areas on the: bluffs above the , marsh lands and the disturbed ecotonal areas between the bluffs and the marsh land. The r.Lon-native grassland is the plant community on the bluffs. The dominant being BrOMUB diandrue; with other common constituents such as Bromu@ rubrens, Lolium MWtiflorum and Avena spps. The area on the bluffs on the north end of the :site have had a lot of disturbance in the past as evidenced by old foundations and sidewalks and the planting of cultivars such asIkoave sp. , Aloe sp. and Eucalyptus sp. There is currently a pole sales yard still on the premises next to a. field of cultivated barley, Hordeum vulaare. , Just down below the bluffs at the north end of the site are the disturbed ecotonal areas between the non-native grassland and the marsh areas. An area where horses are being trained and along the east edge of the site along a housing tract have a lot of pedestrian and bike traffic. These areas had Distichlis spicata and various Aizoaceous plants due to the higher ealt content in the soils, but also had weedy annual forbs as well. Salsola iberica, Melilotus indicus and Brasaica nigra were common to these disturbed ecotonal habitats. The bluffs to the south end: of the site were dominated by the non- native annual grasses, but the annual forb13 were also more plentiful. Besides the forbs mentioned previously, Lactuca serriola, fasciculata, Frodium botrys, Brassica geniculata, Atriplex patula sop. hastata, A=;tea blitoides, Chenopodium berlandier-i var. einuatum, and Z -&= marisn= were locally common in spots. 2 Ruderal Areas - Includes the non-native grasslands (NNG) on the bluffs and disturbed ecotonal areas between the NNG and marsh. Agavaceae Agave sp. (ornamental ) Yucca sp. ( ornamental ) Arecaceae Pinnately compound leaf palms (ornamental ) Cyperaceae Scirpus acutus Liliaceae Aloe sp. ePoaceae Arundo donax Avena barbata Avena fatua Bromus mollis Bromus rubrens Bromus uniloides Cynodon dactylon Distichlis spicats Elymus triticoides Hordeum glaucum Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum Hordeum vulgsre Lolium multiflorum Phalaris minor Polypogon monspeliensis iTyphaceae Typhs latifolia Aizoaceae Carpobrotus edulis Drosanthemum speciosum ' Gasoul crystallinum G. nodiflorum Sesuvium verucosum ' Tetrsbonia tetragonioides Amaranthaceae Amaranthus blitoides Anacardiaceae Schinus terebinthifolius Apiaceae Conium maculatum Foeniculum vulbare 3 i Asteraceae :'lmbrosis psi1ostsch3,a var. californics Bsccharis error:ri Bscchsris olut:inoss Bsccharis pilularis ssp. consanguines Centsures meli tensis- Cirsium vulbare? Conyza csnsdensis Cotuls coronop:ifolia Encelia californica Haplopsppus venetus Helisnthus annuus Hemizonis fssc::culsts Heterothecs grsndiflora Lactuca serriola Malacothrix saxatilis var. tenuifolis , Picris echioides Silybum marianum Sonchus asper Sonchus oleraceus Boraginaceae Heliotropium curassavicum var. oculatum Brassicaceae Brsssics genicc:lsta Brsssics nibra , Descurainis pinnsts Lepidium perfolistum Rsphsnus sativus Cactaceae Opuntis sp. prickly pear Capparaceae Isomeris arbores Caprifoliaceae ' Lonicers japonica Caryophyllaceae Spergulsris rubra Stellsris nitens Chenopodiaceae ' Atriplex californics Atriplex lentiformis ssp. breweri Atriplex patula ssp. hsstats Atriplex semibaccata Bassia h3,ssopi fo1 is Bets vulgaris Chenopodium album Chenopodium berlsndieri var. sinuatum Salsols iberics 4 Convolvulaceae Cresss truxillensis var. vsllicols Euphorbiaceae Eremocsrpus setigerus Fabaceae Astrsgslus trichopodus Lotus purshisnus Melilotus indicus Frankeniaceae Frsnkenis grsndifolis Geraniaceae Erodium botrys Erodium cicutsrium Lamiaceae Msrrubium vulgsre Malvaceae Lsysters sssurgentiflors Mal vs psrvi f1 ors Sids lepross var. hedersces 1 Myoporaceae Myoporum lsetum Msrtaceae Eucalyptus sp. Oleaceae Oles europses Oxalidaceae Oxalis pes-csprse Plantaginaceae Plsntsgo erects Plumbaginaceae Ststice sp. (cultivated escape) Polygonaceae Rumex crispus Salicaceae Ss1 i;r l ssi of epi s Solanaceae Nicotisns glsucs Solsnum dou.,lssii 5 Urticaceae Urtica urens Vitaceae Vitus sp. ( cult. ) 6 �i i Sandy Area The narrow "sand spit" along PCH had the usual sand dune species such as Cakile maritima, Ambrosia chamissonis, Abronia umbellate, Camissonia cheiranthifolia and various Aizoaceous plants. There were also many weedy annuals and some escaped cultivars. A sandy area was also encountered on the center of Rabbit Island. Lynium californicum, Solanum sarraehoides, an annual Frioaonum species, T.inA_ria canadensis var. texan$ and Amminkia suectabilis were more of the unusual plants on Rabbit Island not found along the PCH "sand spit" . r r r r r r r 7 r Sandi• areas along PCH and on Rabbit Island Arecaceae Washingtonis type palms ( ornamental ) Juncaceae Juncus scutus var. sphserocsrpus Poaceae Avens bsrbsts Bromus disndrus Bromus mollis Bromus rubrens Cortsderis sellosns Cynodon dsctylon Distichlis spicats Elymus triticoYdes Hordeum glsucum Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum Polypogon monspeliensis Aizoaceae Csrpobrotus sequilsteris C. edulis Gssoul crystsllinum G. nodiflorum ' Tetrsgonis tetz•sgonioides Anacardiaceae Schinus terebinthifolius Apiaceae Foeniculum vulgare Asteraceae Ambrosia chsmis-sonis ' Ambrosia psilostschys var. cslifornics Bscchsris emoryi Bscchsris glutinoss Bscchsris pilulsris ssp. consanguinea ' Centsures melitensis Hsplopsppus venetus Heterothecs gra.ndiflors Hypochoeris glabrs Mslscothrix ssxstilis var. tenuifolia Osteospermum ecklonis Sonchus olersceus Ysnthium strumarium var. canadense Boraginaceae ' Amsinkis spectabilis Cryptsnths maritima Heliotropium curasssvicum var. oculstum 8 Brassicaceae Cskile msritims Lepidium perfolistum Cultivated escape Chenopodiaceae Atriplex lentiformis ssp. brecveri Sslsols iberics Convolvulaceae Calystegis soldsnells Cuscuta sslins Euphorbiaceae Euphorbis csput-medusse ( cultivated escape ) Fabaceae Lotus scopsrius Melilotus indicus Geraniaceae Erodium cicutsrium Hydrophyllaceae Phscelis douglssii Nyctaginaceae Abronis umbellsts Onagraceae Csmissonis cheirsnthifolis Plantaginaceae Plsntsgo erects Polygonaceae Eriogonum sp. (annual ) Saururaceae Anemopsis cslifornics 1 Scrophulariaceae Linsris csnsdensis var. texsns Solanaceae Lycium cslifornicum Nicotisns glsucs Solsnum ssrrschoides 9 Marsh Areas Constituents of both the salt and freshwater marsh are lumped into this category due to the intergradation between the two marshes. No clear cut boundary could be made to bring about a distinction. The marshes had many weedy species as evidenced by the following list. It is pretty obvious the marshes have been disturbed by man's activities. 10 Marsh Areas - Salt Water and Fresh Water Agavaceae Agave sp. (ornamental ) Yucca sp. (ornamental ) Arecaceae Wsshingtonis type palms (ornamental ) Cyperaceae Csrex prsegrscilis ?? Cyperus ersgrostis Scirpus scutus Scirpus olneyi Scirpus robustus Juncaceae Juncus scutus var. sphserocsrpus Poaceae Arundo donsx .hens bsrbsts Avens fstus Bromus disndrus Bromus mollis Bromus rubrens Cortsderis sellosns Distichlis spicsts Elymus triticoides Hordeum glsucum Hordeum jubstum Lot i um mul t i fl orum Monsnthochloe littorslis Polypogon monspeliensis Spsrtins folioss Typhaceae Typhs latifolis Aizoaceae Csrpobrotus sequilsteris C. edulis Drossnthemum speciosum Gssoul crystsllinum G. nodiflorum Sesuvium verucosum Apiaceae opium grsveolens Conium msculstum Foeniculum vulgsre � , 11 Asteraceae Amblyopappus pusillus Ambrosia psilo.stsch.va var. cslifornics Artemesis douglssisns Bscchsris doug.Issii Bscchsris emoryi Bscchsris glut.inoss , Centsures melitensis Cirsium vulgare Cotula coronop.ifolia Encelis cslifornics Gnsphalium cal.ifornicum Gnsphalium chilense Haplopsppus venetus Hedypnois cret.ics Hemizonis fssc.iculats Heterothecs grandiflors Jaumes csrnoss ' Malacothrix sa atilis var. tenuifolis Picris echioides Silybum marisnum Sonchus ssper Sonchus oleraceus Yanthium strumarium var. canadense Batidaceae Batis msritims Boraginaceae Heliotropium cursssavicum var. oculstum Brassicaceae Brassics geniculsts Brassics nigrs Brassics raps E:sp. sylvestris Cakile msritims Cardsris drabs Lepidium perfoliatum Raphanus sstivus Caryophyllaceae Spergularis msrins r t 12 Chenopodiaceae Atriplex cslifornics . triplex lentiformis ssp. breiveri ntriplex leucophylls .ltriplex pstuls ssp. hsststs .9triplex semibsccsts Bsssia hyssopifolis Chenopodium album Chenopodium smbrosioides Chenopodium berlandieri var. sinustum Chenopodium mscrospermum var. fsrinosum ?? Sslicornis bigelovii S. subterminalis S. virginics Sslsols iberics Suseds cslifornics Convolvulaceae Cresss truxillensis var. vsllicols Cuscuts sslins Fabaceae Lotus purshianus Lotus scoparius Melilotus slbus Melilotus indicus rFrankeniaceae Frsnkenia grsndifolis Geraniaceae Erodium cicutsrium Hydrophyllaceae Phscelis tsnscetifolia Myoporaceae Myoporum laetum Myrtaceae Eucalyptus sp. (dead ones) Onagraceae Csmissonis cheirsnthifolis Plumbaginaceae Limonium californicum Polygonaceae Rumex crispus Primulaceae Ansgsllis srvensis r13 r Rubiaceae ' Gslium spsrine Salicaceae Salix 1sevibsts Salix lssiolepis Saururaceae Anemopsis csliforni�a Solanaceae Nicotisns glsucs Solsnum xsnti Tamaricaceae ' Tsmsrix sp. Urticaceae ' Urtics urens S 14 Since an intensive survey was requested for Rabbit Island and the "sand spit" along PCH, a list of the plants encounter from these area follow. r r 15 Plants found on Rabbit Island ( # ) and on the Sand Spit Along PCH ' ( * ) Arecaceae * Wsshingtonis type palms (ornamental ) Cyperaceae # Csrex prsegrscilis ?? Juncaceae #* Juncus scutus var. sphserocsrpus Poaceae ' * Avens bsrbsts * Bromus disndrus #* Bromus mollis #* Bromus rubrens #* Cortsderis sellosns * Cynodon dsctylon ' #* Distichlis spicsts # Elymus triticoides #* Hordeum glsucum # Hordeum jubstum * Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum # Monsnthochloe littorslis #* Polypogon monspeliensis Aizoaceae * Csrpobrotus sequilsteris #* C. edulis #* Gssoul crystallinum #* G. nodiflorum # Sesuvium verucosum * Tetrsgonis tetrsgonioides Anacardiaceae * Schinus terebinthifclius Apiaceae * Foeniculum vulgsre Asteraceae # Amblyopsppus pusillus * Ambrosia chsmissonis * Ambrosia psilostschya var. cs1ifornics * Bacchsris emoryi * Bacchsris glutinoss * Bacchsris pilulsris ssp. conssnguines #* Centsures melitensis Cirsium vulgsrea # Cotuls coronopifolis # Gnsphslium chilense * Hsplopsppus venetus #* Heterothecs grsndiflors 16 i 1 * Hypochoeris glsbrs n Jaumea csrnoss n Malscothris sa;:atilis var. tenuifolia * Osteospermum ecklonis # Sonchus asper #* Sonchus olersceus * .Yanthium strumarium var. canadense Boraginacese # Amsinkis spectabilis # Cr3Ptanths msritims I #* Heliotropium curassavicum var. oculatum Brassicacese # Brassics nigrs # Brassics raps ssp. sylvestris * Cskile msritims #* Lepidium perfoliatum # Raphanus sstivus * Cultivated escape Caryophyllsceae # Spergularis marins Chenopodiaceae # Atriplex californica * Atriplex lentiformis ssp. breireri # Atriplex semibsccats # Bassis hyssopifolia # Chenopodium album # Chenopodium ambrosioides # Salicornia bigelovii # S. subterminalis # S. virginics #* Salsols iberics Convolvulacese * Calystegis soldsnells Cresss truxillensis var. vsllicols Tr t* Cuscuts salins Euphorbiaceae * Euphorbia caput-medusae Fabacese # Lotus scopsrius #* Melilotus indicus Frsnkenisceae r Frsnkenis grandifolis Gersniaceae #* Erodium cicutsrium 17 Hydrophyllaceae ' # Phscelis douglasii # Phscelis tanscetifo.iia 4yoporaceae # Myoporum lsetu.m ryctaginaceae ' #* Abronis umbellate Oleaceae # Ol es europsea Onagraceae #* Csmissonis cheirsnthifolis Plantaginaceae * Plsntsgo erects Plumbaginaceae # Limonium californicum ' Polygonaceae # Eriogonum sp. (annual ) ' Primulaceae # Ansgsllis arvensis Rubiaceae # Gslium spsrine Saururaceae * Anemopsis californica Scrophulariaceae # Linsris csnsde.nsis var. texsns Solanaceae # Lycium cslifornicum #* Nicotisns glsucs # Solsnum ssrrschoide:s 18 1 0 i 0 00 ow W SO M m ! m m mom mom Mfta ,4= Im ro m � APPENDIX F2 - BOTANICAL AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES TABLE OF CONTENTS Pae F2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F2-1 F2.1.1 Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F2-1 F2.1.1.1 Historical Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F2-1 F2.1.1.2 Vegetation - General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F2-3 F2.1.1.3 Sensitive Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F2-7 F2.1.2 Insects .F2-7 F2.1.3 Reptiles and Amphibians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F2-11 F2.1.3.1 Sensitive Reptile Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F2-12 F2.1.4 Mammals F2-12 F2.1.4.1 Sensitive Mammal Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F2-14 F2.1.5 Avifauna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F2-14 . . . . . . F2.1.5.1 Historical Perspective . . . . . . . F2-14 F2.1.5.2 "Target" Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F2-32 F2-i APPENDIX F2 BOTANICAL AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES F2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING This report supplements the Bolsa Chica DEIS/DEIR text by providing a discussion of the historical perspective and existing conditions of botanical and wildlife resources. References for this Appendix are listed in the EIS/EIR Reference Section (Section 8) r F2.1.1 Vegetation F2.1.1.1 Historical Perspective The history of vegetation changes at Bolsa Chica can be divided roughly into two periods that correspond to different degrees of human impact and occupation of the area: 1) a pre-European period, in which vegetation changes occurred largely independent of human activities; 2) a period that began with the arrival of the Spanish missionaries and continues today, in which the distribution and composition of the vegetation is largely a result of human impacts. During and prior to occupation of the area by Native Americans, the Bolsa Chica lowlands could most likely be described as intermittent estuarine, in which dominance by freshwater or saltwater marsh communities alternated over time. Evidence for these changes comes from analysis of pollen profiles conducted for the San Joaquin marsh to the south (Owen, 1990), which presumably experienced similar environmental changes. These changes included substantial alterations in the course of the Santa Ana River and fluctuating levels of precipitation, both of which would alter salinity of the water and lead to changes in the plant species present. Vegetation that was present on the Bolsa Chica highlands, specifically Bolsa Chica and Huntington Mesas, are more difficult to document during this period. Archaeological evidence of wildlife species, primarily rodents and deer, that were hunted by the Gabrielinos, suggests that the mesas were occupied either by grassland or a mosaic of coastal sage scrub and grassland. The present distribution and composition of vegetation communities at Bolsa Chica is largely a result of the intense use and alteration of the area during the past 100 years. Most information regarding the original vegetation is provided by Talbert (1952) and its distribution can be inferred from early topographic maps. Prior to draining and clearing of much of the area in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the lowlands of Bolsa Chica were occupied by a diverse freshwater marsh that extended seaward into saltmarsh. Although the Santa Ana River changed course away from Bolsa Chica during the flood of 1825, the freshwater marsh continued to be supported by a high ground water level, springs, artesian water sources, and the Freeman River. Marsh species included dense thickets of willows and tules. Sycamore trees were also present. Detailed lists of species originally present in the saltwater marsh are not available, but presumably the F2-1 marsh consisted of the three zones that are typical of intact salt marshes today: cordgrass domination in the seaward lower zone with tidal flushing, picldeweed domination in an intermediate zone, and sea-blite domination in an upper zone closest I the influx of freshwater. The distribution, abundance, and diversity of the freshwater and saltwater marshes began to decline as a result of draining ,and clearing for agriculture in the late 1800s, and of groundwater pumping in the early 1900s. By the 1950s, construction of duck ponds, tide gates, flood control i channels, and an extensive series of dikes and berms had resulted in the loss of most of the i original marsh vegetation. These activities substantially reduced both freshwater input into the marsh and tidal flushing, in addition to fragmenting the habitat. The result was most likely a sharp reduction in species diversity from that which was originally pmsent, and any zonation was reduced to small patches that :receive at least some tidal influence. ]Exotic species, particularly iceplant, began invading and presently form a substantial portion of the flora. , If the original vegetation of the mesas included any coastal sage scnib, most of this community would have begun declining with the advent of cattle and sheep grazing in the early 1800s, and ;r additional impacts in the 1940s from construction of the WWII army facilities and oil development would have resulted in further elimination of the coastal sage scrub habitat. There is some question as to whether or not the acreage of a small dune community on Rabbit Island has declined within the last 10 years. ERS (1989)compared 19-89 aerial photos with maps prepared by Shapiro Associates, Inc. in 1981, and concluded that the:dune area decreased from 13.1 acres in 1981 to 1.1 acres in 1989, a reduction of more than 90 percent. The decline was attributed to reduction in the supply of sand due to development at Bolsa Chica State Beach. However, our examination of the data suggests that a substantial portion of the "decline" in dune area may be attributed to an artifact of terminology. In 1971, the Dillingham report distinguished between dunes, which were estimated to occupy 2 acres at that time, and sandy flats, which occupied an additional 19 acres. The vegetation in these areas was shown to be clearly distinct, with the dunes dominated by beach primrose and the sandy flats characterized by stephanomeria and a number of welds, including grasses. The Sh i'piro (1981) report did not distinguish between dunes and sandy flats, and designated 13.1 acres sts dunes and the remainder as grassland. ERS (1989) checked the Shapiro map against recent aerial photos, and concluded that the present dune acreage is actually 1.1 acres. This value is close ito the original Dillingham (1971) estimate of 2 acres, and the difference between the two values is probably within the range of variability expected from two data sources. Therefore, we would conclude that there has been no substantial reduction in actual dune acreage on Rabbit Island during the past 10 years, although it appears certain that the "sandy flats" recognized. by Dillingham (1971) are succeeding to grassland. Ideally, it would be useful to document changes in the acreages of plant communities that may have occurred during the past 10 years, comparing, the Dillingham (1971), Shapiro (1981) and the map presented in this report. Unfortunately the case described above for the dune community illustrates the fact that quantitative comparisons would not be valid due to artifacts of vegetation classification as well as sampling method. F2-2 F2.1.1.2 Vegetation - General Figure 132-1 shows the distribution of plant communities in the project area. A full color version of this map is found in the Bolsa Chica DEIS/DEIR, Section 4.7, Figure 4.7-1. This map is based on the delineation of communities conducted by (1989) and updated by field checks in 1991. The terminology for the communities remains largely unchanged from earlier studies with the exception that "broadleaf forest" in the Shapiro (1981) study was changed to "eucalyptus grove", and "shrub" was changed to "coastal bluff scrub". These changes were made in order to use terminology that more accurately describes these communities. Appendix F1 provides a list of plant species observed during the 1991 sensitive species survey conducted by Nishida Botanical Consulting in conjunction with Chambers Group. Lists for species that were observed by previous surveys can be found in those reports (Dillingham, 1971; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1979; Phillips Brandt Reddick, 1980; Shapiro and Associates, 1981; Ecological Research Services, 1989). The community descriptions in this section are based on these reports and the 1991 field checks by Nishida Botanical Consulting and Chambers Group. For purposes of readability, only common names are used in this section (based on F. Roberts, A checklist of the vascular plants of Orange County. California, plus previous reports). Scientific names can be found in the Appendix. Figure F2-1 provides the acreages of each community in the project area and by planning area. Descriptions of each community are provided below. Terrestrial communities include grassland, dunes, sandy flats, and coastal bluff scrub. Marsh communities include saltmarsh and freshwater marsh. Other vegetation, which cannot be classified as communities in the strict sense, include a eucalyptus grove and exotic trees that were planted at some time in the past, as well as local stands of native species such as spiny rush and goldenbush. Other areas are occupied by open water, agriculture, urban development, and oil/gas extraction facilities. With the exception of the eucalyptus grove, non-vegetated areas and areas not occupied by true communities are not discussed further in this section. Terrestrial Communities These communities occupy the bluffs, mesas, and other upland areas that are well above water. In general the species that comprise the grassland, dune, and sandy flat communities are intolerant of high soil salinity, whereas the presence of coastal bluff scrub may indicate high soil salinity and generally poor soil development. Comparison of the Dillingham (1971) and Williamson and Schmid (1989) vegetation maps indicates that the distribution and extent of the grassland and scrub communities have not changed significantly in the 18-year interval between those studies. There is some question as to whether or not the dune area has decreased, as explained in the previous section. F2-3 AW so im - - a m ON on, .Nib a as a z o w a i t S s � i c a i o n � a i o n a i Bo I s a Ch i ca Classification Acres N Pick Ieweed 330.8 Ma r c h b , 1992 ► O Brackish harsh 5.0 p Soltgross 34.7 0 Cordgross 3.9 ' I p Open Water/Channel Non-Tidal 49.4 ®Open Bay 144.6 �. 0 Open Water/Flat Unvegetated 341.4 0 Ruderal 373.7 ' ®Coastal Sage Scrub 4.6 f]Eucalyptus/Exotic Trees 6.7 O Dune 20.9 O Baccharis Scrub 1.3 ®A riculture 25.0 00ther Scrub 0.2 - p Urban 0.5 O Non-native Grassland 270.2 _ M Fresh Water Marsh 0.1 = - 14 Za dN .(�' �rY r —r;ol}.—lJ •-`P'1-� � -�M1t.il-ti•F+ � -J.. - ' J ! soh' •-..N:4.--__.t:q .c� t./.l,l r �:_' Field Surveys: Shapiro 1981 " Ecolo icol Research Services 1989 ^f =V The Chambers Group 1991 0 2500 Michael Brandmon Associates 1991 - 1992 1 Feet iI FIGURE F2-1 F2-4 I — Grassland and Ruderal Grassland communities comprise approximately 278 acres, or 16 percent of the project area. Most of this acreage is on Bolsa Chica Mesas in Planning Area A. These areas are classified as ruderal. Common species include brome grasses (ripgut grass, foxtail chess) and wild oats. Herbs consist primarily of non-native species such as black mustard and wild mustard. Ruderal areas occupy, in association with roads and structures, approximately 463 acres, or 28 percent of the project area. The limited amount of vegetation in these areas is similar in composition to the grassland community, but is more frequently disturbed. Coastal Bluff Scrub Coastal bluff scrub occupies approximately 5 acres, or 0.3 percent of the project area. Most of this acreage is in the vicinity of the eucalyptus grove, on the bluff along Bolsa Chica Mesa in planning Area A. This community is characterized by the presence of saltbush species mixed with some components of coastal sage scrub, such as encelia and cholla. This mixture of species clearly conforms to the description of coastal bluff scrub used by the California Natural Diversity Database(Holland, 1986), which has also designated coastal bluff scrub as sufficiently rare in California as to merit high priority protection status. This community has not been recognized as coastal bluff scrub until this report, although it has been called coastal sage scrub and designated as a sensitive habitat (ERS, 1989). Previous studies have either not designated it as a community at all (Dillingham, 1971), grouped it with the grassland community on the mesa (PBR, 1980), or called it "shrub" (Shapiro, 1981) or "coastal sage scrub" (USFWS, 1979; PBR,1980). However, the community present in the project area is clearly not coastal sage scrub, which is characterized by the dominance of sagebrush and wild buckwheat rather than by saltbush and encelia. Most of the community in the project area has been invaded by eucalyptus and prickly pear cactus, but species diversity in general is high, and the presence of this community since 1971 (albeit reported by different names) indicates persistence in this area. Dunes and Sandy Flats Dune communities and sandy flats occupy approxii iately 22 acres, or 1.3 percent of the project area. Approximately 1.5 acres of this total occur as low dunes along Pacific Coast Highway. Common species in this area include beach bur, s ind verbena, and beach morning glory, but iceplant is also abundant and this invasive non-nat.ve species will probably continue to spread if it is not removed. These dunes are small remn,nts of a much larger dune system that was present before the construction of Pacific Coast 1 lighway and facilities at Bolsa Chica State Beach. Construction of an asphalt pathway to pi: )vide public access to the marsh removed additional acreage. Approximately 19 acres of dunes and sandy flat , occur on Rabbit Island, and the species composition of these areas differs from that of the dunes along Pacific Coast Highway. Dominant species on approximately 1.1 acres of du nes include beach primrose and nemacaulis. F2-5 These dunes appear to be in the final stages of stabilization, and sever id species that occur in this area are more common in the adjacent sandy flats. These species include stephanomeria and telegraph weed. Marsh Communities Marsh communities occupy 373 acres, or 22 percent of the project area. Of this amount, approximately 372 acres, consists of saltmarsh. The remaining 0.7 acres are occupied by freshwater marsh. The ecotone between the two communities, i.e., where the saltmarsh and freshwater marsh meet, is not distinct, but rather composed of a high diversity of brackish and freshwater species. The floras of the two communities also contain. a large number of exotic species the most abundant of which is iceplant. Distinctive featum;s of each community are described below. Saltmarsh Most of the saltmarsh vegetation occurs in Planning Area C. The saltmarsh communities in the project area vary substantially in species composition depending on location. As mentioned in the discussion of historical vegetation changes at Bolsa Chica, human impacts have reduced the zonation that is typical of an undisturbed saltmarsh ecosystem to small isolated patches in areas of some tidal influence. Species distribution at present depends primarily on elevation above water and soil salinity, as well as on rainfall, and discussion of those factors as they relate to variation in community composition are discussed in Dillingham, 1971. Pickleweed, of various species, has a wide range of tolerance for these factors and is the most widely distributed in the project area, occurring in all but the most flooded or dry habitats. Most other components of the saltmarsh are more restrictive in their habitat requirements. SEdtgrass-dominated saltmarsh occurs in drier areas. Cordgrass-dominated marsh occurs in the lower littoral zone, on mudflats that receive at least some tidal flushing. Freshwater Marsh Freshwater marsh in the project area is limited to drainages from the mesas and small patches on the south side of the project areas, in Planning Area C. Cat-tails (7ypha ladfoha) are the most distinctive indicator of the presence of fresh water. EucalyMs Grove The eucalyptus grove is discussed here because of its importance for certain wildlife species, but it cannot be considered as a true vegetation community. The trees were planted by a gun club around the turn of the century, along the base of Bolsa Chica Mesa in Planning Area A and a portion of Planning Area B (USFWS, 1979). They presently a;cupy approximately 7 acres, some of which are dead. This mortality is attributed to increased soil salinity as a result of F2-6 saltwater intrusion (ERS, 1989). This acreage includes approximately 0.5 acres of young trees that have apparently invaded the grassland habitat on the mesa since 1981. The eucalyptus grove has little value from a vegetation perspective. If mortality of the trees increases due to higher soil salinities, it is possible that the adjacent coastal bluff scrub community would expand into those areas, and provide greater habitat value than is presently the case. F2.1.1.3 Sensitive Species Table F2-1 lists sensitive plant species that could potentially occur in the project area. This list was compiled from a search of the California Natural Diversity Database in March, 1991, and of records of the California Native Plant Society's Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. A review of previous studies of Bolsa Chica reveals that two of the species listed in Table F2-1, spiny rush (Juncos acutus var. sphaerocarpus) and southern tarplant (Hemizonia aostralis), are already known to occur at Bolsa Chica. Both species are on the "watch list" of the California Native Plant Society, meaning that the species are presently common but their numbers may be declining. Spiny rush has been reported continuously in species lists since the Dillingham (1971) study, and is common on somewhat dry soil in the saltmarsh community. Southern taiplant has not been reported since the Dillingham(1971) study, but this is a summer-flowering species that would not be apparent during a spring survey. It was known to occur in disturbed areas around the tidal gates. Although the area has experienced extensive human impacts for a substantial period of time, a review of environmental assessments and botanical surveys of Bolsa Chica indicated that no �- systematic surveys for the rare species listed in Table F2-1 had been conducted. Joy Nishida of Nishida Botanical Consulting, in consultation with Dr. Edith Read of Chambers Group, surveyed the project area for sensitive species on seven occasions during the period of May 12-June 8, 1991. Of particular interest was the federal and state listed endangered salt marsh bird's beak (Cordylanthus maridmus ssp. maridmus), for which there is an historical record of collection at Bola Chica. Saltgrass habitat and other habitats with at least some potential to support sensitive species were surveyed. The salt marsh bird's beak was not found, nor were any other federal or state listed threatened, endangered, or candidate plant species detected during the surveys. F2.1.2 Lisects Bradley studied the insect and terrestrial arthropod fauna of Bolsa Chica (NIITECH, 1990). Sampling was conducted for one to two days each month over a twelve month period, from August, 1988 to September, 1989. An array of collection methods was used during the study, due to the diversity and specialization among insects, and the assortment of habitats encountered at Bolsa Chica. F2-7 Table F-1 THREATENED, ENDANGERED AND SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES THAT POTENTIALLY OCCUR IN THE BOLSA CHICA REGION SpedeslCommon Name Federal State CNPS RED Code Remarks Status Stator Stator Aphanisma blitoides C2 3 ?-?-2 Annual in the goosefoot family. Found along bluffs,coastal sage scrub,coastal strand sphanisma habitats. Not observed in project area. Flowers April-May. Astrogadts pynostachys var,Imosissimus Cl IA Perennial in the pea family. Historically,found in coastal salt marsh habitat in Ventura,Los Ventura marsh milk vetch Angeles,and Orange Counties. Historical collection at'La Bolas'. Believed extinct due to loss of habitat. Not observed in project area. Flowers late spring-early summer. Hdianthus numilii var.parishii C1 I Pereennial. Historically,found in moist areas in Los Angeles,Orange,and San Bernardino Los Angeles sunflower Counties. Believed extinct. Not observed in project area. Flowers August-October. Cordyland ws maritimws ssp.maridmus FE CE 111 2-2-2 Annual in the figwort family. Parasitic association with coastal salt marsh species,especially salt marsh bird's beak saltgmss. Historical collection in Bolas Chia region. Not observed in project area. Flowers May-October. Hemiionia australis 3 ?-7-3 Annual in the sunflower family. Found in coastal grasslands and lowlands. Reported at Bola& southern tarplant Chico by Dillingham(1971). Flowers June-September. pp luncus acwtus var.sphaerocarpus 4 1-2-2 Perennial in the rush family. Found in moist saline habitats,coastal salt marsh. Fairly spiny rush I common at Bolas Chico. Flowers May-June. Federal Status(determined by U.S.M and WsNWe Service) RED Code FE =Federally listed,endangered. C1 = Designation as endangered is pending. Rarity C2 -Poss'blly aulangered but more information needed. 1 - Ram but is adfici®tly widespread that poteetid for extinction is C3B =Previously considered as a candidate but taxonomic low at present. va% ty is in question. 2 = Occurrence confined to several populations or to one extended ?L' =Fr ey tnaoriem as■can"ie uvi iwreb airs appEa: to be threatened at ebb time. 3 =Ocgtrr crate limited to one or a few bighly Crests ted populations. " State States Endangerment CT = State fisted,threatened. 1 Not endangered. CE = State listed,endangered. 2 =Endangered in part of range. 3 =Endangered throughout range• CLAPS Stator IA -Presumed errtinct in California. Drbritmfmm iB = Rare throughout the range of the species. 1 =Widespread outside California. 2 =Rare in CaMreia but common elsewhere. 2 -Rare outside California. 3 =More information needed before assignment to categories 1. 3 =Endemic to California. 2.or 4. 4 - Limited in distrMutioul does not appear to be threatened at present but most be monitored. go M 'W us am va i Nearly 200 species of insects were identified from this survey of the Ecological Reserve and associated uplands. Many of the species captured represent insect species restricted to a southern California coastal dune marsh habitat. One of the richest habitats sampled, both in terms of diversity and numbers of species, was sand dune areas found on Rabbit Island and an area of secondary sand dunes found on the Reserve between the Pacific Coast Highway and Inner Bolsa Bay. A number of dune sensitive species were captured at these sites, including two Candidate species, the Wandering Skipper and Dorothy's Sand Dune Weevil. According to Bradley, Rabbit Island serves as a refugium for sensitive dune species due to the presence of Dorothy's Sand Dune Weevil and several other sand dune dependent species (Subterranean Sand Dune Beetle, Coleus ciliatus; Trap Door Spider, Aptosticus simus; and the pompilid Aporus hirsutus). A freshwater marsh, two saline ponds and various shoreline areas sampled along the bay were fairly rich habitats for aquatic and terrestrial insects at Bolsa Chica. In contrast, the eucalyptus grove and pickleweed areas sampled represented overall depauperate habitats, yielding low diversity and numbers of insects. The poor habitat quality of eucalyptus for insects and birds is a common occurrence in southern California because its strong oily character has repellant qualities to native southern Californian species. On hindsight, Bradley considered the pickleweed sample site not a representative area since it was dry and some distance from the water. Lush areas of pickleweed were specifically avoided by Bradley so as to not disturb the state endangered resident Belding's savannah sparrow. The fresh water marsh was a rich riparian environment for dragonflies and damselflies(Ischnura barberi,Libellula saturata, for example), seven families of bees, seven species of flies from ten families, three species of bugs, and four species of butterflies. In addition, two species of tiger beetles, the Red Belly Tiger Beetle (Cicindela haemorrhagia haemorrhagia) and the Mud Flat Tiger Beetle (C. trifaciata sigmoidea) were sampled at this site. According to Bradley, the Mud Flat Tiger Beetle is a sensitive species, highly susceptible to human disturbance which has been extirpated from most of its range. In contrast, the Red Belly Tiger Beetle is one of the most widespread tiger beetles. The wet, compact mud shoreline of the saline ponds also provided habitat for the Mud Flat Tiger Beetle and the Red Belly Tiger Beetle. This site had substantial populations of these two species. The most interesting observation at the saline pond site was the crepuscular aggregation of thousands of the ephydrid, Mosillus bidentatus Cress, swanning over the algal mats. These flies formed the most dense population of any adult terrestrial insect species observed at Bolsa Chica, however little is known about their biology. In addition, Andrews (1986) surveyed the saltflat area adjacent to the Bolsa Chica Wildlife Reserve for tiger beetle species (0cindelidae) over one day in September 1986. This survey observed three species of tiger beetle, including the sensitive Frost's Tiger Beetle (0cindela sensilis frosti) as well as the previously mentioned Red Belly Tiger Beetle and the Mud Flat Tiger Beetle. Frost's Tiger Beetle is a species listed as a biologically rare species currently known only from Bolsa Chica and one site in Ventura county on the borders of saltflats. Table F2-2 lists the sensitive insect species found at Bolsa Chica. As mentioned above, two Candidate species were found at Bolsa Chica.The saltmarsh or wandering skipper (Panoquina F2-9 I i t Table F2-2 SENSITIVE Wn DLIFE SPECIES KNOWN TO OCCUR ■ AT BOLSA CHICA (other than bird species, see Table 4.7:7) Species/Common Name Federal State Remarks Status Status Cicindela senilis frosti * * Observed in salt flats at Bolsa Chica. Frost's tiger beetle Panoquina errans C2 — Observed in salt grass habitat at Bolsa Chica. wandering skipper Trigonoscuta dorothea dorothea C2 — Observed in sand dune habitat on Rabbit Dorothy's sand dune weevil Island. Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillei C2 CSC Found in grassland/shrub habitats in uplands San Diego homed lizard and Rabbit Island. Clemmys marmorata pallida C2 CSC Known to occur in the EGGW Channel. southwestern pond turtle Aniella pulchra pulchra — CSC Known to occur in sand dunes on Rabbit silvery legless lizard Island and along sand deposits east of Pacific Coast Highway. Sorer ornana salicornicus C2 CSC Known to occur in pickleweed in marsh salt marsh shrew habitats. Tazidea taws — CSC Older records for Bolsa Chica. American badger • = Tara that are biologically rare, very restricted in distribution. C2 = Federal Candidate 2 Species CSC = California Species of Special Concern F2-10 errans Skinner) is a small butterfly typically found in association with saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) , the larvae host plant. Saltgrass grows among the Hottentot-fig at the secondary dune habitat site within the Ecological Reserve, where the highest populations of this species was observed. Wandering Skipper was associated with the pickleweed, salt grass and Heliotrope curassavicum community on the western edge of the eucalyptus grove at Bolsa Chica. At a small freshwater marsh area in the Bolsa Lowlands, fair numbers of adult Wandering Skippers were collected consistently from May through October. On Rabbit Island,the Wandering Skipper was found in small numbers where it was associated with flowering Heliotropium and coastal salt grass. Dorothy's Sand Dune Weevil (Trigonoscuta dorothea dorothea) is a species typically found in association with coastal dunes. Dune areas on Rabbit Island were a productive habitat for Dorothy's Sand Dune Weevil. High numbers of this weevil were collected during the months of December through March. Dorothy's Sand Dune Weevil was also collected heavily in the Ecological Reserve's secondary dune habitat area between the bay and the Pacific Coast Highway. Although the Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) was observed in the Eucalyptus grove, no roosting tree was found after a search of the area. Monarch winter roosting sites are considered sensitive habitat according to the California Natural Diversity Data Base. r F7.1.3 Regtiles and Amphibians Table F2-2 lists the sensitive reptile species known to occur at Bolsa Chica. No intensive studies to date have been conducted to assess the diversity and densities of reptiles and amphibians at Bolsa Chica. All observations of these taxonomic groups are anecdotal, or otherwise made in an unsystematic manner. Nonetheless, Dillingham (1971) is a primary source of information based on some general comments about more common herpetofauna on the site. iv w i This is due to the lack of The amphibian diversity at Bolsa Chica is somewhat limited. freshwater sources on the property and an overall lack of appropriate habitat. The one common species, the pacific treefrog (Hyla regilla), that does currently occur utilizes temporary freshwater pools in which to breed and deposit their eggs. This frog is known to occur in the freshwater marshes at the base of Huntington Mesa, and is likely elsewhere where temporary freshwater pools have formed in areas of moderate to dense vegetative cover, such as in northern Bolsa Chica. Two other species of amphibians also observed at Bolsa Chica in the past but considered rare are the western toad (Bufo boreal) and the introduced African clawed frog (Genus Xenopus) (USFWS, 1982). The western toad was observed in the eucalyptus grove and the clawed frog, a obligate aquatic species, was found in a small pond in the diked wetlands in 1980. The arican clawed frog is considered to be a potentially destructive species, as it has been known to compete with and consume fish and other amphibians. Reptiles are more diverse than amphibians at Bolsa Chica, largely due to their reduced reliance on freshwater sources. Side-blotched lizards (Uta stansburiana) are the most conspicuous species in the drier habitats throughout the area. Additionally, western fence lizards (Sceloporus F2-11 occidentalis) are common where more vegetative cover is present, and also in wood piles and trash dumps. Southern alligator lizards (Gerrhonotus multicarinatus) are more secretive and likely less common, and are more restricted to areas with greater vegetative shelter and humidity. The most common snake found in Bolsa is the southern pacific rattlesnake (Crotalus virldis hellen). This species has been found to be locally abundant on Rabbit Island and in Saliconda in the north Bolsa area, but should be considered potentially occurring throughout the project area. The abundance of rattlesnakes suggests an equally abundant prey resource consisting of small mammals, such as rodents. Two non venomous species of snakes known to occur on the property are the gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucus) and the common king snake (Lampropeltis getulus), though these species were observed fay- less frequently than the rattlesnake. Both these species frequent more vegetated terrain, particularly grassland habitats. _ E2.1.3.1 Sensitive Reptile Species The southwestern pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata pallida) has been observed in the eastern portion of the Orange County Flood Control Channel at Bolsa Chica. This species requires fresh to brackish water in which to feed, so is limited in its distribution inn coastal areas and should be considered rare at Bolsa Chica, or possibly extirpated. It is currently considered a Category 2 species for listing by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and a Species of Special Concern by the California Department of Fish and Game. A single San Diego coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum b.Unvillei) was found during a 1970 survey of the Bolsa Chica area (Dillingham: 1971). This spa,,ies prefers dry, loose sandy to gravel soils with sparse vegetation. Though horned lizards in general possess a secretive nature and cryptic coloration which results in its being under-represented in wildlife surveys, this species is nonetheless considered uncommon. It can potentially occur throughout Bolsa Chica where substrate conditions are appropriate, such as northern Boha Chica and Rabbit Island. This species is currently listed as a Category 2 Species by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and a Species of Special Concern by the California Department of Fish and Game. Another less common yet highly specialized lizard is the California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra). This obligate sand dwelling species has in the past been found in sand deposits peripheral to Pacific Coast Highway and on Rabbit Island. This lizard has been reduced in numbers with the encroachment of human activities into beach habitats. It is currently listed as a California Species of Special Concern (CSC). F7.1.4 Mammals Mammals species known to occur at Bolsa Chica have been determined by anecdotal observation, general wildlife survey walks, and systematic trapping imethods(Dillingham, 1971). Because of development and other disturbances which have occurred in peripheral habitats in the years following these observations, the existing mammal diversity in the region is unlikely to F2-12 �; be greater than indicated in these previous reports, and may be somewhat reduced, particularly for species more sensitive to human activity. A series of small mammal trapping surveys conducted in 1970 (Dillingham, 1971), 1981 (Fish and Game, 1981), 1982 (Biological Survey Services, 1982) and 1988 (Mitech, 1989) indicate that the most common small mammals consist of two rodent species: The Western harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis) and the house mouse (Mus musculus). One additional species, the deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) was considerably more common than the house mouse in the 1981 survey, but was not found during the 1982 and 1989 surveys. This suggests that the native deer mouse may have been displaced by the non native house mouse in some habitats within the Bolsa Chica area. It is unlikely that the 1989 survey overlooked the deer mouse as this survey was significantly more intense than either of its predecessors. The California vole (Microns cal( ornicus) is another rodent species which was found in small numbers in 1981 and 1982, but later absent in the 1989 surveys. Results of the 1988 survey indicate that the western harvest mouse and the house mouse was found in a variety of habitat types, including secondary and tertiary sand dunes, Sahcornia, coastal sage scrub, salt marsh, and uplands. However, the house mouse was absent from Rabbit Island, and few mice of any species were trapped in unvegetated areas, perhaps due to the lack of protective cover and food resources. rAdditional rodents observed in the region include the dusky footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes) in coastal sage scrub, and the valley pocket gopher (Thommys bottae) in ruderal areas. Other mammal species known to occur at Bolsa Chica include the cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus audoboniii), the Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiatus), California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and the black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus). These species can occur throughout the area but would be restricted to habitats with some vegetative cover for protection. Red fox (Vulpes vulpes) and coyote (Canis latrans) have been reported in the area in the past (Dillingham, 1971), though the current status of these species in the area is questionable. Badgers (Taxidea taxus) and long-tailed weasels (Mustela frenata) were known to occur at Bolsa Chica, but they have may have been significantly reduced or eliminated in recent years due to human disturbance. Long-tailed weasels have been reported as recently as 1982 (Biological Survey Services, 1982). With the encroachment of development, domestic cats are known to forage in Bolsa Chica and are likely to play an increasing role as major predators in the area. To date, there have been no systematic surveys for bats at Bolsa Chica. For all bat species, daytime roosts are required. For some species, such as the California myotis (Myotis californicus) and little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus)and will use hollows in trees and abandoned buildings as roosting sites, therefore there is the potential for these species to occur within or near the project area. However, all bats require freshwater sources and insects and freshwater sources are somewhat limited at Bolsa Chita. F2-13 l I i F2.1.4.1 Sensitive Mammal Species Table F2-2 lists the sensitive mammal species known to occur at 13olsa Chica. No state or federal listed mammal species are known to occur at Bolsa Chica. Until recently, the western harvest mouse(Reithrodontomys megalods)found common on the site was considered a sensitive subspecies, the southern marsh harvest mouse(R. m. limicola; Federal Candidate 2). However, recent taxonomic revisions have retracted the subspecies status of the salt marsh harvest mouse, and now considers it a variety of the western harvest mouse. The salt marsh shrew (Sorex ornatus sahcornicus) has been recently trapped during small mammal surveys conducted at Bolsa Chica and Anaheim Bay (Natured Resources Center 1989). This species is currently considered a California Species of Concern (CSC) by the Department of Fish and Game, and a Candidate 2 Species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The shrew's distribution on the site is believed to be similar to that of the harvest mouse, but the trapping results suggest it to be far less common. E2.1.5 Avifauna F2.1.5.1 Historical Perspective In its pristine, undisturbed state, Bolsa Chica was an estuary with a shallow bay and extensive marsh habitat. Although specific data on avifauna of this area is very limited, a reasonable picture of its pre-alteration condition can be ascertained. Based on composition of comparable marsh habitats elsewhere in Orange County, this probably mclud(A large areas of cordgrass (Spartina fohosa) supporting a breeding population of the now-endangered light-footed clapper rail (Dillingham 1971). (See Table F2-3 for Latin names of species discussed in this section.) Habitat for nesting herons, egrets, bitterns, shorebirds, terns, gulls, pelicans, and waterfowl was abundant. Talbert (1952) observed "birds by the thousand so thick in flight as to almost eclipse the sun". It is likely that short-eared owls and northern harriers nested among the marshes and grasslands. Other raptors found abundant foraging opportunities; among them was the peregrine falcon, prior to its near-extinction due to the pesticide DDT in the 1.950s and 1960s. Significant habitat alteration began in the early 1800s: the Santa Ana River changed its course; and drainage and landclearing for agriculture took place (Novic:k 1983). This reduced the acreage of wetland habitat at Bolsa Chica, but did not dramatically allter its character. Functional and compositional changes in the Bolsa Chica wetlands were initiated in 1899, when the Bolsa Chica Gun club constructed a dam with culverts and one-way tidegates across Freeman Creek to improve conditions for waterfowl hunting. This dam kept saltwater from the lowlands and temporarily impounded fresh water. Thus, habitat area for ducks, particularly dabbling ducks, increased, but habitat acreage favorable to other wateThirds such as herons, egrets, rails, savannah sparrows, and shorebirds decreased. Following the discovery of oil in the 1920s, filling and constructio:ci took place which further depleted wetland habitat at Bolsa Chica. In 1960, the Garden Grove-Wintersburg Flood Control Channel was constructed, which further reduced the acreage exposed to natural storm flow and F2-14 �i Table F2-3 AVIAN SPECIES REPORTED FROM BOLSA CHICA BEFORE AND AFTER 1978 RESTORATION • Source of Observation Breeding Status Scientific Name Common Name H •• (if applicable) Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Restoration, (KB) Restoration Restoration Restoration Gavia immer common loon W 2,3b,5,8 Gavia stellata red-throated loon W 3b,5,8 Gavia pacificia Pacific loon W 5 Podiceps auruw horned grebe W 1 3b,5,8 Aedu wphorus occidentalts western grebe W 1,3a 2,3b,5,8 cn Podiceps nigricollis eared grebe W 1,3a 2,3b,5,8 Podilymbus podiceps pied-billed grebe W 1,3a 2,3b,5,8 Pelecanus erythrorhynchos American white pelican W 3a 2,5 Pelecanus occidentalis California brown pelican W 1 2,3b,5,8 Phalacrocorax auritus double-crested cormorant W 1 2,3b,5 ,8 Branta coanadensis Canada goose W 1,3a 5 Branta bernicia brant W 3a 2,3b,8 Anas strepera gadwall W 1 2,5,8 Anas platyrhynchos mallard W 1,3a 2,3b,5,8 KB Anas acuta northern pintail W 1,3a 2,3b,5,8 KB Anas cyanoptera cinnamon teal W 1,3a 2,3b,5,8 KB Anas discors blue-winged teal W 1 2,3b,5,8 Table F2-3 AVIAN SPECIES REPORTED FROM BOLSA CHICA BEFORE AND AFTER 1978 RESTORATION Source of Observation Breeding Status Scientific Name Common Name H •• (if applicable) Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Restoration, (KB) Restoration Restoration Restoration Anas crecaa green-winged teal W 1,3a 2,3b,5,8 Anas americana American wigeon W 1,3a 2,3b,5,8 Anas penelope Eurasian wigeon W 2,8 Anus clypeata northern shoveler W 1,3a 2,3b,5,8 Oxyura jamaicensis ruddy duck W 1,3a 2,3b,5,8 KB o Melanitta fascia white-winged scoter W 3a 3b,8 Melanitta perspicillata surf scoter W 1,3a 3b,5,8 Melanitta nigra black scoter W 3b Aythya valisineria canvasback W 8 Aythya americana redhead W i 2,3b,5,8 Aythya marila greater scaup W 1 3b,5,8 Aythya affinis lesser scaup W 1,3a 2,3b,5,8 Bucephala clangula common goldeneye W 3a 3b,8 Bucephala albeola bufflehead W 1,3a 2,3b,5,8 Mergus serrator red-breasted merganser W 1,3a 2,3b,5,8 Mergus merganser common merganser W 1 5,8 Larus glaucescens glaucous-winged gull W 1 3b,8 4m me me am. ma a, NO W m a* "a i� Table F2-3 AVIAN SPECIES REPORTED FROM BOLSA CHICA BEFORE AND AFTER 1978 RESTORATION Source of Observation Breeding Status (if applicable) Scientific Name Common Name H •• Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Restoration, (KB) Restoration Restoration Restoration Lanus caanus mew gull w 1,3a 2,8 Lanus aalifornicus California gull w 1,3a 2,3b,5,8 Lanus thayeri Thayer's gull w 5,8 Lanus argentatus herring gull w 1 2,3b„85 Lars heermannii Heerman's gull w 1,3a 3b,8 J Lanus occidentalis western gull w 1,3a 2,3b,5,8 Lanus philadelphia Bonaparte's gull w 1,3a 2,3b,5,8 Lanus delawarensis ring-billed gull w 1,3a 2,3b,5,8 Sterna forsteri Forster's tern w 1,3a 2,3b,5,8 KB Sterna antillarum browni California least tern w 1 2,8 KB Sterna elegans elegant tern w 1,3a 2,3b,8 KB Sterna cuspia Caspian tern w 1,3a 2,3b,5,8 KB Sterna maxima royal tern w 5 Sterna hirunda common tern w 1,3a 3b,8 Chlidonias niger black tern w 1 6,8 Rynchops niger black skimmer w 5,8 KB Botaurus lentiginosus American bittern w 1 2,8 Table FZ-3 AVIAN SPECIES REPORTED FROM BOLSA CIRCA BEFORE AND AFTER 1978 RESTORATION * Source of Observation Breeding Status Scientific Name Common Name H •• (if applicable) Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Restoration, (KB) Restoration Restoration Restoration Nycticorax nyctieorax black-crowned night heron W 1 2,3b,5,8 Egretta thula snowy egret W 1,3a 2,3b,5,8 Casmerodius albus great egret W 1,3a 2,3b,5,8 ►rl Bubulcus ibis Cattle egret W 8 Ardea herodias great blue heron W 1,3a 2,3b,5,8 00 Egretta nufeseens reddish egret W 3b,8 Egretta tricolor tricolored (Louisiana)heron W 3a 8 Butorides striatus green-backed heron W 1 8 Rallus longirostris levipes light-footed clapper rail W 3a 7,8 Furzana catulina SOra w Y Fulica americana American coot W 1,3a 2,3b,5,8 KB KB Recurvirostra americana American avocet W 1,3a 2,3b,5,8 KB KB Hinmtopus mcdcianus black-necked stilt W 1,3a 2,3b,5,8 KB KB Charadrius alewndrinus snowy plover W 1,3a 2,3b,5,8 KB KB Charadrius semipalmatus semipalmated plover W 1,3a 2,3b,5,8 Charadrius vocifents killdeer W 1,3a 2,3b,5,8 KB KB rp—lu-zlis squatarola black-bellied plover W 1,3a 2,3b,5,8 on w eft it w JUM mom mew 401 1W "N ow tM 'lA "N `M Table F2-3 AVIAN SPECIES REPORTED FROM BOLSA CHICA BEFORE AND AFTER 1978 RESTORATION * Source of Observation Breeding Status (if applicable) Scientific Name Common Name H •• Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Restoration, (KB) Restoration Restoration Restoration Limosa fedoa marbled godwit W 1,3a 2,3b,5,8 Numenius phaeopus whimbrel W 1,3a 3b,5,8 Numenius americans long-billed curlew W 1,3a 2,3b,5,8 Catoptrophorus sentoalmatus willet W 1,3a 2,3b,5,8 Pinga melanoleuca greater yellowlegs W 1,3a 2,3b,5,8 �o Mnga flavipes lesser yellowlegs W 1,3a 2,3b.5,8 Phalaropus tricolor Wilson's phalarope W 1 8 Phalaropus lobatus red-necked phalarope W 1 6,8 Phalaropus fuliaaria red phalarope W 1 Limnodromus griseus short-billed dowitcher W 1,3a 2,3b,5,8 Limnodromus scolopaceus long-billed dowitcher W 1,3a 2,3b,5,8 Actitus macularia spotted sandpiper W 1 2,5,8 Calidris canna red knot W 1 2,3b,5,8 Qdidris alba sanderling W 1,3a 2,3b,5,8 Calidris mauri western sandpiper W 1,3a 2,3b,5,8 Calidris minutilla least sandpiper W 1,3a 2,3b,5,8 Calidris alpina dunlin W 1,3a 2,3b,5,8 Table F2-3 AVIAN SPECIES REPORTED FROM BOLSA CHICA BEFORE AND AFTER 1978 RESTORATION Source of Observation Breeding Status Scientific Name Common Name H " (if applicable) Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Restoration, (KB) Restoration Restoration Restoration Calidris himantopus stilt sandpiper w 1 2,8 Calidris bairdii Baird's sandpiper w 1 8 Calidris melanotos pectoral sandpiper w 3b Arenaria melanocephala black tutnstone w 3a 8 NArenaria interpres ruddy tutnstone w 1,3a 2,3b,5,8 0 Callinago gallinago common snipe w 1 2,8 Callipepla califomieo California quail U 1 2,8 KB Ekuw aaeruleus black-shouldered(white-tailed)kite U 1,3a 3b,4,8 Circus cyaneus northern barrier w,U 1 2,3b,4„85 Acc.—iter stratus sharp-shinned bawK U 4,3 ' Accipiter ciooperi Cooper's hawk U 4,8 Buteo lineana red-shouldered hawk U 1 2,3b,4,8 KB Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk U 1 2,3b,4,5,8 Pandion haliaetus osprey w I 2,3b,4,5,8 Falco sparverius American kestrel U 1,3a 2,3b,4,8 PB Falco columbarius merlin U 4,8 Falco peregrinus peregrine falcon U 1 2,4,5 Table F2-3 AVIAN SPECIES REPORTED FROM BOLSA CHICA BEFORE AND AFTER 1978 RESTORATION Source of Observation Breeding Status (if applicable) Scientific Name Common Name H •• Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Restoration, (KB) Restoration Restoration Restoration Falco mesicanus prairie falcon U 3b,8 Cathartes aura turkey vulture U 1 4,8 7yto alba common barn-owl U 4,8 PB Asio flammeus short-eared owl W,U 1 4,8 Bubo virginianus great homed owl U 4 Athene cunicularia burrowing owl U 1 8 PB KB Ceryle alcyon belted kingfisher W 1 2,3b,5,8 Tenaida macroura mourning dove U 1 2,3b,8 KB PB Streptopelia chinensis Chinese spotted dove U 1 5,8 Columbia livia rock dove U 1 3b,5,8 KB PB Calypte anna Anna's hummingbird U 1 2,8 E PB Calypte costae Costa's hummingbird U 8 Selasphorus rufus rufous hummingbird U 8 Selasphorus sasin Allen's hummingbird U 8 Archilochus alexandri black-chinned hummingbird U 1 8 Colaptes auratus northern flicker U 1 3b,8 PB 7yrannus verticalis western kingbird U 1 6,8 Table F2-3 AVIAN SPECIES REPORTED FROM BOLSA CHICA BEFORE AND AFTER 1978 RESTORATION * Source of Observation Breeding Status Scientific Name Common Name H ** (if applicable) Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Restoration, (KB) Restoration Restoration Restoration Tyrannus vocferans Cassin's kingbird U 1 8 PB Empidonax dicilis western (Pacific-slope) flycatcher U 1 8 Myiarchus tuberculifer ash-throated flycatcher U 1 8 ►r� Contopus sordidulus western wood-pewee U 1 8 N Sayomis nigriaans black phoebe U,W 1 5,8 PB PB N Sayornis says Say's phoebe U 1 8 Enpidonax traillii extinus southwestern willow flycatcher U 8 Enpidonax hammondii Hammond's flychatcher U 8 Eremophila alpestris horned lark U 1 2,3b,8 PB KB Anthus rubescens American (water) pipit U 1 5,8 " Tachycineta bicolor tree swallow U 8 Stelgidopteryx serripennis northern rough-winged swallow U 8 Hirundo pyrrhonota cliff swallow U 1 3b,8 KB KB Hirundo rustica barn swallow U 1 3b,8 KB PB Corvus brachyMynchos American crow U 1,3a 2,3b,5,8 PB Corvus cvrax common raven U 1,3a 2,3b,5,8 Psaltriparus mmunus bushtit U 1 2,8 PB Mi M lm Mso r M Ma M M rr » rr Table F2-3 AVIAN SPECIES REPORTED FROM BOLSA CHICA BEFORE AND AFTER 1978 RESTORATION +' Source of Observation Breeding Status (if applicable) Scientific Name Common Name H •• Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Restoration, (KB) Restoration Restoration Restoration 7}oglodytes aedon house wren U 8 Cistothoms palwvu marsh wren W 1 2,5,8 7hryomanes bewickii Bewick's wren U 1 8 Regulus calendula ruby-crowned kinglet U 1 8 Mimus polyglottos northern mockingbird U 1 6,8 PB PB w Catharus ustulatus Swainson's thrush U 1 8 Catharus guttatus hermit thrush U 1 8 Lanius ludovicianus loggerhead shrike U 1 2,3b,5,8 PB KB Sturnus vulgaris European starling U 1 2,3b,8 PB Bombycilla cedrorum cedar waxwing U 1 8 Vireo gilvus warbling vireo U 8 Dendroica nigrescens black-throated gray warbler U 8 Dendroiaa petechia yellow warbler U 8 Dendroiaa coronata yellow-rumped (Audubon's)warbler U 1 2,5,8 PB Oporonis tolmiei MacGillivray's warbler U 1 8 Vermivora celata orange-crowned warbler U 1 8 Geothlypis trichas common yellowthroat W 5,8 Table F2-3 AVIAN SPECIES REPORTED FROM BOLSA CHICA BEFORE AND AFTER 1978 RESTORATION * Source of Observation Breeding Status Scientific Name Common Name H ** (if applicable) Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Restoration, (KB) Restoration Restoration Restoration Wilsonia pusilla Wilson's warbler U 1 8 Euphagus cyanocephalus Brewer's blackbird U 1,3a 8 Agelaius phoeniceus red-winged blackbird W 1 2,3b,8 KB PB Agelaius tricolor tricolored blackbird W 1 8 N Sturnella neglecta western meadowlark U I 2,3b,5,8 KB PB Molothrus ater brown-headed cowbird U 1 8 Icterus galbula bullockii northern (Bullock's)oriole U 1 8 PB Icterus cucullatus hooded oriole U 8 Piranga ludoviciana western tanager U 1 8 Zono icia leucophrys white-crowned sparrow U 1 2,3b,5,8 ' Zonotrichia atricapilla golden-crowned sparrow U 1 3b,8 Passerella iliaca fox sparrow U 1 8 Melospiza melodic song sparrow U 1,3a 2,3b,5,8 KB PB Melospiza lincolnii Lincoln's sparrow U 1 8 Passerculus sandwichensis beldingii Belding's savannah sparrow W 1 2,3b,5,8 KB KB Passerculus sandwichensis rostratus large-billed savannah sparrow W 6 Pipilo erythropthalmus rufous-sided towhee U 1 8 w r w w ■� w w w w w w w ■� a•w w w w w � Table F2-3 AVIAN SPECIES REPORTED FROM BOLSA CHICA BEFORE AND AFTER 1978 RESTORATION Source of Observation Breeding Status (if applicable) Scientific Name Common Name H •• Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Restoration, (KB) Restoration Restoration Restoration Pipilo aissalis California(brown) towhee U 1 2,8 KB PB Junco hyemalis dark-eyed junco U 8 Pheuticus melanocephalus black-headed grosbeak U 8 Passerina amoena lazuli bunting U 8 t-1 Carduelis tristis American goldfinch U 1 8 PB PB N Carduelis psaltria lesser goldfinch U 1 5,8 PB Carpodacus meacanus house finch U 1,3a 2,3b,5,8 KB PB Passer domesticus house sparrow U 1 5,8 PB 0 F.xdaded from this table were spenin reports based on single individuab only(including sightings of s single individual during multiple censum in the same season). These were regarded as vagrantslaceidenteb and excluded from the,,,arn�alym provided in Ws document. •• H m primary habitat mociation;W a wetlands;U m upland •se B$m Ivtown breeding at Bob*Cbica;PB -probable(suspected breeding at Bubo Chica) Source: 1)DIffisham(1911);2)USEW5(1982);3)a:pre-red,b:pout rest,Novick(1983);4)Bloom(1982);5)Jones(1989);6)Chambera Croup,pers.obs.(1991);7)Bobs Chico Conservancy,pen.comm.(1991).8)L.Jones(1982). Sources 6and 7 were wed only where they supplement other available information. tidal action. Also in the 1960s, Sunset Bay was developed into the Huntington Harbour marina ' and residential complex. Extensive urban development also began at this time, substantially reducing the acreage of upland habitat adjacent to the remaining wetlands. The 230-acre Bolsa ' Chica Ecological Reserve was established in 1973. Tidal gates between inner and outer Bolsa Bay were opened in 1978, restoring muted tidal flushing to Inner Bolsa. Also in the late 1970s, two sand-covered islands were constructed to provide nesting habitat for the endangered ' California least tern. In 1986, muted tidal flushing was restored to the back portion of South Bolsa Slough. ' Thus, habitat for birds at Bolsa Chica has gone through a transition from an extensive, pristine marsh system of over 2,300 acres, into a diked system favorable to waterfowl near the turn of the century, into a partially restored marsh with a wide diversity of habitats. In particular, Bolsa ' Chico contains a high proportion of mudflat/seasonal pond habitat, which attracts large numbers of shorebirds (State Coastal Conservancy and Romburg Tiburon Center 1990).One important ' habitat component, cordgrass, has been reduced from historical conditions to the point where the light-footed clapper rail, a cordgrass-dependent species, has been eliminated as a breeding species. However, a cooperative effort by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bolsa Chico Conservancy to restore cordgrass in the Ecological Reserve may facilitate the return of this species as a resident breeder at Bolsa Chica. However, the upper marsh habitats have become degraded due to isolation from tidal flushing, oil field activities, and, more recently, drought conditions. ' Several major studies of the Bolsa Chica avifauna have been conducted; unfortunately variation ' between studies in the methods employed in the surveys make comparisons difficult. Dillingham (1971)provided analyses of census data collected along prescribed census routes for the periods 23 June 1970 through 29 March 1971 (22 censuses) and 29 March through August 31, 1971 ' (14 censuses), providing a valuable quantitative data base for pre-restoration conditions for both wintering and nesting birds, including both water-associated and upbuid species. L. Jones (1982) conducted surveys of both wetland and upland species. Twelve counts (maximum once/month) were conducted from January, 1981 - April, 1982, by a team of 4 to 5 observers along a prescribed route; these surveys were done from dawn to dusk, regardless of tide or weather factors. ' Novick (1983) conducted both pre-project (1969-72) and post-pni.ject (1980-81) censuses of winter bird use between October and March. Because Novick's studies were directed at ' determining maximum populations occurring on the mudflats of the Ecological Reserve area, the results are biased towards higher counts. In addition, pre-restoration counts were taken from different vantage points than the post-restoration counts. Thus, the data from this report are not ' comparable to data taken at prescribed times and locations regardless of tidal conditions. However, this report does provide useful information' for analyzing changes in bird species diversity. ' USFWS (1982) conducted surveys of the Bolsa Chica wetlands along an established, consistent route in the area of the diked wetlands during 18 census periods from November 1981 through March 1982. Surveys were done between 8 A.M. until noon; someatimes surveys were extended later into the day to complete the established survey route when large numbers of birds were F2-26 ' 1 present. Behavior and locations of birds were noted. Because some areas were not included in the November censuses, these counts were excluded from the data analyses in this document. Census of upland species and habitats was not a goal of this study; however, upland species and their associated habitats were recorded as they were encountered. ' In mapping bird occurrence, USFWS (1982) used a cell numbering system which has been repeated in subsequent studies; cell locations are provided in a map containing data on Belding's savannah sparrow (Figure F2-2). ' Most studies conducted at Bolsa Chica during the past decade have focused on particular species of concern (Collier 1979; Bloom 1982; Massey 1988; Zembal and Massey 1988; Zembal et. al. ' 1988; Feldmeth 1989; USFWS 1989a,b). A comparison of species richness based on several studies conducted before and after the 1978 restoration shows post-restoration increases in species richness of both upland and water- associated species, however, the relative contribution of various species grows has remained relatively stable (Table F2-4). Compared to other Orange Count wetlands for which comprehensive species lists were available P g Y P (Table F2-4), Bolsa Chica is most similar to Upper Newport Bay because of the juxtaposition ' of wetland and upland habitats available at each site. The percentage contribution of various avian groups is similar for both sites; the higher species richness of Upper Newport Bay may be due to the larger area of both wetland and upland habitats available in this area, including ' upland areas that are protected as wildlife habitat. Although a comparison of Bolsa Chica avifauna with that of Upper Newport Bay may provide some insight regarding the potential of ' Bolsa Chica with further restoration, it is likely that the most significant changes would be in bird abundance as opposed to species composition; however, the potential exists to attract additional nesting species, including the endangered light-footed clapper rail, to Bolsa Chica. ' The numbers of individual birds using the area has also increased significantly following restoration (Table F2-5). To compare changes in abundance, mean per-census totals were ' calculated for each study for the December to March period. Using mean totals rather than cumulative totals corrects for the higher number of census days in the USFWS (1982) study (n=16) compared to the Dillingham (1971) study (n=7). Therefore, these numbers provide ' indexes of relative, rather than absolute, changes in abundance within the diked wetlands following restoration of tidal flushing to Inner Bolsa Bay and a portion of South Bolsa. ' Relative abundance of water-associated birds in the diked wetlands has increased about 80 percent overall (Table F2-5). To some extent, this may be accounted for by "overflow" from the large numbers of birds using the restored wetlands. However, the percentage contribution ' of some areas to total numbers also increased; substantial increases in relative numbers of birds in areas not adjacent to the primary feeding areas of Inner and Outer Bolsa (lowlands, Middle Bolsa) are noteworthy. The largest percentage increases occurred in the North Bolsa Tank Farm, ' Middle Bolsa, and Bolsa Chica Lowlands areas; the collective contribution of these areas to the total rose from 16 to 37 percent. ' F2-27 6222F-3/92 63 IN 65 32, �l ISO .' 1.4 '131 2=10 121 ray . ..Y t., / 0- ' L.] a 1. t3 r 19 •13[11 N , � �� 44 �1�- its[11 24 �. �• .�d0-2 71 ei �--ti 1� 1 _2�56[15] — "`�,� [171, .. OUTER bOLSA`AY [ 1 INN SO - -- -___ � u Tom-.+- r'��� -sr—• _ --��r -�-V••-_ .-... r,�p���. - ww,o.r�.n----------�------�-� - `�-•�-�- Key: 40 = cell number Note: Numbers in brackets refer to 1991 survey results; 0-2 = number of pairs, 1986-1989 numbers in italics are minimum and maximum POPULATION DISTRIBUTION OF [1] = number of pairs, 1991 populations from 1986-1989. BELDING'S SAVANNAH SPARROWS FEET FOR INDIVIDUAL CELLS o e 0 400 CENSUSED AT BOLSA CHICA Source: USFWS 1989 FIGURE F2-2 1 Table F2-4 ' NUMBER OF SPECIES IN VARIOUS AVIAN GROUPS AT BOLSA CffiCA COMPARED TO UPPER NENMRT BAY ' Number of Species (%) b Location* Avian Group t y ' BCPreR BCPostR UNB Fisheaters 24(17) 31(17) 30(15) ' Gulls 8(6) 9(5) 9(4) Wading Shorebirds/Rails/Coots 30(21) 31(17) 29(14) Diving Ducks 8(6) 10(6) 10(5) Dabbling Ducks/Geese 10(7) 11(6) 15(7) Marsh-Associated Passerines 5(4) 7(4) 5(2) Raptors (Non-Fish-Eaters)and Vultures 9(6) 16(9) 16(8) ' Other Non-Wetland Species 48(34) 63(35) 89(44) Total Water-Associated Species 85(60) 99(56) 98(48) ' Total Non-Wetland Species 57(40) 79(44) 105(52) Total Species 142 178 203 Sources: Dillingham (1971),Hayes et al. (1M),CDFG (1991) (pets. comm. N. Bruland and J. Scholl),L. Jones (1982), B. Jones (1989),Novick (1M), MacDonald and Associates (1985), Massey (1980, 1989, 1990), USFWS (1992). Locations: BCPreR = Bolsa Chica, pre-restoration BCPostR = Bolsa Chica, post-restoration UNB = Upper Newport Bay F2-29 I Table F2-5 COMPARISON OF BIRD ABUNDANCE, DECEMBER-MARCH, IN THE DUMD WETLANDS OF ' BOLSA CHICA, BEFORE AND AFTER RESTORATION (Dillingham 1971,USFWS 1982) Area* Mean No. Mean No. Percent , Pre-Restoration Post-Restoration Change (% of total) (11% of total) ' Ecological Reserve 250(13) 321 (9) + 28 Solid Waste Handling Area 26 (1) 20 (<1) -23 , South Bolsa 1315 (66) :1390(52) + 44 North Bolsa Tank Area 138 (7) 679(19) + 392 Middle Bolsa 147 (7) 421 (12) + 186 Bolsa Chica Lowlands 40 (2) 210(6) + 422 ' Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel 79 (4) 68 (2) - 14 Freeman Creek Channel 3 (.1) 12 (.3) + 300 ' All Areas 1 1998 3621 + 81 *Refer to Figure F2-2 for map locations of the above-mentioned areas. F2-30 Although the numbers of birds censused in the lowlands and Middle Bolsa remained relatively low, the percentage contribution of these areas doubled from 9 to 18 percent following ' restoration (Table F2-5). Cells 38 and 40 contained the majority of individuals and species found in the lowland area during the USFWS (1982); cell 38 has also served as a nesting location for black-necked stilts, mallards, American coots, and ruddy ducks (USFWS 1982; Burkett and ' James 1988). In general, however, the non-tidal lowlands constitute a less valuable habitat than the wetlands and seasonal ponds of Outer Bolsa Bay, Inner Bolsa Bay, and South Bolsa. The South Bolsa area attracted the highest numbers of birds both before and after restoration. It seems likelythat the drought of recent ears has resulted in relatively lower use of the Bolsa y y Chica lowlands, as the pickleweed component has become degraded by drought; however, quantitative data on bird use during the drought years (1987 to present) is lacking. When data analysis results from Jones (1989) are available, they may provide some insight regarding possible impacts of recent changes in habitat quality. The western sandpiper was the most abundant waterbird recorded during December-March for the Dillingham (1971) , L. Jones (1982) and USFWS (1982) studies, and almost certainly still comprises higher percentage of the avifauna community at Bolsa Chica than any other species. ' Like other coastal wetlands, Bolsa Chica exhibits wide variations in number and diversity of birds using the area, throughout the day and through the seasons. These fluctuations are primarily due to the movements of shorebirds and waterfowl. Southward migration begins in late July and August and continues through October; the highest numbers of birds are generally present between December and March, with most of the northward migrants and wintering birds dispersing by mid-April (Dillingham 1971; Guthrie et. al. 1989; USFWS 1982). Nesting season begins in mid-April and continues through July (USFWS 1982). Corey (1989) reported tidally correlated movements of wintering shorebirds, which foraged in ' outer Bolsa Bay during low tide and moved to a roosting area (Cell 4) during high tide. During Corey's study, conducted on five census days between 1 and 10 December 1989, only American avocets were noted to increase in number within Cell 4 at low tide. Corey also emphasized the importance of roosting sites which provide refuge for shorebirds during high tide, particularly when these sites are located in proximity to major feeding areas. L. Jones (1982) also noted that large numbers of feeding shorebirds concentrate in the Ecological Reserve during low tide, while the diked wetlands support large numbers of feeding and/or roosting birds during high tide. USFWS (1982) presented results of brood surveys conducted between April 15 and July 29, ' 1982. These surveys did not attempt to count every nest; however, this information is useful in documenting nesting locations for certain waterfowl and shorebird studies, including some species which have been designated as target species for management purposes: pintail (representing dabbling ducks), ruddy duck (representing diving ducks), American avocet, black- necked stilt (representing wading shorebirds), and snowy plover (sensitive species). L. Jones (1982) counted breeding water-associated birds and young during the 1981 nesting season. Water-associated species listed as confirmed or probable breeding species in the Dillingham study included: American avocet, black-necked stilt, snowy plover, savannah sparrow (presumed F2-31 to be Belding's), and American coot. Waterfowl (ducks) were absent as breeders. Post- restoration nesting of all of the above-mentioned species has occurred; in addition, the following species have become established as nesters: California least tern, elegant tern, Caspian tern, ' black skimmer, Forster's tern, mallard, ruddy duck, and northern pintail. The establishment of two specially-constricted sand-covered islands in 1978 was, clearly, crucial to the establishment of terns and skimmers as breeding species at Bolsa Chica. , Four introduced, non-native species were present during both die: Dillingham and USFWS surveys: rock dove, Chinese spotted dove, European starling, and house sparrow. These species tend to be favored by urbanization. F2.1.5.2 "Target" Species , The State Coastal Conservancy and Romberg Tiburon Centers (1990) identified several species as "target species" for purposes of establishing goals for wetlands restoration efforts. These species, which are listed along with their habitat requirements in Table F2-6, and locations mapped in Figure F2-3, represent a diversity of habitat component,;. Most of the target species are listed as threatened, endangered, candidate, or species of concern by the California Department of Fish and Game and/or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife ,Service (Table F2-7). Other species are designated as target species because their associated habitat types contribute to the ' overall habitat picture for coastal wetlands ecosystems; these include wading shorebirds (represented by American avocet, black-necked stilt, and dowitchers), diving ducks (represented ' by ruddy duck), and dabbling ducks (represented by mallard). The following target species currently nest at Bolsa Chica, and/or have nested subsequent to ' restoration: Belding's savannah sparrow, American avocet, black-necked stilt, snowy plover, California least tern, elegant tern, black skimmer, ruddy duck, ,uid mallard (USFWS 1982; Burkett and James 1988; USFWS 1989a,b), and burrowing owl (possible nesting) in Bolsa Chica mesa and Huntington Mesa. Potential nesting species include short-eared owl(Bloom 1982), and light-footed clapper rail (Murray in National Audubon Society, 1991). Osprey, peregrine falcon, and long- and short-billed dowitchers are migrant and/or wintering species. Osprey could ' eventually nest at Bolsa Chica, based upon historical nesting mcords for coastal Southern California (Grmnel and Miller 1944), if nesting platforms were provided for this purpose. Nesting by peregrine falcons at Bolsa Chica is unlikely due to lack of suitable nest sites (cliffs or high-rise buildings). Dowitchers nest only in northern tundra habitats of Alaska and northern Canada. The birds of Bolsa Chica and surrounding environments are discussed below from the perspective of habitat values in specific areas, focusing on sensitive and target species. In the discussion below, target species and other species of concern (Table F2-7) found in each ' habitat type are identified in brackets at the beginning of each section, and are discussed further in the text. Discussions of the importance of Bolsa Chica to ,nnsitive species is provided ' following the discussion on habitats. A complete species list (excluding accidentals) is provided in Table F2-3, including pre- and post-restoration reports. F2-32 Table FZ-6 HABITAT REQUIROAENTS FOR AVIAN TARGET SPECIES (Derived from State Coastal Conservancy and Romberg Tiburon Center 1M) Species Nest Habitat General Habitat Diet Feeding Habitat Status at Bolsa Chica Requirements at Boba Chica Primary Target Species Belding's Savannah Sparrow ground,above spring tides, grasslands,marsh insects,seeds,snails ground gleans, currently nests at Bolsa prefer dense pickleweed, tidal/non-tidal Chica depressions,0-0.5M pickleweed, saltgrass Light-Footed Clapper Rail ground,saltmarsh,cordgrass, saJt/bmckish marsh aquatic invertebrates, probes mud flats, probable historic nester elevated banks insects,seeds,fish ground gleans at Bolsa Chica;potential cordgrass future nesting following cordgrass restoration American Avocet open flats,amid shells, sandy,rocky coast and aquatic invertebrates mudflats,beaches currently nests at Bolsa Wpebbles,marsh grass islands Chica Black-Necked Stilt ground,mound above tide with marshes,mud flats, aquatic invertebrates, probes mud currently nests at Bolsa 360°view shallow ponds insects flats/beaches Chica Snowy Plover ground,salt pans beaches,mud flats,sand insects,aquatic ground gleans occurs as migrant, pans,sand margins invertebrates beaches,probes wintering,and mud flatstbeaches occasional nesting potential future nesting Dowitchers ground,grass on rises near wet meadows,artic aquatic invertebrates probes mud flats migrant/wintering(no shallow water regions resting),large numbers California Least Tern ground,short sparse vegetation flat beaches,river/lake fish,aquatic dives,skims open endangered species; margins,near shallow invertebrates bay,open channel nests at Bolsa Chica water Dabbling Ducks(sp. Mallard) ground,concealed by shallow lake,pond, aquatic invertebrates, dabbles,shallow includes 3 nesting vegetation(cattails)near water marsh seeds open water,open species and S additional channels regular migrant/ wintering species Table FZ-6 HABITAT REQLMM4ENTS FOR AVIAN TARGET SPECIES (Derived from State Coastal Conservancy and Romberg Tiburon Center 19%) Species Nest Habitat General Habitat Diet Feeding Habitat Status at Bola Chic& Requirements at Bola Chic& Secondary Target Species Elegant Tern open ground,within 20 meters salt marsh dikes, fish(Anchovies) dives open bay, recently established as beaches,flats open channel nesting species Black Skimmer open ground,salt marsh beaches,sandbars, fish,aquatic skims open bay, recently established as saltmarsh invertebrates open channel nesting species Osprey deciduous trees,3-20 meters along rivers,lakes,coast fish dives open bay, migrant,wintering tall or specially constructed open channel potential nesting if platform suitable trees or platforms are established AShort-Eared Owl ground,concealed by low meadow,marsh sm. mammals,birds, open terrestrial and historic and potential vegetation,scrub insects marsh habitats with future nesting in coastal low vegetation Orange County Burrowing Owl underground grasslands,open areas insects,rodents, grassland/ruderal One possible nesting pair lizards,birds on Huntington Mesa Peregrine Falcon cliff,high-rise buildings open foraging habitat, birds aerial pursuit;open migrant/wintering savanna area's wetlands and uplands Diving Ducks(sp. Ruddy Ducks) ground,tall emergent densely vegetated fresh aquatic invertebrates, surface dives,open ruddy duck nests at vegetation water marsh aq.vegetation water Bolsa Chica;and other species occur as migrant wintering 6222F-I M1 LEGEND AMAV AMERICAN AVOCET BNST BUCK-NECKED STILT SNPL SNOWY PLOVER RUDU DIVING DUCK1��C �• �: CITE DABBLING DUCK �;� BNST NOPI DABBLING DUCK dNST RUDU MAµ, . t t N MALL DABBLING DUCK MAU" �.. r MA�' _ ANST MALL NOPI ONSr BNST iNP A(4 dNSt. SNPL/ , ONST _7saDttE- AMAV • � __, � CITE r aNST - St AMAV _ . aNST yT MALL -+s'� MALL. ' _- -- — J-t AN BN Si ' — _� - dNST T • . � Mt 4i'�!C tz FEET DISTRIBUTION OF NESTING TARGET SPECIES v U soo (DUCKS AND SHOREBIRDS)AT BOLSA CHICA Source: USFWS 1982;Burkett and James,CDFG 1988 FIGURE F2-3 Table F2-7 SUMMARY OF CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF BOLSA CHICA TO ENDANGERED, THREATENED AND CANDIDATE AVIAN SPECIES, AND SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN state S0n& Local Species Status Level Ca6forma Couuty Level Reported Occurrence at Bolan Chica Level Level Peregrine Falcon FE,SE S C C C Uncommon M,D,W;occurrence increasing due to restoration programs Prairie Falcon CSC L L L L Rare M,W Merlin CSC S S S S Very rare M,D Osprey CSC L L S S Uncommon but regular M,D,W;potential N if rest sites become established Sharp-shinned Hawk CSC L L L L Rare M,D,W Cooper's Hawk CSC L L L L Rare M,D,W r� Northern Hamer CSC L S S S Uncommon but regular M,W;potential N Ferruginous Hawk CSC,2 N N N N Limited potential M,W;not yet reported from Boise Chica Bald Eagle FE,SE N N N N Potential M,W;not yet repotted from Bolas Chic& Swainson's Hawk ST N N N N Accidental Short-eared Owl CSC L S C C Uncommon W;potential N Burrowing Owl CSC L L S S Very rare M,D,W;has nested on upland meass;potential N Lon;caredG*�,1 n Mgt- L. IL Very rare Reddish Egret CSC,2 N N L L Very rare M,W White-Faced Ibis CSC,2 N N N N Potential M,W;not yet reported from Bolsa Chic&. Light-footed Clapper Rail FE,SE L L L L Rare D,Potential N;potentially significant to future recovery California Black Rail ST,2 N N N N Potential D,M,W;not yet reported from Bolsa Chic&. Historical nesting species in Southern California coastal salt marshes. California least Tern FE,SE S S C C Common N,D Black Tern 2 N N L L Very rare M Elegant Tern CSC,2 • S S C Common N,D Black Skimmer CSC • S S C Common N,D,M,W Table F2-7 SUMMARY OF CURRENT MPORTANCE OF BOLSA CHICA TO ENDANGERED, THREATENED AND CANDIDATE AVIAN SPECIES, AND SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN Southern Orange Species Stators �� Cafifornia Comty L*W Reported Occurrence at Bob&Chiea Level Level Lead uvel California Gull CSC L L L L Common M,W California Brown Pelican FE,SE L L • • Common D American White Pelican CSC L L • • Common D Doubled-crested Cormorant CSC L L • • Common D,M,W Western Snowy Plover CSC,FPT L L S C Common D,M,W;nesting at Bolas Chic&has occurred in low numbers. Long-billed Curlew CSC,3C • • • S Common M,W Common Loon CSC L L L L Uncommon M,W t�3 t Southwestern Willow Flycatcher SE, I L L L L Rare M, reported from eucalyptus grove J California Horned Lark 2 L L • • Uncommon,potential N California Gnatcatcher CSC,FPE N N N N Rare D;very limited habitat Coastal Cactus Wren CSC, I N N N N Very limited potential N,D Loggerhead Shrike 2 L L • • Common M.W.occur year-round Tricolored Blackbird CSC,2 L L L L Uncommon D,M,W;upland grasslands and freshwater marsh Belding's Savannah Sparrow SE,2 C C C C Common N,D,M,W Large-billed Savannah Sparrow CSC,2 • • • • Uncommon M,W Sahmarsh Common Yellowthroat CSC,2 L L L L Rare M,W Yellow Warbler CSC L L L L Rare M Table FZ-7 SUMMARY OF CURRENT IM11PORTANCE OF BOLSA CHICA TO ENDANGERED, THREATENED AND CANDIDATE AVIAN SPECIES, AND SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN State Southern Orange Local Species Stator CarJorl Cooly Level Reported Occurrence at Bolsa Chica Level Level Status: FE = rated as Endangered by the Federal Government M - proposed for Federal listing as Endangered FSS - Federal(BLM&USFWS)Sensitive Species SE = Bsted as Endangered by the Sate of California SI' = bated as Threatened by the State of California CSC = a Species of Special Concern,as designated by the California Department of Fish and Game I - Category I candidate for Federal listing(ra:a for which the U.S.Fish&WildlUe Service has sutraient biological information to support a proposal to Haas Endangered or Threatened). Z = Category 3 Candidate for Federal rating:species may warrant Ding based on existing information,but for which substantial biological information to support a listing:is lacking. X - Ta:a shown to be more abundant or widespread than previously believed and/or are not suNed to any identifiable threat. w Codes and status are based on Calif.Fish and Game Natural Diversity Data Base,August 1991:Special Animals 00 Reported oaurrences: N m sofa at Bob&Chita D c++ dispersed individuals from within 300 mules of Baba Chita(after Bloom IM) M = individuals ut>ibe Boba Chic&as part of migratory pathway W wintering destination Abundance(Soorces:Bloom IM,Jones IM,USFWS IM.Novick lW;Zembal 19l1): u Very rare = fewer than one sighting per year noted from l terstum during the past 10 years Rare = sporadic dghtiagt in low numbers,more than one observation per year during the past 10 years Uncommon = irregular but expected occurrence at Baba Cbica Cemmao = expected at Bohm Chita at predictable times of year;not aecosarity in large numben •Criteria for ratings(after Bloom 1992)(refer to text for information an data supporting time rathW): N = none;loss of habitat at Bolsa Chita will ant impact populations of this species. L - fished importance:lass of habitat at Boba Chita wiB cause insignificant negative impaeb on populations at this level. S = significant importance:large4cale degradation or elimination of Bobs Chita habitat will came population reductions at this level. C - critical importance.large4cale degradation or efimioatior of Boba Chien habitat will came serious marked dectires in or extirpation of populations at this level. • = more information needed to evaluate siguificance of Bolsa China at this level. � r r �r �r rr rr r� rr err r� rr rr rr �r rr� ■■� w r Habitat TyM Locations designated as Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (FSHAs) (State Coastal Conservancy and Romburg Tiburon 1990) are discussed separately, and are also referred to in the section pertaining to the habitat type they represent. Refer to Figure F2-1 for distribution of habitat types at Bolsa Chica. Salicornia (pickleweed) Wetlands [Belding's savannah sparrow; large-billed savannah sparrow, fight-footed clapper rail] ' Locations: Bolsa Chica State Ecological Reserve: muted tidal (includes Inner Bolsa Bay and South Bolsa Slough); Warner Avenue Pond (ESHA); Scattered patches along Garden Grove- Wintersburg Flood Control Channel; Bolsa Chica lowlands; Rabbit Island ESHA (scattered patches); Edwards Thumb. Salicornia virginica provides critical habitat for the Belding's Savannah sparrow, a state-listed L endangered subspecies and a Category 2 candidate for Federal listing. Inner Bolsa Bay, South Bolsa Slough, and most areas of the Bolsa Chica lowlands and around Rabbit Island provide fair to good habitat for these birds (USFWS, 1989; Figure F24). The extensive pickleweed areas ' adjacent to Inner Bolsa Bay (IBB) support the densest population of sparrows compared to other habitat areas within Bolsa Chica (Collier 1979; USFWS 1989b: Table F2-8) (Figure F2-2). Some wetter lowland areas (cells 11, 17, and 30), having a greater ponded water condition, support less extensive habitat but still receive consistent use by Belding's savannah sparrows. The pickleweed areas currently of lowest habitat value to Belding's savannah sparrows are the drier areas in Edwards Thumb and near the North Bolsa Tank Area (USFWS 1989b: Figure F24; Table F2-8). On a statewide level, 70 percent of the Belding's savannah sparrow population exists in pickleweed marshes that are fully tidal, with ample upper-marsh elevations for nesting; this appears to constitute the ideal habitat (Zembal et al. 1988). Muted tidal habitats are also valuable, and in fact support the majority of the population of savannah sparrows at Bolsa Chica; however, Zembal et al. suggested that these habitats are more vulnerable to extremes of drought or, conversely, inundation in wet years. The nontidal areas of the Bolsa lowland, in which pickleweed growth is shorter and of lower density than areas under tidal influence, support the lowest densities of savannah sparrows. Only Inner Bolsa received consistent use by sparrows during all 4 years. Dry, nontidal pickleweed areas have the lowest habitat value(Feldmeth 1989; USFWS 1989b); however, Feldmeth results suggested that savannah sparrows may use nontidal areas such as the Bolsa lowlands in wet years, when pickleweed growth becomes more lush. Drought conditions may account for the decreased use of North Bolsa by savannah sparrows (Feldmeth, 1989); however, the lowlands supported 19 percent of the total population of Belding's Savannah sparrows in 1986, and 13 percent in 1988, which was also a drought year. This area may actually have significant value as a refuge area for Belding's Savannah sparrow and other nesting marsh birds in wet years, when outer tidal marsh vegetation is flooded. Therefore, distribution of sparrows is likely to change frequently as habitat quality changes, with moisture levels in pickleweed areas serving as an important criteria of habitat quality: a factor t F2-39 Table F2-8 DISTRIBUTION OF BREEDING BELDING'S SAVANNAH SPARROWS AT BOLSA CHICA, 1986-1989: NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION (Derived from USFWS 1989,1991) Location(Cells) 1986 No. Pairs 1987 No. Pairs 1988 No. Pairs 1989 No. Pairs 1991 No. Pairs (Percent) (Percent) (Percent) (Percent) (Percent) Outer Bolsa Bay 2 (1.2) 1 (1.0) 5 (3.7) 2 (1.4) 1 (0.9) Inner Bolsa Bay 29 (17.8) 25 (26.0) 38 (27.9) 56 (38.9) 15 (13.6) Ecological Reserve South Bolsa; 7 (4.3) 6 (6.2) 11 (8.1) 16 (11.1) 38 (34.5) (3 through 8) Middle Bolsa(15 through 20) 17 (10.4) 12 (12.5) 10 (7.3) 18 (12.5) 2 (1.8) South Bolsa Tank Farm (1, 2; 9 through 14) 26 (16.0) 13 (13.5) 36 (26.5) 26 (18.1) 34 (30.9) Solid Waste Handling Area (21 through 27) 1 (0.6) 0 0 0 1 (0.9) North Bolsa Tank Farm (29 through 36) 12 (7.4) 12 (12.5) 4 (2.9) 5 (3.5) 3 (2.7) Bolsa Chica Lowlands(38 through 51; 53, 31 (19.0) 6 (6.2) 18 (13.2) 10 (6.9) 9 (8.2) 55, 58, 59, 66, 67) Rabbit Island ESHA (609 61, 62) 38 (23.3) 21 (21.9) 14 (10.3) 11 (7.6) 7 (6.4) , TOTAL: Bolsa Chica 163 96 136 144 110 Percent of Orange County Population 22.5 22.1 Percent of Statewide population 7.2 6.0 Refer to Figure 4.7-3 for population ranges within individual cells. • Note: Actual figure may be lower due to incomplete count of largest population at Pt. Mugu. rr +r •� r •�r w r � w r r � r r r► rr r r r 6222F-lMl LEGEND BAD POOR FAIR EM �T3�=','`:�i \- �.;�\'mil. .4���_„`-,l�•. GOOD ,�1 'lit-t \/ -�1✓� 7` \i--`-h -�Y./--! .; t -�'^_i. )Iv .Ir ��\1 1;/ - 1 t/:�1�\�%.i 11 �_ L I' ..n• ♦a, ,>•j �i!`-7j�'�i-t 1 - ...f'_. r - - ♦ tl. /\��`/,.� \��` /-_� 11%/� `n 1. IA•�' /„;�e- / .,: �••. / -• F\� �/[-�/'11\ �� +.�_J. l ! /-t. t / il' rl .;ri i'ii% :':',�.` ::u::.;':::�::.,.y • ::. . !�. �.•.•. ./e 7�♦fir. ♦ '�\�-V_.'.•', \ l 1 l 1- t �-,r �/1 a�Y+-J - ••.�� n:*.:.` s:c,::..;::r �:r. ti" .• t/ ! 1:i! a•• �L•I Tom( -i,\1-\It _ire ��/ \/. \-` ...i!:+I^..,\. �: ••. :/ _ •• ♦Y ���� _ _ it 1\ / 1 i %a: ::i`Y....' y•yVV�� w .\ d �]: \/ \1 fly \./ /C 1• [ :;:::^:;'.` .:.�.::..�..,...... . ) , �.�" <� 1l(C1 \'�\f-1/\-lil/r� � +1-/ ` I-.11-la••• �..� ...>:.v.:.<:>a-:�'.,'� i:::ai';.'�.; ::..r:;'::'{>•• .•r!•N. ♦ ` \/ N/_�,'-- /•/+- / \)_> I -r`/.t .,t S-♦ /.l/11..1 �i ::<.*::i'`::+�?.F::!:+iYiiait::2't _ t•. - /' .'t--•_. -'l'. ♦ 1`\ '- nTi: -i1.I�r�I � /1�' 7 ! t \I\�7 •�••�i,•'�:' '? !+tii:::'':,!::"::.-::'-r_`��i� � a- J , 1 1` :;\i_�,�h l-.`Ir.�/K GlY�_.. ../ ;its \�P / �//. :'! ••�.!.`�•���, ...acy.�:.:. \ {�`�r �! r -\ t�1./ 4.. �`r��n 1 \I`� ♦\�'/}1/1 -r .. �'l .11 /A �.•.,ryt.:,.:. 4::fx:::.. :.�7r ./'\r},/ ./j1-f r,`I% •, . Y•.1 •t 1.1 I:/.\- „�1 1 1, \ ♦ ',4.....l:::�:::�::::�:�::,,. :::iN'�::i^'i I�i -il \3_I"1 y.: ��1\\ 1 1\ / 1 a _ J :::c:ila'.'�:%% � �:%:i:i::::a:.:.;:.j`'::::.>::.:::'.:+i:::::::• ,-'� � _1 _`! 1 - ..1 Ir 3 _ •/ 1, \y✓ -.la -♦.1. '1 ;y`i' v.t�.:i::::>^`:::'. r.'�:`Yi:2>:::�.;. ••�,'�_ ` �7` t- ' I rt\` - - 1_1 �' �: i:• :u,::.. :�i:. .� ::.::':M1;w,N;iur7y;r •' I`\\/.! /\j-`j. / I-H-P'-T=`I a 1- r- /1'ti-) •' :;.::x.>.::..::..... •'ri.'•7'v : I- .r.l�rl- \aY~ �/-11`�1/-1�\ j\-�11��1_I' '\ti\ - _ _ - ::::%i':: >:..Yw:!uF::.:a. •1'.•:'.' ••• �.'••.• /`/\/i:-�i I'"1 -'/ / 1`I�l/rh�i./t_/"1 .I\/-\ 1� - :•»',. :f' '�'i •�-'.\}Y I`' \:1 1 y ` I i- 1 -1 /1 6� 1 ./�l.!• - -I/ -r 1 ./\►\/`` - 1 / Yw. :..y::..:.��->:.::•::.�:. �:.�.:...:::::::: ?i::i:Miivsi ' ��. '�, l `/.-„ /1•, ..11• --- L�\/..t/�1�y�{\-i\, /•.- /fir, •.r/i - - i::11%�iii:v?'f.�ii:::'riJiiii::::ii�:.. - '1 A W r d A sr \ � \�-)���-`tea'-'1-li�I:�il��'�(lii%y�.���,-/=�/�/'{�;ilii�/\.-t/r 1 _, 1 ♦ 1 ♦ - - _ ♦�/C•r_\1:�� ,L Fir ��- �{:._ v. - - !'' /. 7\ 1 1 ,\�r rt\ !\ ► .tea� -�,/ '• 1-/ \.1` -.11�1r..lY�ac... - - �t..l�1S:ai ♦ \rl��.) 1^/ ' ; !' /�/) ,r./i 1: :--\.�7•. �L,-,��+-1..L- +T+\ !�afii Mom!-♦r �- ���i. 1 �I•\Y\�r. \ • /i�i I�i=.rl FEET k"i".r U 80 1600 QUALITY OF BELDING'S SAVANNAH BREEDING HABITAT Source: USFws 1989 FIGURE F2-4 likely to vary greatly from year to year in the various areas of Bolsa Chica which are colonized by pickleweed. Therefore, all pickleweed areas should be regarded as having habitat potential for Belding's savannah sparrows. Refer to the discussion on sensitive species for additional information on Belding's savannah sparrows. Shorebirds utilize pickleweed for cover to a limited extent. Another subspecies of savannah ' sparrow, the large-billed savannah sparrow (CDFG Species of Special Concern CSC and Federal Category 2; see Table F2-7), uses pickleweed areas of Bolsa Chica :for migration and wintering habitat (P. Unitt, pers.comm.; obs. during Chambers Group survey August 1991). The , California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis cotrniculus) a state-li;;ted threatened species and category 2 candidate for federal listing, is also associated with pickleweed marshes (Grinnell and Miller 1944). This species has been reported, rarely, from Upper Newport Bay (Hayes et al., 1990), but has not yet been reported from Bolsa Chica. Spar na foliosa (cordgrass) wetland [light-footed clapper rail] Locations: Outer Bolsa Bay, Inner Bolsa Bay, South Bolsa Slough.. Cordgrass provides important nesting and foraging habitat for rails, and is essential to the use of Bolsa Chica by the light-footed clapper rail, a state- and federally-listed endangered ' subspecies. Cordgrass occurs in small patches at low intertidal aim; prior to restoration, approximately two acres existed in outer Bolsa Bay, one acre in Inner Bolsa Bay, and one acre at South Bolsa Slough (Novick 1983). The CDFG planted cordgrass at Inner Bolsa Bay and South Bolsa Slough along with other marsh restoration efforts in 1978, followed by natural expansion of this habitat. Light-footed clapper rails are sighted periodically, but no nesting attempts have been confirmed (Novick 1983; Zembal and Masse; 1988). Sightings of light- footed clapper rails at Bolsa Chica have increased following cordgrass restoration, with as many as three rails sighted concurrently during late winter 1991 (Dr. Louann Murray 1991, pers. comm.). These efforts could eventually result in the re-establishment of a breeding population, given the potential for recruitment from nearby populations at Upper Newport Bay and the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge at Anaheim Bay. Establishment of subpopulations to supplement ' Upper Newport Bay, which currently supports over 70 percent of California's population of this endangered subspecies, would be a significant contribution to the jail is recovery. Thus, although cordgrass habitat at Bolsa Chica is presently very irestricted in distribution and r limited in size, the potential exists for Bolsa Chica to provide im]?ortant habitat for the light- footed clapper rail population in the near future. F2-42 Open Water (perennial and seasonal) [California Least Tern, elegant tern, osprey, black skimmer, diving ducks, dabbling ducks, double-crested cormorant, common loon, California brown pelican, American white pelican, California gull] Locations: Outer Bolsa Bay, Inner Bolsa Bay, South Bolsa Slough, Freeman Creek Channel, Garden Grove-Wintersburg Flood Control Channel, Warner Avenue Pond (discussed separately as an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area), CDFG New Cell, other diked wetlands. Several species of fish-eating birds forage in the tidal, muted tidal, and non-tidal ponds of Bolsa Chica, including many species considered to be sensitive and/or target species. Ducks, loons, cormorants and pelicans also use these areas for resting. There is a paucity of studies on feeding behavior of fish-eating birds that would help to determine the relative values of the various available open-water areas. However, foraging locations of the California least tern were reported by USFWS (1982) for the nesting season (April 28 - July 29, 1982). This report noted that most tems foraged within the Ecological Reserve or in nearshore coastal areas, and these marine and tidally influenced estuarine areas were surmised to have the greatest habitat value. Small numbers of terns were observed foraging in the diked wetlands, specifically in the Freeman Creek and Garden Grove-Wintersburg channels, the Springdale Pump Station pond (Cell 38), and other ponds in south Bolsa (Cell 11), ' the North Bolsa Tank Farm Area (cell 30, 35, 36), Middle Bolsa (Cells 17, 18, and 43), and the Bolsa Chica lowlands (Cells 46 and 67). Least tems were observed capturing fish in cells 35, 36, 38, and 67, which supported concentrations of mosquitofish. Cell 35 was used for resting as well as foraging. During the winter (December-March) period, USFWS (1982) observed waterfowl as the most frequently observed species in Cells 5, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 52, 63, 67. In general, the North Bolsa Tank Farm area, the Springdale Pump Station pond, Middle Bolsa, and the Freeman Creek and Garden-Grove-Wintersburg Channels received the greatest �. winter use by waterfowl. Species observed included American wigeon, mallard, northern shoveler, American coot, ruddy duck, and bufflehead. USFWS (1982) compared winter waterfowl use of the Bolsa Chica diked wetlands with studies by CDFG and L. Jones study for the same 1981-82 December-March period. Based on "waterfowl use days", the L. Jones study (in USFWS 1982) found that the Ecological Reserve received greater use by waterfowl (57 percent)than the diked wetlands; however, comparing the USFWS results for the diked wetlands with CDFG studies of the Ecological Reserve found ' nearly equivalent use. USFWS (1982) surmised that less frequent sampling in the L. Jones study may have resulted in missing some peak numbers, specifically of pintails. In a 1988 CDFG brood survey (unpubl. data), Burkett and James located nesting waterfowl in Cells 11 and 38 (mallard), and next to the pond east of Cell 12 (mallard, coot). Overall, far fewer broods of water-associated birds were located during the latter study; however, intensity of survey effort may account for this: there were two 1988 survey days, on May 18 and July 2, compared with nine survey days in the USFWS study. It is also possible that drought conditions have eliminated some seasonal ponds that were used for nesting in the past. F2-43 Mudflat/Wetland Shoreline Habitat [western snowy plover, wading shorebirds, long-billed curlew, dabbling ducks, diving ducks, peregrine falcon, merlin] Locations: Rabbit Island; near the Springdale Pump Station; just east of the Freeman Creek Channel, and adjacent to Inner Bolsa Bay and South Bolsa Slough. Mudflats at Bolsa Chica provide essential foraging habitat for shorebirds. During the winter (December-March) period of the USFWS (1982) study, shorebirds were the most frequently- observed species group, with the largest numbers observed in Cells 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 14, 19, ' 34, 36, and 40. These cells are located within the Ecological Reserve, Middle Bolsa, South Bolsa, the North Bolsa Tank area, and the Bolsa Chica Lowlands. Species which are most abundant in winter (numbering in the thousands) include: western ' sandpiper, black-bellied plover, dowitchers, killdeer, least sandpiper, willet, American avocet, and sanderling; snowy plovers also winter here, with up to 37 (mean of 11) birds seen in one ' day during one 1981-82 census period (USFWS 1982). Collectively, shorebirds accounted for 55 percent of the water-associated birds counted during this study. USFWS 1982 suggested that survivorship of nestling ducks may be limited as seasonal ponds ( ) gg P g Y dry, reducing the availability of cover adjacent to feeding areas and thus exposing the young birds to predation. However, productivity data from this study for both shorebirds and waterfowl ' suggests that a good balance in habitat values exists between areas with adequate water and cover for waterfowl and open shoreline foraging and nesting habitat for leading shorebirds. n shorelines provide nesting habitat for the few shorebird species which nest at Bolsa Chica: ' � P g black-necked stilt, American avocet, killdeer, and western snowy plover. Killdeer, in contrast to the other species, is not dependent upon wetland habitats for nesting, often occurring far from , water(Ehrlich et a11988). During the USFWS (1982)brood survey, most shorebird broods were located in Cells 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 30, 32, 33, 36, and 38. The largest number of stilt and avocet broods were observed in Cell 11, with 16 and 11 broods, respectively. Snowy plover nests have been reported in the eastern section of the Ecological Reserve and in ' Cell 11 in south Bolsa (Dillingham 1971; USFWS 1982; Burkett and James 1988). Sparsely vegetated or open shoreline is preferred nesting habitat (Page and Stenzel 1981). Black-necked Stilts and American Avocets are not currently listed as species of concern by state or federal agencies; however, they are listed as Primary Target Species (State Coastal Conservancy and Romberg Tiburon Center 1990). Habitat requinnments for these species are ' identified in Table F2-6. Bolsa Chica has provided significant habitat for stilts and avocets, both prior to and following restoration. Dillingham (1971) noted 37 nests for each species in 1970, and suggested that the actual population was probably at least 50 pairs for each species. ill to 45 percent of the 1980 southern California breeding pairs have reportedly nested at Bola Chica (CDFG in USFWS 1982). However, the nesting population has not been as high in recent years. In 1982, 19 broods of avocets totalling 41 young were produced; 63 broods of stilts totalled 140 young. F2-44 Nesting locations are shown in Figure F2-3. In 1988, 29 black-necked stilt broods were located, and only 4 avocet broods were found (Burkett and James 1988); 67 adult stilts without chicks ' were also observed. It is possible that the drought of recent years has restricted the availability of nesting habitat for these and other species which typically nest on the shorelines of seasonal ponds. The edges of many of the diked ponds provide nesting habitat for diving ducks, dabbling ducks, and coots; the ponds themselves provide resting and foraging habitat. Perennial ponds which provide summer habitat for young are particularly valuable. USFWS (1982) located broods of mallards from mid-June to mid-July in Cells 30, 32, 38, 52, 57, 63, and on the edge of Rabbit Island (Cell 60). Pintails were located in Cell 12 in mid-June. Cell 38 also supported broods of ruddy ducks and American coots, as well as stilts and avocets. The distribution of nesting waterfowl located in this study is shown in Figure 172-3. USFWS stated that in general, waterfowl brood use was most intensive in Cells 17 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 52, 57 and 64; Cell 38 was also important for nesting. Freshwater Marsh [dabbling ducks] A freshwater/brackish marsh exists near the southern edge of the Bolsa Chica wetlands. This small marsh provides nesting and wintering habitat for American Coots and other waterfowl (USFWS 1982). It is likely that this marsh provides valuable year-round habitat for upland songbirds, although this aspect of habitat value has not been specifically addressed in the literature. Red-winged blackbirds and marsh wrens have been observed in wetlands containing cattail(7ypha spp.)and bulrush(Scirpus spp.), which are characteristic of freshwater as opposed to saltwater wetland habitats. Tern Nesting Islands [California least tern, elegant tern, black skimmer] Prior to restoration, California least terns had been observed at Bolsa Chica, but no nesting was documented (Dillingham 1971). In 1977 and 1978, several pairs of least terns attempted to nest, but these efforts were thought to be unsuccessful (USFWS 1989). In 1978, two 2-acre sand- covered islands were constructed in Inner Bolsa Bay to attract nesting least terns. Nesting began on the north and south islands in 1979 (USFWS 1989). From 1980 to 1987, the north island attracted larger numbers of nesting least terns than the south island, and produced more fledglings. However, since 1987, increasing numbers of nesting elegant terns, Forster's terns, Caspian terns, and black skimmers on the north island appears to have caused the least terns to utilize the south island to a greater extent (USFWS 1989). A few royal terns also nest at Bolsa Chica, with 2 to 10 pairs recorded in 1988-1990 (Collins et al., 1991). Least tern nesting habitat consists of open sandy areas above the tide line. Keane (1986, 1987), in her studies of least terns at Terminal Island, suggested that a component of scattered, sparse vegetation in tern nesting areas may enhance nesting success by providing escape cover for young chicks. Currently, some vegetation cover does exist on the islands at Bolsa Chica; F2-45 r however, if vegetation becomes very extensive, it will render the islands unsuitable for nesting ' by seabirds. The tern islands at Bolsa Chica provide a critical habitat component for a nesting colony which contributes significantly to regional and statewide populations of the endangered California least tern (Table F2-9). Additional information on the Bolsa Chica lesLst terns is provided in the section on sensitive species. Coastal Waters and Beaches [California least tern,snowy plover, wading shorebirds, black skimmer, elegant tern, diving ducks, brown pelican, double-crested cormorant, common loon] The open ocean near the shoreline is used for foraging by brown pelicans, terns, and gulls. Migrant and wintering western grebes, loons, and diving ducks (particularly surf scoters, often found in large numbers) feed just outside the surf zone (Guthrie 1989). The shoreline provides foraging and roosting habitat for flocks of migrant and wintering gulls, although these flocks generally move in to the Bolsa Chica wetlands area as people arrive at the beach for recreation (Guthrie, 1989). The same is true for shorebirds: sanderlings, willets, snowy plovers, killdeer, marbled godwit, dowitchers, and occasional long-billed curlews forage along the beach at both low and high tides (B. Jones, 1989). No birds currently use the beach areas for nesting; ' however, the beaches may have historically been important nesting areas for a few species such as snowy plovers, which have declined in population partly as a. result of development and human recreational use of beaches (Page and Stenzel 1981). In general, human disturbance factors create less favorable habitat conditions on the shoreline compared to those existing in the Bolsa Chica wetlands, except for those species which restrict their activities to open water. Upland Habitat [short-eared owl, burrowing owl, peregrine falcon, merlin, horned lark, loggerhead shrike] Because they are classified as an ESHA, the eucalyptus groves of Bolsa Chica Mesa will be ' considered separately below. Dillingham (1971) and L. Jones (1982) conducted targeted surveys of upland birds in addition to surveys of wetland avifauna. Bloom (1982) surveyed raptors. Other studies that provide data on upland species (Collier 1979; USFWS 1982; Novick 1983; B. Jones 1989) were primarily targeting wetland species and habitats, with secondary or incidental attention given to non- ' wetland species. There have been no surveys of upland habitats at Bolsa Chica since 1982. Therefore, it is difficult to quantify existing habitat values in non-wetland habitats at Bolsa Chita. The habitat within the project area under consideration appears to have changed little since the time of Dillingham's study, with the exception of some development on Huntington Mesa. However, it is possible that increased human population in the surrounding area may have caused some changes, primarily in relative abundance of species adapted to urban environments F2-46 ' r Table F2-9 rPERCENT CONTRIBUTION OF BOLSA CHICA LEAST TERN COLONY TO THE LOS ANGELES/ORANGE COUNTY POPULATION, 1981-1988, AND COMPARISON TO OVER COLONIES (Data from USFWS 1989) Percent of Population of Breeding Pairs, Los Angeles and Orange Counties Year BC AB UNB BB VB TI CDS 1981 13.7 9.3 7.6 24.6 32.6 8.2 3.9 1982 19.6 4.1 0 21.3 36.8 14.0 4.3 1983 28.8 0 1.8 18.0 29.7 16.0 4.7 1984 25.3 5.2 1.5 17.4 20.6 28.8 1.2 1985 31.7 5.4 0 12.1 25.8 16.1 8.9 1986 18.4 12.4 5.6 17.4 26.2 20.1 0 1987 20.1 17.3 10.8 14.5 27.3 10.0 0 1988 18.2 16.5 14.5 17.0 32.8 0 0 Location Codes for Orange County: Location Codes for Los Angeles County: BC = Bolsa Chica VB = Venice Beach AB = Anaheim Bay TI = Terminal Island UNB = Upper Newport Bay CDS = Costa Del Sol HB = Huntington Beach 1 r r r F2-47 r - such as American crows, northern mockingbirds, and house fmrhes, as well as non-native species (house sparrows, rock doves, European starlings). A targeted survey of the uplands would be very helpful in assessing existing habitat values and evaluating changes in species composition and abundance. The Dillingham (1971) report established white-crowned sparrows, :house finches, horned larks, California quail, Audubon's warblers, American crows, common ravens, European starlings, Brewer's blackbirds, western meadowlarks, mourning doves, brown towhees, and song sparrows as commonly-observed species on the Bolsa Chica mesa and Bolsa Flats. Loggerhead shrikes were also included in the Dillingham (1971) species list; this species, recently classified as a category 2 candidate for federal endangered/threatened species status, appears to still find abundant nesting and foraging habitat at Bolsa Chica; this consists of low terrestrial vegetation for foraging and scattered trees and shrubs for nesting (Collier, 1979). L. Jones (1982) also observed shrikes in several areas of the lowlands. Another candidate species associated with Bolsa Chica Mesa is the California horned lark. Both homed larks and loggerhead shrikes potentially nest on-site, based on late spring and summer sightings of adults (Dillingham 1971, L. Jones 1982) and observations of nest and/or youngs (USFWS 1982). Refer to the section on sensitive species for additional discussion of these species. Given that surveys of the uplands have been lacking in the past decade, and that these two recently-proposed candidate species potentially nest on-site presently, targeted surveys of ' terrestrial habitats at Bolsa Chica (including portions of the lowlands) during the nesting season would be beneficial. Raptors are the avian u of test concern for Bolsa Chica Mesa and Bolsa Flats. Due to �P group � their place in the top of the food chain, raptor populations are widely regarded as indicators of habitat quality. Bolsa Chica provides foraging habitat for a number of raptor species, while the eucalyptus groves on the Bolsa Chica Mesa have provided nesting habitat and perch sites (Bloom, 1982). Bloom 1982 observed and/or recorded from other qualified observers a total of 16 raptor ( ) q P species; 10 species were actually observed by Bloom during 4 ca,nsus days in January and February 1982; other data were compiled from 1980-1982 data in CDFG, USFWS, and , Audubon Society files. Nine species were recorded by Dillingham (1971). Species listed in Bloom's report that were not reported by Dillingham included sN. species classified as rare migrants (sharp-shinned hawk, Cooper's hawk, rough-legged hawk, merlin, prairie falcon, long- eased owl), one species that is resident in the county but not yet confirmed as nesting at Bolsa Chica (great horned owl), and one species which has been confirmed as a nester at Bolsa Chica (common barn-owl). , Species listed in both reports included American kestrel, red-tailed hawk, red-shouldered hawk, black-shouldered hawk, osprey, peregrine falcon, turkey vulture (not a true raptor), northern harrier, and short-eared owl. The Swa.inson's hawk, a state-listed threatened species, is also included on one bird list for Bolsa Chica (Bolsa Chica Conservancy 1990) and in Bloom's report, but with no reference to date(s) of observation. Accordbag to Bloom (pers. comm. ' F2-48 1992), Swainson's hawks do migrate along the coast, and there is a moderate probabiliy that Bolsa Chica could serve as a migration stopover for this species. The burrowing owl is the only captor species observed by Dillingham that was not observed by Bloom: Dillingham regarded the burrowing owl as a "likely" nester, based on observations of an adult with fledglings near a burrow "along the south dike bordering the southern tributary to Pond 2" (the Garden Grove-Wintersburg flood control channel) in 1971. Bloom felt that "breeding activity by burrowing owls and marsh hawks [northern harriers] could probably be confirmed by a spring survey"; however, nesting of burrowing owls was not reported again until Dr. Daniel Guthrie's (1991) observation of possible nesting on the Huntington Mesa in spring 1990. Nesting northern harriers have not yet been reported from Bolsa Chica, although they may nested there prior to habitat alteration and development (based on a nesting record for coastal Orange County in Grinnell and Miller 1944). However, again it should be noted that targeted surveys for upland species, including nesting raptors, are lacking since the 1971 Dillingham study. Other nesting species have included kestrels, black-shouldered kites, red-tailed hawks, and red- shouldered hawks, in addition to the previously-mentioned barn owl. Nesting habitat for these species at Bolsa Chica has primarily consisted of palm trees on the mesa and the eucalyptus grove (Bloom 1982). Potential nesting habitat for short-eared owls and northern harriers exists ' on the uplands; however, Bloom suggested that Rabbit Island provided "the best potential nesting area" for these species. rBloom's winter study documented a raptor population ranging from 45 to 60 individuals. The proportion of resident birds was unknown; the majority were probably migrants. Of the species mentioned, peregrines, red-tailed hawks, kestrels, kites, northern harriers, great horned owls, short-eared owls, burrowing owls, rough-legged hawks, and turkey vultures have all been observed on the mesas; for red-tailed hawks, kestrels, kites, great horned owls, burrowing owls, and turkey vultures, the Bolsa Chica mesa and dry areas of the Bolsa Chica lowlands provide quality foraging habitat. Thirty-nine percent of the raptors observed by Bloom were in the lowlands (8 species); 61 percent of observations occurred on the mesas. Black- shouldered kites, red tailed hawks, and American kestrels were the most frequently observed species in both areas. This diversity of raptor species reflects a wide variety of prey preferences, including insects, reptiles, amphibians, birds, and small mammals. For some species, including peregrine falcon, red-shouldered hawk, northern harrier, and short-eared owl, proximity to wetland habitats may increase the value of the upland areas by increasing the diversity and abundance of the available prey base; in turn, the upland areas provide roost sites, additional foraging habitat, and some potential nest sites: for burrowing owls in the grasslands, and for common barn-owls in the palm trees, as well as the eucalyptus grove discussed below (Bloom 1982). In summary, the upland habitats of Bolsa Chica provide the following habitat values: F2-49 ► Raptor roosts/hunting perches - eucalyptus grove, some use of fences, telephone poles, other structures (pers. obs.). ► Raptor nesting habitat - quality of existing habitat in the eucalyptus grove is poor at present, although habitat for cavity-nesters(American kestrels, common barn-owls)exists in palm trees on the Bolsa Chica Mesa; potential nesting habitat for ground-nesting species (burrowing owl, short-eared owl, northern harrier) exists primarily on the Bolsa Chica Mesa and on Rabbit Island. It is likely that red-shouldered hawks nested in the eucalyptus grove as recently as 1991 (Bloom 1991 pers. comm.). ► Other upland birds - Coastal bluff scrub on the mesa and 14ucharis scrub - on Rabbit Island, as well as upland shrub on dikes and along roads., provides potential nesting and/or foraging habitat for California quail, song sparrows, white-crowned sparrows, loggerhead shrikes, and others; mesa grasslands provide foraging habitat for several passerine species and potential nesting habitat for one candidate passerine species, the California homed lark. Eny"runentally Sensitive Habitat HAs Eucalyptus Grove of the Bolsa Chica Mesa[peregrine falcon,meirlin, osprey,sharp-shinned hawk, Cooper's hawk, long-eared owl] The eucalyptus grove of the Bolsa Chica mesa was designated as an ESHA primarily due to its value as nesting and perching habitat for raptors. Red-shouldered hawks have nested in the groves, probably as recently as 1991, as noted above, and possibly black-shouldered kites and American kestrels have nested there as well (Bloom 1982). These trees provide potential roost and/or hunting perch sites for a variety of other raptor species, including several species of concern as identified in Table 172-7. Feldmeth (1989), in a study comparing ESHA's in 1989 compm.rA to 1981, found that "no decrease in habitat value appears to have occurred" for this ESHA. However, a recent site visit ' by Chamber's Group biologists in August 1991 revealed that the ;grove has become extremely degraded, with very little foliage remaining in the upper half of the canopy of many of the trees. However, the grove still provides hunting perches, and Bloom (1991,pers. comm.)believed that red-shouldered hawks probably nested there in 1991. Bloom (1982) stated that "the eucalyptus and palm trees are significant because they provide the only nesting habitat for such tree nesting species as the White-tailed[now black-shouldered]kite, Red-shouldered Hawk, American Kestrel and Barn Owl. . .their elinaination would mean the loss of most of the breeding raptor population, and loss of important hunting perches used by both resident and migratory species at Bolsa Chica." ' Although potential nesting sites in the palm trees on the mesa are still available, these sites are suitable only for cavity-nesting species such as American kestrels and common barn-owls. Thus, nest-building species such as red-shouldered hawks and black-shouldered kites have lost some F2-50 , nesting habitat as the eucalyptus grove has become degraded. An in-depth raptor survey, such as that conducted by Bloom nearly a decade ago, (but also including the nesting season) would be helpful in interpreting recent habitat changes and their effect on raptors at Bolsa Chica. Most of the upland passerine species recorded by Dillingham (1971) and L. Jones (1982) were observed in the eucalyptus grove and/or adjacent scrub; these included Bullock's oriole(nesting), Swainson's thrush, western wood-pewee, ash-throated flycatcher, willow flycatcher, black- chinned hummingbird, Selasphorus hummingbirds, several warbler species (including yellow warbler, a sensitive species), vireos, western tanager, and thrushes; most of these species are associated with woodland habitats. However, these species were observed in rare, often singular sightings; on the whole, woodland-associated species appear to be rare at Bolsa Chica. Lack of vegetative diversity and the degraded condition of the eucalyptus grove(noted by Dillingham and readily apparent today) may limit the use of Bolsa Chica by woodland species, which find much more favorable habitat in Huntington Central Park. Rabbit Island ESHA [short-eared owl, northern barrier, Belding's savannah sparrow, Llarge-billed savannah sparrow, dabbling ducks, saltmarsh common yellowthroat] In spite of some reported changes in habitat distribution, Feldmeth (1989) concluded that "wildlife values for the upland habitat of Rabbit Island remain similar to those described in 1982 by the Department of Fish and Game". Rabbit Island was described by Bloom (1982) as an area of special "ecological significance" to raptors within Bolsa Chica. tIn particular, it is the only area within Bolsa Chica where short-eared owls, a Secondary Target Species and CDFG Species of Special Concern, have been observed. Although the mesas provide foraging habitat for these birds, Rabbit Island is the only area within Bolsa Chica that provides roosting and potential nesting habitat for short-eared owls and northern harriers. Based on the value of habitat on Rabbit Island to short-eared owls, Bloom considered Bolsa Chica to be of "critical importance" to short-eared owls on four levels: local, Orange County, Southern California, and California statewide. For northern harriers (formerly known as marsh hawks), Bolsa Chica was considered to be of "critical importance" on the local level and of "significant importance" from county and southern California perspectives. These evaluations referred to the likelihood of population reductions at these various levels occurring if this particular habitat area were lost. Some of the evaluations given by Bloom for significance of Bolsa Chica to these and other raptor species were modified in the development of Table F2-7, to reflect existing conditions. Both of these species will forage over grassland as well as marsh and dune habitats (Johnsgard 1988, 1990). Rabbit Island provides habitat for some species of songbirds which also exist elsewhere in upland habitats at Bolsa Chica, including western meadowlark and song sparrow. Patches of pickleweed supporting Belding's Savannah Sparrows (see section on Salicon a) also occur on Rabbit Island, as do patches of other seasonal and perennial wetland habitat(Feldmeth 1989). Low, dense shrub F2-51 vegetation potentially supports small numbers of migrant and/or wintering saltmarsh common yellowthroat, a subspecies listed as a CDFG Species of Special Concern (Table F2-7). USFWS (1982) stated that Rabbit Island "provides valuable resting, roosting, feeding, (and) nesting...habitat for such species as...great blue heron, black-crowned night heron, short-eared owl, northern harrier, Belding's savannah sparrow, (and) mallard..." Warner Avenue Pond (see also sections on pickleweed, open water) [Belding's savannah sparrow, dabbling ducks, California least tern] Feldmeth (1989) suggested that habitat value of Warner Pond declined between 1981 and 1989 due to an increase in salinity; Warner Avenue Pond in 1981 was considered a brackish marsh; now, its salinity regime resembles that of Huntington Harbour. The California Department of Fish and Game (1982, in Feldmeth 1989) indicated that this pond received significant winter use by waterfowl; Feldmeth (1989) suggested that the pond is probably now less attractive to these species, and that this habitat would be more appropriately classified. as a wetland as opposed to an ESHA. USFWS (1982) described Warner Avenue Pond as "a remnant of the Anaheim Bay estuarine system destroyed by the Huntington Harbour development. The pond provides resting, nesting and/or feeding habitat for such species as mallard, American coot, snowy and great egrets, sora, ring-billed and Bonaparte's gulls, Caspian and California least terns, and California brown pelican." At the present time, the small open water area of Warner Avenue :Fond implies limited habitat value for the gull, tern and pelican species mentioned above; sh�dllow-water feeders such as coots, mallards, herons (pers. obs.)and egrets are likely to find this habitat more useful. Nesting by any water-associated avian species in this area is unlikely, due to the small, discrete habitat area and high disturbance factor. This pond does receive use by herons, egrets, and ducks on at least an occasional basis, and contributes to the collective importance of wetland habitats at Bolsa Chica. Although pickleweed occurs around Warner Avenue Pond, this vegetation does not appear to support Belding's savannah sparrows. There has been limited effort to determine use of this area by savannah sparrows; however, the pond area was included vo the 1986-1989 survey by USFWS (1989), and no breeding pans were found. The pickleweed at Warner Avenue Pond has not yet attained the height or extent of patches in other wetland ait as of Bolsa Chica, and this may account for the lack of use by savannah sparrows; it remains U)be seen if this wetland may receive use by Belding's savannah sparrows in the future despite it:; unshielded proximity to the heavily-traveled Warner Avenue. A comparison of bird use at Warner Avenue Pond to comparable ponds elsewhere in the protected wetland area of Bolsa Chica would be of interest, to determine if human disturbance factors(due to its immediate proximity to Warner Avenue) may be causing reduced use by birds. ' F2-52 , Coastal Sand Dune ESHA Coastal sand dunes in Bolsa Chica, designated as an ESHA due to the increasing rarity of this habitat in an undisturbed condition in California, consist of a narrow band between the Pacific Coast Highway and the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve. A 1982 report by the California Department of Fish and Game described a dune area two miles long and 13.6 acres in size. A paved foot trail constructed in the early 1980s, plus minor additional alterations, has reduced this area by less than an acre. Feldmeth (1989) reported that the strip was inessentially the same condition in 1989 as in 1981. Sand dune habitats typically have value as foraging habitat for short-eared owls (pers.obs.), and as resting areas for shorebirds. Because of the narrow width of the sand dune strip at Bolsa Chica, immediately adjacent to a major highway, it is of limited value as habitat for birds. Relationship of Wetland and Upland Habitats Although the wetlands of Bolsa Chica clearly provide greater habitat value to birds compared to the uplands, in terms of abundance and diversity of birds and importance to sensitive species, it is important to note that several species utilize components of both types of habitats. This is particularly true of raptors: peregrine falcons, merlins, and ospreys find hunting and roosting perches in upland trees as well as foraging opportunities in the wetlands; short-eared owls and northern harriers have been observed to hunt in both habitats, and could potentially nest in either habitat as well. The importance of the juxtaposition of wetland and upland habitats to wildlife is poorly understood. Sensitive Bird Species Sensitive species are discussed in the main text in reference to specific habitat areas; see also Table F2-7. The following discussion summarizes the occurrence and potential occurrence of sensitive species at Bolsa Chica, and explains the rationale for the importance ratings given in Table F2-7. The habitat type considered most critical to use of Bolsa Chica for each species is noted in brackets at the end of the discussion for each species; however, as noted earlier, several species interact with both wetland and upland habitats. Locations of sensitive and target waterfowl and shorebird species at Bolsa Chica are shown in Figure F2-5. For purposes of this discussion, "sensitive species" refers to those species which are on official federal and state lists as Endangered (FE, SE),Threatened (FT, ST), candidate for federal listing ' (1 or 2), or listed as California Department of Fish and Game Species of Special Concern (CSC). `t Twenty-nine avian species/subspecies that appear on one or more of the above lists have been reported from Bolsa Chica; of these, 8 have been known to nest in the area: Belding's savannah sparrow (SE,2), California least tern (FE, SE), elegant tern (CSC,2), black skimmer (CSC), western snowy plover (CSC, FPT), burrowing owl (CSC), loggerhead shrike, and California horned lark. three additional species have been reported as historic nesters with potential to nest F2-53 1 6222F-12/91 LEGEND ♦ BELDI Nl•S SAVANNAH SPARROW O LGiHT-FOOT CLAPPER RAIL AMERICAN AVOCET BLACK-NECKED STILT ? A SNOWY PLOVER T LEAST TERN * ELEGANT TERN �% `,� - - •+ O BLACK SKIMMER AREA 63 0 SHORT-EARED OWL s- s` `+''•"`a ilt BURROWING OWL I 65 J - DIVING DUCKS•RUDDY DUCK ': * DABBLING DUCKS•MALLARD 34'•-. " �j- � ` _ v , I CHI G(ME3A• r .� j �:. UPPER SEN.gR;;;t. J '�q LOYIMNDS -� :., ` u r 12 • ' 31 19 38 WLSA OHICA MESA ri.- 171 - -- - L - --= -- - ..: T��e•- __ L----- -�'`—::...• -: ,.. FEET DISTRIBUTION OF TARGET SPECIES AND RARE AND %Of o ON 1600 ENDANGERED SPECIES AS OBSERVED IN BOLSA CHICA Source: May 1990,B.C.Restoration Alternatives Report FIGURE F2-5 m m um " m m A m m m m w m ! m ,m min ty I in the area in the future: light-footed clapper rail (FE,SE), short-eared owl (CSC), and northern harrier (CSC). The remaining species occur at Bolsa Chica as migrants, wintering birds, and/or dispersing individuals from nearby breeding areas. Sensitive Species Associated Primarily With Wetland Habitats California Least Tern (FE.SE) - Despite predation pressure, primarily from red foxes, Bolsa Chica remains a large and important breeding colony for this endangered species (USFWS 1989). The establishment of nesting islands to intentionally attract this species has been largely responsible for this success; least terns have been nesting there since 1978 (Collier 1979). The relative importance of Bolsa Chica to other nest sites in the region is shown in Table F2-9. The lowest population of breeding pairs was in 1980 (29 pairs); the highest population thus far was reached in 1983 with about 140 breeding pairs. 115 pairs rested in 1989, predominantly on the south island. Predators have severely impacted nesting success of least terns in several breeding seasons at Bolsa Chica, particularly the American kestrel (1979, 1981, 1983-1985) and the red fox (1984-1988). Live trapping and relocation of kestrels, plus fox removal, has helped to tincrease productivity (USFWS, 1989a). The red fox, which is not native to the southern California coast, is a primary threat to several least tern breeding colonies in southern California (Massey, 1988). Clearly, the ability of mammalian predators to access the tern islands increases the potential for losses. Striped skunks (Mephites mephites)and peregrine falcons have also been implicated in predation on least terns. Because the peregrine falcon is also a federally-listed endangered species, no action has been taken to prevent predation by this species (Massey, 1988). If the crow population increases at Bolsa Chica, these birds could be a severe problem to the colony; this situation occurred at Terminal Island in Los Angeles County, severely ' threatening the least tern colony at that location (Massey, 1988). Tidal flow into Inner Bolsa Bay is also important in maintaining a natural barrier to prevent predation by feral and domestic cats, although apparently this has not discouraged the red fox. Importance rating: significant to critical [islands, open water] Elegant Tern (CSC.2) - Establishment of nesting islands for least terns has also benefitted elegant terns, which now nest on the islands. Elegant terns first appeared at Bolsa Chica in 1986; 31 pairs nested in 1987. The population soared thereafter to 450 pairs in 1988, 1,200 in 1989, and 1,075 in 1990, all on the north island. This dramatic population increase at Bolsa Chica and State Beach is attributed to increased populations of northern anchovies; and also may be tied into establishment of nesting Caspian terns, with which elegant terns may selectively nest (Collins et al. 1991) Nesting density of elegant terns, along with Caspian terns and black skimmers, has been sufficient to displace most breeding least terns from the north island (USFWS 1989). Importance rating: significant to critical [islands, wetlands] Black Tern (2) - This species has been sighted at Bolsa Chica only rarely, and in small numbers (Dillingham 1971, L. Jones 1982, Chambers Group pers. obs. 1991). This species is associated with fresh water marsh and lake habitats, and only occurs in coastal salt marshes as a migrant (Grinnel and Miller 1944). The limited freshwater marsh habitat at Bolsa Chica is insufficient to support nesting, and occurrences of this species at Bolsa Chica are expected to continue to be rare and incidental. Importance rating: limited [wetlands] r F2-55 i Black Skimmer (CSC) - Like elegant terns, black skimmers have udcen advantage of recently- established tern nesting islands, contributing to the displacement of least terns (USFWS 1989). Bolsa Chica contains one of just a few of the California nesting colonies of this recently- established species. No population information was available. Imp)rtance rating: significant to critical [islands, wetlands] California Gull (CSC) - Concern for this species is based upon threats to the primary breeding colony at Mono Lake. Non-breeding gulls have generally adapted well, and actually benefitted, from human activity, which has increased the food supply available to scavenging birds. California gulls are an abundant wintering species at Bolsa Chica. Importance rating: limited [wetlands, shoreline, offshore] California Brown P E - Brown pelicans disperse to Bolsa Chica in the non-breeding ix � t season from nesting colonies in the Channel Islands and Baja California, where they are recovering their population from near-extinction in California clue to the pesticide DDT. Numbers of brown pelicans observed in the Bolsa Chica wetlands fluctuate greatly, but in general have increased dramatically since restoration; up to III brown pelicans have been observed within the Ecological Reserve in one day (Novick, 1983). Brown pelicans are observed in highest numbers at Bolsa Chica in winter, but also use the area during post-breeding dispersal in summer. L. Jones (1982) observed brown pelicans in every month except April, with high count of 354 on 11 January 1982 and 50 on 4 August 1981. Unlike white pelicans, brown pelicans will dive for fish from the air; therefore, they prefer larger areas of open water within the wetlands than white pelicans, and thus most of their activity is concentrated in Outer Bolsa Bay and offshore of Bolsa Chica State Beach. Regular use of Bolsa Chica by these birds suggest that the wetlands provide desirable habitat; however, little is known of their degree of dependence upon these habitats. Importance rating: limited to significant; more information needed [wetlands/open water/offshore] American White Pelican (CSC) - White pelicans frequently use the Bolsa Chica wetlands for foraging and roosting; unlike brown pelicans, white pelicans fish fn:)m the surface of the water only; therefore, smaller areas of open water in muted tidal wetlands provide suitable habitat (Cells 1 and 2). White pelicans are found in both fresh and saltwater habitats (Grinnell and Miller 1944). Importance rating: limited to significant; imore information needed [wetlands/open water/offshore] Double-crested Cormorant (CSC) - Migrating and wintering cormorants occur in both salt and freshwater habitats. Both wetland and offshore waters are used for foraging at Bolsa Chica. Large numbers of cormorants, up to 170 in one day (Novick 1983), have been observed within the wetlands, suggesting that Bolsa Chica is an important wintering area for this species locally; much larger concentrations have been reported from San Diego County (Unitt 1984). Importance rating: limited, may become significant if alternative areas become unavailable [wetlands] Common Loon (CSC) - This species winters in small numbers in Bolsa Chica. During the non-breeding season, they are often found offshore as well as ivithin the wetlands. Coastal wetlands are important as roosting and supplemental feeding areas, including serving as refuge F2-56 areas when weather conditions make foraging difficult on the open ocean. Importance rating: limited [wetlands] Light-footed Clapper Rail (FE,SE,) - Currently, no clapper rails nest at Bolsa Chica; however, the potential exists given recent cordgrass restoration efforts, the placement of artificial nest platforms, and the potential for recruitment from Upper Newport Bay and the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge. With over 70 percent of the current population of this species residing in one location (Upper Newport Bay), establishment of new subpopulations is critical to future recovery of this endangered species (Zembal in National Audubon Society, 1991). Importance rating: critical [cordgrass wetlands] Western Snowy Plover CSC.FDT)-This species typically nests on sandy shorelines on beaches or saltmarsh ponds. Available habitat for snowy plovers has been reduced in recent years due to development and recreational use of beaches. The single nesting pair reported by USFWS (1982) was the first reported nesting of snowy plovers since the Dillingham study. L. Jones (1982) observed snowy plovers during the 1981 nesting season, but did not observe evidence of breeding; Jones observed up to 46 birds on a single date in winter. Although the Bolsa Chica population constituted only two percent of California's statewide total in 1982, the Bolsa Chica colony was the only colony in Orange County (Page and Stenzel, 1981). The most recently recorded nesting of this species at Bolsa Chica was in 1988 (Burkett and James, 1988). Jones (1989) observed snowy plovers during 5 census periods between November 1988 and Mid- January 1989. Snowy plovers were most consistently observed in Outer Bolsa and Cell 3; other observations occurred in Cells 7, 8, and 11. The maximum number of snowy plovers observed was 21 on the beach strip; 13 were observed in a single census in Outer Bolsa; most sightings were less than 5 individuals. Importance rating: significant [wetlands] ' Lone-billed Curlew (CSC.3C) - Curlews occur in low numbers as a migrant and wintering species at Bolsa Chica and other coastal wetlands; breeding occurs in northern California (Grinnell and Miller, 1944). Up to eight individuals have been observed at one time in Bolsa Chica (Novick, 1983; Jones, 1989). The total wintering population of curlews is not known. All remaining coastal wetlands frequented by curlews can be assumed to constitute important habitat for this species. Importance rating: may be significant;more information needed [wetlands] Reddish Egret (CSC.2) -This wetland-dependent species has rarely been reported at Bolsa Chica as a migrant species; its primary range is further south, from Baja California to central America (Peterson, 1990). The listing of this species as a Species of Special Concern in California and a federal Category 2 Candidate species is due to concerns over its wintering habitat, which is primarily saltmarsh (Ehrlich et al., 1988). This species could be considered a straggler as far north as Bolsa Chica as it occurs only rarely and in small numbers as a migrant; reddish egrets are more frequently sighted in the coastal wetlands of San Diego County (Unitt, 1984). Importance rating: limited [wetlands] Peregrine Falcon (FE. SE) - Coastal wetlands offer important foraging habitat for this species because of the large numbers of shorebirds and waterfowl that congregate there. Because of the high value and limited amount of coastal wetlands in southern California, Bloom (1982)regarded Bolsa Chica as being of"critical importance" on local, Orange County, southern California, and F2-57 statewide levels (refer to definitions in Table F2-7). Because the limited acreage of Bolsa Chica provides habitat for only one or two individuals, a rating of "significant" at the statewide level may be more appropriate. Although primarily a winter visitor, in recent years peregrines have been sighted year-round at Bolsa Chica (L. Murray, Bolsa Chica Conservancy, pers. comm.); these are most likely birds dispersing from breeding (adult) or natal (juvenile) territories. ND nesting habitat exists for peregrines at Bolsa Chica, as this consists of cliffs or tall buildings. The eucalyptus grove ESHA is used occasionally for roosting and hunting perches. Importance Rating: significant to critical [wetlands] Merlin (CSC) - The merlin is a small falcon which, like its close relative the peregrine, preys on birds; shorebirds at Bolsa Chica provide an abundant supplty of prey. Thus, habitat characteristics which favor the peregrine also favors the merlin. Merlins are a rare migrant at Bolsa Chica. Bloom (1982) considered Bolsa Chica to be of "critiad importance" to merlins on a local and county level, and of "significant importance" on southern California and statewide levels. Importance Rating: significant [wetlands] s re SC - The re is an occasional ear-round visitor to :Eolsa Chica; breeding could r Y osprey � Y � t potentially occur if artificial platforms or suitable trees were estabUished to encourage nesting. Ospreys benefit from the quiet tidal and muted tidal open water areas at Bolsa Chica which t provide good foraging habitat for this exclusively fish-eating species. The eucalyptus grove ESHA provides potential roosting habitat. Bloom (1982) regarckxi Bolsa Chica as being of "critical importance" to ospreys on local and county levels, and of "significant importance" on southern California and statewide levels. Importance Rating: sigiuficant [wetlands] Northern Harrier (CSC) - Harriers are regular winter visitors to E-olsa Chica; L. Jones (1982) observed 6 harriers during one winter survey in 1982. Nesting has occurred in Orange County (Grinnell and Miller, 1944), and suitable habitat for nesting occurs at Bolsa Chica; wetland habitats are likely to be preferred for nesting, particularly in Salicornia, but grassland nesting could also occur (Palmer 1988). Harriers forage over both wetland and upland grassland habitats. Throughout southern California, available nest sites and wintering areas for harriers in both habitats have declined due to development; for this reason, Bloom (1982) considered Bolsa Chica to be "critical' to harriers on the local level, and "sil;nificant" on Orange County and southern California levels. Importance Rating: significant [wetlands, lowlands, upland grasslands, Rabbit Island] Short-Eared Owl (CSC) - Habitat requirements for short-eared owls are very similar to those for northern harriers, and these two species are often sympatric; shoe-eared owls may tend to use drier grassland habitats to a greater extent than do harriers (Bildstevn in Palmer, 1988). Although primarily a wintering species, usually observed on Rabbit Island, this species could potentially nest in the wetlands, lowland, or mesa grassland habitats of Bolsa Chica. Bloom (1982) rated Bolsa Chica as "critical" to short-eared owls on all four levels (local, county, southern California, statewide); Bloom observed a maximum of 3 individuals in one survey in the winter of 1982. Importance rating: significant to critical [wetland;, lowlands, upland mesas, Rabbit Island] F2-58 I Tricolored Blackbird (CSC) This species was reported prior to restoration by Dillingham (1971): one individual was observed among other blackbirds and cowbirds in a "pasture" at the northeast edge of the Bolsa Chica lowlands, south of the Garden Grove-Wintersburg flood control channel. L. Jones (1982) observed flocks of up to 35 individuals in the vicinity of the freshwater marsh and also the Bolsa Chica mesa. Bolsa Chica lies within the breeding range of this species; however, tricolored blackbirds are typically associated with freshwater rather than saltwater marshes and also feed in agricultural fields (Grinnell and Miller, 1944). Given the lack of freshwater marsh habitat and land use changes imposed over the last two decades, future significant use of Bolsa Chica by tricolored blackbirds seems unlikely. Importance rating: limited [freshwater marsh]. tWillow Flycatcher (SE.1) - This species nests in willow-riparian freshwater habitats; as a migrant or wintering bird, it can occur in upland woodland or tall shrubs (Unitt, 1984). The only observations of willow flycatchers at Bolsa Chica were documented by L. Jones (1982), who observed a total of 3 migrant individuals in and near the eucalyptus grove during one September 1981 survey. Importance rating:limited[freshwater riparian,marsh, eucalyptus grove] Saltmarsh Common Yellowthroat (2) - This subspecies (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa)is indistinguishable in the field from other subspecies of common yellowthroat (P. Unitt pers.comm.). Little information is available about this small songbird, which nests in the San Francisco Bay region and winters southward in coastal wetlands. Another, more common subspecies of yellowthroat, Geothlypis trichas scirpicola, nests and winters in Orange County, and the few sightings of common yellowthroat at Bolsa Chica could also be of this subspecies; mist-netting studies would be required to differentiate the two. However, G.t. sinuosa is typically associated with salt and brackish marshes in winter; scirpicola tends toward brackish- to fresh-water marsh habitats (Grinnell and Miller, 1944). 16 specimens of saltmarsh common yellowthroat reported in 1922 (Van Rossem and Willett, in Grinnell and Miller 1944) at "Anaheim Landing" in Orange County establish the historic occurrence of this subspecies in Orange County coastal wetlands. The low, dense cover of tall grasses and shrubs preferred by yellowthroats is very limited at Bolsa Chica; a few yellowthroats have been reported from Bolsa Chica before and after restoration (Dillingham 1971; Jones 1989), but with no reference to subspecies. Importance rating: limited [wetland shrubs] Belding's Savannah Sparrow (SE.2)-This subspecies depends upon pickleweed(Sahcornia spp.) habitat on a year-round basis. In 1986, Bolsa Chica supported 163 pairs, or 7.2 percent of the statewide population of this subspecies. In 1991, the Bolsa Chica population declined to 110 pairs, a 33 percent decrease from the 1986 count. This was attributed in part to inundation of habitat due to unseasonably late March rains during the onset of nesting (USFWS 1991). Bolsa Chica contributed 6 percent of the statewide population in 1991. The Belding's savannah sparrow population distribution at Bolsa Chica is summarized in Table F2-8 and Figure F2-2. Importance rating: critical [pickleweed wetlands] Lie-billed Savannah Sparrow (CSC.2)-Like the Belding's savannah sparrow, the large-billed savannah sparrow occurs in pickleweed wetland habitat. However, unlike the Belding's, this subspecies does not nest in the area, but rather is a winter visitor from the Gulf of California, F2-59 where it breeds in the marshes at the delta of the Colorado River ((Jnitt 1984). Occurrence of this species has declined dramatically since the 1930's, probably due to habitat changes on its breeding grounds (Unitt 1984). A few individuals are noted at Bolsa Chica beginning in August, but whether these are winter residents or migrants remains unknown. It appears that this subspecies may not be as closely tied to pickleweed as the Belding's savannah sparrow, although this habitat is preferred (Grinnell and Miller, 1944; Unitt, 1984). Importance rating: may be significant; more information needed [pickleweed wetlands] Sensitive Species Associated Primarily With Upland Habitats Prairie Falcon (CSC) - Unlike the closely-related peregrine, prairie falcons are typically associated with and habitats and are rarely found on the coast (Palmer 1988). L. Jones (1982) observed a wintering individual in the fields west of the eucalyptus grove and perched on a nearby power pole on 11 January, 1981, and again on 11 January ,and 3 February, 1982. The lack of subsequent sightings suggests that the same individual may have returned 2 years in a row but not thereafter; and/or habitat conditions have become less favorable at Bolsa Chica. Importance Rating: limited [upland mesas, wetlands] Sharp-shinned Hawk (CSC) - Sharp-shinned hawks are primarily woodland dwellers, but will venture into more open areas outside the breeding season as long as trees are available for roosting and hunting perches. Bloom (1982) regarded Bolsa Chica as "significant' to sharp-shins on the local level, largely due to the presence of the eucalyptus grave ESHA. Given the recent degradation of the eucalyptus at Bolsa Chica, this value has probably declined. Importance rating: limited [eucalyptus] Cooper's Hawk (CSC) - Very similar to sharp-shinned hawk. Bloom (1982) considered Bolsa Chica to be "significant" on local and Orange County levels. Recent degradation of the eucalyptus grove has probably reduced the value of Bolsa Chica to this species. Importance rating: limited [eucalyptus] Swainson's Hawk (ST) -This species is a very rare spring and fall migrant to Bolsa Chica. They are primarily upland, open-country hunters, not dependent upon omstal habitats; use of Bolsa t Chica appears to be incidental. However, Bloom (1982)rated Bolsa. Chica as "significant" to this species on local and Orange County levels, based on overall declines in habitat in southern California. Importance rating: limited [upland mesas] Burrowing Owl (CSC) -Burrowing owls hunt in open grasslands, and nest in grassland burrows created by mammals. This species historically nested at Bolsa Chic,i, but is now rarely observed; however, the upland mesas where burrowing owls would be expected to occur are rarely surveyed; a spring survey for this species is warranted. Dr. Daniel Guthrie (comments regarding Linear Regional Park, 1990) documented observations of one burrowing owl, suggesting possible nesting, in Spring 1990 on Huntington Mesa. Bloom (1982) stated that nesting habitat for burrowing owls on the mesas is abundant; this value has not changed significantly since Bloom's survey. Bloom rated Bolsa Chica as "critical" to burrowing owls at the local level, "significant" at the county level, and "limited" at southern California and F2-60 statewide levels. This species is probably facing extirpation in Orange County due to habitat loss, with no more than 25 pairs remaining (P. Bloom 1992, pers. comm.), and is declining in California as a whole(Marti and Macks, 1989). Importance rating:significant[upland mesas] California Horned Lark (2) - Homed larks have been observed on the Bolsa Chica Mesa by several observers (Dillingham 1971,L. Hones 1982, USFWS 1982, Novick 1983). The USFWS (1982) report documented nesting by this species based upon sightings of nests and or young. Preferred habitat of horned larks is generally short-grass fields and agricultural areas (Grinnel and Miller 1944, Ehrilich et al. 1988). Targeted surveys of this species during the nesting season would be needed to adequately address the importance of Bolsa Chica to horned larks. Importance rating: potentially significant(local/county);more information needed[upland mesas] Loggerhead Shrike (2) - This species is frequently sighted at Bolsa Chica (Dillingham 1971, L. Jones 1982, USFWS 1982, Novick 1983, B. Hones 1989); it was reported as a potential breeder by Dillingham and a known breeder in the USFWS report. Preferred habitat for loggerhead shrikes, which prey primarily on large insects and small birds, is open terrain with scattered low tshrubs, fence posts, or other "lookout" perches (Grinnel and Miller 1944). Potential habitat for this species at Bolsa Chica is present on the Bolsa Chica Mesa/eucalyptus grove area, Huntington Mesa, Rabbit Island, and ruderal areas of the lowlands. As noted above for horned larks, additional information, including targeted surveys, are needed to address the significant of Bolsa Chica to loggerhead shrikes. Importance rating: potentially significant (local/county); more information needed [upland mesas, ruderal lowlands, Rabbit Island] Yellow Warbler (CSC) - This Species is typically associated with broadleaf riparian forests (Grinnell and Miller 1944). The only sightings of yellow warblers were during L. Jones' 1982 surveys of migrants in spring and fall in the eucalyptus grove. Thus, Bolsa Chica appears to be of minor importance to this species. Importance rating: limited [woodland/ eucalyptus grove] Sensitive Species Not Known to Occur at Bolsa Chica Which Could Potentially Occur The following species, not listed above but included in Table F2-7, were included in a letter from the USFWS to the Corps of Engineers in September of 1991. This letter included a list of "Listed and Proposed Threatened and Endangered Species and Candidate Species that may occur in the area of the proposed Bolsa Chica Development Project, Orange County, California". Species on this list which do not presently occur at Bolsa Chica, but may have the potential to occur there, are described below. Moderate to High Potential for Occurrence Bald Eagle - (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) (FE,SE) - Migrant and wintering bald eagles are typically reported from large inland lakes; rarely, individuals have been sighted along the coast in San Diego County (Unitt, 1984). Potential foraging habitat for bald eagles exists at Bolsa F2-61 Chica, and it is possible that individuals will be sighted there in the future as recovery of the species continues; however, it is unlikely that occurrence at Bolsa Chica will be more than incidental. California Black Rail - (Uterallus jamaicensis) (ST,2) - Black rails have been reported from Upper Newport Bay (Hayes, et al., 1990). Tidal salt marsh with dense growths of pickleweed constitute the typical habitat (Grinnell and Miller, 1944). It is possible that this small, reclusive bird may potentially occur at Bolsa Chica as a migrant, wintering, and/or nesting species, particularly if tidal influence is restored to additional acreages of pickeweed wetland; however, based upon, lack of documented historical occurrence of this species in coastal Orange County, and extreme rarity even in quality habitat such as Upper Newport Bay, it appears unlikely that black rails will occur at Bolsa Chica on more than an occasional basis. White-faced Ibis - (Plegadis chihi) (CSC,2) - This species has been reported from Anaheim Bay (Dillingham, 1971) and San Diego Creek near Upper Newport Bay (pers. obs.). This species nests primarily in freshwater marshes; during migration in winter, ibises occasionally visit coastal brackish and saltwater marsh habitats (Unitt, 1984). There is moderate potential for this species to utilize Bolsa Chica, but only on an incidental basis because of limited habitat. Low Potential for Occurrence Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo reg�lis(CSC, 2) - The habitat for thi; species is typically and or semiarid grassland and foothills; ferruginous hawks breed in the northwestern U.S. and winter south to Mexico and Baja California. They are rarely reported along the coast (Palmer, 1988). Thus, although it is possible for migrant individuals to occur in the Bolsa Chica uplands, the small area of habitat available and the low incidence of ferruginous hawks on the coast imply that such occurrences are unlikely. California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica) (FPE. CSC) - This, species is considered to be dependent upon coastal sage scrub habitat in southern California(Arwood, 1990). The only scrub habitat currently existing in the project area is on Rabbit Island; there is also a small area of coastal bluff scrub on the Bolsa Chica mesa. Gnatcatchers were not observed during Dillingham's (1971) or Jones (1982) surveys of the uplands. Gnatcatchers are not known to " occur in this area at present, and potential for establishment of a nesting population is very limited. Coastal Cactus Wren (Campylorhynchos brunneicanillus) (C:iCD -Like the California gnatcatcher, the cactus wren is also associated with coastal sage scrub habitat (Atwood, 1990); nests of cactus wrens are typically placed in large cacti (Ehrli(-.h et al., 1988). Given, the limited, isolated habitat available at Bolsa Chica, occurrence of d6ts species in the project area is unlikely. F2-62 GJ � � �, ', a r r �r � �iri tr r� � as � �� � � rr �c � ` � � s � � G7 � U U � � d O v� a � � U a r �, � �r it r � r~ � rr r�r r �r � fir.: r� � �sy I CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY MWD PARCEL BOLSA CHICA LOWLANDS Prepared for. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California W" and U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 300 N. Los Angeles Street Los Angeles, California 90012 Prepared by: CHAMBERS GROUP, INC. 16700 Aston Street Irvine, California 92714 Philip de Barros, Ph.D., SOPA Principal Investigator APRIL 1992 Seal Beach 7.5 Quadrangle Map 44 Acres D/1D[A MANAGENES ' SUMMARY As part of an Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report(EIR/EIS)prepared for the City of Huntington Beach and the Department of the Army, Los Angeles District Corps of Engineers (COE), Chambers Group has completed a literature search and pedestrian archaeological survey of an approximately 44-acre parcel located on the Bolsa Chica lowlands and on Bolsa Chica Mesa. A records search of the entire project area revealed that 23 archaeological sites are found with 1 mile of the Bolsa Chica lowlands on either the Bolsa Chica or Huntington Beach mesas. Twelve are situated within the project area. Most of these sites are prehistoric archaeological sites; some have historic components. In addition, thirty surveys and/or excavations have been conducted within a one mile radius of the Bolsa Chica lowlands. Nineteen of these surveys are within the project area. Most of archaeological investigations done adjacent to the Bolsa Chica lowlands have been summarized by Infotec (Van Bueren et al. 1989:42-50). The 44-acre parcel, known as the Metropolitan Water District (MWD)parcel, was examined for the presence of cultural properties by two archaeologists walking parallel transects spaced 15 to 20 meters apart. It contains two previously unrecorded potential archaeological sites and unrecorded components of sites ORA-78 and ORA-83/86/144. Potential sites ORA-1308 and ORA-1309 are small shell scatters located in the Bolsa Chica lowlands. The portion of site ORA-78 not previously recorded consists of a foundation, a bridge, a segment of a dam, and a historic trash scatter associated with the Bolsa Chica Gun Club. Two areas situated on the southern edge of Bolsa Chica mesa within the survey boundaries both sit within the recorded boundaries of site ORA-83/86/144. A portion of this area apparently is undisturbed and has never been tested, while other portions are disturbed by a large borrow pit and trash pit. An unrecorded component of ORA-83/86/144 was found along the base of the mesa in the central portion of the survey area. The boundary of the site has been extended to include the area in which shell and one artifact were noted. It is recommended that the new component, as well as the remainder of ORA-78, should undergo further documentation and study of its historic features, following the recommendation made by Van Bueren et al. (1989:90),to evaluate the site's significance and/or importance. This investigation should include archival research, oral testimony, and excavation, as needed. It is recommended that the portion of ORA-83/86/144 located on MWD land should be tested with the other portions of the site to gather data to determine the site's significance and/or importance. Testing should include excavation of test units and/or backhoe trenches on both the mesa and lowlands portions of the site. Information about shell, bone and artifact density, as well as other data, should be gathered to weigh the value of the MWD portion of the site against areas previously tested. Trenches in the lowlands should be examined by a multidisciplinary team to determine the potential for deeply buried in-situ cultural deposits in that portion of ORA-83/86/144. In addition, trenches should be excavated in the lowlands to aid in reconstructing the paleoenvironmental history of the area. This would provide useful data for i examining prehistoric settlement subsistence systems in the Bolsa Chica area. Finally, it is recommended that ORA-83/86/144 be evaluated in the context of an integrated research design that considers all the sites on Bolsa Chica and Huntington Beach mesas as a district of archaeological sites. It is also recommended that potential sites ORA-1308 and ORA-1309 be rigorously tested to determine if they are cultural sites or a natural occurrence. Backhoe testing is recommended to examine the total depth of both shell deposits, as well as the stratigraphy beneath each deposit. If the sites are prehistoric archaeological sites, then they help to document cultural activity in the lowlands. The sites may also serve as time and/or stratigraphic markers for the accumulation of sediment in the lowlands, and could help provide a chronological framework for environmental change in the Bolsa Chica lowlands. In addition, they could also help determine if other previously noted shell concentrations in the lowlands are cultural in origin. ii CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY MWD PARCEL BOLSA CHICA LOWLANDS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page MANAGEMENT SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SECTION 2 - NATURAL A SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1 GEOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2 HYDROLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.3 THE BIOTIC ENVIRONMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3.1 Open Ocean/Protected Outer Coast/Bay . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2 Coastal Strand and Sandy Exposed Intertidal Zone 9 2.3.3 Saltwater Marsh and Lagoon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.3.4 Freshwater Marsh. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.3.5 Grassland 9 2.3.6 Coastal Bluff Scrub . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.3.7 Other Utilized Biotic Microenvironments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 SECTION 3 - CULTURAL SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.1 PREHISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.2 ETHNOGRAPHY AND ETHNOHISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.3 HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 SECTION 4 - LITERATURE REVIEW AND PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS . . . . 15 4.1 ARCHIVAL SEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.2 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.2.1 ORA-78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 I TABLE OF CONTENT'S (Continued) Raw 4.2.2 ORA-83/86/144 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 SECTION 5 - PEDESTRIAN SURVEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 5.1 FIELD METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 5.2 RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 5.2.1 Unrecorded Historic Component of ORA-78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 5.2.2 Unrecorded Component of ORA-83/86/144 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 5.2.3 Potential Sites ORA-1308 and ORA-1309 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 SECTION 6 - CONCLUSIONS AND RECONIIVTENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 6.1 CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 6.2.1 ORA-78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 6.2.2 ORA-83/86/144 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 6.2.3 ORA-1308 and ORA-1309 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 SECTION 7 - REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 APPENDIX 1 - GEOLOGY REPORT APPENDIX 2 - RECORDS SEARCH APPENDIX 3 - AUGER TESTING APPENDIX 4 - CONFIDENTIAL SITE FORMS iv i i LIST OF FIGURES FI&M Page �i 1 Project Vicinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 Project Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 1896 USGS Las Bolsas 15 Minute Quadrangle Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4 1905 Map of the Bolsa Chica Lowlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5 1910 Map of the Bolsa Chica Gun Club . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 LIST OF TABLES Tables P 1 Bolsa Chica Project Area Archaeological Sites Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 v SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION In the summer of 1991 Chambers Group was contacted to complete an Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) on Bolsa Chica by the Department of the Army, Los Angeles District Corps of Engineers (COE) and the City of Huntington Beach (Figure 1). In conducting a records search on cultural resources within the project area, it was determined that an area known as the Metropolitan Water District(MWD)property had not been previously surveyed for cultural resources. Chambers Group undertook a survey of this property in August 1991. The 44-acre property consists of two adjacent parcels which lie along the northwestern edge of the Wintersburg Channel and are located on both the Bolsa Chica Mesa and the Bolsa Chica lowlands at the base of the mesa. They are found on the Seal Beach 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle in the northwest 'A of Section 28 and the southern 1/2 of Section 29, Township 5S, Range 11W SBM in the city of Huntington Beach and in Orange County, California (Figure 2). Potential impacts from the planned development of the parcel are discussed in detail in the EIS/E R on Bolsa Chica, prepared by Chambers Group in 1991. 1 i . — - 'ter-s. .�i, ..�`�� � 11�ie�a��:•�.�-.�`�,�,._ �./. :� 10.r� WR j to NOW 4 to Big Los � .� IL�• L41:I_\ I;�C��l11;�Y��1�`t��i�. _ 1�iIC�I►'..... �T ' • Uil ■ MMUSIN Rl"l .,�. `- �.:s =' � — �• 1 • • � -� .I --��'.��• -;• IRS. PS w l►- i Is,-';•TI�! tf .\r, ��__�•'• �t.��n ��. I rl.�, ��1.�■Il�.���ll.���v�la = ���pj I', 1 gy SIC��� ` m J . . . . . � .•�• �. _ ��►���0� .`gg IF �' irk:—•.�ttr J �qk �` t'L, �xE�l��`��1 ��� �!��r ;� M��� �., � �•��� y th�`!1!�!;���►. 1111104 ` �',',' •'���I■tom� �. .����, �� 2. 4 a� M115 Il: 1�Z1`�.1 � � �i� �4, �Ti`l!^-�alr,r,,��i v�'/■�•��■Ilf b' dffli� � r:�• r ISO, a smsot re01 r . . .,�, ,. 6222A WI A,"rS hdHi[k I ' a�. ----,whet f bstiperk — -- -- TAS/311 51€l'ha u rMl - R C3 u View �o Seh 1.,: w � � I � Vi•w y rip • Seht•C Y ! • w View NAR 3 OR A D RI R Bch NEIL t • 9 Trei 3 ;t powi� mpg ��I �••! �•) �' � C ►7—� � o ono t+ tedflwll Suxise�,. > bob 's f Country \r7 `•� _ y �� �, o, at i o t7 3 � FEES,, 4 O tow a —T 5, Sourm: uSOS 7.s,SOW SvaM,CA Figure 2 PROJECT LOCATION MAP 3 SECTION 2 - NATURAL SETTING In order to understand the nature of both physical and cultural change in the project area, it is necessary to understand the geologic and hydrologic history and the biotic environments of the region. 2.1 GEOLOGY Duringthe Pleistocene, Bolsa Chica and Huntington Beach mesas were uplifted b anticlinal � P Y folding and faulting to their present elevation of about 50 feet above sea level (Morton and Miller 1973; Poland et al. 1956). Each mesa consists of a lower seaward bench and a higher landward bench created by tectonic activity along the Newport-Inglewood Fault. The mesas are capped with fluvial overlain with thick, well-developed soil horizons (Woodward-Clyde 1987a). Both mesas fall abruptly toward the Bolsa Chica lowlands and Pacific Ocean and gradually descend inland. The Bolsa Chica Gap was created when the ancestral Santa Ana river cut a deep canyon into the Downey Plain. It appears that the ancestral Santa Ana River incised some 75 to 100 feet below present sea level during the last major low stand of sea level about 20,000 years ago (Davis 1991; see Appendix 1). Throughout the Holocene, the Santa Ana River has migrated among the Santa Ana, Bolsa, Sunset and Alamitos gaps from Newport Bay on the south to the Long Beach vicinity (Eckman et al. 1919). As sea level rose to its present position approximately 15,000 to 5,000 years ago, the Bolsa Gap lowlands experienced flooding and depositing of alluvium within the ancient Santa Ana channel. These deposits are typical of low-energy depositional environments in intratidal and lagoon backwaters (Davis 1991; see Appendix 1). As sea level stabilized about 8,000 to 5,000 years ago, a shoreline would have been created about 4 kilometers southwest of its current location (Van Bueren et al. 1989:7). It is possible that the study area lay at the head of a long lagoon at this time. Over time, Bolsa Bay fluctuated between open water tidal flats to terrestrial environments. Woodward-Clyde suggest that as the Santa Ana River shifted to its current location, a barrier beach developed across the mouth of the gap and caused the deposition of soft organic clays, sands and silts and occasional peat "typical of the present intertidal and tidal flat environment of the lowlands" (1987a:9). Today the Bolsa Chica lowlands form an estuary approximately 8,500 feet wide. 2.2 HYDROLOGY Historically, the most important environmental changes were the result of hydrological changes caused by the commercial development of the Bolsa Chica area. Prior to the mid 1800s, the coastal area extended from the Newport Mesa to the Bolsa Chica Mesa and approximately - 4 7.5 miles inland, interrupted by the Huntington Beach Mesa, then known as Las Bolsas (Figure 3). During that time, the Bolsa Chica lowlands was covered by an estuary salt marsh complex of about 1,920 acres. While the name "Gospel Swamp" is typically associated with the present Fountain Valley area, the Bolsa Chica wetlands was a part of this system of bogs, springs and wells. The swamp area consisted of about 30 square miles or 8,000 acres of peat bogs, natural springs and artesian wells that flowed year round. The swamp was densely vegetated with "willows, sycamores, tules, water modies, wild blackberry and other kinds of grasses and scrubs that made an almost impenetrable thicket" (Talbert 1952, quoted in Macdonald et al. 1987:91). The Bolsa Bay was fed by the Freeman River (formerly Bolsa Creek), originating in Westminster and carrying part of the storm drainage, peat springs and artesian flow of water of the swamp into Bolsa Bay. Brush or scrub covered sand dunes were present along the shore and willow thickets were found on inland locations (Figure 4). At least seven major drainage works were constructed inland from Bolsa Chica and Gospel Swamp between 1838 and 1885. Aided by a series of drier years, land clearing and drainage accelerated rapidly in the 1890s. In 1899, the Bolsa Chica Gun Club constructed a closure across the main waterway and impounded the marsh complex behind tide gates. Shallow duck ponds were constructed and fields were planted to attract wild life (Figure 5). By 1904, more than 3,300 water wells were reported in the area (Mendenhall 1905). Accelerated agricultural and urban development inland lowered groundwater levels and reduced freshwater discharge into Bolsa Gap. Oil exploitation and development after the 1920s impounded local rainfall using levees and culverts. By 1940, continued regional groundwater extraction caused all remaining artesian wells and presumably Freeman Creek to stop flowing. Finally in 1960, the Garden Grove-Wintersburg Flood Control Channel was constructed across the northwestern margin of Bolsa Chica lowlands. The isolation of the lowlands from fresh and saltwater has disrupted natural patterns of sedimentation and nutrient influx. This loss of water and the related changes in soil salinity patterns might be the single most significant historic environmental change experienced within Bolsa Gap (MacDonald et al. 1987:97). 2.3 THE BIOTIC ENVIRONAfENT The project location is especially significant in that it encompasses a wide range of biotic communities within and adjacent to the study area. The following section is taken mainly from Van Bueren et al. (1989:9-12). At various times during the Holocene the project area featured diverse marine and terrestrial zones. The marine habitats have included sheltered outer coast, bays, and estuaries. Conditioned by this variation, as well as by a complex array of factors including type of substrate, degree of tidal exposure, intensity of wave action, and dilution by fresh water, intertidal shoreline areas also exhibit a wide range of habitat types. The intertidal strip is, biologically, one of the most productive zones on earth. (Van Bueren et al. 1989:9) 5 6222-9 0/91 in AS B O 'gam _ 6 . �• ,�i4 rtl�.6 -SA III CA wlso \' f Xl '•: �.A S �0 L`S C8 _ MILES \� Figure 3 1896 USGS LAS BOLSAS 15 MINUTE QUADRANGLE MAP MMA 6222-10/91 CLUBHOUSE t \ OG RABBIT ISL. .w� f h•4 M1y L�r,. • S A �• + r ��� �\ SPRIG ISL. ter. rti F :.:� r! t c� r•� • \�\ r„'•� BORCHARD HOUSE Source:Van Buren A a11989.13. \ r` Figure 4 1905 MAP OF BOLSA CHICA LOWLANDS 6222-1 OM ZA i �': iP?!.�\ Z. .►'rye" ..,... �}'+ r +C Off'\\ �1�` wr.w •~..�, 3 •, .w..t 00 ...... r CE- ((�P t �TME- OBE OF l ' •••- 1 THk •per PLSA LAND CO. � r-- n ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA FRED E.WILCOX ~;` DEL. \ � Source:016cers.Committees.Past Olfioers,Bylaws.Rules and List of Members. �\ ` Bolsa Chica dun Club, 1910 Figure 5 1910 MAP OF THE BOLSA CHICA GUN CLUB The biotic areas which could have occurred since earl Holocene times within the stud area are Y Y discussed below. 2.3.1 Open Ocean/Protected Outer Coast/Bay ' These biotic zones would have existed duringearl Holocene times and n ocean/ rotected Y � P ' outer coast zones still exist southwest of the Bolsa Chica wetlands. Evidence from local archaeological sites indicates that prehistoric populations exploited bat ray (Myhobans caUfornicus), guitarfish (Rhinobatos productos), and spotfin croaker (Roncador stearnst) ' (Langenwalter and Huddleston 1986). Ethnographically, open ocean or bay marine fauna such as albatrosses, diving ducks, sea otters and seals were either taken from open waters or near/on-shore environments using hooks and lines, nets, spears, and bows and arrows (cf. ' Blackburn 1963; Johnston 1955-1958; Koerper 1981). 2.3.2 Coastal Strand and Sandy Exposed Intertidal Zone Approximately 8,000 years ago, sandy beaches appear to have developed along the coast. ' Presently, they exist adjacent to the southwestern edge of the project area. In general, sandy beaches offer little to collectors. Seaweeds may have been exploited off the beach as food or raw materials (Dixon 1975). The seeds of wild squash (Curcubita foethVssima) would also be ' available in the summer. Various shellfish including pismo clam 771vela stultorum, Saxidomus nuttallii, Donaz gouldii would have been collected prehistorically in small quantities from this zone. Crustaceans, mollusks, birds, and other animals also were acquired on a limited basis. 2.3.3 Saltwater Marsh and Lagoon ' After 5,000 years ago, portions of Bolsa Bay apparently changed to an estuary environment (Davis 1991, see Appendix 1; Woodward-Clyde 1987b). Comparatively few plants existed there ' for food, medicine or other uses. Saltbush (Atriplex spp.) seeds could be collected during summer and fall; glasswort (Salicornia subterminalis) seeds were available all year. The saltmarsh is a source of protein, especially from shellfish and fish. Water fowl, rodents, reptiles, ducks, and small mammals including sea otter, beaver, muskrat and raccoon would have been used for food. 2.3.4 Freshwater Marsh ' The freshwater marsh contained many plants and animals important to prehistoric peoples of the region. Bulrushes provided a rich source of seeds and its roots were consumed year round. Bulrush tule shoots and pollen could be gathered in the spring. Leaves of creek nettle or giant ' stinging nettle Urtica holosericea) and the seeds of wild gourd or wild squash (Cucurbita foed&ssima) were exploitable. Both large and small game such as mule deer, mountain lion, coyote, rabbit, black-tailed hare and waterfowl would also have been exploited. ' 9 i I 1 2.3.5 Gramland This area consists of introduced grasses. In the prehistoric past, it may have consisted of ' � P P y Maritime Coastal Sage Scrub and/or native grasses. Both environments would have offered potential food sources to Native Americans. Seeds from native grasses were particularly ' valuable and may have included bunch grass (Poa spp.), needle grass (Sdpa spp.), and occasional Datum(Datura wrighdi). Goosefoot and pigweed shoots(Chenopodium cauforaicum) ' were edible in spring and summer. Small animals, such as rabbits, hares, rodents and game birds, would have been available. 2 '.3.6 Coastal Bluff Scrub Presently covering the sides of bluffs within the project area, this biotic type is defined in the ' Chambers Group EIS/EIR on Bolsa Chica. This environment may have been more extensive in the past and more typical of coastal sage scrub. This microenvironment now includes saltbush (Atripkx spp.), also found in the saltwater marsh, as well as some of the same plants found in the grassland, which were used by native populations. Other utilized plants that may have been in the coastal bluff scrub microenvironment include the gooseberry, the lemonadeberry, and the ' prickly-pear. This microenvironment probably also supported an unusually large population of rodents, particularly mice and rabbits, considered edible by native populations. 2.3.7 Other Utilized Biotic Microenvironments Other microenvironments, not located within the immediate project vicinity, but nearby, were ' utilized by native populations. These include riparian woodland, low elevation chaparral, and oak woodland environments. The resources exploited from these microenvironments would have ' been used by Native American populations to supplement the resources provided by the intertidal strip. 1 10 , SECTION 3 - CULTURAL SETTING ' 3.1 PREHISTORY ' The earliest dated archaeological material found in Orange County occurs at about 9,000 to 8,000 years B.P. (Drover et al. 1983) and probably belongs to Wallace's (1955) Early Man Horizon or to Warren's San Dieguito Tradition. Sites containing San Dieguito materials are best ' known in San Diego County and are characterized by a wide range of scraper types, leaf-shaped knives or large points of several varieties, leaf-shaped lancelot and slightly shouldered points (Warren 1968:1). Milling equipment is rare and people of this period are thought to be economically focused on hunting. Although sites dating to this period occur both in Santa Barbara (Glassow et al. 1981) and San Diego Counties (Kaldenberg 1984), few sites of this period have been identified in Orange County. ' Between 7,000 and 1,200 B.P., Wallace's (1955 and 1978) Milling Stone Horizon or Warren's (1968) Encinitas Period sites are marked by large numbers of mans and milling stones and relatively few projectile points. This assemblage is interpreted to be the result of a greater emphasis on seed collecting. A large percentage of the tool assemblage is composed of crude chopping, scraping and cutting tools (Warren 1968:2). Bone tools and shell beads are rare and ' basketry manufacture is suggested by the presence of tarring pebbles. Discoidals, cogstones, doughnut stones and charmstones are also part of the complex and are ritually importantly in the Santa Ana drainage (Langenwalter and Brock 1985). The dead are disposed of by burial, either ' loosely flexed or extended, and are sometimes covered by stone cairns or milling stones. After about 5,000 B.P., Wallace (1955 and 1978) states that the hopper mortar and pestle ' become common in the ground stone assemblage and interprets this shift as evidence of greater reliance on the acorn crop. In coastal sites, Wallace identifies a greater use of shellfish and sea mammal hunting. In contrast, Warren postulates a continuation of the Encinitas Tradition in San Diego and Orange Counties until after 1 A.D. (Warren 1986) and does not accept the wide spread changes interpreted by Wallace. ' Koerper (1981) has extended the Campbell tradition into Orange County. In Warren's (1968:8) view, the Campbell tradition represents an intrusion of inland hunters into the coastal area that did not entirely displace local Encinitas Tradition populations. He sees the Campbell tradition as an "amalgamation of an inland tradition with well developed hunting techniques and technology" (Warren 1968:8). ' Wallace's (1955) Horizon IV: Late Prehistoric or Warren's Shoshonean Traditions appear in Orange County between 1,200 B.P. and A.D. 1771. Sites from this period typically contain small arrowpoints and pottery. The assemblage also contains mns, pestles, mortars, and ' milling stones and includes a variety of flake scrapers, hammerstones, hammer grinders, and unifaces similar to those found in Encinitas Tradition assemblages. Warren (1968) links ' 11 i archaeological sites of this period to the intrusion of the Shoshonean speaking peoples into the coast. 3.2 ETHNOGRAPHY AND ETHNOHISTORY The Bolsa Chica area was inhabited historically by b the Gabrielino Indians who spoke a language ' belonging to the Cupan languages in the Takic family within the Uto-Aztecan linguistic stock. According to ethnographers, ' "Gabrielino territory [generally] included the watersheds of the Los Angeles, San Gabriel, and Santa Ana rivers, several smaller intermittent streams in the Santa ' Monica and Santa Ana mountains, all of the Los Angeles Basin, the Coast from Aliso Creek in the south to Topanga Creek in the north, and the islands of San Clemente, San Nicholas and Santa Catalina" (Bean and Smith 1978:538). Settlement pattern studies indicate the existence of both primary subsistence villages, occupied semi-permanently or possibly permanently, and smaller secondary gathering camps occupied at various times during the year to exploit areas of local abundance (Bean and Smith 1978:539). The Gabrielino exploited a wide variety of environment including marine, coastal, coastal plain and mountain biologic communities. In well established coastal villages they resided in circular structures thatched with tule, fern or carriso (Bean and Smith 1978:542). Intervillage conflict often prevented inland villages from reaching the coast to fish or trade (Engelhardt 1927:20). ' The historic Gabrielino village of Lukup or Lupulmgna is reported as located somewhere in the vicinity (Johnston 1956e, 1962; Kroeber 1925: Plate 57; cited by Van Bueren et al. 1989:16); it has not been identified by archaeologists in the project area. ' The Gabrielino appear to have been hierarchically ordered into three social classes: an elite including chiefs and their immediate family and the very rich; a middle class with , long-established lineages; and a third class comprising all other members of the group. Intra- and inter-group exchange was common. From the inland Ser anos the coastal Gabrielinos obtained acorns, seeds, obsidian, and deerskin in exchange for shell beads, dried fish, sea otter pelts, shells, possibly salt and steatite. Through middlemen located in interior southern California, marine shells may have been traded as far east as central Arizona (Bean and Smith 1978:547). , By the time the Spanish arrived, the Gabrielino belief in Chingichngish, a mythical great chief, and the toloache cult had apparently spread to neighboring non-Gabrielino groups. On the ' mainland, burial corpses were wrapped in a blanket and after three days the corpse, along with most of the deceased's personal possessions, was burned. 3.3 HISTORY Spanish colonization of California began in 1769 with the march of Portola-Sena expedition north from Baja California. Upon Spanish entry into the area, the Gabrielino experienced severe 12 , 1 population reductions from disease, dietary deficiencies, and a disruption of traditional lifeways. By 1900, the Gabrielino had ceased to exist as a culturally identifiable group (Bean and Smith ' 1978:540). In 1784, Corporal Manuel Nieto received a land grant for Rancho la Zanja. Rancho la Zanja ' was composed of nearly 3,000,000 acres, stretching from the Santa Ana River to the San Gabriel River and from the Pacific Ocean to the foot of the San Gabriel Mountains (Cleland 1957:8). ' Nieto built his house and corrals on this property (Munoz 1980:5). In 1834, some years after the death of Manuel Nieto, his holdings were divided between hens into six ranchos. His grandson, Jose Antonio II, inherited the southwestern portion of the rancho located west of the Santa Ana River. He named his portion Rancho las Bolsas, after the pockets of grasslands found between old stream beds and marshes on the property. His ' brother-in-law, Joaquin Ruiz, received title to 8,000 acres bordering the Ruiz property and the ocean. This land was called Rancho la Bolsa Chica (Van Bueren et al. 1989:21-23). ' After California became a state, the United States Lands Commission required confirmation of all land titles. To finance the presentation of their claims, the Nietos and Ruizs borrowed money from entrepreneur Abel Steams. Stearns gained title to both ranchos after the family and heirs ' could not meet the promissory notes. The ranchos had supported livestock and Stems continued this use; however, declining prices led to an increased use of the area as farmland and to an accompanying demand for water. The drought of 1865 nearly bankrupted Steams and in 1871, ' he sold a portion of Rancho las Bolsas to the Westminster Colony (Van Bueren et al. 1989:22-23). Aided by a series of drier years, land clearing and drainage accelerated rapidly inland in the 1890s. ' Orange County was rich in wildlife and was a sportsman's paradise in the 1800's and early 1900's. The Bolsa Chica Gun Club was the largest of the nearly two dozen such clubs (Munoz ' 1980:12). In 1895, the club applied to the state for permission to reclaim the salt water marshlands. Four years later, the gun club constructed a dam across the main waterway and impounded the marsh complex behind tide gates. Shallow duck ponds were constructed and fields were planted to attract wild life. When the Bolsa Chica Club opened in 1899, the club house was constructed of redwood facing and roofed with cedar shakes; the main room had a huge fireplace of burnt brick and there were similar smaller fireplaces in the cardroom and in the gun room east of it. Two wings with dormer windows each housed ten bedrooms with double wardrobes and wash bowls. An early photograph shows three dormer window to a side, indicating that the bedrooms were expanded from six to ten per wing. There were large kitchens, pantries, store rooms and a wine store. To the rear of them was an apartment for employees. On the north side next to the curving ' drive stood an ivy-covered arbor with individually labelled rows of hooks for hanging ducks (Van Bueren et al. 1989:28-30). ' In addition to the Club house, the 1910 Fred D. Wilcox map shows an extensive commercial development (see Figure 5). To the southeast, off the mesa top, the Club had built barns, a bunk house, a shop, boat house, wagon bridge, and a rifle-pistol range. To attract ducks, 13 1 extensive fields and ponds were constructed in the lowlands. North of the Club house, an ' aviary, flower gardens and blue rock traps were found, in addition to an extensive water, gas and sewer line network. ' When oil was found at Huntington Beach in 1920, the Bolsa Chica Gun Club leased drilling rights to the Standard Oil Company of California on the upland portions of Bolsa Chica. , Refineries and natural gas plants joined the oil wells by 1936. The lowlands remained a waterfowl preserve until 1940, when the gun club signed a drilling rights contract with Signal Oil Company. On the lowlands south of the original lease, sixty-eight wells produced more than ' 8 million barrels of crude oil and more than 10 billion cubic feet of gas. By 1963, a total of 188 wells had been completed on the Bolsa lease. The gun club disbanded in January of 1964 and the clubhouse was demolished the same year (Van Bueren 1989:30-31). Other activity at Bolsa Chica included the construction of several batteries during the early years of World War H by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The artillery weapons, manned by the ' Army's 3rd Coast Artillery Regiment, initially consisted of 155-millimeter guns with Panama mount emplacements. Sometime in 1943 construction began for two 6-inch coastal batteries. The first, Battery 242, was to include an ammunition storage facility,plotting room, and powder ' magazine, built with steel reinforced concrete. Construction on Battery 128, to include two 16-inch guns, was started late in the war. The guns were never installed; but the earth-covered concrete structure, 500 feet long by 100 feet in depth with a reinforced concrete roof, was built , (Van Bueren 1989:31). In 1960, the Garden Grove-Wintersburg Flood Control Channel was constructed across the ' northwestern margin of Bolsa Chica lowland. By 1963, a total of 188 oil wells had been drilled on the Bolsa lease. The Bolsa Chica Gun Club disbanded in January of 1964 and the clubhouse was demolished the same year. The towns of Huntington Beach and Sunset Beach have now ' developed up to the edge of the Bolsa Chica area. In 1977-8, 150 acres were diked in the southwestern edge of the project area to form the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve. Much of the rest of the project area remains an active oil field. , 1 14 , 1 SF�. TION 4 - LITERATURE REVIEW AND PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS ' 4.1 ARCHIVAL SEARCH ' Archaeological studies in the vicinity have occurred over the last 60-70 years. Studies covering portions of the Bolsa Chica and Huntington Beach mesas and the Bolsa Chica lowlands have been summarized by Infotec (Van Bueren et al. 1989) for the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers ' (COE). Their summary was supplemented by a records search requested from the UCLA Archaeological Information Center (Appendix 2). The records search revealed that 23 archaeological sites are found with 1 mile of the Bolsa Chica lowlands on either the Bolsa Chica or Huntington Beach mesas. All are prehistoric archaeological sites; four contain historic components. Of the 30 archaeological surveys and/or ' excavations reported to the UCLA Archaeological Information Center within a one mile radius of the project area, 19 are located within the project area. These include Ahlering(1971, 1973), Bissell (1988, 1989), Brock and Sawyer (1983), Carter and Howard (1975), Cooley (1973), ' Cottrell and Rice (1975), Mabry (1979), Peterson (1988), Scientific Resource Surveys-SRS (1979, 1985, 1987), Van Bueren et al. (1989), Van Horn (1980), Weide (1967, 1969), Whitney-Desautels (1986), and Wlodarski (1981). Twelve of the 23 reported archaeological ' sites occur within the project area; they are summarized in Table 1, along with the two potential sites found during the Chambers Group survey. Another three sites occur in the study area,just outside the project boundaries: ORA-364, -366, -1192. They are also discussed in Table 1. The ' sites not included within the project area are ORA-87, -142, -368, -372, -555, -1078, -1214, -1275. Portions of both mesas were resurveyed by Infotec (Van Bueren et al. 1989) who relocated and in some cases combined the existing sites, filing archaeological site form ' addendums with the UCLA Archaeological Information Center. Their numbering system is used here. ' The records search indicated that the only archaeological study of the MWD parcels, comprising 44 acres, was by Wlodarski (1981). This study had consisted of an archival search, but no pedestrian survey of the project area had been conducted. This was the only area of the EIRMS ' project area not previously surveyed, according to the records of the UCLA Archaeological Information Center (Appendix 2). ' 4.2 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS Infotec(Van Bueren et al. 1989:42-49) summarized the considerable number of excavations that have been carried out in the Bolsa Chica area. An abbreviated and updated version of their summary is presented below for ORA-78 and ORA-83/86/144, since they extend into the 1 Chambers Group survey area. 15 1 Table 1 BOLSA CHICA PROJECT AREA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES SUMMARY* Fit. Carbon 14 uman CA-0RA-Site No. Imo Physical She Sire Data(Unc ted orrec Fat.Age Art�aeological Features RHemaahm Mating Impacts (sot) years B.P.) ORA-78 BC Mesa 64,000 None H,LH? Shell,anthrowlt,lithic scatter;Bole&Chia 1008, B,E,G,P7,and R. Gun Club and WWII installation. reported but data/YwpeCt ORA-82 H Mesa 50,000 4320+/-200 M,I Shell waiter,FAR,anthroeols,and abundant 8 burials B,E,G,L?,O,P,and artifacts. R. ORA-83/86/144 BC Mesa 90,000 33 dates ranging from M,1 'Cogged Stone Site%ecofacts,FAR, None reported B,E,G,L,P,and R. 7600.2334 abundant artifacts,anthrosob;and WWII installation. ORA-941289 BC Mesa 18,000 5 dates ranging from M,I. Anthrosols,abundant @bell,artifact None reported B,E,G,L7,O,P,and 4700-4120 R. ORA-95 BC Mesa 22,000 5 dates ranging from M,1,LH Anthrosols,abundant artifacts,numerous Human bone B,E,G,L7,P,and 41W3380 eoofacts;and WWQ installation. noted R. ORA-88 H Meu 50,000 None H,M? Anthrowls,shell scatter,FAR,debitage, None reported B,G,O,P7,and R. groundstow;historic drilling equipment. ORA-288 BC Mesa Destroyed None M Anthrosols,shell tatter None reported Totally des-troyed ORA-290 H Mese Destroyed None P Shell scatter Now reported Totally des-troyed ORA-291 H Mesa 2,500 None M,I,LH Anthrosols,abundant shell,ecofacts,FAR, None reported B,E,and P7 artifacts. ORA-292 H Mesa 3,200 Now P Anthrowls,shell tatter,FAR,debitage, None reported B,G7,P,and R. groundstone ORA-293/294 H Mesa 40,000 2150 +/-35 M,I Anthrosols,shell scatter,FAR,debitage, None reported B,E,G,O,P?and R. artifacts. ORA-364 H Mesa 20,000 None P Shell scatter,anthrosols,debitage, Now reported B,G,O,R and grass groundstone mowing ORA-365 H Mess 50,000 3 dates ranging from M,I,H Anthrosols,shell,FAR,debitage,artifacts, Now reported B,E,G, 4360-2900 1900wtrash and O ORA-366 H Mesa 15,000 None P Anthrosols,abundant shell,artifacts None reported E,0,0,and R ORA-1192 H Mesa 37,800 None LH(Cottonwood Anthrosols,abundant shell,artifacts None reported O Triangular Point) rr rr rr r� rr rr rr rr �r rr r� rr rr r� r rr rr ar rr Table 1 BOLSA CHICA PROJECT AREA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES SUMMARY* Fit. Carbon 14 CA-ORA-Site No. Site Sin Date(Un-corrected Fd.Age Ardmedookel Fmtmer H®°n F Impaeto I.ontlsa (m2) years B.P.) Ramaim ORA-1308 BC Lowlands 1,300 None ? Shell scatter None reported Unknown ORA-M BC Lowlaade 2,300 d Nora ? Shell scatter None reported Unknown • Cempiled hate dab pv"mted IN Van in at al-(19t19)and its DM Ardueelaginl eke rresedr. Pipi d Lsadi--- ®C Man-Bdu Chks Men;H Meat-Haetthgtaa Maas;BC Loulawk-Bake Cbko Le rlaids. HmL AVt H-HMtatlq F-1h d&aicl M-Miles stw►e;l-IntansadLeel LH drate Horltts� Edabig Impacts B•Bioturlatim;H-l rWm;0-Q WhWtr l L-LocdAW 0.OB P-FlowbeldlelthW R-Reads. J 4.2.1 ORA-78 Limited test excavations have been performed on the prehistoric shell deposit at ORA-78 (Whitney-Desautels 1987, McKenna 1986, Nissley et al. 1975), revealing that it has a low shell and lithic density. Later historic activity on the property disturbed the upper levels of the prehistoric deposits on the site. According to Van Bueren et al. (1989:68), a sufficient sample , of the prehistoric deposits at ORA-78 have been excavated, given the limited nature of the deposit. The construction of the Bolsa Chica Gun Club in 1899 and activity in the area during World War II have created at least 14 historic features at ORA-78. Most of these features relate to the Bolsa Chica Gun Club, including a trash deposit. Three of the located features, including two gun emplacements and the concrete foundation of a quonset hut, date to the World War II period. These features have not been the focus of any archaeological investigations at ORA-78. ' As Van Bueren et al. (1989:68-69)point out, the historic resources located at ORA-78 need to be explored in a systematic way to collect additional data for evaluating the site's significance. , The resources related to the Bolsa Chica Gun Club may provide important information on the early historic recreational use of Bolsa Chica, particularly regarding technological and possibly architectural issues. The club was associated with important local developments and people. The features related to World War II activity, including features located on ORA-85 and ORA-83/86/144, may also contain important data on fortifications during an important period of our history. While the features related to the World War II period are not yet 50 years old, sites 45 years old should also be evaluated for National Register eligibility. Site evaluation requires a systematic collection of data, including archival information related to the construction of the features, and subsurface testing of some features and all artifact deposits to assess the ' integrity and contents of these historic resources. 4.2.2 ORA-83/86/144 , ORA-83/86/144 is of particular interest to this report, because portions of the site lie on the MWD parcels surveyed by Chambers Group. Originally discovered in the 1920s by Strandt, ORA-83 was first recorded in 1964 by Herring and Dixon, and ORA-86 was recorded northeast of ORA-83 by Dixon and Eberhart. In 1965, Hefner and McKinney of PCAS recorded ORA-144 adjacent to the eastern boundary of ORA-86. The three sites were combined in 1970 by Ross and McCurdy, who believed the three were a continuous midden. This interpretation was confirmed by Infotec in 1989 (Van Bueren et al. 1989). The complex is known today as ' either site ORA-83, ORA-83/86, or ORA-83/86/144. The first investigation of ORA-83/86/144 occurred in 1960 and 1961 when Herring and ' Gochicoa performed an intensive surface collection and excavated a 3 x 3 feet unit, producing a Milling Stone and Intermediate Horizon assemblage containing 137 cogstones, 39 discoidals, 13 charmstones, milling slabs, manos, pestles, and projectile points (Herring 1968). In 1966, ' the CSCLB field class supervised by Eberhart excavated part of the original ORA-86 and found that a large amount of peat had been introduced by agriculture into the part of the site they 18 , 1 ' investigated. In 1968 Eberhart excavated 12-5 x 5 feet units in the original ORA-83 (Marshall and Eberhart 1982). In 1971, ARI performed surface collections and excavated six 1 x 1 meter ' units, three 2.5 x 2.5 meter units and one 5 x 5 meter unit on that portion of the original ORA-83 located adjacent to the southern mesa edge prior to this area being removed for fill (Munoz 1975). ARI continued work on the northern part of ORA-83/86/144 in 1973, excavating 8-1.5 x 1.5 meter units and 10 backhoe trenches (Cooley 1973). In 1974 and 1975, they completed a controlled surface collection, 85 auger borings, soil chemistry studies, and a magnetometer survey. Since the early 1980s SRS has conducted evaluation studies of the original ORA-83, consisting of the southwestern one-third of site ORA-83/86/144. The multiphase investigation includes a review of historic records and aerial photographs to document disturbances to the site. Subsurface tests, including backhoe trenches, auger borings, and hand dug excavation units have ' been completed. Magnetometer and conductivity tests were used to locate buried features. The historical review revealed that a series of structures have been built on the site, dating to ' before 1873. The 1873 Coastal Geodetic Survey map records a lone structure existing on the site. SRS (Whitney-Desautels 1986:50) interprets a concentration of historic material located along the western edge of a eucalyptus grove as the remains of this structure. The 1927 aerial ' photographs show a series of structures thought to be a farm and a concrete reservoir, the remnant of which can still be located (Whitney-Desautels 1986:52). However, this reservoir is marked on a map of the Bolsa Chica Gun Club dated 1910 (see Figure 5) and was connected by a pipeline to the club house. Aerial photographs taken in 1947 show a large bunker, housed in an elevated 10.5 meter high, 90 x 240 meter linear mound. An underground bunker of unknown size was constructed beneath what is now the Woodman Pole lot. SRS documented buried ' cables extending between the two bunkers. Most of the original ORA-86 has been extensively plowed since the 1927 aerial photograph was taken; plowing probably occurred in the nineteenth century as well. Excavation unit profiles document a well-developed 45 centimeter plow zone ' (Ap horizon) over most of the site and indicate disturbance up to 70 centimeters deep from plowing done occasionally since the 1960s to break up the hardpan. A small portion of the site, beneath a eucalyptus grove near the reservoir, has apparently never been plowed. ' SRS performed an intensive collection of the surface of the original ORA-86 using a 10 x 10 meter grid. Using a 16-inch power bucket auger, they dug 168 auger holes in 15 centimeter levels at 20 meter intervals. They excavated 409 meters of backhoe trenches; from some of these collected 15 x 15 centimeter column samples, which yielded shells used to date the site. Finally, they placed sixteen 1 x 2 meter test units in the area of the unplowed ' midden. They recovered 208 ground stone items, 97 chipped stone tools, 17 hammerstones, 1,191 pieces of debitage, and 17 miscellaneous items including beads, pendants and worked bone. Radiocarbon analysis of recovered shell produced 33 dates ranging between 7,635 and ' 2,335 B.P. They collected 369.5 kilograms of shell representing 47 shell fish species, and 465 pieces of bone from 26 vertebrate species. SRS is currently conducting further evaluation studies on the original ORA-83 (Whitney Desautels, personal correspondence, 1991). Part of the surface collection, two of the auger borings and some of the backhoe trenches were located on the MWD property. ' 19 1 Twelve of the 33 dates obtained by SRS from their column samples are out of stratigraphic , sequence, although they generally range from older to more recent deposition from bottom to top. In order to discuss their results in the following section, conventional soil horizon ' nomenclature is used below, with the stratigraphic assignments of SRS (Whitney-Desautels 1986:34-49) given in parentheses. SRS's investigation identified a portion of the site around the eucalyptus grove that has ga Po yP apparently not been plowed, at least not to the degree of other areas of the site. This portion of the site apparently contains the highest shell and artifact density. This portion of the site either contained unplowed A horizon (Soil Facies III: Basal Midden or Transitional Midden) lying over the Ap horizon or plow zone (Soil Facies 1) or had the plow zone lying directly on the Bt soil horizon (Soil Facies M. Areas with the ApBt profile were eliminated from further testing, based on the assumption that they represented a truncated profile from which material has been removed. They more intensively studied the southeastern comer of the site, including ' the eucalyptus grove. It was SRS's (Whitney-Desautels 1986:103-110)opinion that only those portions of the site with ' unplowed A horizons greater than 20 centimeters in thickness, a shell density of more than 167 hinge fragments, and artifact densities of greater than 3 to 4 artifacts per auger unit below the Ap horizon would produce data applicable to their stated research goals(Mason 1987:65-66). , These parameters eliminate all of the original portions of ORA-83 except the area beneath the eucalyptus grove. SRS has tested only about one-third of the site, because of constraints created by their research design and by property ownership (i.e., the site sits on several parcels with different land owners). Evaluation of any portion of ORA-83/ 86/144 should be made in context of the entire ' site, despite historic disturbances and other constraints. The significance or importance of the site rests in its ability to provide scientific data on a wide range of research questions, from general (Jones 1991) to regional and site-specific. ORA-83/86/144 has the potential to address ' many research questions concerning settlement, subsistence, trade and culture history. ORA-83/86/144 is one of many sites located around the Bolsa Chica lowlands. While Mason , (1987) presents a research design specific to the Bolsa Chica area, some sites are recorded for the area which are not addressed by Mason (ORA-142, 346, 364, 595(372), 1078, 1192, 1214, 1275). Some of these sites have been destroyed and/or have been tested by archaeologists, while others have been recorded since 1987; however, all of these sites need to be discussed in a regional research design. The research design formulated for examining ORA-83/86/144 is integrally related to the cultural reconstruction of subsistence settlement systems and uses the , most well-preserved subsurface data the site has to offer; however, other research questions, such as those related to lithic procurement, reduction and exchange are not discussed. Mason's research design is structured to test the site for an evaluation of its significance and/or importance. If ORA-83/86/144 is determined to be eligible for the National Register, it should be evaluated in the context of a district of prehistoric archaeological sites in the surrounding area. A research design should be formulated to consider the variability within and between ' sites in the region, as well as the interaction of sites within a regional subsistence system. 20 SECTION 5 - PEDESTRIAN SURVEY 5.1 FIELD METHODS The MWD parcels (see Figure 2) were systematically surveyed by two people walking parallel transects spaced at 15 to 20 meter intervals. The ground surface was examined for manifestation of human activity including artifacts, shell and bone, soil changes indicating human activity, and buildings and structures. Since the Bolsa Chica lowlands are thought to be filled with Holocene sediment, limited subsurface exploration, using a 7 centimeter bucket auger was done in the northeastern part of the survey area to ascertain the presence or absence of buried middens. The ' auger was used to try to clarify the nature of sites found in the lowlands by determining the integrity of the sediments and the depositional environments(i.e., fluvial or lagoon)under which they were created. The details of this auger testing program are provided in Appendix 3. A ' geological consultant conducted a preliminary assessment of the integrity of possible sites in the lowlands and to estimate the age of sediments in this portion of the Bolsa Chica Gap (Davis 1991; see Appendix 1). Existing archaeological sites within the study area were examined to ' determine their condition. Unrecorded cultural properties were documented according to Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) guidelines (DPR 1989). ' 5.2 RESULTS The survey area abuts the Pacific Coast Highway (Highway 1) and extends inward from Bolsa Bay on a roughly northeast-southwest axis (see Figure 2). The southwestern portion of the survey area consists of tidal flats; the central section contains portions of Bolsa Chica Mesa and ' a riparian corridor at the base of the mesa; and, the northeastern segment of the site is occupied by a large agricultural field situated in the lowlands (see Figure 2). Newly recorded sites or site components include the following: IN. An unrecorded historic component of ORA-78 situated in the tidal flats; ► An unrecorded component of prehistoric site ORA-83/86/144, Le, the mesa bluff slopes and most of the base of the mesa below; ► Two shell scatters which are potential archaeological sites, ORA-1308 and ORA-1309. ' 5.2.1 Unrecorded Historic Component of ORA-78 The western portion of the tidal flats contains sediments covered with isolated patches -of vegetation, such as pickleweed (Salicornia spp.), saltgrass (Distichils spicada), iceplant and others. The remainder of the area was covered with barren, fine grained sediments. Numerous 21 I shallow drainage channels and low berms exist, presumably created to drain the flats. The survey revealed an unrecorded historic component of ORA-78 within these tidal flats. The remnant of facilities associated with the Bolsa Chica Gun Club(ORA-78) were found in the southeastern end of the tidal flats. Two small (0.9-1.2 meter high) islands measuring 55 x 55 meters and 100 x 50 meters of imported fine to coarse sand containing shell were found in the lowland next the Wintersburg Channel. The sand, probably imported from the nearby beach, appears to have been stabilized with a petroleum derivative, and the island was covered with historic debris including bricks, wood, and ceramic sherds. These islands are apparently the remnant of fill on which part of the Bolsa Chica Gun Club was built. A map of the club facilities (see Figure 5), obtained from the Sherman Library in Corona del Mar, shows 3 barns, a bunk house, a shop, a boat house, a wagon bridge, and a rifle and pistol range in this area. A bridge, a concrete foundation, and a small concrete-lined hole represent the remains of these facilities. The maps shows an artificial pond and a celery field occupying the area immediately , to the northwest of these facilities. The survey boundary extends to the edge of the lower Bolsa Chica mesa; the debris along the slope probably relates to the 1964 demolition of the club house. On the southeastern margins of the tidal flats area, the Wintersburg Channel intersects with , Bolsa Bay. A concrete dam lies across the mouth of the channel and across the bay. A dike running along the southern side of the channel abuts the dam, dividing the channel and bay. Two episodes of construction are apparent on the dam. The portion along the bay is both lower and narrower than the portion along the channel. According to Macdonald et al. (1987:95), the portion of the dam across the Wintersburg Channel is a structure built next to the original Gun Club dam, which was still standing in the 1950s (Talbert 1982:42). The control gates in the old Gun Club dam were altered in 1973 to allow the flow of salt water into the marsh. Therefore, a portion of the original Gun Club dam still exists, incorporated into the present dam. ' Based on these findings, the boundary of ORA-78 was extended on a site form addendum to include the additional historic features of the gun club (see Appendix 4). ' 5.2.2 Unrecorded Component of ORA-83/86/144 The previously recorded boundaries of ORA-83/86/144 basically followed the edge of the mesa top. Portions of the edge of this mesa top lie within the MWD property. Cultural material (i.e., shell) was noted on the surface in these areas during the course of the survey, confirming that ORA-83/86/144 does in fact extend to the edge of the mesa. Marine shell was particularly abundant in a fresh 2 x 3 in, 30 cm deep blade cut situated in the northeastern portion of the ' MWD property where the mesa top edge runs approximately north-south. This portion of ORA-83/86/144, which lies adjacent to the Woodman Pole lot, has never been tested or evaluated but does lie within previously recorded site boundaries (see Appendix 4). In the central portion of the surveyed area, the edge of the mesa slopes down to a second level or terrace at 13 meters above sea level which is on MWD property. This area used to contain ' a portion of site ORA-83/86/144 that was subsequently destroyed during the removal of borrow material, leaving a 300 x 100 m cavity in the side of the mesa. Prior to the excavation of the 22 borrow pit, that portion of the site was partially excavated (Munoz 1975). A 15 x 30 m hole has been dug on the edge of the mesa and filled with trash. SRS (Whitney-Desautels 1986) also tested the portion of ORA-83/86/144 just to the north of the borrow area as part of evaluation studies performed on the adjacent property. Site boundaries were redrawn by Infotec (Van Bueren et al. 1989) to exclude the borrow pit area (see Appendix 4). An examination of the base of the mesa and the adjacent agricultural field suggested that ORA-83/86/144 may extend into this area. The base of the mesa to the west (below the large ' borrow pit area) is densely covered with eucalyptus trees, many of which have been felled, creating a very difficult landscape to survey. Visibility was poor at best. The few artifacts that were visible amongst the tree debris were modem. Further to the northeast, opposite the ' agricultural field,the base of the mesa contained marine shell, consisting of Chione,Argopecten, and Ostrea, species which were commonly exploited by Native Americans, but ones which also could have occurred naturally within a bay/estuary environment. However, a single chert ' uniface (stone tool) was also observed in this area. The marine shell extends as much as 200 m southeast onto the agricultural field where the surface density drops to less than 1 fragment/ 100 square meters. The field slopes gradually uphill from the base of the mesa. In the southwestern portion of the agricultural field, there are remnants of an equestrian area (corral) at the base of the mesa, and highly fragmented marine shell is also present there. I ' Based on the presence of the economic marine shell species and the chert tool at the base of the mesa, it was decided to extend the boundary of site ORA-83/86/144 to include the entire base of the mesa below the site as previously recorded, including the area of poor visibility covered with eucalyptus trees and debris. This latter area may also contain potential cultural deposits that are currently not visible. The adjusted site boundary for ORA-83/86/144 is shown in Appendix 4. Only subsequent subsurface backhoe trenches and/or test units can determine whether the shell at the base of the mesa is: 1) an in situ cultural deposit; 2) redeposited cultural material that has eroded from the mesa top above (see Davis in Appendix 1); or 3) a ' natural occurrence associated with a bay/estuary environment. It is important to point out that such cultural activities as shell processing could have taken place at the base of the mesa, and there is evidence for such sites in a similar setting associated with the Ballona(Playa Vista) area (cf. Altschul et al. 1991). While the agricultural field is presently at, or 1 to 2 feet below, sea level, subsidence of between 1 to 5 feet due to the withdrawal of water and oil has been documented in the lowlands (MacDonald et al. 1987:94). In the interim, Chambers Group decided to implement a simple augering program extending from the base of the mesa across the adjacent agricultural field to see what this might tell us about the nature of the shell deposits and to determine whether there might be buried cultural deposits in this area of the lowlands. The details of this auger testing program are presented in ' Appendix 3. Briefly summarized, the auger tests indicated the following: ► That the agricultural field has not been disturbed by modem activity to any significant degree; 23 1 ► Due to the limited stratigraphic view provided by auger holes, no buried cultural deposits within the agricultural field could be clearly demonstrated; and shell found between 172 to 200 cm in auger hole 3 is probably a natural deposit associated with quiet water bays and estuaries; ► Again, due to the limited stratigraphic view provided by auger holes, no clear-cut cultural horizon could be confirmed at the base of the mesa. In short, the auger testing did not resolve the issue of whether cultural deposits are present or ' not, particularly at the base of the mesa. Backhoe trenches and/or test units are needed. This combined with a multidisciplinary paleoenvironmental study of the lowland sediments may provide insight into changing prehistoric settlement patterns and the potential for buried cultural deposits (cf. Altschul et al. 1991 who are using this approach in the Ballona area). 5.2.3 P i 1 n RA- 'otent Saes ORA-1308 and O 1309 These two shell scatters were noted on the eastern portion of the agricultural field situated in the lowlands. This eastern portion of the field is bounded by Graham Road to the east and Warner Avenue to the south. Both sites are light density shell scatters consisting mostly of Chione and Argopecten. ORA-1308 contains traces of Mytilus cakfornianus and Ostrea lurida and covers an oval area roughly 35 x 55 in (1,500 square meters). ORA-1309 covers an oval area about 42 x 70 m (2,300 square meters). With the exception of the Mytilus shell in ORA-1308, most of the shell at these two sites are estuary species and could represent a natural occurrence. However, these species were also economically important to Native American populations, and by weight, Chione, Argopecten, and Ostrea are the most common species found at ORA-83/86/144. In addition, the single fragment of Mytilus at ORA-1308 is associated with rocks in an intertidal zone. Therefore, these ' shell scatters could reflect Native American activity. Subsurface test excavations involving backhoe trenches and/or test units are necessary to determine the exact nature of these shell scatters. Similar type scatters have been recorded in the Ballona (Playa Vista) area and are being dealt with in a similar matter (cf. Altschul et al. 1991). These two potential sites have been recorded on official DPR site records (see Appendix 4). 24 iSECTION 6 - CONCLUSIONS AND RECONNVIF.NDATIONS 6.1 CONCLUSIONS The survey area contains two unrecorded potential archaeological sites and unrecorded ' components of sites ORA-78 and ORA-83/86/144 as well as two portions of the latter site located within the previously established site boundaries. ORA-1308 and ORA-1309 are small shell scatters located in the Bolsa Chica lowlands. The portion of ORA-78 not previously irecorded consists of a foundation, a bridge, a segment of a dam, and a trash scatter associated with the Bolsa Chica Gun Club. Two areas situated on the southern edge of Bolsa Chica mesa within the survey boundaries both sit within the recorded boundaries of ORA-83/86/144. The northernmost portion of this area apparently is undisturbed and has never been tested, while other portions are disturbed by a large borrow pit and trash pit. This area has already been partially tested(Whitney-Desautels 1986)and partially excavated(Munoz 1975)as part of a data recovery investigation done for the borrow pit. An unrecorded component of CA-Ora-83/86/144 was found along the base of the mesa in the middle portion of the survey area. The boundary ' of the site has been extended to include the base of the mesa, where shell and one artifact was noted. 6.2 RECON ENNDATIONS 6.2.1 RA-7 The new component of ORA-78 should undergo further documentation and study following the ' recommendations made for the remainder of the site to evaluate it for the National Register of Historic Places as well as importance under CEQA (Van Bueren et al. 1989:90). Historic maps should be used to formulate a strategy for archaeological investigation of the site. Investigation should include archival research, oral testimony, and excavation of subsurface features and trash deposits, as needed. In particular, limited vegetation removal may be necessary in this area to expose foundations. 6.2.2 ORA-0/86/144 The portion of site ORA-83/86/144 located on MWD land should be tested as have other portions of the site to gather data to determine National Register eligibility and/or significance ' under CEQA. Surface collection data could be used to help place excavation units on the mesa in portions of the site previously untested on MWD property. Since surface examination only revealed one artifact in the lowlands, backhoe trenches are recommended to expose stratigraphic ' data and explore the presence and/or absence of buried inzab cultural deposits. In-situ deposits should be examined with test units; a backhoe could aid in removing overburden to help with testing. The areas of the site located on Bolsa Chica mesa should be dated to see if they are 25 chronologically similar to those areas of the site previously dated; artifact distributions could be , plotted by artifact type to help identify activity arras across the site. Backhoe trenches should be excavated in the Bolsa Chica lowlands and the profiles of these trenches should be studied by a multidisciplinary team with skills in sedimentology, pedology and archaeology to determine the paleoenvironmental history of the area. This data can help ' identify the potential for deeply buried inzaiM cultural deposits in the lowlands by identifying periods of siltation and other changes in the environment which may have effected prehistoric use of the area as well as look for archaeological evidence of prehistoric occupation, such as ' jn:gjM artifacts. Studies should be directed at determining if the lowland deposits could be the result of prehistoric occupation and to identifying prehistoric activities in that location. Deep subsurface excavation, reaching below two meters, would be particularly appropriate at the base of the Bolsa Chica mesa in the newly defined boundaries of ORA-83/86/144. 6.2.3 RA- n RA- 'O 1308 and O 1309 It is recommended that potential sites ORA-1308 and ORA-1309 be rigorously tested to , determine if they are cultural sites, a natural occurrence or a historic redeposit. Testing should be designed to provide an examination of the total depth of the shell deposits. Backhoe testing , would provide stratigraphic data within the deposits, as well as information on the age of soils below the deposits, critical in determining if the deposits are cultural or natural. In-situ deposits should be explored with test units. An adequate size shell sample should be collected from both , the surface and subsurface of each potential site to determine if the shell is typical of archaeological or natural shell assemblages (c.f. Altschul et al. 1991:193). The presence and/or absence of artifacts in the deposits will provide additional information for assessing the potential sites. Again, it is recommended that testing activities be carried out by a multidisciplinary team, to collect the data necessary to determine the paleoenvironment of the area and its potential to contain deeply buried sites. This is necessary to adequately assess the stratigraphy of ORA-1308 ' and ORA-1309. If the sites are prehistoric archaeological sites, then they document cultural activity in the lowlands. The sites may also serve as time and/or stratigraphic markers for the accumulation of sediment in the lowlands, and could help provide a chronological framework for environmental change in the Bolsa Chica lowlands. In addition, they could also help determine if other previously noted shell concentrations in the lowlands are potentially cultural in origin. 26 ' SECTION 7 - REFERENCES Ahlering, Michael L. 1971 Excavations and Analysi f 4- -2 'dden. Prepared for Signal Properties, Inc. 1973 RQ= of a ScientificSurvey Inv n for the Cityf Huntingjn Beach. California. Prepared by Archaeological Research Inc. for the City of Huntington Beach, California. Altschul, Jeffrey H.; Richard S. Ciolek-Torrello; Jeffrey A. Homburg; and Mark T. Swanson 1991 Playa Vista Archaeological and Historical Project Research Design Prepared by Statistical Research for Planning Consultants Research and Camp Dresser&McKee. Bean, M.A. 1978 Environmental Background. In Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. : ' California, Edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 538-549. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Bissell, Ronald M. 1988 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the Ellis-Goldenwest Ouarter Section. 160 Acres in Huntington Beach. Orange County. California. On file with the Archaeological Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. 1989 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the Holly-Seacliff Pronertg- 760 Acres in Huntington Beach. Orange County. California. On file with the Archaeological ' Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. Blackburn, T.C. 1963 Ethnohistoric Descriptions of Gabrielino Material Culture. Univers4 of California. Los Angeles. Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1962-1963:1-50. Los Angeles. Brock, James and William Sawyer 1983 Archaeological Assessment Report for the 42.4 Acre Graham Place Property in Bolsa Chica. County of Orange. California. On file with the Archaeological Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. Carter, Christina and Jerry Howard 1975 Phase I Archaeological Investigations CA-ORA-83. Orange Coun . California. On file with the Archaeological Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. i27 1 Cleland, Robert G. ' 1957 Cattle in a Thousand Hills: Southern California 1850-1880. The Huntington Library, San Marino, California. ' Cooley, Theodore 1973 Report of Test Excavations: CA-ORA-83. CA-ORA-85. CA-ORA-288. On file with , the Archaeological Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. Cottrell, Marie and Glen Rice ' 1975 An Evaluation f the 1 n Bolsa Chica Mesa. On file with the Archaeological Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. Curtis, E.S. 1926 The North American Indian, Vol. XV, Edited by F.W. Hodge. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 1989 Handbook for Completing An Archaeological Site Record. Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, California. Dixon, Keith A. ' 1975 Archaeological Resources and Policy Recommendations, City of Long Beach. Drover, Christopher E., Henry C. Koerper, and Paul E. Langenwalter II , 1983 Early Holocene Human Adaptation on The Southern California Coast: A Summary Report on Investigations at the Irvine Site (CA-ORA-64). Pacific Coast ' Archaeological Societv Quarterly, Vol. 19, Nos 3 and 4. Eckman, E.C., A.T. Strahorn, L.C. Holmes, and J.E. Gurnsey 1919 Soil Survey of the Anaheim Area (Map). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Los Angeles. Elmendorf, William W. 1927 San Gabriel Mission and the Beginnings of Los Angeles. San Gabriel, California: Mission Santa Barbara. Glassow, M.A., J.A. Arnold, G.A. Batchelder, A.G. Bixler, R.T. Fitzgerald, J.L. Hudson, K.R. Lawson, D.F. Stone, and R.L. Walker ' 1981 Preliminary Report: Archaeological Data Recovery Program in Relation to Space Shuttle Development, VAFB, California. Prepare by Office of Public Archaeology, Social Process Research Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara, for Headquarters, Space Division, Los Angeles Air Force Station. USAF. Order No. F04-701-78-F-0027. r 28 Herring, A.K. 1968 Surface Collections from ORA-83, a Cogged Stone Site at Bolsa Chica, Orange County, California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 4(3):3-37. Johnston, B.E. 1955 The Gabrielino Indians of Southern California, Part I. The Masterkey 29(6):180-191. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles. 1956a The Gabrielino Indians of Southern California, Part 11. The Maste&&y 30(1):6-21. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles. i1956b The Gabrielino Indians of Southern California, Part III. The Masterkey 30(2):44-56. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles. 1956c The Gabrielino Indians of Southern California, Part W. The Masterkgy 30(3):76-89. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles. 1956d The Gabrielino Indians of Southern California, Part V. The Masterkey 30(4):125-132. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles. 1956e The Gabrielino Indians of Southern California, Part VI. The Masterkey 30(5):146-156. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles. 1956f The Gabrielino Indians of Southern California, Part VII. The Masterkey 30(6):191-196. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles. ' 1957a The Gabrielino Indians of Southern California, Part VIII. The Masterkey 31(1):9-23. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles. 1957b The Gabrielino Indians of Southern California, Part IX. The Masterkey 30(2):49-58. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles. 1957c The Gabrielino Indians of Southern California, Part X. The Mastefty 30(3):95-103. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles. 1957d The Gabrielino Indians of Southern California, Part XI. The Masterkey 31(4):121-130. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles. 1957e The Gabrielino Indians of Southern California, Part XII. The Masterkey 31(5):155-165. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles. ' 1957f The Gabrielino Indians of Southern California, Part M. The Maste&U 30(6):185-197. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles. 1958 The Gabrielino Indians of Southern California, Part) IV: Epilogue. The Masterkey 32(1):11-20. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles. 29 Jones, Terry L. 1991 Marine-Resource Value and the Priority of Coastal Settlement: A California Perspective. American Antiquity 56(3), pp.419A43. , Kaldenberg, Russell 1984 Rdeo-Technological Change at Rancho Park, San Diego Coun . California. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Department of Anthropology, San Diego State University. Koerper, H.C ' 1981 Prehistoric Subsistence and Settlement in the Newport Bay Area and Environs. Coin . California. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside. Kroeber, A.L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. , Langenwalter, Paul E. and James Brock 1985 Phase II Archaeological Studies. Prado Basin and the Lower Santa Ana River. , Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Macdonald, Keith B., Thomas W. Bilhorn, and C. Robert Fledmeth 1987 Cumulative Impacts of Historical Hydrologic Changes, Bolsa Chica Lowlands, Orange County, California. Proceedings of the Natural Wetlands Symogsium. Jon A. Kusler and Gail Brooks, editors. Chicago, Illinois. ' Maby, Theo 1979 Records Search and Archaeological Reconnaissance Bolsa Chica Mesa. Orange County. California. On file with the Archaeological Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. Marshall, R.P., and H. Eberhart 1982 Report of Field Work at Bolsa Chica. Ms. on File, California State University, Los Angeles. Mason, Roger D. 1987 Research Design for Evaluation of Coastal Archaeological Sites in Northern Orange ' Coun . California. Prepared by Scientific Resources Surveys Inc. for Huntington Beach, California. McKenna, J.A. ' 1986 Archaeological Investigations at CA-Ora-78 Bolsa Chica Mesa. Orange County, California. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. Huntington Beach, Submitted to Signal landmark Properties, Inc., Irvine California. 30 Mendenhall, W.C. 1905 Development of Underground Water in the Central Coastal Plain Region of Southern California, U.S. Munoz, Jeanne I1975 Report of Archaeological Investigations of the Southwest Portion of CA-Ora-83. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 11(3):1-32. Costa Mesa, California. 1980 Culture Histor,J► of the Bolsa Chica Bay Area. On file with Chambers Group. Nissley, C., J. Bringham, and M.G. Cottrell 1975 Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program. North Coast Planning Unit, Bolsa Chica Land Use Plan, On File, Orange County Environmental Management Agency, Santa Ana, California. Norton, P.K., and R. Miller 1973 Geologic Map of Orange County, California. California Division of Mines and Geology Geoenvironmental Maps of Orange County, Preliminary Report 15. ' Peterson, Mark L. 1988 Final Archaeological Investigation CA-ORA-84. Orange Coun . On file with the Archaeological Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. Poland, J.F., A.M. Piper, et al. 1956 Ground Water Geology of the Coastal Zone, Long Beach-Santa Ana Area, ' California. U.S. Geological Survey Water Sully Parer 1109. Washington, D.C. Ross, L.A. and R.J. Desautels 1970 Bolsa Chica Archaeological Research Project. Phase I. Surface Survey and Historic Research of the Bolsa Chica Bay Area. California. Prepared by Archaeological Research, Inc. Scientific Resources Surveys 1979 Archaeological Report on Site ORA-368 Located on the R.M.J. Pmpqy in the City of Huntington Beach, California. On file with the Archaeological Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. 1985 Cultural Resources Report on Huntington Mesa, Chevron Oil Fields, Signal Landmark Pronem. in the City of Huntington Beach, California. On file with the Archaeological Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. i1987 Archaeological Investigations at CA-ORA-78 Bolsa Chica Mesa. Orangee C� On file with the Archaeological Information Center, University of California, Los ' Angeles. 31 1988a Archaeological Assessemnt of a Portion of CA-ORA-85. 1Chica Mesa. Orange, Coun , . California. Prepared for Signal Landmark Properties. On file at Chambers Group, Inc. ' 1988b Final Archaeological Investigation CA-ORA-84. Orange County. California. Prepared for Signal Landmark, Inc. On file at Chambers Group, Inc. , Talbert, T.B. , 1982 My Sixq► Years in California. Ben Franklin Press, Huntington Beach, California. Originally published in 1952. Van Bueren, Thad M.; Susan K. Goldberg; Michael J. Momtto; Portia Lee and Jemel H. Sorensen 1989 Inventory and Evaluation of Bolsa Chica Mesa and Huntington Beach Mesa, Orange County, California. Prepared by Infotec, Inc. for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Van Horn, David M. ' 1980 Archaeological Survey Report: A 21 Acre Parcel of Property Located Next to the Aminoil Lease in the City of Huntington Beach. California. On file with the Archaeological Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. Wallace, W.J. 1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11:214-230. 1978 Pos-Pleistocene Archaeology. In Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 8: ' California, Edited by R.F. Heizer, pp. 25-36. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Warren, C.N. 1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 1(3):1-15. Weide, Margaret L. 1967 Excavations at ORA-82. Spring 1967. On file with the Archaeological Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. 1969 Seasonality of Pismo Clam Collecting at Ora-82. On file with the Archaeological Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. Whitney-Desautels, Nancy A. 1986 Archaeological Evaluation of CA-0RA-83. On file with the Archaeological Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. 32 I 1987 Archaeological Investigations at CA-ORA-78. Bolsa Chica Mesa, Orange County. California. Prepared by SRS for Signal Landmark Properties, Inc. On file at Chambers Group, Inc. Wlodarski, Robert J. 1981 Archival Background Research Study for Approximately 44 Acres Adjacent to the East Garden Grove-Wvntersburgh Channel. Bolsa W and Bolsa Chica Bluffs. Orange County, California. On file with the Archaeological Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. Woodward-Clyde i1987a Evaluation of Hazards Due To Fault Surface Rupture At Bolsa Chica Mesa and In The Bolsa Chica Lowland. Orange County. California. Prepared by Woodward-Clyde Consultants for Signal Landmark, Inc. and Orange County Environmental Management Agency. 1987b Geotechnical Investigation. Proposed Bolsa Chica Development. Orange CounU. Califonnia. Prepared by Woodward-Clyde Consultants for Signal Landmark, Inc. i 1 33 ' i �i a � a O � MEN r r � MI m m m m rI= mom r r r m m Paul Davis, Consulting Engineering Geologist 711 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648, (714) 536.1076 August 27, 1991 Ms. Judy McKeehan Chambers Group, Inc. 1761-A E. Garry Avenue Santa Ana , California 92705 Subject: Preliminary Archaeological Geology Assessment Bolsa Chica Lowlands Site CA-ORA-83/86 Huntington Beach, California Dear Judy; As you requested, this letter presents our Preliminary Archaeological Geology Assessment of the subject site. The basis of this assessment was a cursory field visit on August 19, 1991 , and review of the referenced material . Geomorphic Setting ' The site is situated along the base of a terrace slope at the northwest side of the Bolsa Chica lowlands, about one mile from the shoreline. The lowlands form an estuary approximately 8500 feet wide. The site is within a few feet of sea level . The slope adjacent to the site ascends at approximately 3 : 1 to 4: 1 (about 14 to 18 degrees) to a flat-topped mesa , or terrace, at elevation 50 feet. The site and adjacent lowlands, slope area and mesa have all been surficially disturbed by agriculture and oil production activities during the past 70 or 80 years. In addition, drainage is now controlled by a lined engineered channel--the "East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel" that outlets at Bolsa Chica Beach. Quaternary Geology The mesa above the site is underlain by Pleistocene age sediments that have been uplifted by faulting to their present elevation of about 50 feet during the last 120,000 ± years . Thick, well-developed soil horizons on the mesa attest to the age of this terrace surface. Soils beneath the low-lying site, however, are much younger. It appears that the ancestral Santa Ana River incised some 75 to 100 feet below present sea level during the last major glacio-eustatic low stand of sea level(oxygen isotope stage 2) , about 20,000 years ago. The coarse sand and gravel deposits that backfilled this deep incision were encountered in the borings by Woodward Clyde Consultants (WCC) below -60 feet elevation near the site. As sea level rose to near its present position from about 15,000 to 5,000 years ago, the ancient channel filled with sediments. These deposits were fine-grained sands, silts and clays; typical of low-energy depositional environments in intratidal and lagoon backwaters, similar to the present setting. Since relative sea level stillstand t approximately 5,000 years ago, an estuary environment has existed with deposition of fine grained soils and(organic-rich)peat. Such soil units of late Holocene age were recorditd in the auger borings to depths of 200 to 300cm at the site. 1 Paul Davis Consulting Engineering Geologist The relationships of these late Quaternary units are depicted schematically with respect to the site on the following drawing. MESA Qt SA QSw BoL CNiCA 1-..�w�k,.7zs +SG I kL S. ITE L. L.tI QQ — LATE 14oioCF,JE ESrdARy!pkpotlrs 1�1 AG-2AMMAT/G �o- 5�'�� ,`10 S CA L� Q 2►— NaLocENE PRF�NoLoC ENr ' ALLUVIUM (S,000-Zgoo,-> ye P� & XTItEME VERT/CAL QSµ/— SL0j-EWASH (H-1.0"NE FXAGGFRAT/o/J) �f_ l�L�IS7'oCCI�(E TERIZA.G�DE�'oS?s Site Conditions The six auger borings at the site recorded the uppermost 200 to 300cm of fine-grained deposits, with shell fragments observed to a depth of 200cm (auger hole 3) . The finer-grained soils in auger borings closer to the slope were likely derived in part from slopewash as a result of slow, downslope creep of the upper soils along the slope. However, the shells encountered in hole 3, some 40m from the slope, are probably of sufficient distance from the slope as to be unaffected. These shells could have been transported short distances, though, with their fine sand matrix. Accordingly, in this relatively active depositional setting, shell and other artifactual material may not be in situ. Any archaeological studies within this lowland area should consider these active geological processes. If you have any questions regarding the contents of this letter, please do not hesitatel anytime. Sincerely, Paul Davis p�'FCAI. Is C - 2 Paul Davis Consulting Engineering Geologist tREFERDaCFS 1. Chambers Group, Auger Data, and Shell Speciation and Environments, Site CA-ORA-83/86, Bolsa Chica Lowlands, August 1991. 2. Morton, Paul K. , Miller, R.V. , 1973, Geologic Map of Orange County, California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Preliminary Report 15. 3. Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1987, Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Bolsa Chica Development, Orange County, California, for Signal Bolsa Corporation, 17890 Skypark Circle, Irvine, Caliifornia 92714; consultants report, 203 N. Golden Circle Drive, Santa Ana, CA (April 8, Project No. 42000S) . r i 3 A� a WU AG en m man NEW m m m em so iftff � iw r " Mailing Address: Archaeological Information Center California Regional UCLA Institute of Archaeology Fowler Museum of Cultural History Archaeological orange Angeles Los Angeles,CA90024-1510 Inventory �: Ventura Center Phone:213-825-1980 FAX:213-206-472A July 9, 1991 Carmen A. Weber Chambers Group, Inc. 1761-A East Garry Avenue Santa Ana, CA 92705 RE: Records search for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Bolsa Chica area. i Dear Ms. Weber, As per your request of June 28, 1991, we have conducted an archaeological records search of the above referenced project. This document search included a review of all recorded historic and prehistoric archaeological sites in the vicinity as well as a review of all known cultural resource survey and excavation reports. In addition, we have checked our file of historic maps regarding this region. These documents revealed: PREHISTORIC RESOURCES: Twenty-six prehistoric sites and one isolate have been identified within a one mile radius of the subject area (see enclosed map and list) . Many of these are located within the project area and have been subject to various excavations and analysis. HISTORIC RESOURCES: No historic sites have been identified within a one mile radius of the subject area (see enclosed map and list) . Inspection of our historic maps Las Bolsas 1896 and 1941 15 ' series -- indicates no development in the Bolsa Chica area on the 1896 edition. The 1941 edition indicates much of the area as still marshland with scattered wells and tanks. The Bolsa Chica Gun Club and associated roads are also indicated within the project area. No California Historical Landmarks or. Naticnal Register of Historic Places have been identified within the subject area. PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL INIVESTIGATIONS: Thirty surveys and/or excavations have been conducted within a one mile radius of the subject area (see enclosed map and bibliography) . � 1 If you have any questions regarding the results presented herein, please feel free to contact our office at (213) 825- 1980. Invoices are mailed approximately two weeks after records searches. This will allow your firm the opportunity to request further information under the same invoice number. Please reference the invoice number listed below when making inquires. Requests made after invoicing will necessitat a separate invoice with a $10.00 handling fee. Sincerely, Shelley Marie Gomes Staff Archaeologist Enclosures: W Map W Bib iography W Site list W Site records ' (O Survey reports ( ) Confidentiality Form ( ) Invoice #3234 i 1 2 Mailing Address: Archaeological Information Center California Regional UCLA Institute of Archaeology Fowler Museum of Cultural History Archaeological omnse Information Los Angeles,CA90024-1510 °' Anson Inventory ��mu�ra Center Phone:213-825-1980 FAX:213-206-472,1 �: � July 9, 1991 SITE NUMBER LISTING TO ACCOMPANY ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORDS SEARCH Invoice #: 3234 The following sites have been identified within a one mile radius of the subject property: Ora-78 Ora-82 Cra-83 Ora-84 Ora-85 Ora-86 Ora-87 Ora-88 Ora-142 Ora-288 Ora-289 Ora-290 Ora-291 Ora-292 Ora-293 Ora-294 Ora-364 Ora-365 Ora-366 Ora-368 Ora-555 Ora-595 (37 2) Ora-1078 Ora-1192 Ora-1214 Ora-1275 i l 3 FILE Ar.chaeological 1.973 EREPOR'T OF A 'Zil-V %y' 1i 1MVENT ' Y .1 Z Ll Z, r, 0 E Ck"'NDUCTED F(-.)I:"' Tr HE C-4TY 111'iF H`INITI �.21 BEACH , (1.:A111F(:nN1A Report On fiJ .1e , UCLA ARCH . INF(.). CENTER Particulars : ')THE-R QUADS: Newport Peacil-I QUADS : Seal Beach SITES: CA-ORA-73 , ORA-82 , ORA-84 , (_')RA-85 , ORA-26 , _)RA-r87 , r., SITES: CA-C)RA-88 , URA-1414 , ORA-145 , (1)FA-149 , ORA- j SITE' : CA-01%'A-135 . ORA- ,76 , URA-28' , ORA '�'89 , Z. 0 -41 -URA-2�):' ORA-29 ,. , ORA­-19' , O­,A-'7,02 , OFA-3461 SITES: CA L - A I 'S I T E SD: CA-0F%A-3,r-6 , OF*A-358 , ORA-359 , URA-3601 , URA-365 , SITES : CA-C"RA-366 . ORA-367 , ORA-368 AGENCY: r,--.y Of I.Lintington Beach PAGES : 78 6 Desa:;-els. , Roger J. 1�478 ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT ON THE PROPOSED ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT "GREEN ACRES" RECLAMATION PROJECT LOCATED IN THE COSTA MESA/HUNTINGTr)N BEACH AREA OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, Report on file, UCLA ARCH . INFO. CENTER Particulars : SITE ASSESSMENT QUADS: Newport Beach QUADS : Seal Beach SITES: CA-r;::A-76 . ORA-87 , ')RA-113 , 61TES : ORA-174 , "DRA-296 , ORAS-358 , ORA-492 AG-ENCY: Tie -oupz Frigineering Cni-poraT.ion, PACES : 30 0-345 Stickel, Gary 1976 EXCAVATIONS AT THE HARBOR BL[IFFS SITE %-A-0RA-555 LOCATED HE MEADOWLARK FARM:: P�OPERTY HUNTI1L11GT()N BEACH , CA. Report on file, UCLA AR(3H. INFO. CENTER Particular,_- : SALVA'JE EXCAVATION QUAD'," : Seal Beach ACRES : 64 'SITES: CA-URA-555 PAGES: 1215 3 413 Ahle-r :Lng , Micriael L. 97 1 Er EXCAVATIONS ALND ANALYSIS OF 4-ORA-12191 : A COASTAL SH IL HIDDEN Report on file , UCLA ARCH . INFO. CENTER Particulars : TEST EXCAVATION QUADS: SEAL REACH -9-t SITES: CA-(')PA-' A i'l E?1 C,v. , SIGNAL FR, P E R'T I E T LN*C PAGES: 199 J t 407 C. -1 .11 , Marie: Rice . Glen AN EVALUATION:UATION' :')F THE ARCHAEOLC.;GICAL RE'St-l'URCE01 ON BC),.,-A C1jT CA MESA Rep,irt on file , UCLA A CH . INFO. CENTER RECOK-) SEARCH QUATYS: Beach I 1 1, .7 "" ITFS: -ORA-70 , 'T 83 - " C;In.A CA A ORA '54 , EIFLIC;GRAPHY U- :LA FILE ss PAGES: 6C. 0-414 k'�i-::; , MNargaret L . 1967 EXCAVATT ONS) AT I)RA-82 SPRING 1967 Report on file, UCLA ARCH. INFO. CENTER Particulars : RESEARCH EXCAVATION Q IADS: SEAL rEAr,H SITE,:;: A aEN Y: DE;A ::1f;iIT OF A"THROPOLOGY . ('A� STATE j ON,� EZAC:H PAGES: 50 0-415 Carter, Christina; Howard, Jerry 1975 PHASE I ARCHAEOL(:11ICAL INVE:3TIGATIONS CA-ORA-83 . oRANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA . Report on file, UCLA ARCH . INFO. CENTER Particulars : SjFVEY QUADS: Seal Beach SITES: CA-ORA-83 PAGES: 43 0-425 Mabry, Theo 1979 RECORDS SEARCH AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE BOLSA CHICA MESA . ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. Report on file , UCLA ARCH. INFO. CENTER Particulars: SURVEY WADS:: Se 1 Beach ACRES: 70 'SITES: CA-0RA-78 , ORA-8> , ORA-85 , 0RA-289 PAGES : 12 0-473 Scientific ReeourCe SurvFyS 1979 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RE?ORT ON :ATE ORA-368 LOCATED i.��i ;HE c "! . J. PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH , CALIFOR*NIA Report on file, UCLA ARCH. INFO. CENTER Particulars : SALVAGE EXCAVATION QUADS : Seal Beach SITES: CA-ORA-83 • FIRM: SCIENTIFIC RESOURCE SURVEYS PAGES: 150 0-510 Wei_e , Margaret L . 1.969 SEASONALITY OF PISMO CLAM COLLECTING AT ORA-82 Report on File , UCLA ARCH . INFO. CENTER Particulars : RESEARC;I EXCAVATION ;QUADS: SEAL BEACH SITES: CA-0RA-82 PAGES: 20 0-522 Van Horn. David M. i980 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT:A 21 ACRE PAiiCEL OF PROPERTY LOCATED NEXT TO THE AMINOIL LEASE IN THE CITY OF Hr NTINGTON BEACH, CA Report on file , UCLA ARe• . . INFO CENTER Cal�L•1l �ilittCtl I .L A T C y LL� } QUADS: SrAL BEACW A G R E : 21 SITES : "A-0R*A-291 PAGE:� : 12 -:573 Cooiey , Theodore 1973 REPORT OF TEST EXCAVATIONS : CA-ORA-83 , CA-ORA-85 , CA-ORA-288 Report. on file , UCLA ARCH. INFO. CENTER Partiou'L ts : TEST EXCAVATION QUADS * Seal Beach SITES: CA-ORA-83 , URA-85 , URA-283 PAGES : 21 0-578 Tadlo(--T;, W, Lewis a974 REPORT OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND TEST EXCAVATIONS, O^A-185 , ORA-3312 , AND ORA-367 : Ci)NDUCTED FOR THE CITY OF HUNTINGTO►1 BEACH, CALIFORNIA Report can file, UCLA ARCH. INFO. CENTER Particulars : SURVEY QUADS- NEWPORT BEACH AND QUADS: SEAL BEACH SITES: CA-0RA-185, ORA-372, ORA-367 PAGES: 40 G-S79 Wood , Walter 1975 SALVAGE XCAVATIr)N' OF BURIAL AT ORA-87 . , Report on file, UCLA ARCH. INFO. CENTER Particulars - SALVAGE EXCAVATION QUADS: Seal Beach :SITES: CA-ORA-87 PAG1_7 : 5 C:-694 Brock , James ; Sawyer, William 11,483 ARCHAEC%L(%GICAL ASSESSMENT REFOR" FOR THE 42 . 4 ACRE GFAHAM PLACE P-Or-FRTY i119 E::)T.SA CHICA, COUNTY i7F O-ANGE, CALIF(%RNIA . Report on file, UCLA ARCH. INFO. CENTER Particulars : SURVEY QUADS: Seal Beach ACRES : 42 FAG E:3: 17 -7h7 Sc.i�n-.i.f S c Resources Surveys , Inc . T9 5 CULTURAL RESOURCES r%— ON HI]NTiNGT(-.)N MESA , CHEVRON `JIL FIELDS, SIGNAL LANDMARK PROPERTY, IN THE CITY OF HUr?TI tIGTON BEACH , CALI FORN IA Ri:-port on file , UCLA ARCH . INFO. CENTER rarticulars : TEST EXCAVATION QUADS: c,EAL BEACH SITES : CA-ORA-294 , ORA-365 F,RM : S►'IENTIFIC RESOURCES SURVEYS , INC. AGENCY: SIGNAL LANDMARK , INC . ?AGE: : 149 b 31 T E-_j I A P q Y C;r A Lj A1;EZ' IJMELN1T -C' TFE HIS)TORIIC FRO-F-53TY WARNER A",'FN,V,E WITDENIN,'-, ANI� 2 C',r' IN T H E CITY F HUNTI j r)R 1, T EFACH, '11,J7 N A Repor-, on file , UCLA ARCH. INFO. CENTER TEST EXCAVATION QUADS: Seal Beach SITES: CA-ORA-840 PAGES: 82 Ronald M. 2 Bisse 1 , 11 03 6 HISTORICAL PROPERTIES SURVEY REPORT, GC)LDENWEST SIT]REFT BETWEEN WARNER AVENUE AND THE PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY , H-111.111TINGTIC-)IN BEACH, ORANGE COUNTY , CALIFORNIA T Report on file, UCLJA ARCH. INFO. CENTER Particulars : SURVEY QUADS: SEAL BEACH LINEAR MILES: 4 SITES: CA-ORA-142 AGENCY: WILDAN ASSOCIATES PAGES: 34 0-858 Mason, Roger D. 11986 PHASE I RESULTS AND PHASE II PROPOSALS F(jR ARCHAEOLOGICAL T T I ASSESSMENT OF THE MEADOWLARK AIRPORT, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA Report on file, UCLA ARCH . INFO. CENTER Particulars : PARTIAL SURVEY QUADS: SEAL BEACH SITES: CA-ORA-368 AGENCY: Meadowlark Airport PAGES: 22 0-870 McKenna, Jeanette A. 1986 AMENDMENT TO THE HISTORIC PROPERTY SiILiViJY REPORT: WARNER AVENUE WIDENING AND RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA Report on file, UCLA ARCH . INFO. CENTER • Particulars : TEST EXCAVATION QUADS: SEAL BEACH SITES: CA-ORA-368 AGENCY: PRC ENGINEERING PAGES: 80 0-908 Bissell, Ronald 1987 ADENDUM TO: HISTORICAL PR:';'-PERT1E":: S'L.71-3111EY R-1--FORT , GOLDERWE�T STREET BETWEEN WA NER AVE. AND THE PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. T HUNTINGTON BEACH , ORANGE COU'vTY , CALIFORNIA , DATED 14 SEPTEMBER 1986 Report on file, UCLA ARCH . INF,-,, CENTER Particulars : TEST EXCAVATION QUADS: SEAL BEACH T LINEAR MILES: 4 SITES: CA-ORA-142 ANID,. "ISTORIC' S 7 3 AGENCY: WILLDAN ACSSC PAGES- 1.5 UICLA jLE # - ! F'tdAi, A5'f::tiArt1i,:., %A , i;:V,^TIrATION Ct1-ORA-34 ORANGE COUNTY, Report on file, i;CT.;A ARC;. INFO. CENTER Farticulars: TEST EX:!AVATTON QUADS: Neal Beach SITES: rA-0RA-84 AGENCY: Signa]. Landmark, Inc. 0 1.1 Scientifi.c Resource Survey, Inc. 1:�r7 ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS AT CA-ORA-78 BOLSA CHICA MESA, ORANGE, Report on file, lj,LA ARCH. INFO. CENTER Particulars: :'EST EXCAVATION QUADS: Seal Beach SITES: CA-ORA-78 FIRM: SCIENTIFIC RESOURCE SURVEY, INC. AGENCY: Signal Landmark, Inc. 0"923 Whitney-Desautels, Nancy A . , Ph.D. 1986 ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF CA-ORA-83 Report on file, UCLA ARCH. INFO. CENTER Particulars: SURFACE COLLECTION QUADS: Seal Beach SITES: CA-ORA-83 AGENCY: Signal Landmark Properties PAGES: 277 n-;a27 Bissell , Ronald M. CULTURAL RESOURCES RECONNAISSANCE OF THE HOLLY-SEACLIFF PROPERTY, 760 ACRES 1N HUNTINGTON BEACH, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Report on f i 1 , UCLA AR1,3H. INFO. CENTER Particulars: .SURVEY QUADS: NEWFORT BEACH QUADS: SEAL BEACH ACRES: 760 SITES: CA-0RA-88, ORA-365, ORA-366 , ORA-364, ORA-1192 AGENCY: Forma PAGES: 31 lei sseli, Ronald M. 1g88 C:ULTC:RAL RESOURCES RECONNAISSANCE OF THE ELLIS-GOLDENWEST QUARTER 'SECI1L ON. 16', ACRES IN HUNT I NGTON_ BEACH, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA report on file-, UJC1.A ARCH. INFO. CENTER ^ar,,iculars: -'W_-R _vY QJT Seal. Beach S1T 12: :lA-0 A • sc;i ::BRA-88, ORA-364, ORA-82, ORA-142 AGF CY : :man,-- rzz ':a.ia_'ico Associated, Inc AGES: 15 -.::.,7 . �`l:�rifi•9.I' : �1, C�cii�,-..'-•T . , i at:t ,. ;HT'IA �A' :::��3+:� ?; t_ �;St�n ,H STUD_ FOR AF'F'ktiYlMATELY 44 ACRES_- - 171 11 A 1-K Y l UCLA ADJACENT TO THE FAST GARDEN GROVE-WIN'I'ERSB:IRGH CHANNEL , ROLSA BAY , A1II.: P-OLSA C:Y,ICA BLUFFS, ORANGE CC)JNTY, CALIFORNIA Report can file , UCLA ARCH . INFO. CENTER Particulars: RECORD :SEARCH QUADS : :;eal Beach A:=:RE S: 44 SITES : CA-ORA-78 , ORA-83 AGENC-'r : Metropolitan Water Dictrict PAGES: `0 0-1002 Van Rueren Thad M . , Goldberg, SUsan K . Morat.to Mic:ael J . 1989 INVENTORY AND EVALUATION OF CULTURAL RESOURCES, BOLSA CHICA MESA AND HUNTINGTON BEACH MESA, ORANGE COUNTY , CALIF0 NIA Report on file , UCLA ARCH. INFO. CENTER Particulars : SURVEY QUADS: SEAL BEACH t SITES: CA-:)RA-78 , ORA-8? , ORA-8 ORA-8.1- ORA-85 , ORA-88 , SITES: CA-OFA-288 , C)RA-2CsC), (,h'A-291 , C)RA-292 , SITE;, : :::A-()RA-29,2 . ORA-294 , OIkA- •64 , ORA-C;65 , OIR -366 , SITES : rA-()RA-1192 AGENCY : U . S . ARMY CORPS OF FNGI NEE,: S , i.OS A":GELES DISTRICT PAGES: 127 0-1031 Deeautels, Nancy Whitney 1990 CULTURAL RE SOURCE ASSESSMENT OF THE HUN`I'I INGTON CENTR :' :'ARK HUNTINGTON BEACH, C:ALIFuRNIA Report on file, UCLA ARCH . INFO. CFNTEP Particulars : RECORD SEARCH QUADS: SEAL BEACH QUADS: NEWPORT BEACH ACRES : 30() SITES : CA-ORA-82, ORA-142 FIRM: Scientific Resource Surveys , Inc. AGENCY: STA INC. PAGES: 49 0-1087 Dillon, Brian D. 1990 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD SEARCH FOR THE GREEN ACRE PHASIE II PROJECT, ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, CT TiES OF HUNTINGTON PEACH AND NEWPORT BEACH , ORANGE COUNTY , CALIFORNIA Report on file, UCLA ARCH . I tIF Ci. CENTE Part.ic.ilar : RECORD SEARCH Q71ALiS: SEAL BEACH QUADS : NEWPORT BEACH QUADS : 7USTIAN _ - LINEAR MILES: 2 SITES: CA-ORA-54 , ORA-55 , ORA-56 , ;;i;A-C:C� , :ORA-86 , ORA-97 , SITES: ORA-100 , ORA-351 , ORA-368 , ORA- 124Ci FIRM: C.A . AGENCY : r<)N;;;?L.r i P::1 t i1:�i:�EF;I:S , �C' . A '� CEti h,' 9 u a� tr r.. .. .. .. `. tir �. �. .. �■. .. rr . .. �. �r418 APPENDIX 3 AUGER TESTING CHAMBERS GROUP, INC. AUGUST 1991 Auger data was collected to try and resolve the issues surrounding the origin of shell in the Elowlands below ORA-83/86/144. A two meter long, 7 centimeter diameter bucket auger was used. Auger holes were drilled across the field at 20 to 40 meter intervals on a line oriented at 313°. The depths of stratigraphic changes were recorded, along with a description of the material (Table B-1). A one liter sample was collected in auger 3, from a rich shell lens between 172 and 200 centimeters deep. It was speciated in an attempt to determine if the shell was cultural or natural in origin. The limitations of auger data became apparent during the survey. Sedimentary structure can not I be viewed and the thickness of stratigraphic units can not be measured accurately in an auger hole. Correlations between auger units are based on extrapolation and lack the reliability of physically tracing the units in a continuous exposure. The problems discussed above are best addressed by stratigraphic data gained from backhoe trenches, which were beyond the scope of this study. The auger line suggested that the field has not been disturbed by modem activity to any significant degree. Clear-cut stratigraphic units, attributable to natural sedimentation processes, can be correlated across the field. An A soil horizon has formed on fine to very fine sands, indicating a period of residency at the surface of perhaps several hundred years (Davis, personal communication). No buried deposits that could be clearly demonstrated to be archaeological in origin were found below the A soil horizon. Shell was noted throughout the A horizon in the three auger holes nearest the base of the mesa. A great deal of shell was found between 172 and 200 centimeters below the surface in auger 3, from a dark grey (2.5Y 4/0) well-sorted sand. The shell was dominated by oyster shell (Ostrea lurida), with small amounts of Argopecten, Chione, and Crepidula species, which have been identified in the midden at ORA-83/86/144 (Whitney-Desautels 1986:98). However, other shellfish species found in the auger include Mactra nasutra, Spisula hemphili, Hiatella anica, Crepeipatell lingulata, Cerithida californica, and Fusinus lupteipicus; these species were not found at ORA-83/86/144. Most of the shell species found in the .auger are typical of quiet water bays and estuaries. Therefore, the possibility that the shell in auger 3 between 172 and 200 centimeters is cultural seems unlikely. No clear-cut stratified cultural deposits were found at the base of the mesa. There was a darkening of the A horizon below 30 to 40 centimeters, suggesting a plow zone overlying unplowed soil. A texture and color change at the bottom of the A horizon may indicate the presence of a paleosol that contains shell, but the auger data was too equivocal to be certain. Fifty-five centimeters of clay, containing some peat and charcoal indicative of a marsh condition, lay below the A horizon. Below the clay sat more than 60 centimeters of well-sorted sands that 1 Table 1 AUGER DATA - ORA-83/86 - BOLSA CHICA LOWLANDS Auger Stratton/ Depth Lower Description Ntonber Horizon opt Depth (crn.) 1 1 Ap 0 45 Sandy loam(2.5Y 4/2)with small amounts of shell and organic matter throughout. IA 45 85 Sandy loam(2.5Y 3/2)with clay pods in lower 10 cm. Shell noted throughout. Lower 10-15 cm. may be a paleosol. 2 85 140 Clay (5Y 4/1) mottled with yellowish decomposing roots and other organic matter. Some peaty material present. A very small amount of charcoal noted. 3 140 200 Fine to very fine well-sorted sand (SY 7/2)composed largely of quartz minerals with a few dark minerals. Some fine scale laminar crossbedding survived the auger. N 2 1 Ap 0 30 Sandy (2.5Y 4/2)loam, shell throughout. IA 30 60 Sandy loam(2.5Y 3/2)with shell throughout. Lower 10-15 cm. contains clay peds and may be a paleosol. 2 60 110 Clay (5Y 4/1). 3 110 200 Sand (5Y 7/2)with 15 cm. thick silt stratum. 3 1 Ap 0 20 Sandy loam(2.5Y 4/2)with small amounts of shell and organic matter throughout. IA 20 40 Heavily mottled sandy loam(2.5Y 4/2)with small silt peels. 2a 40 55 Silt(5Y 4/1). 2b 55 115 Well-sorted sand (5Y 4/1). 2c 115 200 Well-sorted fine to very fine sands (2.5Y 4/0) with small clay pods. Shell abundant between 172 and 200 cm. 4 lAp 0 30 Sandy loam(2.5Y 4/2)with small amount of clay. I�t mom a rt U IM' S im a.r Table 1 AUGER DATA - ORA-83/86 - BOLSA CHICA LOWLANDS Auger Stratum/ Upperp Lower Description Number Horizon Depth Depth (cm.) 3 30 300 Well-sorted very fine to fine sand (2.5Y 7/2). Upper 20 cm. mottled with Ap soil horizon; next 50 cm. mottled with sesquioxidic concretions (10YR 6/8). Below 100 cm. color grades to 5Y 7/2. 5 lAp 0 24 Sandy loam (2.5Y 4/2)with small amounts of shell and organic matter throughout. 1 24 70 Well-sorted fine sand (10YR 7/2) mottled with sesquioxidic concretions (10YR 6/8). ? 70 200 Very fine sandy silt(2.5Y•6/2) mottled with sesquioxidic concretions (10 YR 5/8). w 6 1 Ap 0 33 Sandy clay loam (2.5Y 4/2). I 33 75 Sandy clay loam(2.5Y 6/4). 1 A 75 135 Very fine sand. ? 135 200 Silty clay (2.5Y 4/2)over very fine to fine well-sorted sand (5Y 7/2). Upper 30 cm. mottled orange. may represent either lagoon or fluvial deposits. These strata below the A horizon could sit on Y � top of other buried cultural deposits below the reach of the auger. Such deposits are possible anywhere along the mesa/lowland interface to a depth of up to 30 meters. In the northeastern one-third of the MWD property, the auger data suggests fluctuation between estuary, marsh/tidal flat, and fluvial conditions in the lowlands. These conditions have probably fluctuated in the Bolsa Chica lowlands throughout the Holocene as sea level rose and sediment accumulated. The lowland sediments that record these changes :have not been documented for archaeological purposes. Little Late Prehistoric cultural material has been found on either the Huntington Beach or Bolsa Chica mesas. Multidisciplinary palleoenvironmental study of the lowlands sediments may provide insight into the decline in the prehistoric use of this area; as well as provide data useful in understanding the prehistoric settlement subsistence system in the region. 4 I 1 APPENDIX G2 INVENTORY AND EVALUATION OF CULTURAL RESOURCES BOLSA CHICA MESA AND HUNTINGTON BEACH MESA ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA r w w WQ U � I O i •j + 7.• �1 ti'vR 'ry y Y i to r i ' � O '*ems. /a;•.-.+ +.►,�..•..,.., �.....:y.r�+Yt'•'' aU � a x � 0 INVENTORY AND EVALUATION OF CULTURAL RESOURCES, BOLSA CHICA MESA AND HUNTINGTON BEACH MESA, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Thad M. Van Bueren, Susan K. Goldberg, Michael J. Moratto, Portia Lee, and Jerrel H. Sorensen Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District P.O. Box 2711 Los Angeles, California 90053-2325 In partial fulfillment of Contract No. DACW09-88-D-0007 Archaeological-Cultural Resources Services for Civil Works Projects in Southern California Delivery Order No. 8 30 September 1989 •r ABSTRACT This report describes a cultural resources study of the Bolsa Chica area of coastal northern Orange County, California, conducted by INFOTEC ' Research, Inc. ( IRI) for the Los Angeles District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (CoE). IRI's work was designed to evaluate current knowledge regarding archaeological and other cultural sites that may be affected by proposed developments. The report also includes assessments of National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility of some sites and recommendations for completion of NRHP-eligibility evaluation of other sites. A program of background research and field inspection of known archaeological resources was conducted. IRI redocumented 12 sites (previously designated as 15 separate loci) and found that two addi- tional sites formerly known in the area have been destroyed. Of the 12 redocumented sites, all have one or more prehistoric components and three also contain historic non-Indian components. Except for World War II coastal defense fortifications on Bolsa Chica Mesa (which will soon meet the NRHP age criterion), all potentially NRHP-eligible cultural resources with surface manifestations in the project area probably have been identified. Three of the cultural sites appear to be NRHP- eligible, three are considered ineligible, and additional data will be needed to evaluate the remaining sites. Specific recommendations are given for further assessment of those sites. As well , additional testing may be required to permit planning for the management of significant cultural properties that may be affected by future development. iii low, ACKWOWLEDGENEWTS This study was accomplished through the cooperation and assistance of many agencies and individuals, to whom we extend our sincere thanks. Marie Cottrell , Ron Gansfried, John Murray, and Steven Schwartz of the Los Angeles District, Corps of Engineers, facilitated our work by providing advice, data, and technical reports; John and Steve, who served as the Corps' representatives to INFOTEC for the current project, were particularly helpful in this regard. Signal Landmark, Inc., Chevron USA, Inc., the Huntington Beach Company, and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California kindly permitted access to their lands within the project area and supplied various documents relevant to our study. Valuable information and reports also were provided by: Amigos de Bolsa Chica; Jeanne Arnold, Archaeological Survey, University of California, Los Angeles; Eloise Barter,- California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento; California Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento; Constance Cameron, California State University, Fullerton; Keith Dixon and Franklin Fenenga, California State University, Long Beach; the Environmental Management Agency of Orange County, Santa Ana; William 0. Hendricks, Sherman Foundation Library; Reed Holderman, California Coastal Commission; Susan Hori, with the law firm of Jones, Day, Reavis, and Pogue, Irvine; Lavinia Knight and Laurie Mitchell , Pacific Coast Archaeological Society, Costa Mesa; Henry Koerper, Cypress College and Christ College; Miles Larson, Newport Beach; Mel Malkoff, Malkoff & Associates, Irvine; the Museum of Anthropology, California State University, Fullerton; Orange County Historical Society; Rockwell International, Seal Beach; Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc., Huntington Beach; Robert R. Selway, III, Orange County Historical and Cultural Programs, Santa Ana; John J. Slonaker, U.S. Military History Institute, Carlisle Barracks, Carlisle, Pennsylvania; Russell Twomey, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Los Angeles; William Wallace, !� Southwest Museum, Los Angeles; and James Woodward, California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. Information regarding issues of possible concern to local Native Americans, and names of Native Americans to be contacted in Orange County, were graciously provided by William Johnson and Larry Myers of the Native American Heritage Commission and by Dwight Dutschke, Native American Coordinator for the State Office of Historic Preservation. Native Americans who kindly responded to INFOTEC's subsequent inquiries include Beatrice Alva, the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians, Jim \ Velasquez, and the Intertribal Council of Tongva. Roberta S. Greenwood, President of Greenwood and Associates, is thanked for coordinating the historical background study. Production of this report owes much to the efforts of Terry Brejla, who typed, printed, and copied several drafts. To all of these contributors, and any others who may have been overlooked, we offer our sincere gratitude. As always, we claim any errors and shortcomings as our own. SKG, PL, MJM, JS, TVB Sonora, California v r = •r I j- TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT. .... . .. . ... .. . . . .. .. . .. . ... .. . ... .. . . ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..... . .. . . . .......... .. . ... . . . ... ... .. . .. . . ....... . v 1. INTRODUCTION. ...... ... . . ... . ... .. . ... . ... .. .. .. ..... .. . .. . . ... 1 Scopeand Purpose of Study.... . . .. . .. . .. .. .... .. .... .. ..... . . 1 Study Methods.... .. . ... .... ......... ... . 2 2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING..... . ...... . . ... .... .... . ......... . ..... . 5 Project Location.. .. .... ... .... . .. ...... 5 Physical Environment... ... ... . .. ...... .... . .. . 5 The Biotic Environment. .. ... .. . .......... ... . . . .... 9 Open Ocean/Protected0uter Coast/Bay 9 Rocky Exposed Intertidal Zone.... ... .. ... ..... .. . ....... 10 Coastal Strand and Sandy Exposed Int rtidal Zone...... .... 10 Saltwater Marsh and Lagoon......... . 10 Freshwater Marsh........ ......... ... .............. ....... 11 Riparian Woodland.. ... ............. . 11 Grassland..... . . ............ ........ .. ... ............ .... 11 Coastal Sage Scrub. .... ..... ....... . 11 Historic Changes.. ....... ............ ... .. . .. . .. ............. 12 Summary. ... .. . .. . .. ....... . ..... ........ . ... ....... ..... ..... 12 3. CULTURAL BACKGROUND.. . .. .. . 15 l .. .. .. .. ... ......Introduction. . . ..... ... .. ..... . ... ..... . . ... 15 Ethnography and Ethnohistory: The Gabrii lino..... ....... .. . .. 15 Langua e and Social gOrganization........... ...... 15 16 Land Use, Settlement, and Subsistena ........0.0.. .... .... 17 Trade........................ ....... ..... .............. .. 18 Material Arts... ...... ....... ...... . .... ......... ........ 18 Religion and Ceremonies....... .... .. ..................... 19 Historic Contacts................... ..................... 19- History................................. ..... ............. .. . 21 Introduction...... .................. ......... .... ........ 21 Spanish and Mexican Land Grants...... ..................... 21 Gospel Swamp....... .......... ... .... 24 Flood Control--the Talbert Drainage Iistrict and the Newbert River Protection D strict....... ..... ... 27 The Bolsa Chica Gun Club............. .................. ... 28 Natural Resources: Oil and Gas.... . 30 World War II Installations..... 31 Bolsa Chica State Beach... .... .... .. 33 Planning History--Post World War II.. ..................... 33 The Bolsa Chica Area in 1988.... ..... ..................... 36 4. ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND....... .........., .................... 39 Regional Prehistory........... ........... ............. ........ 39 12,000 to 8000 B.P. ... .............. .0.................. 39 8000 to 5000 B.P. .. ................. ..................... 40 5000 to 1500 B.P. .................. . .... ..... ... ........ 40 vii 1 Post 1500 B.P. .. . ............. .............. ..... . 41 Bolsa Chica Prehistory.. ................ ......... .. .... ....... 42 Summary and Conclusions..... ... ...... ... .. ..... .. ...... .... . . . 48 S. FIELD INVESTIGATION. .. . . .. ..... . ... ...... .. . ... .... . . . . . ..... ... 51 FieldMethods..... . .. . .. ...... ..... .. ... . ..... . ... . . ... .. .... .. 51 Survey Results.... ........ ............. ......... ... . . . ..... .. . 54 ............ ......... ... . . . DataLimitations..... ... .... ...... ... .. .. ...... . .... . . .. .... .. 54 6. CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY AND EVALUATION.... ...... ........... 55 Significance Criteria......... ... .. .. .... ..... .. .. ... ... ... 55 Descriptions and Evaluations of Bolsa Chica Archaeological Sites.. ...... .. ....... . . .. ...... . ... . ...... .. 60 CA-ORA-78. . .. .. . ...... ... . .. ... .. .. . . . ..... .. .. .. ......... 68 CA-ORA-82.. .. . .... .. .... .... .. ...... . .... ..... .. . ...... ... 70 CA-ORA-83/86/144............ .... ... . .. .... ..... . .......... 70 CA-ORA-84/289............................................. 72 CA-ORA-85. .. . ...... ......... .... ... . ..... ... ... . .... . . .... 73 CA-ORA-88.. .... ... .. .... ............ ........ ... . .... . ... .. 74 CA-ORA-288. . . ... .. .......... .......... ... ..... .. ... . ....... 76 CA-ORA-290........ ...... ... ... ......... . ........ . ..... ..... 76 76 CA-ORA-292................. ......... . .... .. ............... 77 CA-ORA-293/294.. ................... .. . ......... . ..... ..... 78 CA-ORA-364..... ... ........... ....... . ...... ............ . .. 79 CA-ORA-365.. ... .............. ... ...... ......... .... .. . .... 79 CA-ORA-366... . . .. .... ... ... ......... .......... ........ .... 82 Summary. ..... . ... ...... ...... ...... ....... ................... . 83 7. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS................................ . 85 Prehistoric Sites: Testing for NRHP Eligibility... .... ....... 85 Objectives.............. .................................. 86 �. Methods............................... ..... .... ........ ... 88 Site-Specific Recommendations for Testing............... ... 91 Historic Resources: Evaluation for NRHP Eligibility........ .. 94 Objectives.......... ............................... ..... ... 94 . Methods. .. ................................ ......... ....... 95 Site-Specific Recommendations for Additional Evaluation... 95 Prehistoric Sites: Data Needed for Management Planning.... ... 97 REFERENCES CITED.................................................... 101 v APPENDIX A: Native American Interests and Concerns................. 117 Tables 4.1 History of Bolsa Chica Bay Archaeology.. ......................... 44 4.2 Summary of Radiocarbon Dates and Site Occupational History...... 49 6.1 Archaeological Data Requirements................................. 58 6.2 Research Questions and Data Analysis Requirements... ............ 61 6.3 Selected Attributes of Bolsa Chica Archaeological Sites.. ....... 64 6.4 Data Potentials and NRHP Eligibility of Bolsa Chica Cultural Sites......................... ............ 67 viii 7.1 Summary of Recommendations to Complete NRHP Evaluation at Project Sites.. .. . . .. . . ....... .... .. ...... .. ..... .. .. ... .... 90 Figures 2.1. Project Vicinity.... .. .. . . ............ . . . . . .. . . . . .. .. . . . .... . . . . 6 2.2 Panoramic view of the project area from its southeast corner atop Huntington Beach Mesa... . .. .. . . .. .... . ... 7 2.3 1905 Map of Bolsa Chica Lowlands enclosed in letter from F. R. Hazard, H. F. Hodges, and C. H. McKinstry to President Theodore Roosevelt.... . ... ..... . .. 13 3.1 The Nieto Land Grant of 1784... .. .. ... .... ........... .. . ... .. .. . 22 3.2 Coastal marshes of Los Angeles and Orange counties in 1894...... 25 3.3 Sketch of the Bolsa Chica Gun Club .. . .. .. . ... .... .... 29 3.4 Harbor defenses of the Los Angeles region in 1942.... .. . . ....... 32 5.1 Portion of U.S.G.S. Seal Beach 7.5' quadrangle showing study area and portions of it intensivey surveyed during this investigation....... ........ .. .... .. .. .... ...... ... 52 6.1 Overview of CA-ORA-78 as it appears today... . .. . ... .. ... ..... 69 • 6.2 Cut bank showing 200+ cm of cultural deposit in the Woodman Pole Company lot in central portion of CA-ORA-83/86... . ........ 71 6.3 Antique oil heating tanks at first oil well drilled on Huntington Mesa.... . ... .... ..... 75 .... . ....... ... ...... . ... .. ... 6.4 Profile of cut bank in gully between loci at CA-ORA-293/294, showing buried cultural deposit... ........... .... . .. ... ... 79 6.5 Profile of cut bank showing possible living surface/housefloor at CA-ORA-365. . ......... ........ ... . .. ... . .. 80 6.6 A shallowly-grooved discoidal stone of sandstone, from CA-ORA-365. .... . .. ......... .... ......... ... . .. ... ... . ... .. 81 ix x I 1: INTRODUCTION Michael J. Moratto and Thad M. Van Bueren Reported here i s a study of cul tural resources i n the Bol sa Chi ca Mesa-Huntington Beach Mesa area of coastal northern Orange County, California. The study, performed by INFOTEC Research, Inc. (IRI) on behalf of the Los Angeles District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (CoE), was designed to assess the status of knowledge regarding archaeological sites that may be affected by proposed developments. The scope, pur- pose, and methods of investigation are summarized in the following sections. Subsequent chapters describe the project's environmental setting (Chapter 2), historic and ethnographic background (Chapter 3), previous archaeological work (Chapter 4), and methods and results of IRI's field work (Chapter 5). Chapter 6 provides summary descriptions and National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) evaluations of cultural resources. Recommendations and conclusions are presented in Chapter 7. A data compendium--including archaeological site records, survey and site-location maps, photographs, and copies of reports on archaeological sites in the project area--has been submitted separately to the CoE. Scope and Purpose of Study The Scope-of-Work for this study (CoE 1988) calls for the performance of nine tasks. Briefly, these include: consultation with Native Americans, historians, archaeologists and others knowledgeable about cultural resources in the project area; literature and records searches; preparation of overviews of local prehistory, ethnohistory, and history; field inspection and re-recording of known archaeological sites; preliminary evaluation of NRHP eligibility; preparation of a detailed map showing past archaeological survey coverages and site locations; photography of historic structures; compilation of a data compendium; and preparation of draft and final technical reports. Two key questions addressed in this study are: (1) Is further archaeological survey required to discover any potentially significant cultural resources that might have been overlooked in previous field- work; and (2) what kinds of investigations are needed to permit NRHP evaluation of sites for which available data are inadequate. Since archaeological survey methods have been refined in recent years, IRI examined the operating assumptions and procedures of previous field- workers. We wished to learn, for instance, whether historic resources were recorded. We also reviewed the intensity of past survey coverage in various parts of the project area. To assess the adequacy of previous investigations, IRI first developed a context for evaluation, taking into account both regional and local research issues, then examined the records of all known cultural resources in the study area. 1 2 Study Methods To accomplish the tasks set forth above, several study methods were employed. These included archival research, oral interviews, both written and telephone contacts, and reinspection of known sites. Only background research methods are described here; field procedures are detailed in Chapter 5. At the inception of this study, I RI prepared a list of individuals and agencies to be consulted. Additional names were added to the list subsequently as new leads came to light. This task was performed concurrently by three persons in order to expedite the study's progress. Telephone and/or direct contacts were made with: Jim Woodward (California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento); Franklin Fenenga (Professor Emeritus, California State University, Long Beach); Dr. Keith Dixon (Professor, California State University, Long Beach); Dr. Jeanne Arnold (Director, Archaeological Survey, University of California, Los Angeles); Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc., Huntington Beach; Eloise Barter (California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento); Constance Cameron (California State University, Fullerton); Dr. Henry Koerper (Cypress College and Christ College); Robert R. Selway, III (Chief of Orange County's Historical and Cultural Programs, _ Santa Ana); Russell Twomey (Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Los Angeles); Susan Hori (attorney, Jones, Day, Reavis, and Pogue, Irvine); Darlene Shelly (Signal Landmark, Inc., Irvine); John Murray and Marie Cottrell , CoE; Dr. William Wallace (archaeologist, Southwest Museum, Los Angeles); and Lavinia Knight and Laurie Mitchell (Pacific Coast Archaeological Society, Costa Mesa). 'The main purpose of these contacts was to obtain information and reports pertinent to the study locality. The views of traditional Indian people were obtained through various contacts. On August 10, 1988 INFOTEC wrote to the California Native American Heritage Commission requesting names of Indians who might be interested in cultural resources of the project locality. A similar request was made in a March 1, 1989 meeting with Dwight Dutschke, Native American Coordinator for the State Office of Historic Preservation in Sacramento. On March 13, 1989 INFOTEC wrote to all of the Indian groups and individuals suggested by Mr. Dutschke and the Native American Heritage Commission. Our letter invited expressions of knowledge or concerns about places or remains of interest in the project area. One telephone reply and three letters were received in response to the March 13th inquiry. These responses, along with copies of INFOTEC's correspondence, are presented in Appendix A. Archaeological site records, maps of surveyed areas, and copies of reports were obtained during visits to: the UCLA Archaeological Survey, Los Angeles; Environmental Planning Section, CoE; and the Environmental Management Agency of Orange County, Santa Ana. Other archives and libraries visited during background research include those of the California Office of Historic Preservation in Sacramento; the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society in Costa Mesa; Signal Landmark, Inc. in Irvine; Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. in Huntington Beach; the i� r 3 Museum of Anthropology at California State University, Fullerton; and Rockwell International in Seal Beach. rThe project historian visited the administrative offices of Orange County in Santa Ana to examine historical maps, deeds, and other records, and searched for relevant historical data at a variety of local ' libraries, in special collections, and through contact with additional knowledgeable individuals. Among those contacted were: Amigos de Bolsa Chica; William 0. Hendricks (Sherman Foundation Library); Reed Holderman (California Coastal Commission); Miles Larson (historian of Newport Beach); Mel Malkoff (Malkoff & Associates, Irvine); Orange County Historical Society; Signal Landmark, Inc.; and John J. Sl onaker, U.S. Military History Institute, Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania. Cumulatively, this data gathering provided the background information needed ( 1) to evaluate known cultural resources in the project area, and (2) to assess the strengths and weaknesses of existing archaeological knowledge. The results of this background research and subsequent field investigations are described .in the following chapters. As well , additional studies are recommended to complete the identification and NRHP evaluation of cultural resources within the project area. r r r ow P� "K r _ = am wo 'go I 00 Ift 400 UM AO 4M SM -00 AN 2: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Thad M. Van Bueren with Michael J. Moratto Project Location The study area encompasses parts of Bolsa Chica and Huntington Beach mesas and the intervening Bolsa Gap (Bolsa Chica lowlands), situated along the seaward edge of the Los Angeles Basin between Seal Beach and Huntington Beach (Figure 2.1). The 1735-acre area includes portions of Sections 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, and 34 in Township 5S, Range 11W, and Sections 3 and 4 in Township 6S, Range 11W, as represented on the USGS Seal Beach, Calif. 7.5' quadrangle (1965; photorevised 1981). Elevations vary from below mean sea level in the lowland area to 38.7 m (127 ft) on Huntington Beach Mesa. With the exception of exotic trees, vegetation consists predominantly of low-lying plants that permit a sweeping view in all directions from the mesas (Figure 2.2). Before the days of air pollution, Santa Catalina Island, some 40 km (25 mi) to the southwest, was clearly visible from these elevated vantage points. While surrounding lands are covered by urban development, the project area retains an open appearance despite various historic land uses, notably oil extraction and refining. Most of the project area is owned by the Signal Bolsa Corporation, with other parcels owned by D. E. Goodell, W. R. Grace, the Ocean View School District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Orange County Flood Control District, City of Huntington Beach, Huntington Beach Company, and the State of California. The western margin of the project area borders Bolsa-Chica State Beach and the Pacific Ocean (Figure 5.1). Physical Environment To understand the nature of changing physical conditions in the project vicinity, it is useful to consider first their geological ori- gins. By the Middle Pleistocene (ca. 400,000 years ago), the Los Angeles Basin had been transformed from an extensive, shallow embayment into a coastal plain through the deposition of alluvium from eroding uplands (Stein et al. 1971; Woodford et al. 1954). Due to Continental glacial `- retreat and the attendant rise in sea level , this coastal plain (the Downey Plain) was subsequently inundated (ca. 340,000 to 60,000 years ago), and then reexposed by receding ocean levels and tectonic uplift over the next 50 millennia (California Division of Mines and Geology 1974). The Downey Plain was dissected by the ancestral Los Angeles, San Gabriel , and Santa Ana rivers which meandered and sometimes coalesced to cut six major gaps in the seaward margin of the plain (Frey et al. 1970). Throughout the Holocene epoch (10,000 B.P.-present) the Santa Ana River migrated widely among the Santa Ana, Bolsa, Sunset, and 5 6 I 1 1 � FIGURE 2. 1 1 Project Vicinity , 1 SAN GABRIEL MOUNTAINS I N ' LOS yANGELES COUNTY f •'ter-... � ( �`�/ , Gos A Ise i_ Los Angelss* OF Pomona• :; �.:: •/ Wlalhsr Narrows •Own � Prod�Pood Control I ivst / R, `% L l// All �%'r9 • •Bea i ,�0/� �s �� soma Ana • ..Ii•4. •:1•�- / Ana /• S P %r.6iel.t �►�8 ORANGE p � • .• .• � • Hu�itirlo+bda:•.. I Ir•..i'�•''•..� � • ,q c, Beoc1►. '°°�B.oen COUNTY if N San CATS AL NA ISLAND i" 0 10 20 30 1 - . miles tvb 88 7 ;t Figure 2.2. Panoramic view of the project area from its southeast corner atop Huntington Beach Mesa, facing northwest. (Photograph by T. Van Bueren.) Alamitos gaps from Newport Bay on the south to the Long Beach vicinity on the north (Eckman et al. 1916), probably strongly influencing human land-use patterns. Sea levels rose again as Pleistocene glaciers receded, beginning ca. 14,000 years ago. Given the. depth. of alluvial deposits which subse- quently accumulated in the Bolsa Gap, and known rates of sea level increase (Curray 1960; Fairbridge 1960), initial flooding of the gap by the sea would have occurred approximately 8000 years ago. By that time the Bolsa Chica and Huntington Beach mesas had been uplifted by anti- cl i nal fol di ng and offset i nto two benches by tectoni c acti vi ty al ong the Newport-Inglewood Fault, which bisects the project area from north- west to southeast (Morton and Miller 1973; Poland et al. 1956). Each mesa presently consists of a lower seaward bench and a higher landward bench featuring relatively minimal surface relief. The Bolsa Chica Mesa reaches a maximum elevation of 19.8 m (65 ft), while the Huntington Beach Mesa achieves a height of 38.7 m (127 ft) above the current (1929) mean sea level. Both mesas fall abruptly toward the Bolsa Chica low- lands and Pacific Ocean, while gradually descending in other directions. As sea levels stabilized, sandy beaches developed along the coast ' and tidal action deposited sand spits across the mouths of Bolsa Bay and other inundated fluvial gaps (Harrowby 1973). Over time, Bolsa Bay gradually changed from a sheltered coastal feature to a bar-built lagoon as alluvium was trapped behind the protective sandy barrier. The I 8 nature of the substrate which accumulated in Bolsa Bay strongly influ- enced the changing types and distributions of intertidal plants and animals over time as it was transformed from rocky to sandy and then muddy bottom. This alluvium presently exceeds 30.5 m (100 ft) in thick- ness throughout most of the lowland area, and consists of saturated silts and sandy silts with some gravel (Harrowby 1973; Eckman et al. 1916). By contrast, soils on the elevated mesas are clays and loams with some water-worn gravel and pebbles crossbedded over weakly consolidated sandstone, conglomerate, and shale. Rocks, important as raw material for many articles made and used by local Indians, occur naturally in the project area only as pebbles (Wills 1986). Thus, larger stone artifacts either had to be imported to the area as finished products, or lithic raw materials or preforms had to be procured from the mountainous interior. In the project area Pebbles of various sedimentary, metamorphic, and igneous rocks (derived originally from inland sources) occur naturally. Obsidian, indicating long-distance travel , is very rare in southern California's coastal archaeological sites (see Chapter 6), while most other artifactual stone documented in the area could have been quarried within 16-32 km (10-20 mi). Due to the underlying geological structure of the area, an enormous groundwater basin has been formed on the landward side of the Newport- Inglewood Fault, resulting in a very high water table and, formerly, many perennial artesian springs (Harrowby 1973). The hydrography of the lowland area likely changed periodically in response to the meanderings of the Santa Ana River, which sometimes discharged through the Bolsa Gap (Mendenhall 1955). Small intermittent streams also drained the lowland area. Variations in the proportion of fresh water entering the lagoon and the nature of the sediments deposited there would have caused con- comitant changes in the zonation of its biotic communities. During the historic period the hydrography of the project area was altered radical- ly, as discussed below. The present climate of the South Coast is Mediterranean, with moist, mild winters and warm, dry summers (Kessel-i 1942). This pattern ` occurs within larger multiyear sequences of wet and dry years (Goodridge 1980:9). Local and micro climates are affected by proximity to the ocean which buffers seasonal temperature extremes and causes fog during the summer months. Differences in slope, exposure, prevailing winds, cold air drainage, and other factors create localized climates within the project area. Precipitation, falling entirely as rain, averages 33 cm (13 in) per year (Kahrl 1979). Mean temperatures range from 44' F in January to 799 F in July (Beck and Haase 1974). Past environmental regimes have not always been like those of today. The Holocene epoch witnessed global climatic, geophysical, and biotic changes: warming temperatures, recession of glaciers, rising sea levels, wholesale replacement of regional vegetation types, and the extinction of Ice Age faunas. Consonant with these world-wide adjust- ments, the area of the western United States experienced sweeping paleo- climatic changes, notably episodic temperature shifts and fluctuations in the quantity and seasonal distribution of precipitation (Brubaker and 9 Cook 1983; Fritts and Gordon 1982; La Marche 1978; Moratto and Davis 1988). In turn, these changes affected vegetation communities, faunal resources, and surface water supplies, including those of the study locality. -� The Biotic Environment The project location is especially significant in that it encom- passes a wide array of biotic communities and is adjacent to several others. Such diversity has characterized the area throughout the period of human occupation, although the particular nature of the biotic environment has changed appreciably. At various times during the Holocene the project area has featured diverse marine and terrestrial zones. The marine habitats have included sheltered outer coast, bays, and estuaries. Conditioned by this variation, as well as by a complex array of factors including type of substrate, degree of tidal exposure, intensity of wave action, and dilution by fresh water, intertidal shore- line areas also exhibit a wide range of habitat types (Ricketts et al. 1985). The intertidal strip is, biologically, one of the most produc- tive zones on earth. In the lower portions of the study area intertidal zones formerly made a gradual transition to Freshwater Marsh, Riparian Woodland, and terrestrial communities. This transition was more abrupt on the mesas where Grassland and Coastal Sage Scrub existed (Munz and Keck 1970). Coastal Strand, now present along the southwest edge of the project area, likely occurred there from early Holocene times. Each of these biotic communities/ habitat areas is briefly described below. Open Ocean/Protected Outer Coast/Bay These zones would have existed within or near the project area during early Holocene times, and open ocean/protected outer coast are still present immediately southwest of it. Bolsa Bay initially provided sheltered habitats during the early Holocene, but gradually filled in with accumulating sediments to form an estuarine environment. The nearshore environment presently hosts plants and animals that live variously in surface, intermediate, and ocean-bottom zones. The ocean bottom in the project vicinity has changed gradually during the Holocene from a rocky substrate to sandy deposits, likely resulting in adjustments of the biota there. Evidence from local archaeological sites indicates that prehistoric use of these zones focused on protected bays, with only limited procure- ment of resources in offshore waters. Animals from bay environments taken prehistorically include fish such as bat ray (M liobatis californicus), guitarfish (Rhinobatos roductos), possibly various sharks, an spotfin croaker onca or stearnsi (Langenwalter and Huddleston 1986). Other fish, such birds as albatrosses (Diomedia spp.) and diving ducks (Che��nd tes spp.), and mammals such as sea otter`s (Enhydra lutris) and severa re�types of seals (Pinnapeda) were either taken from open waters or near/on-shore environments using hooks and lines, nets, spears, and bows and arrows (cf. Blackburn 1963; Johnston 1955-1958; Koerper 1981). 10 Rocky Exposed Intertidal Zone This intertidal zone likely existed along the seaward margin of the project area early in the Holocene. As sand accumulated along the shoreline, beaches and Coastal Strand would have replaced this type of environment. Diverse vertebrates, invertebrates, and seaweeds characteristically occupy rocky shores. This habitat was very accessible to prehistoric peoples, with seaweed collected and invertebrates easily taken. Mollusks typically found in this zone, such as Mytilus californianus, Chama pellucida, Pseudochama spp., Ha' iotis spp., s raea un osa, an rep 9ula spp., are represented minimally at archaeological sites in the project area. Crustaceans, fish, and wading birds also might have been taken from this zone by prehistoric peoples. Coastal Strand and Sandy Exposed Intertidal Zone These zones developed as ocean levels began to stabilize and permit the emergence of sandy beaches in early Holocene times. They presently exist adjacent to the southwestern edge of the project area. Plant life is limited to the area above tidal influence, and commonly includes silver beachweed (Ambrosia chamissonis), sand verbena (Abronia spp.), saltbush (Atri lex sue, and other vegetation. Various sFellfish including TIvela stultorum, Saxidomus nuttallii, Donax gouulldii , and others were collected prehistorically in small qua-n�Lies from this zone; crustaceans, mollusks, birds, and other animals also were acquired on a limited basis. Saltwater Marsh and Lagoon These environmental zones developed within Bolsa Bay as sandy and muddy sediments built up along its intertidal margins. As alluviation continued, this estuarine zone expanded significantly. Typical vegeta- tion includes pickleweed (Saiicornia spp.), cord grass (Spartina foliossa), saltbush (Atriplex spp.), salt grass (Distichlis s is and other plants in areas generally above high water, as we as arren mud and sand flats. Many invertebrates live in -the substrate, while �. wading birds such as sandpipers (Calidris spp.) and whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus), ducks, reptiles, and sm—M—mammals including sea otter (Enh dra lutris), beaver (Castor canadensis) , muskrat (Ond_atra_ z1 a icus , and raccoon (Procyon lotor) also-frequent this habitat. Less mobile animals, especially s e Tf!sF from thi:> zone, were mainstays in the diet of local Indians in prehistoric times. Mollusks of dietary importance have variable tolerances for the diverse conditions of salinity, substrate, and exp3sure which evolved in Bolsa Bay. For instance, the oyster (Ostrea lurida) requires a gravel substrate; alternatively, it may at a�cF__itseTFto other shellfish. Ar o ecten ae uisulcatus, Polinices spp., Tr��achy�cardium quadragenarium, an aevicar ium su s um prefer sandy- ottonis with adequate tidal flushing, while Chione spp. and Tresus nuttallii can tolerate muddy substrates with more restricted tiaaT7Tows. 11 Freshwater Marsh This biotic type occurs in low-lying areas saturated by groundwater and surface runoff, outside of the prism of saline intrusion. As sedi- ments have accumulated and gradually risen above the mean high tide level in Bolsa Gap during the Holocene, Freshwater Marsh has expanded seaward to replace areas formerly occupied by Saltwater Marsh. The Freshwater Marsh is populated by many plants and animals important to prehistoric peoples of the region. Cattail (TvDha spp.), tule (Scirpus ' spp.), sedge (Carex rae racilis), nettle rtica spp.), and arroyo willow (Sal i x— aTo e i s) formerl y were common in Freshwater Marsh habitats Grunau 1975). Both large and small game--notably, mule deer J (Odocoileus hemionus), mountain lion (Felis concolor), coyote (Canis 1 atrans) , rabbit S 1 vi 1 a us spp.) bTack-tai l d hare ( epus ca�rnicus), and waterfowl--also frequented the Freshwater Marsh. Riparian Woodland This community formerly existed along stream courses where perennial sources of abundant surficial water were available. Riparian Woodland likely shifted within and near the project area as the course of the Santa Ana River and smaller streams changed course. Sycamore (Platanus racemosa), alder (Alnus rhombifolia), cottonwood (Po uul�us spp.), and willow (Salix spp.) typify this community. Most of the animals common to We Treshwater Marsh also frequent the Riparian Woodland. Grassland This biotic community likely covered much of Bolsa Chica and Huntington Beach mesas during most of the Holocene. Prior to the intro- duction of exotics, native Grassland was dominated by bunch grass (Poa spp.) and needle grass (Sti a spp.), with scattered occurrences oi- Datura (Datura wrightii_ and other plants. Prehistoric peoples harvested grass seers and other plant materials from this environment; as-well , they took small animals such as rabbits, hares, rodents, and game birds. Coastal Sage Scrub Presently covering the sides of bluffs within the project area, this biotic type may have been more extensive in the past. It is marked by low shrubs such as sage (Artemisia californica and Salvia spp.), coyote brush (Baccharis ilu�laris), and tree tobacco (Nico Tana lg auca), and hosts variedlsma 1—smallIn addition to the biotic resources present in or adjacent to the project area, several other culturally important vegetation communities formerly existed not far away in the mountainous interior. Of particu- lar significance to late prehistoric peoples of the region was the Southern Oak Woodland community, which consists of various kinds of oaks ( uercus spp.) interspersed with grasses. 12 The diverse resources in the Bolsa Chica locality provided a substantial inducement for both prehistoric and historic activities there. Changes in the types and distributions of biotic communities have resulted from alterations in the climatic, geomorphic, and edaphic components of the environment. However, accurate modelling of these transformations will require additional studies directed specifically toward reconstruction of the area's Holocene paleoenvironments. Historic Changes Beginning in the nineteenth century, a system of ditches was created to drain freshwater swamps and reclaim the land northeast of the project area for agricultural purposes. In 1899 the Bolsa Chica Gun Club was built on the southeastern tip of Bolsa Chica Mesa, and a dam and tidal gates were constructed from below the clubhouse to the sand dunes. Soon thereafter a new channel was cut northwestward along the seaward margin of the mesa to the Sunset Gap (now Huntington Harbour). In 1905 the gun club's dam was protested in a letter endorsed by Major H. F. Hodges (Office of the Chief of Engineers, U. S. War Department) and Captain C. H. McKinstry (U. S. Engineer Department, Los Angeles). A map accompanying this protest letter gives some. indication of the original configuration of the Bolsa Chica lowlands prior to the construction of numerous levees used to create waterfowl ponds during the early twentieth century (Figure 2.3). With the discovery of oil in 1919, increasing development of the area occurred. This led to the construction of additional roads, levees, graded pads, and other land modifications. During this time the local groundwater table began to fall due to overdrafting from wells. As a result of these changes, low-lying portions of the project area became increasingly isolated from both fresh and saline water inflows, resulting in significant changes in both vegetation communities _ and the animals which depended on them. Agricultural activities on the Bolsa Chica and Huntington Beach mesas in the twentieth century further reduced the area covered by the Coastal Sage Scrub community. Summary Over the past 10,000 years, the study area has witnessed significant physical and ecological change. Throughout that time the area has maintained a wide variety of habitats that afforded prehistoric peoples with diverse natural resources. An understanding of the physical and biotic changes that occurred in the project area would provide a background for evaluating its cultural resources, since those resources reflect cultural adaptations to the changing environment. MID so "a 4 W- 4 W- � *W on IM twft !-M. <MW 401 am a CLUBHOUSE \ kP ti \\ o RABBIT ISL. « „lr ;�f' \\ SPRIG ISL. i'� ';� �'• : r ti BORCHARD HOUSE (JJ Figure 2.3. 1905 map of Bolsa Chica lowlands enclosed in letter from F.R. Hazard, H.F. Hodges, and C.H. McKinstry to President Theodore Roosevelt (Courtesy of the Bolsa Land Company, Huntington Beach) . WA 00 �'M, M" .� iM3 OW SM Iiiiii AW W* 40 MW 00 00 WW 400 00 3: CULTURAL BACKGROUND Portia Lee, Michael J. Moratto, Jerrel H. Sorensen, and Thad M. Van Bueren Introduction This chapter summarizes past cultural developments in the project area. Topical coverage ranges from Gabrielino ethnography to recent history, with particular emphasis on changing land uses through time. This cultural overview provides a context not only for interpreting the archaeological record .but also for understanding the nature and extent of past impacts on cultural resources. Ethnography and Ethnohistory: i the Gabrielino The Gabrielino held the great bulk of the most fertile lowland portion of southern California. They occupied also a stretch of pleasant and sheltered coast and the most favored one of the Santa Barbara Islands. They seem to have been the most advanced group south of Tehachapi , except perhaps the Chumash. They certainly were the wealthiest and most thoughtful of all the Shoshoneans of the State, and dominated these civil izationally wherever contacts occurred. Their influence spread even to alien peoples. They have melted away so completely that we know more of the fine facts of the culture of ruder tribes; but everything points to these very efflorescences having had their origin with the Gabrielino [Kroeber 1925:621]. Language and Territory Bolsa Chica falls within the territory claimed in late prehistoric and early historic times by the Gabrielino Indians, named after "the Mission San Gabriel , near Los Angeles, where many were at one time gathered" (Hodge 1906:480). What these people called themselves is uncertain, although a Gabrielino woman living in Bakersfield recalled in 1903 that the name was Tong-via (Merriam n.d.). The Luiseno referred to the Gabrielino as TumangamTum, "Northerners," while the Hametwole • Yokuts of Buena Vista Lake called them Mi ah'hik tchal-lo , "Long Arms." The Gabrielino also were named Pah- i-na-mo-nam by the Vitanemuk, Ata- 1ilfsh by the Venture?io Chumash Kroeber 19 5: 1), and Kisianos by tie a ui a (Heiner 1968:105). Older published accounts have made reference to the Gabrielino as Ki ' or Kizh, "houses" (Hale 1846) and Tob` ikhar, "settlers" (Gatschet 1&. 15 16 Gabrielino-Fernande"no is a language belonging to the Cupan group of the Takic language family, a division of the Uto-Aztecan stock (Shipley 1978:90). Four dialects--Gabrielino proper, FernandeKo, Santa Catalina Island, and San Nicolas Island--are mentioned by Harrington (1962:viii). Kroeber recognizes only two, observing that Fernande"no, of Mission San Fernando, and Gabrielino were "distinguishable, but not notably so" (1925:620). As Kroeber points out, however, "if fuller knowledge were extant it might be necessary to recognize a half dozen dialects" (1925:620). The population of Gabrielino speakers in ca. A.D. 1770 has been estimated at 5000 (Cook 1976:38-39; Kroeber 1925:893). The protohistoric Gabrielino occupied much of Los Angeles County, Orange County north of Alisos Creek, Santa Catalina Island, and probably San Clemente Island (Hodge 1906:480; Johnston 1962; Kroeber 1925:620). On the west, the Gabrielino limits... were at the minor watershed through which the Santa Susanna tunnel has been bored; at the coast, between Malibu and Topanga Creeks. Eastward,... the line probably passed from Mount San Antonio to the vicinity of Cucamonga, Mount Arlington, and Monument and Santiago Peaks; in other words, through western San Bernardino and Riverside PAP Counties--although San Bernardino Valley has also been ascribed to the Gabrielino. Southward, Alison Creek is cited as the boundary [Kroeber 1925:6211. West of the Gabrielino were the Chumash, maritime peoples whose languages are of the Hokan stock. Neighbors to the northwest and northeast, respectively, were the Tataviam and Serrano; the latter certainly, and the former probably, spoke Takic languages. East of the Gabrielino lived the Cahuilla and Luiseno, also .speakers of Takic languages. Thus, except for the Chumash and possibly the Tataviam, the Gabrielino and all of their immediate neighbors were Uto-Aztecans (Bright 1975; Kroeber 1907, 1909; Shipley 1978),. Boundaries and relationships with nearby groups are discussed by Johnston (1955, 1956a- f, 1957a-d). The named ethnographic village of Lukup or Liu u_lcngnnaa is located in the Bolsa Chica vicinity, although its precise Toion cannot be correlated with assurance to a particular archaeological site in the area (cf. Johnston 1956e, 1962; Kroeber 1925:P1ate 57). The following sections describing Gabrielino social organization, land use, trade, and material culture are adapted from an overview by J. Arnold (Goldberg and Arnold 1987). Social Organization A distinctive feature of Gabrielino society was its relative complexity. Despite a semi-nomadic hunting-and-gathering subsistence pattern, the Gabrielino recognized three hierarchically ordered classes or ranks. The elite consisted of the chiefs and their families as well as very rich families. A middle social stratum included old and respected lineages while the rest of Gabrielino society consisted of the individuals and families that held no unusual rights or status. ' 17 Deceased members of the society were cremated along with their posses- sions (Bean and Smith 1978). This type of mortuary behavior may affect archaeological interpretation of prehistoric sites because of the absence of burials, indications of social status, and various types of ' artifacts. Each Gabrielino village was politically autonomous and economically ' self-sufficient. A village was usually made up of segmentary non- localized lineages. A village's population would seasonally break up into family units in order to exploit specific economic resources in different zones of the region. The leader of the dominant lineage in a ' village was also the village leader. A particularly strong leader with extensive lineage ties could become the chief of a series of related villages (Bean and Smith 1978; Johnston 1962). Notwithstanding their independence, the Gabrielino cultivated associations and alliances with neighboring villages and even other groups such as the Chumash (Bean 1975). Such alliances were critical in ' order to maintain ritual observances, regulate intergroup rivalries, and to promote economic interaction and trade. Relationships with outside groups were important elements of Gabrielino economy and society. The ' most important commodity controlled by the Gabrielino was the steatite quarries on Santa Catalina Island. Steatite was carved into vessels, ornaments, and other items (Wlodarski 1979). This material was then exchanged with neighboring groups for shell beads, desired supplies of food, deerskins, or other materials, in addition to such exotica as obsidian tools (Koerper et al. 1986). Land Use, Settlement, and Subsistence The Gabrielino distributed their settlements across four broad ' environmental zones, each of which included desirable sets of resources. These zones included the interior mountain/foothills, prairie, exposed coastline, and sheltered coastal areas (Hudson 1971). Generally, the subsistence/settlement system of the Gabrielino could be characterized as semi-sedentary hunting-gathering. Family groups moved seasonally in order to maximize the harvesting of the different biotic resources in the various zones within their territory. Ethnohistoric sources list ' some of the resources that the Gabrielino procured. Important plants included native grasses, acorns of at least six types of oaks, ip non pine nut, fresh greens, as well as seeds, berries, and fibers from various shrubs and cacti. Large game included mule deer, antelope, and ' mountain sheep. Smaller game such as rabbits and rodents, quail , water- fowl , snakes, lizards, insects, freshwater fish, as well as various marine fishes, shellfish, and some sea mammals were also important. ' The settlement and exploitation of the mountain/foothill zone con- sisted of many small secondary gathering camps in areas where nuts, seeds, deer, and small game could be taken. These camps were occupied principally by single family units able to move quickly to exploit available resources. Larger, more permanent settlements were situated near sources of permanent water. These settlements may have included ' several families representing a number of different clans. The prairie zone covered the broad interior valleys and plains. These relatively I 18 I hot and dry regions supported mostly sage, yucca, cacti, and associated rodents and reptiles. However, where moisture permitted, marshy areas ' supported a greater diversity of plants and animals and were the loci of gathering camps as well as a few larger villages. So,Jth of San Pedro, the coast was rich in marine and intertidal resources. It appears, however, as though most of the larger, more permanent villages were ' located inland from the shore where they were relatively protected from winter storms. The northern coast, from Malibu to San Pedro, was more sheltered; in addition to the rich marine, coastal and estuary ' resources, this stretch of coast featured large stands of oak and sage in close proximity. The close association of such productive resources supported both small and large settlements (Hudson 1969; 1971). Trade ' Cultural elaboration was in part made possible by the endowment of natural resources within Gabrielino territory, including the primary source of steatite for the southern California region (Heizer and Treganza 1944; Wlodarski 1979). Steatite vessels, pipes, ritualistic ' objects, other finished items, and raw material from Santa Catalina Island are widely distributed in archaeological sites of the region, attesting to the magnitude of economic interactions between the Gabrielino and neighboring groups. This economic exchange was parti- cularly vigorous with the Chumash, creating a :strong reciprocal influence between the two groups that included many shared elements of religion and cultural material (Kroeber 1925:567-569). The Gabrielino ' also traded steatite, sea otter skins, dried fish, shell beads, and other resources to interior groups including the Serrano, from whom they received acorns, deer hides, and seeds (Davis 1961:22). Items originating in Gabrielino territory have been reported as far east as ' Arizona, and southwestern ceramics have in turn been found in the Gabrielino area, indicating the range of their trades network (Johnston 1955:182). Exchanges were accomplished either directly through barter, ' or by means of certain shell beads which functioned as money (Heizer 1968). Material Arts ' Gabrielino material culture is considered to be elaborate and characterized by a high degree of artisanship comparable with that of ' the Chumash. Common artifacts include shell ornaments, spoons, fish- hooks, and beads; bone tools; baskets; flaked stone: projectile points, knives, and drills; mortars and pestles; wooden bow',s, paddles, and war ' clubs; steatite ornaments, bowls, and comal s, as well as many other utensils (Amsden 1935; Blackburn 1963). -ne nteresting artifact asso- ciated with the Gabrielino is a wooden hunting stick thrown to knock down game animals. This kind of weapon would rarely be preserved in an archaeological context; hence, its absence and the paucity of projectile points may have caused archaeologists to underestimate the role of hunting among the prehistoric Gabrielino. ' Gabrielino clothing and architecture were not distinctive and conformed with general patterns common to southern California. Clothing was minimal save for the winter when capes, skirts, and blankets of ' 19 deerskin, rabbit fur, and bird skins were employed to fend off the damp and cold (Bean and Smith 1978:541). Gabrielino structures consisted of large, circular, domed, thatched residences which could accommodate from two to four families. Each settlement included small earthen sweat- houses, menstrual huts, and ceremonial enclosures. Bedding typically consisted of fiber mats and animal fur blankets (Harrington 1942). The coastal Gabrielino made sea-going plank canoes, patterned after those of the Chumash (see Hudson et al . 1978). Boats up to 26 feet long, able to carry 20 or more passengers and cargo, are reported (Blackburn 1963:22-23). Such vessels made possible the brisk trade between offshore islands and the mainland. Tule balsas and simple dug- out canoes were also used by the Gabrielino (Harrington 1942:11). Steatite vessels were preferred for cooking, although baskets and pottery were also used for that and various other purposes including food and water storage, collection trays, mats, and caps. According to Johnston (1956a:18) the Gabrielino made no pottery before Mission times. Both leaching basins and earth ovens were used in food preparation, as were stone bowls, hopper mortars with pestles, and millingslabs with manos (Harrington 1942:8-9). Religion and Ceremonies ' The Gabrielino religious system focused on the worship of the god China chinich or Qua-o-ar, although the sun, moon, and other natural entities and forces Tigured prominently in their system of beliefs. Several creation stories account for the origins of the natural world at the hands of that god (Heizer 1968:19), or an evil predecessor named �Wi �of who was killed by his sons, setting the stage for ascension of Min—igchinich (Boscana 1978). The belief in Chinigchinich was highly ' ritualized, and involved the toloache cult, construction of sacred temples featuring ornate poles with banners, and a host of elaborate ceremonies including offerings of food and artifacts (Bean and Smith 1978:548). Sand paintings, likely a trait adopted from contacts with Southwestern peoples, were also incorporated into the ceremonies of the Gabrielino (Harrington 1942). The Gabrielino religion spread to various neighboring groups including the Cupeno, Luisenno, Juanergo, and Ipai- Tipai, and apparently influenced the religious systems of the Chumash as well (Kroeber 1925). Historic Contacts The first Euroa merican contacts with the Gabrielino came on October 7, 1542, when members of Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo's expedition landed on ' Santa Catalina Island (Heizer 1972:30). Juan Pae z de Castro in the 1550s summarized the original report (now lost) of the first encounter: As the boat was nearing land a great number of Indians came out of the bushes and grass, shouting, dancing, and making signs to come ashore. As from the boats they saw the women fleeing, they made signs to them not to fear; ' so shortly they became assured and put their bows and arrows on the ground. Launching into the water a fine 20 1 canoe containing eight or ten Indians, they came out to the ships. These were given some beads and presents ' with which they were well pleased, and shortly went back. The spaniards afterwards went ashore and both the Indian men and women and everybody felt very secure. Here an old Indian made signs to them that men like the ' Spanish, wearing clothes and having beards, were going around on the mainland. They remained at this island only until midday [Wagner 1928:471. ' A day later, the ships approached the mainland and sailed into the "Baia de los Fumos" (Bay of Smokes), which Wagner (1928) -identifies as San Pedro Bay. There, ' they engaged in intercourse with some Indians they captured in a canoe, who made signs to them that towards the north there were Spaniards like them. The bay is... an excellent harbor and the country is good, with many valleys, plains, and groves of trees [Wagner 1928:471. ' Cabrillo subsequently anchored in Santa Monica Bay, but Paez de Castro's account makes no further mention of the Gabrielino. Sixty years after Cabrillo's expedition, the Gabrielino again were , visited by Euroa mericans when Sebastian Vizcaino explored the California coast. Between November 25 and December 1, 1602, V-i zcai no's ship was ' anchored in Avalon Bay, at Santa Catalina Island. !=ray Antonio de la Ascension, who sailed with Vizcaino, provided in his diary the earliest detailed account of Gabrielino ethnography (Ascension 1615). He describes their canoes, equipment, and techniques for fishing and capturing seals, food and clothing... . His description also covers the islanders' physical ' characteristics, houses, utensils, dogs, and items used for bodily decoration... . Ascension comments on the islanders' participation in exchanges with the mainlanders... . He also notes that there were "many Indians and many settlements" on Santa Catalina and neighboring islands... . Ascension's account includes a detailed description of a ceremonial structure on the ' island and frequent mention of the importance that the Indians placed on crows [LaLone 1980:151. Although the visits by Cabrillo and Vizcaino had little lasting , effect on the Indians of southern California, later contacts, beginning with the Portola expedition of 1769-1770, paved the way for missionization and its overwhelming consequences. Gaspar de Portola and , members of his party recorded many valuable observations about the environment, locations of Indian settlements, and native customs as they passed through Gabrielino territory (cf Costansb 1911; Crespi 1926; ' Portol a 1909). The accounts of Pedro Fages (e.g., 1.937) are especially notable for their detail on Gabrielino ethnography. 1 21 Followingthe Portola expedition a new phase of Indian/European P P contact began in California as the systematic missionization of the region commenced and from which the Gabrielino received their current name. With the establishment of Mission San Gabriel Arcangel at the heart of their territory in 1771, and the subsequent development of ' Missions San Juan Capistrano (1775) to the south and San Fernando Rey de Espana (1797) to the north, Gabrielino culture was soon eclipsed. Following the familiar pattern of other native peoples, Gabrielino population began to decline quickly in the face of new diseases as well as other physical and social stresses (Cook 1976). As a result of these accumulated stresses, Gabrielino culture ceased to exist by 1900 (Bean and Smith 1978:540-541). As for most Native American groups in California, ethnographic and ethnohistoric information on the Gabrielino is limited. When scholars such as Harrington and Kroeber began their studies of California Indians the Gabrielino had already dwindled to a small population heavily influenced by the acculturating effects of the mission system as well as by the policies of subsequent Mexican and United States governments. Nonetheless, despite nearly two centuries of contact with more powerful and dominant cultures, knowledge of some remnants of the Gabrielino has survived. ' History Introduction For purposes of this study, the geographic area being considered from a historical perspective is coterminous with the study area desig- nated by the Orange County Environmental Management Agency for the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program. Coastal Orange County is divided into four planning units; Bolsa Chica is one of six noncontiguous segments composing the Agency's North Coast Planning Unit. The Bolsa Chica ' segment area includes 1600 acres of unincorporated land in the north- eastern part of the county surrounded by developed portions of the City of Huntington Beach and Bolsa Chica State Beach. In preparing the Land Use Plan, the County also considered as part of the study area additional acreage that was generally contained within the boundaries of the California Coastal Commission's Habitat Conservation Plan of 1984. The study area is bordered on the west by the Pacific Coast Highway and ' Bolsa Chica State Beach, on the southeast by open land mainly in oil production, on the east by residential development, and on the northwest by Huntington Harbor. ' Spanish and Mexican Land Grants In 1784 Corporal Manuel Nieto, a soldado de Cuero with many years ' of service at the Presidio in San Diego,appTi_eT o_r and received from Governer Pedro Fages a grant for Rancho la Zanja, a property of nearly 300,000 acres lying between the Santa Ana and San Gabriel rivers, and extending from the foot of the San Gabriel Mountains to the Pacific Ocean (Figure 3.1). The Nieto holdings decreased to 167,000 acres in 1803 when Mission San Gabriel Arcangel received a portion of the land nearest the mountains. 22 V _` ' n H t l l L ICE ` r.-+� �� ,,.Ict��r---._�___•,t__ •� �� to � I' . ) . F• ' Aft •� it D1SEJ10 ' .v�71_ .,i•, , ^ �N.w.I/ice -�C ,+r I71_ Figure 3.1. The Nieto Land Grant of 1?84 . (from Harrowby 1973:I-1). ' Nieto's children and widow, Maria Teresa Morillo, continued to live on the property after his death in 1804. In 1834 the holdings were confirmed to the heirs and divided. Manuel Nieto's grandson, Jose Antonio II, who had married Catarina Ruiz, inherited a portion of the southern part of the rancho, which lay west of the mouth of the Santa Ana River. In the course of time, the river had changed its course to ' the ocean. leaving pockets (bolsas) of grassland between the old stream beds and the marshes. On Rancho las Bolsas. Josh Antonio Nieto ran a large herd of cattle and bred riding horses until his death in 1832. Five ranches had been created out of Rancho la Zanja, but only ' Rancho las Bolsas was still in the hands of Manuel Nieto's descendants when California became a state. To finance the presentation of their claims to the United States Lands Commission, Catarina Ruiz de Nieto, a neighboring rancher, Ramon Yorba, to whom she had sold an interest, and her son-in-law, Jose Justo Morillo, borrowed money from entrepreneur Abel Stearns. The heirs could not meet Stearns' note when it came due. ' and he gained title to the ranch at auction (Orange County Genealogical Society 1969:117-124, 153). Two adobes were built on Rancho las Bolsas,. The site of the , Morillo adobe, the home of Jose Justo Morillo and his wife, Maria Cleofa Ruiz, is marked on the Los Angeles County Recorder's 1877 map as "House ' of the widow Morillo." Located between Huntington Beach and Wintersburg, near the junction of Talbert and Gothard Streets, it was occupied in 1861 by Josh Antonio Morillo, the brother of Jose Justo, and his wife, Maria Rafaela Romero, in defiance of the claims of Abel ' 23 Stearns. The adobe was still standing, though unoccupied, in 1890 ' (Meadows 1966:89; Orange County Historical Project 1936: "Adobes" folder, 88). After the United States Land Commission confirmed Josh Ramon Yorba's claim to the share of Rancho las Bolsas he had purchased from Catarina Ruiz, he built an adobe on land about 1.5 miles southeast of the town of Bolsa, about 0.25 mile beyond the western end of Wintersburg Avenue. Yorba was a bachelor who seems to have shared the home with members of his family who were also co-partners in the claim. Called the Paredes adobe, probably on account of numerous Yorba relatives in that family, it was constructed in 1854 and apparently destroyed before the Morillo adobe since it does not appear on the 1877 map. Abandoned by the Yorbas upon the sale of las Bolsas to Abel Stearns, the home was thereafter used by cattlemen, probably ma ordomos of Stearns (Orange County Historical Project 1936: "Adobes" folder, -88). In the 1830s Catarina Ruiz de Ni eto's brother, Joaquin Ruiz, used j some of the marshland to graze sheep. The widow encouraged her brother to petition the governor for an adjacent grant. In 1842 Governor Juan Batista Alvarado gave him full title to some 8000 acres bordering the ocean. Called Rancho la Bolsa Chica, the property ran from a willow tree on the seashore to the borders of a water-filled inlet that could not be crossed. The distance from the inlet to the top of the mesa, which the survey party reckoned to be approximately 1.5 miles, was put down in the official record and a boundary marker erected on the mesa top (Orange County Genealogical Society 1969:123). To prove his claim before the Land Commission in 1854, Joaquin Ruiz, too, borrowed money from Abel Stearns, but the claim was not certified during his lifetime. A survey notice was published in 1861. Patent to the grant was signed by Ulysses S. Grant in 1874. However, when the heirs were unable to repay the loan and interest, Stearns foreclosed and the rancho was added to his vast holdings (Department of Fish and Game 1974:3). • i Very little is known about the adobe on Rancho la Bolsa Chica. It was built by Joaquin Ruiz and was still standing in 1889 when it was used as a cook and bunk house by a farmer on the Mesa. The building was described in 1934 as "a small two roomed adobe about 16 x 36 feet in size, situated not far from the building of the Lomita Riding Club." It, too, was later utilized by the Stearns Ranchos Trust (Orange County ' Historical Project 1936: "Adobes" folder, 87). Stearns himself was nearly bankrupt after the drought of 1865. The Stearns Ranchos Trust was formed to sell his extensive property to the ' Los Angeles and San Bernardino Land Company. Rancho las Bolsas was partitioned and a portion sold to the Westminster Colony in 1871; the remainder became the cities of Huntington Beach, Garden Grove, and ' Fountain Valley. The small settlements of Sunset Beach, Wintersburg, Bolsa, and Smeltzer located on the Bolsa Chica grant (Orange County Genealogical Society 1969:153). i 24 Gospel Swamp I Except for the Huntington Beach Mesa, the coastal area extending I from the Newport Mesa to the Bolsa Chica Mesa and easterly into the country approximately 7.5 miles was marshland (Figure 3.2). Peat springs and artesian wells which flowed year round often flooded the 30 f square mile area which blackberry vines, tules, willows, sycamores, and shrubs made nearly inaccessible. However, the land could be freely used and water and wood abounded. The area became the site of religious camps and revival meetings and so earned the name "Gospel Swamp." The terrain gave refuge to ducks, geese, and birds and provided cover for wildcats, raccoons, feral hogs, coyotes, and badgers. Rattlesnakes, whose natural habitat was the upland mesa, sometimes floated in on flood ' waters (Talbert 1952:37). This district was also called "The Willows." Whenever the settlers, many of whom were squatters, needed groceries or supplies, they would cut a load of willow wood and haul it to Santa Ana ' where there was always a market for fuel. Once cleared, the peat fields yielded abundant crops. Farmers' claims about crop yields and the size of melons and pumpkins harvested were sometimes considered exaggerated ' by other county residents (Orange County Historical Project 1936: "Cities and Towns" folder, 1). After Orange County was chartered, the Bolsa Ditch was constructed , under the provisions of the State Drainage Act of 1881 to drain local swamp lands. Costs were borne by adjacent property owners in proportion to benefits derived. Large scale agricultural production began when D. ' E. Smeltzer, a Michigan celery shipper, found wild celery growing in the peat bogs. Smeltzer and E. A. Curtis leased land south of Westminster and began production with financial help from the Earl Fruit Company who also furnished seed, horses, and plows. Finding no experienced labor locally, Curtis engaged a Chinese labor contractor to furnish a crew of skilled truck gardeners to put in ' 80 acres of celery. Costs ran high the first season as the Chinese labor crew was threatened by local residents who stole their tools and burned their barracks. The Earl Fruit Company was forced to patrol the area with watch dogs; guards had orders to shoot anyone interfering with the workers. Farming in the peat fields required ingenuity. Dobbins, workhorses with large feet, were shod with flat wooden shoes to keep them from sinking into the bogs. However, the crop turned a profit. After the Southern Pacific Railroad constructed an 11-mile branch line from Newport Beach to Smeltzer in 1902, 1800 carloads of celery were sent to market from Smeltzer and Wintersburg, 'the main production centers. The villages of Bolsa and Celery were also "peat bog" stations ' along the rail line between Newport and Los Alamitos (Friis 1965:104; Parker 1963:67). Celery culture exceeded 275,000 acres, becoming one of the major industries of the county, extending from the peat bogs over a , large part of the "Willows." However, the fertility of the land began to decline in 1906 and the crop was attacked by diiseases--rust, blight, and rottenheart. By 1919, only a very small acreage of special ' varieties was under cultivation (Armor 1921:166-167). Orange County's sugar beet crop suffered a similar disaster. A large sugar processing plant, one of five in the county, was set up in , /Iwr1 III L • ease /lla-n/ — III too sort ��` wLw•nn r r ..1vf r11)11 Q �• -.•� fI1II f /. � VYi�.rurr+ GPI IIIfIIA`n Irr •�., f11[I ��- 7l • juvir1I #AI 1 q,1N /CHIP /IIIfI/ to ~►. .j 1 Irf/lff/11 1(Iff •t-�=T"�i^�'_ •fr , dlff I[Hfl /11I 8010A fly 111810frff 18:848 �J .. / (JIM KHIP PAC Itfrr jt j Ilrf C rP rsf IutsP rrmi► tot too I C f 44, Il,l:r If1111 Ir,l/.So*ntAr[ I N. baN1aM of NNW Cf. Alwv* Nlll ~R - I!1111 ff11fff [ffrl Mil 11.I1f Kfrtf Figure 3.2. Coastal marshes of Los Angeles and Orange counties in 1894 (after EDAW, Inc. 1979:Plate 3) . Ln 26 the company town of Los Alamitos, north of Anaheim Landing, in 1896. Senator William A. Clark of Montana and his brother, J. Ross Clark, had ' received a five-year guarantee from the Bixby Land Company of a sufficient quantity of beets for a profitable operation. A demonstration crop was put in 0.25 mile west of Talbert and by 1915 the factories were producing sugar worth $8,000,000. Business declined in 1919 on account of plant diseases, and the industry as a large-scale operation was effectively ended (Adams 1926:104-105). The towns of Smeltzer, Wintersburg, and Bolsa also developed along , with agricultural production at the turn of the century. Smeltzer, another company-owned town, had a store, a small hotel , a telephone office, blacksmith's forge, and barn large enough for 50 teams of ' horses. At Wintersburg, located one mile south of Smeltzer, a National Guard company was formed and an armory built. Bolsa was laid out as a town site in 1890. Along with a general merchandise store, school , and ' church, it had a creamery whose owner, P. Raab of Pasadena, persuaded nearby farmers to raise and milk dairy cattle (Orange County Historical Project 1936: "Cities and Towns" folder). ' Talbert was located in the center of the Gospel Swamp. The James Talbert family bought an interest in the general merchandise store whose building had been erected by John Corbett in 1899 at the Fountain Valley crossroads. Residents petitioned the Post Office Department in Washington, D.C. to establish a mail delivery center. Talbert was chosen as the name for the post office when the two-word designation of ' Fountain Valley was refused. The post office, authorized to write foreign as well as domestic money orders, issued a substantial dollar amount in orders going to Mexico from migrant laborers. Since there was no rural free delivery, mail was picked up at the :store. Letters and ' packages came from Santa Ana via Bolsa; the mail was then brought on to Talbert via horse and buggy. In 1901 delivery was established between _ Talbert and Huntington Beach (Parker 1967:67) . The village at the crossroads continued to grow. A school district was established and a school house built on an acre of land, about a mile east of the store, which had been donated by rancher Robert Wardlow. The Talberts gave $50 and 0.5 acre of land to found a Methodist church. However, dairy ranchers had to drive to Bolsa or Westminster to deliver their milk. Storekeeper and postmaster Tom , Talbert then persuaded Raab's Creamery Company to set up a cream separator between his store and the church. Residents of the thriving community could now satisfy most of their essential needs close to home. Talbert and its ranching neighbors still lacked a link to the ' outside world. The Sunset Telephone and Telegraph Company would not extend the line from Bolsa, a distance of 3.5 miles, without an advance , guarantee of $200 for the first two years. Tom Talbert sold $200 worth of coupons good for two years and gave the telephone company the cash. Sunset Telephone and Telegraph agreed to accept the coupons as payment ' on monthly bills. A telephone was then installed -in the Talbert store. Residents soon felt the need to make local telephone calls to one another as well . The Smeltzer Telegraph and Telephone Company was 27 organized with its office at Smeltzer. Subscribers invested $50 apiece ' and worked cooperatively to string wire along fence posts and willow trees from ranch to ranch. Rates were a dollar a month per phone, and there were two-, three-, five-, and six party lines. The company, which paid expenses and showed a small profit, was eventually acquired by the ' Huntington Beach Telephone Company (Talbert 1952:48-51). By the turn of the century, the Stearns Ranchos Trust had sold the swamp lands surrounding Huntington Mesa from the Bolsa Chica Rancho line north to Westminster and across the valley east to the Santa Ana River. At the last sale of the Company lands, Colonel Robert Northam, its manager, bought Huntington Mesa. Only three houses had been built: the ' Northam ranch house, the Bushard house near the site of what was to be Bol sa Chi ca of 1 wel 1 No. 1, and the two-story A. J. Fri end house on the east point of the mesa. A syndicate contracted to buy the mesa from ' Colonel Northam and laid out a townsite of 40 acres along the beach. However, another group, the Huntington Beach Company, eventually purchased the townsite. H. E. Huntington was granted a right-of-way along the ocean front, one-twelfth of all subdivided lots, and one-fifth interest in all ocean-front bluff property in return for extending his Pacific Electric Railway to Huntington Beach (Talbert 1952:69-70; Parker 1963:70) . ' Flood Control--The Talbert Drainage District and the Newbert River Protection District Flooding was a major concern for the early farmers and ranchers of Gospel Swamp. The rock shelf paralleling the seacoast prevented under- ground water from escaping into the sea and created the aquifer that fed underground springs and artesian wells. Surface water was prevented by high sandbars along the beaches from flowing into the ocean. These natural features forced runoff into the bed of the Santa Ana River which ' often took a shifting course in high water years, emptying into the ocean at Los Patos or swinging west to join the San Gabriel River and flowing into Alamitos Bay, rather than following its usual course across the Newport Harbor flatlands to meet the ocean at Corona del Mar. In 1898 the first County survey of the area staked and measured the land from Bolsa south to the ocean. Since Talbert was above the high tide mark, the land could be drained. The Talbert Drainage District was formed and $20,000 in bonds voted to pay for the drainage canals which were to run 0.5 miles apart, south to the arm of the bay. The first ' canal was dug along Cannery Road running north from the tidal slough to Talbert Road; a second was dug along Bushard Road. Each farmer agreed to pay $1 per acre for all the land he owned within 0.25 mile of either bank of the ditch. Main drainage canals were open ditches, 5 to 6 feet ' deep and 10 to 12 feet across. The ditches were filled in at a later date and underground tile installed. Once the Drainage District was formed, a tax was levied in accordance with the value of the land to ' maintain the system. In order to confine the Santa Ana River to a definite bed, the Newbert River Protection District was formed in 1900. The district 28 1 extended for 18,000 acres from Santa Ana and the Orange County Hospital on the north to Garden Grove and Huntington Beach on the south and the Costa Mesa bluffs on the east. Control of the river had become mandatory since a flood necessitated the expensive procedure of I redigging the canals. Bonds for $185,000 were voted to purchase a 300- foot strip for a permanent river bed. A channel was dredged and levees built to contain the flow (Talbert 1952:57-61). The Bolsa Chica Gun Club The Bolsa Chica Gun Club property lay on an inlet bay whose channel , emptied into the sea at Los Patos. The upper bay was fed by Freeman Creek, a freshwater stream. Since the Bolsa Chica area was the habitat for an enormous number of upland game birds, waterfowl , and other wild- life, sportsmen and game hunters organized clubs to buy land. In 1895 the club, through member H. M. Dobbins, applied to the state for permis- sion to reclaim the salt water marshlands, an action 'that would result in closing off a natural tidal channel to the ocean. The concession was granted under the State Tidelands Overflow and Reclamation Act, and the club then acquired title to approximately 528 acres of Bolsa Bay tide- lands which extended inland into the upper bay. A third dam, constructed after the destruction of the first two, was able to withstand the tidal prism moving at three miles per hour. Automatic tide gates operated to hold back the salt w<<ter when the tide was high and let out the fresh water when it was low, keeping the salt water from rising above the dam. Tidal waters were prevented from entering the bay, and fresh waters from Freeman Creek were prevented ' from draining into the ocean. A waterfowl habitat ideal for hunters was created because the dam changed the character of 'the wetlands from feeding grounds to resting grounds. Since the damming caused the ' permanent silting up of the bay's natural opening, a substitute channel connecting Bolsa Chica Bay and Anaheim Bay was cut through to the east (Talbert 1952:41-43; Thomas v. Bolsa Land Co. 1905). , Papers for incorporation of the Bolsa Chica Gun Club were filed on March 10, 1899. Count Jaro Von Schmidt of Los Angeles was listed as president. The club's ground dedication and opening shoot were held from October 17-19, 1899. Shooting grounds were in the southeastern lowlands. Ponds were filled by pumps that lifted the water 4.5 feet from the lower canal of the Bolsa Drainage District Ditch. Club rules ' designated Wednesday and Saturday as the seasonal shooting days; hunting stopped at 4 p.m. Shooting was done from blinds or boats. In 1913 an article in the Santa Ana Register reported that members and their guests had killed 8633 ducks in the previous season. The Bolsa Chica Gun Club was described as "more than a gun club. It is boating club, fishing club, a summer home club, a place to get , away from the rush of business and the wear and tear of city life" (Santa Ana Register 1913). Probably constructed around the time of the club's incorporation in 1899, the redwood building had dormer windows and was roofed and faced with cedar shakes (Figure 3.3). There were ' several fireplaces in the card and gun rooms and an immense fireplace of burnt brick in the main assembly room. Two wings each housed 10 � +��. 1.��'[l1' 11{ ►� `• f .. r1 � ����� ��. i�►._ I ► llib• '`� �.,.,�.�� t i_� i�� �� i� fat�i^, 1��('/�(c, :,► It �.. ,. .. -L �� - `��!�a.'1- _ f'.\ ,1� �j —►-ram - _ 1. ;r r�YY; �• d. I N'..I+ .i� 'r��11,f�1'I' l�+�I�•1��' -,�i'� �� •i��l�ilf.`�,.� I I��•.^•�1�'I� t It °.:t•j � i �t�+r,�V,�� .•: ' UII 1�f I liil '� �I ��.:^� '`I I;�li. �� + I I OWN (� I I I ''" !JII� I!1 +� 1 �I � I� III ,�� ,� I`` i'� �t�•1 Yn� '+�f��~`�+.i x•� •1: � �'.�.,t i, �I I L Lei. tk Figure 3.3. Sketch of the } �. ` yy]] �• •I� .� T� 1 l J]rIn(A(J� II �'ll' ��t'�+•.l��i. i �ii7"'•'.T� •�t '�. I t A �I. I .I, i '+{-.% ` .•T� 1�` r.V•W���4'.���V��. r. It.�.�. �� � .r. �JtM+� mow+• r 1 `_ '� .� �' •mot I�'• f. :���' �t _ �l +•� .T a Bolsa Chica Gun Club by W. 10 o. Archaeo- logical Society). 30 bedrooms with double wardrobes and wash bowls. The wings were probably f expanded to the 10-bedroom size, since an early photograph shows only three dormers on each side. Apartments for employees were behind the kitchens, pantries, and wine and supply storage rooms. On the north I side, next to the curving drive, stood an ivy-covered arbor with individually labeled rows of hooks for hanging ducks. During construc- tion of the cl ub house, a water wel 1 was dri 11 ed whi c:h showed so much I natural gas that it could not be used. Workmen placed a large tank over the well and sealed it; the natural gas was used for cooking and lighting the club house. The discovery foreshadowed the future course of the club's history (Smith 1965, 1969; Talbert 1952:43). In 1920, oil was found at Huntington Beach. After this discovery, the Bolsa Chica Gun Club leased drilling rights on the upland portions of the Bolsa Chica to the Standard Oil Company of California. The wetlands were kept as a waterfowl preserve. Through the 1930s, derricks proliferated on the high ground. By the end of the Deoression, the club ' had decided to open the swamplands to oil exploration and a contract was awarded to the Signal Oil Company in June of 1940. The gun club was disbanded in January of 1964, and the clubhouse demolished in July, 1964 (Smith 1965; Tompkins 1964:125). ' Natural Resources: Oil and Gas While the Gun Club was negotiating for the oil leases on the marshes, the federal government was laying claim to the mineral rights on tidelands and submerged areas. The Bolsa lease had been surveyed, ' but there was no known landmark or monument. U.S. Deputy Surveyor Henry Hancock had surveyed the area in 1855, establishing a township line in accordance with the line of the Bolsa Chica land grant of 1840. Hancock's 1.0 mile and 0.5 mile section corner posts had disappeared, ' but his notes in Book 69 of the County Surveyor's office referred to a triangulation marker on Rancho la Bolsa Chica, a three-inch square of hemlock charred to resist decay. The decomposed post had left a cast in the clay, which was documented and noted in company files. Land titles could now be correlated with the physical aspect of the land (Tompkins 1964:127-128) . Following the acquisition of its lease with the Bolsa Gun Club tenants-in-common, Signal began to build access roeids on the elevated dikes. Nine hundred acres directly south of the first lease were ' contracted for in 1943. Sixty-eight wells were drilled on the southerly lease for a total production of more than 8 million barrels of crude oil and more than 10 billion cubic feet of gas. The southern field included an area adjacent to the ocean where wells were brought in by ' directional , or slant drilling. By 1936 refineries and natural gas plants were also in operation on the field (Orange County Historical Project 1936: "Natural Resources-Oil " folder, 20-21; Tompkins 1964:129) . The use of a portable servicing derrick along with derrick-skidding ' techniques resulted in the Bolsa Field's being developed without the use of permanent derricks. In the Bolsa Field Signal Oil also pioneered the use of a centralized hydraulic pumping system which did away with the 1 r 31 I conventional walking beam unit. By 1963, 188 wells had been completed ' on the Bolsa lease; the area remains an active oil field (Friis 1965:130-131; Tompkins 1964:129; Weaver and Wilhelm 1934). World War II Installations After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the Pacific coast was fortified. Artillery and searchlights were placed on the Bolsa Chica Mesa (Figure 3.4). The fortifications wre designed and built by the United States Army Corps of Engineers and manned by the Army's 3rd Coast Artillery Regiment. The headquarters command group, Harbor Defenses of Los Angeles, was located at Fort MacArthur. Within the first six months of the war, two field artillery weapons, 155-millimeter guns, were emplaced on Panama mounts, platforms consisting of a segment of curved ' rail embedded in concrete along which the gun's twin trails could be moved. The mobility of the gun, also known as Model 1918 GPF, had been improved between the wars by providing it with modern wheels and ' pneumatic tires rather than cast-steel wheels. The 155s were rushed in large numbers to both coasts in the early days of the war to guard unfortified positions (Lewis 1979:108; U.S. Army 1945:6-13). Sometime in 1943 construction was begun on a site for two 6-inch coastal batteries. Battery Harrison, also known as Battery 242, was part of an installation to consist of an ammunition storage facility, plotting room, and powder magazine, all constructed of steel reinforced concrete seven feet thick (Don Young, personal communication 1988). These guns were not casemented, that is, placed within concrete bunkers. Instead they were provided with all-around curved shields of cast steel four to six inches thick; their range was 15 miles (Lewis 1979:109). Battery 242 appears to have been put into service after the war had ended. Orders from headquarters, Harbor Defenses of Los Angeles at Fort MacArthur, dated 15 September 1945, were to continue to man the 155s until Battery 242 was completed, then to "activate and man Battery 242 on a training status" (Monnett 1945:31). Although no guns remain on the site now, parts of the installations are still in place. Late in the war the Corps of Engineers started work on Battery 128 which was to be composed of -two 16-inch guns. These were never installed. Nonetheless, an earth-covered concrete structure, 500 feet long by 100 feet in depth, whose reinforced concrete roof was 16.5 feet thick, was built. It would have been located between the two guns, housing the ammunition storage facility, the power generator, communica- tion and storage rooms, and a corridor. It is probable that the instal- lation followed the common pattern of 16-inch emplacements which located the plotting room at some distance from the guns. Battery 128 was never completed, though one may assume that what was built closely resembles other installations of its kind. The authoritative reference of the period states "in terms of battery types, World War II fortifications were among the least varied ever constructed by the country; both weapons and installations were standardized to an ' unprecedented degree" (Lewis 1979:118). 32 j ITRT 1 SANTA a ' AT 0#1 CA \ �f?RT t a -�INrRr [war. 0 s R(DOMOO { (� INTO" a .TRY 7 ' 7 RORIr OROU►at[RTMOUPf A ARM RI TT� IN PALO$ Yeas(! INTRT IN a • TV.T..u•r.•'•-1A.t. .tft-me. Z to fan.arsr.t•T a.o..e n•.ofaola-.uat. IN 'a�'��d am atu.•Yt•.ur TACTICAL POSITIONS, KOLA 11 .a�aAao�s aT•• f'• �tOT tN.a .tH..IT10. 1 AM( Ifs[ are,/11a•. �1L/INI/ON S S e i N 0 • of" 1—.•c.c ..a1f.0lf /-195.. ...au.f.IKLa rear L O N IN ?AT .a .ar.I a.Mal■ I• aB`t—KIN.•f[L•[r t-1fa.0 a•.tY.f.IKLO raa17 r IlION ' t.0 K.T.aT 1 0.�•.Tr N 12 n aT VA&M-Ya.Y..l.• "a" [TIN.1.uro as Ulal MY a—a[oaroo a[•C. a.I taro.IRLa MO UNT 111 L.I.V..t.N.I.r. STn•—INK...a.T }•.ff. {..a..f .OY.7 , pn .. 8.0-a••1•, •. !!Il a7n f—Low POW 17 t-1f1.Y.M t0.f.M.•O.OOOrT ai0,1.1.0{•atar IN t•O N am a—.01•T rt•r110 atn at.nft-.11tf.1'a. a.I M sn.aMrM.• o w" a N 1 OOL SAm.a ro-.L..tsw vfOI INiRT TK af am c.Ite a.Oar Mef CN/CI arRr OO rant•-L..[a R[t[111rT1fO t-I•'K turf nn-0,ITSa.R[aT am[u-f..ta arttaY.rlam ifl.o s til'I., QRT[ROOT-IOTK.•[t[.Y.T.MI /-N'{.a.•.W11t IIN A snowam.,fro a uar nn T—aat. tart. t-Nff V/a0R/ a.Rall•ROOT► a0LsT a,t•0 U{tu aTRt a—cofT. .tH f-sft•1 aII aoaf./ Re{aT f at K•7.am (. Y41..lw N a[afl{fa1a.r-u.iMtr-1 TOM N T, 0!T1 sTn a,tRf tJ R[R IN7R • am a.•fi■H Mesa CMART B 1a Nl NPORT O[d cm 1 0 a 10 N ants t0 f Figure 3.4. Harbor defenses of the Los Angeles region in 1942 (after Monnett et al . 1945:13) . r 33 ' r - Bolsa Chica State Beach rSmall resort communities were established along the Bolsa Chica coastline in the early 1900s. The Pacific Electric Railway had been granted a 100-foot right-of-way on the ocean side of Pacific Coast Highway, and in 1904 constructed a rail line for the big Red Cars, trolleys that connected Newport Beach and Los Angeles. Automobile traffic began to flow along the seafront when Pacific Coast Highway was officially opened in 1926. By 1960, the Bolsa Chica beach strip beyond the tracks was owned mainly by the descendants of the original Bolsa Chica Gun Club stockholders. The State of California considered the property an excellent prospective beach-park site, and began condemnation proceedings. After title was secured to the property, long known as "Tin Can Beach" on account of refuse dumping which had taken placeover the years, the state began a massive cleanup, removing nearly 300 tons of debris. In 1967, lifeguard towers, sanitary facilities, and a 480-car blacktopped parking lot were placed on the site which was then renamed Bolsa Chica State Beach (Brouhard 1968). Planning History--Post World War II Chronology: 1964 to 1988 After World War II, Orange County experienced a rapid increase in population, and development .began to impact the Bolsa Chica area. Formal governmental planning for the Bolsa Chica area began in 1964 when Congress authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to study the feasibility of a small-craft harbor at Bolsa Chica. The County and the Corps cooperated on the venture until 1972 when the California State Department of Navigation and Ocean Development assumed project sponsorship (California Coastal Commission 1984; EDAW 1979; Huntington Beach Planning Department 1986; Orange County Environmental Planning Agency 1985) . In 1970 Signal Landmark Properties, Inc. acquired title to 2000 acres of Bolsa Chica land and began conceptual development planning. At the same time the state contested title to those areas of the Bolsa Gap which comprised historic tide and submerged lands. An interagency task force, headed by the State Secretary for Resources was formed, with representatives from the State Lands Commission, Attorney General's Office, and Department of Fish and Game. The Task Force identified 526.4 acres of sovereign tide and submerged lands and set out the state's objective for these lands: the reestablishment and maintenance of a saltwater marsh ecosystem, provision for wildlife habitat, expanded recreational opportunities for Bolsa Chica State Beach, and a public waterway and small craft marina for recreational use. The task force determined that the irregular configuration and narrowness of some state lands put them outside the scope of these objectives. 1 r 34 An agreement known as the "1973 Boundary Settlement" provided: (1) Fee title to a 300 acre plot and 27.5 acres beneath Pacific ' Coast Highway adjacent to Bolsa Chica State Beach to the state; (2) Clear fee title by conveyance or confirmation to Signal Landmark of the remainder of its Bolsa Chica lands; (3) Signal agreed to lease to the state without cost an additional , 230 acres of land adjacent to the 300 acre plot for a period of 14 years. This land would compensate for the effect of an ocean entrance on the state's 300 acre parcel as well as being a contribution for the establishment of such a system by Signal ; (4) The state would receive fee title to the 230 acre plot upon construction of an ocean entrance system within the 14-year period, reopening Bolsa Gap to the ocean and providing public benefit as well as water access to Signal lands; and (5) The Department of Fish and Game received 66-year leases of the lands described in (1) and (3) from the State Lands Commission for the purpose of marsh establishment. The lease of 30 acres was to terminate at the end of 14 years should an ocean entrance not be constructed. The lease has since been renewed. The 1973 settlement agreement included a conceptual plan prepared by the Department of Fish and Game for the state 'lands in the study , area; it was revised in 1984. Phase I, the reestablishment of a marsh encompassing approximately 150 acres of the 300-acre state parcel in addition to some 60 acres in Outer Bolsa Bay, was completed in 1978. After nearly eight decades, seawater again entered Bolsa Chica lands, restoring a portion of the damaged wetlands. In 1979 the Amigos de Bolsa Chica, an environmental group, sued the ' state alleging that the 1973 land exchange agreement was a gift of public trust lands that violated the state Constitution and that Signal and others violated the state Coastal Act. In January, 1988 the Orange County Superior Court gave the Amigos the right to pursue their original suit which had been challenged under the statute of limitations. In 1978 Orange County formed the Bolsa Chica Study Group to , facilitate the development of a local coastal plan. The California Coastal Conservancy submitted planning alternatives to the County. Using nine of the alternatives presented, the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors formulated a Land Use Plan. The Coastal Commission rejected the plan in April of 1982 and the County withdrew it, beginning work on a supplemental plan to address Coastal Commission concerns. Using the provisions of Senate Bill 429, the Coastal Conservancy and the Department of Fish and Game prepared a Habitat Conservation Plan for the Bolsa Chica Study Area. i 35 i On November 29, 1984, the Coastal Commission, after reviewing the Habitat Conservation Plan and the resubmitted 1982 County Land Use Plan, denied the County plan as submitted but recommended certification of the Land Use Plan if changed in accordance with staff-suggested modifications: On October 23, 1985, the again-revised Land Use Plan, with the concurrence of the Department of Fish and Game and Signal Landmark, was approved by the Coastal Commission. It stipulated: (1) 915 acres of productive and diverse wetlands and 86 acres of environmentally-sensitive habitat area; the wetlands to be buffered from urban development; (2) a navigable ocean entrance and waterways; a 75 acre or larger marina and commercial area including boat storage, launch ramps, and visitor commercial facilities; (3) an inward realignment of a segment of Pacific Coast Highway past the new ocean entrance, taking advantage of the Bolsa Chica Mesa elevation for navigable bridges over the main channel waterway and Huntington Harbor Connection Channel ; (4) creation of a 130 acre Linear Regional Park on the Huntington Mesa; (5) An internal road system including the connection of Bolsa Chica Street with Garfield Avenue through a corridor in the lowland; a relocation of the Pacific Coast Highway/Warner Avenue intersection and other secondary roadways; (6) A total of approximately 500 gross acres of medium, high, and heavy density residential development in the lowland and on the Bolsa Chica Mesa; and 1 (7) A provision for a navigable interior waterway system into Huntington Harbor and a Pacific Coast Highway bridge over Bolsa Bay. Eighty-three acres of land in the Bolsa Chica Study Area belong to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Although the District has designated this acreage, its Corridor and Switchyard lands, for the industrial use of seawater desalination, the County Land Use Plan requires that the Corridor land be used for a marina, and the Switchyard land be used as a restored wetland for mitigation of the destruction of wetlands in the development of the marina and residences on the Corridor land. Metropolitan Water District has registered its objections to the plan at every stage of the proceeding. There is no ' policy or program for the acquisition of Metropolitan's property in the Land Use Plan (Abbott 1985). Land Use Plan--Completion The Coastal Commission has required a two-step program for completing the Local Coastal Program. The first, the Land Use Confirmation Review, requires: 36 (1) completion of studies showing the feasibility of the navigable P 9 Y 9 ocean entrance; (2) preparation of a wetlands restoration concept plan; ' (3) preparation of a Huntington Harbor Connection Channel plan. The second, the Implementing Action Program, requires: (1) preparation of planned community district zoning and , regulations for the Bolsa Chica segment of the Local Coastal Program; (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 and multi-jurisdictional , and are expected to take several years of intensive work to complete. The Bolsa Chica Area in 1988 The history of the Bolsa Chica. area manifests the past and potential richness of California coastal land. Current concerns about the 1600-acre stretch of land along the Pacific Coas': Highway, begun in 1964 when the Army Corps of Engineers was authorized to study the feasibility of a small craft harbor, continue a struggle for dominion over the area that dates back to the land grant era. In succession, ranchers, farmers, hunters, and oil well drillers drained the acreage, using roads, dikes, dams, and machinery, to make the area suitable for habitation and exploit its resources. The prevailing laissez-faire political and social climate of California in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries allowed small- and large-scale farmers, oil entrepreneurs and even the squatters, "ditch farmers," and itinerant preachers of the Gospel Swamp to utilize the land at will . Since 1964 the history of the Bolsa Chica has been the attempt to reconcile conflicting interests. To enhance land values, developers propose to key restoration and maintenance of wetlands to the construction of marinas and housing, under the premise that without development no effective attempt will be made to Nave the pi ckl eweed environment. Environmentalists, maintaining that tidelands are a public ' trust, see both lowlands and mesas as crucially important in a state where feeding grounds and resting places for wildlife and birds grow increasingly scarce. State and federal agencies find it difficult to , move quickly and intervene effectively, faced with citizen outcry and lawsuits by public interest groups. Meanwhile, developers lobby legislators to set up special districts and seek federal loans for a navigable ocean channel that surfers believe will ruin the beach for their sport. All groups are forced to agree on one fact: with the exception of the Phase I restoration of the wetlands by the State 37 Department of Fish and Game, not much progress has been made since 1964 in turning plans into reality. Compatibility between marina and salt marsh is but one aspect of a characteristic American challenge: the need to balance public and private interests. Certainly, the fate of Bolsa Chica depends on the design objectives that are agreed on and implemented and the quality of agency decision-making. How the area will ultimately develop, be preserved, or restored is contingent on the goodwill and public spirit of concerned individuals, organizations, and agencies who accept responsibility for the area's future. i +r ■r rr .� rr , �► r r rr +r �r r �r rr � r r r rr co 4: ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND Jerrel H. Sorensen, Thad M. Van Bueren, and Michael J. Moratto Regional Prehistory While many alleged Early Man sites have been reported in California, compelling evidence of human occupance in the area is restricted to the past 12,000 years. Various finds claimed to evince earlier occupation either have proven to be of Holocene age (post-10,000 B.P.), or remain equivocal. Human skeletal remains from southern California once argued to be of Pleistocene age have been dated to the Holocene epoch, based on accelerator mass spectrometry radiocarbon as- says (Taylor et al. 1985). Other "evidence" of Pleistocene cultural activity in California include dubious "artifacts" and "archaeological" features. These discoveries are summarized and reviewed critically by Moratto (1984:30-73). Convincing evidence exists for human occupation in California beginning ca. 12,000 B.P. From that time forward, continuous use of area has been documented through numerous archaeological investigations. Two well known chronological schemes for coastal southern California are based on the concepts of "horizon" (Wallace 1955, 1978) and tradition (Warren 1968). As defined by Willey and Phillips (1953), "horizon" refers to geographically widespread but temporally restricted cultural manifestations, while "tradition" refers to the persistence of major cultural patterns through long periods of time. No one has yet developed for the study area a detailed chronology like the one worked out by C. D. King (1981) for the Santa Barbara Channel. The chronologies of Wallace and Warren reflect different interpretations of cultural developments in coastal southern California. At issue is whether technologic shifts represent developments in situ, diffusion of traits, and/or population replacements. Given the notable conservatism indicated in the region's sites by the retention of many traits long after the adoption of new ones, fundamental cultural continuity and ' stability may have been more characteristic than the horizon model would imply. To simplify discussion of their chronological frameworks, the two schemes are compared, by time period, below. 12,000 to 8000 B.P. This period incorporates Wallace's "Horizon I: Early Man" (1955) ' and "Period I: Hunting" (1978). and Warren's (1968) "San Dieguito Tradition." Cultural materials consist mostly of flaked stone tools such as projectile points, knives, and scrapers, which are associated primarily with hunting activities, as well as occasional millingstones. Human remains are rare or absent at sites assigned to this period. Wallace and Warren characterize this as a period when cultures in southern California were adapting to the rapidly changing post- 39 40 Pleistocene environments. Population likely consisted of nomadic or i semi-nomadic bands pursuing game and other resources through the seasons of the year within intimately known home territories. Along the coast, many archaeological sites dated to this period might have been inun- dated, covered by sediment, or destroyed as sea levels rose in early Holocene times. 8000 to 5000 B.P. This period of climatic change was marked by economic diversification as peoples adapted increasingly to local environmental conditions throughout southern California. New technologies and patterns of settlement developed in response to warming and drying climatic trends. Warren (1968) refers to the new economic emphasis as the "Encinitas Tradition," while Wallace labels it the "Millingstone Horizon" (1955) or "Period I1: Food Collecting" ( 1978). Various Millingstone complexes--La Jolla, Oak Grove, and Topanga--are encompassed by these terms. Artifacts of 8000-5000 B.P. are characterized by relatively few projectile points, abundant milling- stones and manor, various chopping, scraping, and cutting tools, some shell ornaments, and cogged and discoidal stones. In the project vicinity secondary inhumations are common, while loosely flexed and extended burials occur in the Santa Barbara area and tightly flexed burials are found in the San Diego area. Various hypotheses account for the evident shift from a hunting to a gathering emphasis: (1) local development, in response to environmental change, from the preceding hunting traditions; (2) an influx of a new population, with subsistence focused on plant food processing; or (3) diffusion of the new economic focus to older, resident populations on the coast. Despite the apparent similarity of groundstone assemblages at all Millingstone or Encinitas sites, important variations among them are discernible. For instance, coastal sites tend to be larger, more complex, and more permanently occupied than are interior sites, perhaps - because of abundant, easily procured, and reliable resources of the coastal zone. The diversity of such artifacts as beads, pendants, charmstones, cogged stones, and discoidals also bespeak intra- and inter-regional variability. Such artifacts may have functioned variously as simple ornaments, emblems of identity, symbols associated with ideology, ceremonial objects, or gamestones. Concepts such as the Millingstone Horizon and Encinitas Tradition ascribe uniformity to a geographically widespread and enduring use of millingslabs and manos. The technology suggested by these types of artifacts is neither complex nor exclusively associated with a single prehistoric culture or period. Significant regional and temporal varia- tion among sites which have been assigned to the 8000-5000 B.P. period has, been largely overlooked (see Goldberg and Arnold 1987). 5000 to 1500 B.P. The reconstructions of Wallace (1955, 1978) and Warren (1968) differ significantly for the 5000-1500 B.P. period. Warren identifies the "Campbell Tradition" in the Santa Barbara area, while the Encinitas 41 Tradition continued untilA.D. 0 elsewhere in coastal southern o c ue t about A. . 7 e s California. The Campbell Tradition witnessed a renewed emphasis on hunting and the addition of acorn processing. Wallace views the change to acorn processing and greater emphasis on hunting as widespread throughout the region, and defines this new configuration as "Horizon III: Intermediate" (1955) or "Period III : Diversified Subsistence" (1978) . The Intermediate Horizon is characterized by basket-hopper mortars and pestles and corresponding reduction in the use of millingslabs and manos. As compared with earlier cultural expressions, there is a greater diversity of flaked stone assemblages, increased frequencies of projectile points, inferred greater dependence on acorns than in previous times, and greater reliance on shellfish collecting and sea mammal hunting in coastal areas (Wallace 1955). Cultures became increasingly diversified, and economic specialization began to develop. Warren's contention that such changes did not reach areas south of the Santa Barbara until ca. 1200 B.P. must now be revised in light of evidence reported from Orange County. Koerper (1981) showed that the maritime emphasis noted by Warren for the Campbell Tradition also occurs at Encinitas Tradition sites in coastal Orange County. At issue is the chronology and nature of the replacement of ancestral Hokan groups in coastal areas south of Santa Barbara by populations speaking languages of the Takic subfamily of Uto-Aztecan. Since the newcomers quickly adopted the technology and economic practices of the indigenous cul- tures, evidence for ethnically distinctive traits or a sharp break in the archaeological record have been difficult to identify and continue to be the subject of debate (see Moratto 1984:Ch.11). Available evidence suggests that the Takic incursion occurred progressively through what are now Los Angeles and Orange counties over a lengthy period. In the project vicinity, this population intrusion is thought to be represented by the Irvine Complex which first appeared ca. 1400 B.P. (Ross 1969). Post 1500 B.P. The prehistoric period ended ca. A.D. 1769 when European explorers and missionaries first established permanent residence in southern California. Archaeological manifestations younger than 500 years often can be related to known ethnic groups. Archaeological sites yield diverse artifact assemblages, notably ornaments made of stone, bone, and especially shell. There are also abundant bone tools, the utilization of ceramic vessels, and containers and other artifacts carved of steatite, an important exchange material. Another natural resource, asphaltum, was utilized as waterproofing for boats, baskets, and bottles and as an adhesive for mounting projectile points, setting shell decora- tions, and repairing broken items. Probably the most important techno- logical innovation of the period in terms of hunting behavior was the bow and arrow. This weapon is identified archaeologically by varied, small projectile points. Wallace (1955) identifies these manifestations as "Horizon IV: Late Prehistoric," while Warren (1968) defines such developments in the Qroject vicinity as the "Shoshonean Tradition," reflecting the Takic incursion. 42 The size and number of sites ascribed to this period suggest a population increase over that of preceding intervals. There is also an apparent concomitant increase in social , economic, and political complexity. Craft specialization is evinced, as is 'the use of shell ' beads as a standard of exchange (Arnold 1987). In addition to very extensive exchange relationships, grave associations provide evidence of differential wealth, which suggests social ranking (King 1982). Probably the most interesting aspect of local archaeology during this period is its relationship to historically known Native American groups. In the Santa Barbara area, Warren (1968) defines the Chumash Tradition, which evidently developed out of the diversified subsistence of the Campbell Tradition. Farther south, in what is now San Diego County, the continuity of the archaeological record :suggests that the t historic Diegueno (speakers of a Hokan language) derived from the Yuman Tradition which Warren defines for the post-1500 B.P. period in that region. In the central South Coast, which now includes Orange County, the late prehistoric sequence may be more complex. On linguistic ' grounds, Kroeber (1925) inferred a migration of Takic peoples from the Great Basin and eastern California desert areas into western and southern California around 1500 B.P., triggered by a significant "deterioration" of their home environments. This hypothesized Takic intrusion was thought to have driven a wedge through the coastal Hokan groups, separating the Chumash on the north from the Diegueno on the south. This intrusion, identified archaeologically as the "Shoshonean Tradition" (Warren 1968), is associated with the disIxibution of arrow points. The "Shoshoneans" became known historically as the Gabrielino, Luiseno, and Juaneno. The nature, extent, and even existence of this Shoshonean wedge has been debated for the last sixty years. A recent attempt to isolate the initial Shoshonean presence in Orange County (at the Newport Beach site of CA-ORA-119a) failed to identify any disruption or displacement of the coastal population over the past two thousand years (Koerper 1979). The place of the Shoshonean intrusion in southern California prehistory is discussed further by Goldberg and Arnold (1987) . Bolsa Chica Prehistory Archaeological research in the project area has been conducted over many decades (Table 4.1). Studies have included background research, surveys, and subsurface sampling by excavation. This previous research is summarized below; the status of the archaeological record is then examined in the concluding section of this chapter. To conform with extant reports on the project area, Wallace's (1955, 1978) chronological framework is used throughout the following discussiDn. The radiocarbon dates mentioned in this section are derived from marine shell and have not been corrected. Archaeological work in coastal Orange County dates back to the 1920s when Herman F. Strandt surveyed extensively. Unfortunately, most of Strandt's records and notes have been lost or destroyed over the years. However, a map of the sites he recorded in Orange County has survived. Six of Strandt's sites are located within the present study 43 area: Sites 105, 7, 6, and 9/11/12 (CA-ORA-82, -83/86, -85, and -88 or -365, respectively). During 1960 and 1961 two Orange County archaeologists, Alika Herring and Robert Gochicoa, systematically surveyed the southern por- tion of Bolsa Chica Mesa. Herring and Gochicoa investigated relation- ships among sites on the mesa and salvaged information from the "Cogged Stone Site" (CA-ORA-83/86) which was already suffering impacts from agriculture and relic hunters. A total of six shell midden sites (A-F) was identified during this survey. These sites are now recorded as: Site A,E CA-ORA-83/86 (the Cogged Stone Site) Site B CA-ORA-84 Site C CA-ORA-78 Site D CA-ORA-85 Site F CA-ORA-87 One of Herring and Gochicoa's goals was to salvage information from CA- ORA-83/86. This was achieved with intensive surface collection and the excavation of a 3x3-ft unit dug to a depth of 16 in. A total of 137 cogged stones, 39 di scoi dal s, and 13 charmstones, as well as milling slabs, manos, pestles, and projectile points were recovered. These artifacts suggest that the site was occupied during the Millingstone and Intermediate horizons (Herring 1968). Additional archaeological surveys on the Bolsa Chica Mesa were performed in 1963 by Ai 1 ei n McKinney and in 1964 by Hal Eberhart and Keith Dixon (Cottrell 1980). Eberhart and Dixon worked in conjunction with the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society (PCAS) to prepare for excavations by California State College-Los Angeles (CSCLA) in 1964. The CSCLA field class excavated nine 5x5-ft units and twelve 2.5x5-ft units at CA-ORA-85. These units revealed sterile sand at depths between 16 and 24 inches. Two 14C samples from these excavations yielded a date of greater than 3650 B.P. from the 6-12 inch zone, and a date of 4180*70 B.P. from the 12 to 18 inch zone (Cottrell and Rice 1975:12). While these dates suggest a Millingstone Horizon occupation, other artifacts including projectile point types indicate Intermediate Horizon use as well (Marshall and Eberhart 1982). The CSCLA archaeological field class, directed by Eberhart, returned to Bolsa Chica Mesa in the spring of 1966 and excavated a portion of CA-ORA-86 (now considered to be the northeast extension of CA-ORA-83). This site proved to be badly disturbed by agricultural activity which had introduced a large amount of peat into the shell mi dden. In 1968 Dr. Eberhart's field class returned to the area. Much of the site surface was collected, and twelve 5x5-ft units were placed on CA-ORA-83 (Marshall and Eberhart 1982). Interest also was focused on CA-ORA-82, which underwent repeated testing from 1966 through the early 1970s by archaeologists from the PCAS and California State College, Long Beach (CSCLB) (Weide 1967). The many artifacts recovered from the site suggest occupation during the 44 i Table 4.1: History of Bolsa Chica B� Archaeology Date Agent Nature of Archaeological Investigation 1986 SRS Test Excavations at CA-ORA-78, 84, and 85. 1984 SRS Surface Collections, Augering, Excavations, and Trenching of CA-ORA-83/86. 1983 SRS Test Excavations at CA-ORA-294 and 365. 1982 SRS Re-evaluation of CA-ORA-83/86., 1981 SRS Evaluation of CA-ORA-83/86 for Nomination to the t National Register of Historic Places. 1976 SAC Salvage Excavations at CA-ORA-82. ' 1975 ARI Overview of Bolsa Chica Archaeology; Surface Collection, Augering, and Excavation at CA-ORA-83/86. 1974 ARI Test Excavations at CA-ORA-78. 1973 ARI Test Excavations and Trenching at CA-ORA-83/86 and 288. 1972 ARI Cultural Resource Survey for City of Huntington Beach. 1971 ARI Surface Collections and Test Excavations at CA- Ora-83/86, 84, 290, and 291. CSCLB Test Excavations at CA-ORA-2.91. 1970 ARI Survey of Bolsa Chica Bay Area. 1968 CSCLA Test Excavations at CA-ORA-133/86. 1966 CSCLA Test Excavations at CA-ORA-136. CSCLB, PCAS Test Excavations at CA-ORA-,32 1964 CSCLA. PCAS Survey of the Bolsa Chica Mesa, Test Excavations at CA-ORA-85. 1961 PCAS Surface Collection and Test Excavations-at CA-ORA-83/86. r 45 Table 4.1 (continued) Date Agent Nature of Archaeological Investigation 1920s Strandt Survey of Orange County and Surrounding Region. Key ARI, Archaeological Research, Inc.; CSCLA, California State College, Los Angeles; CSCLB, California State College, Long Beach; PCAS, Pacific Coast Archaeological Society; SAC, Santa Ana College; SRS, Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. Millingstone and Intermediate horizons. A single 14C date of 4340*200 B.P. was obtained for the site (Schroth 1983). Excavations at this site remain largely unreported. A new period of archaeological research began in the project area in 1970. Prompted by increasing legal attention to cultural resources, studies by private corporations increasingly replaced the research projects of archaeological societies and academic institutions. In 1970 a comprehensive archaeological survey of most of the area encompassed by this study was conducted by Archaeological Research, Inc. (ARI). Previously identified sites were rerecorded and seven previously uniden- tified sites also were documented (CA-ORA-288 through -294) (Ross and Desautels 1970). CA-ORA-86 was recognized as an extension of CA-ORA-83 and rerecorded as a single site. ARI continued archaeological studies on Bolsa Chica Mesa through the fall of 1970 and winter of 1971. CA-ORA-84 was investigated by means of surface collections and a series of 28 backhoe trenches. The trenches were used to determine the depth and extent of undisturbed midden. Also, a 2x2-m excavation unit was placed in the southwest corner of the site where the thickest midden was preserved (Cottrell 1980:14). Artifacts recovered from this work suggested a Millingstone Horizon occupation. Following these investigations, most of the site was removed for use as fill (ARI 1971). The southwestern portion of CA- ORA-83/86 was also scheduled for removal as fill in 1971. Before the removal of this portion of CA-ORA-83/86, ARI examined the site by sur- face collections, six lxl-m, three 2.Sx2.5-m, and one 5x5-m manual excavation units, and five 2-ft wide backhoe trenches (Munoz 1975). Test excavations also were conducted by ARI in 1970 1971 at Sites CA-ORA-290 and CA-ORA-291 on Huntington Beach Mesa. Investigation at CA-ORA-290 included excavation of a 2x2x2.5-m unit which exposed a lens of shell. Ahlering and others (1971) reported that the site had already been destroyed by the construction of a paved road to the adjacent oil field. Investigations at CA-ORA-291 were more extensive. ARI, in 46 cooperation with CSCLB's archaeological field class directed by Margaret Weide, divided the site into two parts: CA-ORA-291A (the portion covering the slope) ; and -291B (the portion on the mesa top). At CA- ORA-291A a series of backhoe trenches, auger holes, and test units was employed to identify the site limits. A 20x2O-m block was staked out in the area of most concentrated shell midden. A total of 42 1.25x1.25-m units was excavated in this block, which represents approximately 14 percent of the total site area (Ahlering et al. 1971:11). These excava- tions revealed midden as deep as 1.4 m which contained numerous arti- facts marking occupations from Millingstone through 'Late Prehistoric horizons. Abundant faunal remains and at least two features also were documented. An additional 15 test units were excavated at CA-ORA-2918, yielding Millingstone Horizon specimens (Ahlering et al. 1971). The City of Huntington Beach retained ARI to per-Form a comprehen- sive survey of the Bolsa Chica Bay area in 1972. Two previously unrecorded shell midden sites (CA-ORA-365 and -366) were identified on the western edge of Huntington Beach Mesa. At the time of the survey both of these sites had been damaged by development of the surrounding oil field (ARI 1973). Throughout the early 1970s the PCAS continued limited excavations on the portion of CA-ORA-82 west of Edwards Street. While reports on those excavations are not yet available, numerous artifacts and at least six burials were encountered (Munoz 1975). During the winter of 1975- 1976 an archaeological field class from Santa Ana College, directed by Michael Lind, salvaged two additional burials which had been discovered during construction of a bicycle path on the eastern side of Edwards Street (Cottrell 1980). ARI initiated further work on Bolsa Chica Mesa in 1973. The north- east portion of CA-ORA-83/86 (previously recorded as CA-ORA-86) was surface-collected, eight 1.5x1.5-m excavation units were excavated by hand, and ten 3-ft wide backhoe trenches were placed across the site (Cooley 1973). A second site, CA-ORA-288, was explored with a series of nine trenches prior to the removal of this site for fill. Recovered artifacts indicate a Millingstone Horizon occupation (Cottrell 1980). In 1974, ARI sampled the prehistoric component at CA-ORA-78 with eight 1.5x1.5-m units (Nissley et al. 1975). Some controversy exists over whether the shell observed on the site is natural or of historic or prehistoric cultural origin (Cottrell and Rice 1975; Mason 1987). ARI continued work at CA-ORA-83/86 through 1974 and 1975. Controlled surface collections in 20x2O-m areas, 85 -auger borings, soil chemical studies, and a magnetometer survey were performed. Analysis of artifacts confirmed that the site had been occupied during the Milling- stone and Intermediate horizons (Butzbach 1975; Carter and Howard 1975). Since 1975 the archaeological resources of the Bolsa Chica Mesa, particularly CA-ORA-83/86, have undergone intensive evaluation; also, several small surveys were conducted within or adjai:ent to this project. In 1983, survey of a 42.4-acre tract scheduled for development in the lowlands below and southeast of Bolsa Chica Mesa disclosed no cultural 47 resources (Brock and Sawyer 1983). A 21-acre parcel adjacent to the project area and just 100 m south of CA-ORA-291 also was surveyed with negative results in 1980 by Archaeological Associates, Ltd. (van Horn 1980). In addition to these small surveys, known and potential cultural resources on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) were identified for the Minerals Management Service of the United States Department of the Interior using geomorphologic, archaeological, and historic data. The first segment of this study, including the OCS from Morro Bay in San Luis Obispo County to the Mexican border, was completed by PS Associates in 1987. The ocean bottom southwest of the Bolsa Chica Gap was iden- tified as a sensitive area likely to contain submerged archaeological sites (Pierson et al . 1987). During the early 1980s Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. (SRS) conducted several investigations of CA-ORA-83/86. A review of previous research and analysis of maps, archives and aerial photos proceeded in order to determine the significance, status, and eligibility of CA-ORA- 83/86 for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places (Cottrell and Rice 1975; SRS 1981, 1982). In 1984 SRS continued its archaeological work at CA-ORA-83/86. Included were three controlled- surface collections within the grid established in 1975, a geophysical remote sensing survey, reference sections, profiles, and column samples, two phases of augering for a total of 168 holes, 409 meters of backhoe trenches, and sixteen 1x2-m test excavation units. Analyses of re- covered materials include a series of 33 radiocarbon dates which cluster between 7600 and 3300 B.P. This indicates the site was occupied primarily during the Mi l l i ngstone Horizon. A single date of 2335*55 B.P. is said to mark Intermediate Horizon occupation (Whitney-Desautels et al. 1986). SRS also conducted several small testing/monitoring projects between 1983 and 1986 in connection with a geological investigation of the project area. At CA-ORA-78 excavation of geological trenches was monitored and column samples were collected. The prehistoric deposit was recognized, but it was considered very disturbed and yielded little cultural material (McKenna 1986b). Site CA-ORA-85 on Bolsa Chica Mesa was examined also, with ten 1x2-m units placed along the path of the proposed trench. Recovery of a late prehistoric projectile point from the midden base suggested to the excavators that the deposits were mixed. Three 14C dates ranging from 3380 to 3520 B.P. are consistent with a Millingstone Horizon ascription (McKenna and Mason 1987; Mason 1987) . Two archaeological sites on Huntington Beach Mesa also were affected by geological work. Site CA-ORA-294 was tested with a single lxl-m unit to a depth of 30 cm near the site boundary. The excavation of a geological trench in the site vicinity was monitored. A buried cultural deposit was observed in the wall of a gully south of the most dense portion of the shell midden. A single 1 C date of 2150t35 B.P. was obtained from a sample of shell from the vicinity of this site (SRS 1985:57-59). More extensive geological trenching took place on and around CA-ORA-365. As part of its monitoring, SRS collected 23 48 ' artifacts from the surface of this site. Two 1x1-m and two 1x2-m units were excavated to a maximum depth of 90 cm. Five artifacts-- an obsidian flake, mano, hammerstone, millingstone fragment, and scraper--were recovered from these units. Monitoring of the geological trenching and ' cut slopes led to the recovery of 34 historic artifacts, and the identi- fication of shell midden. Prehistoric deposits were observed in two of the trenches and in the cut slope of an adjacent borrow pit, while historic materials were widespread and observed in all but one excava- tion. Three 14C dates of 4365*50 B.P., 4101*60 B.P., and 2900t40 B.P. suggest that CA-ORA-365 was occupied during both the Millingstone and Intermediate horizons (SRS 1985:38-43). In 1986 SRS salvaged remnants of CA-ORA-84. Seven 1xO.5-m units were excavated on the slope remnant and three 1x1--m units were placed around a power pole that had been pedestalled by the -emoval of 3 m of surrounding soil. Five 14C dates of 4700-4120 B.P. are consistent with a Millingstone Horizon identification (McKenna 1986a). Summary and Conclusions Six decades of archaeological work in the Bolsa Chica Bay area has documented numerous shell maddens. It is most unlikely that any pre- historic sites with surface deposits remain to be discovered on the Bolsa Chica Mesa or Huntington Beach Mesa. Many of the sites in this locality have been investigated through surface collection, manual exca- vation, augering, mechanical trenching, or a combination of these procedures. The largest of these sites, CA-ORA-82 and CA-ORA-83/86, have been studied repeatedly. One product of this work has been, through the analysis of artifacts and the dating of 14C samples, the placement of certain Bolsa Chica components into local chronologic schemes (Table 4.2). Given the limited samples and chronometric data from many project sites, however, it is possible that additional unrecognized components may exist. Despite the value of past work, archaeological knowledge of the project area suffers from several important deficiencies. First, historic archaeological sites have been largely ignored to date. While some of their locations are known, formal recording and evaluation have awaited the present study. Second, investigations at prehistoric sites in the area have been conducted on a piecemeal basis; they have not been directed by a unified research design for the study locality. As a result, relationships among project sites and between those sites and their environment through time have not been examined systematically. This problem is compounded by the poor quality of some excavation reports, which precludes meaningful comparisons. For instance, some reports lack either maps showing the locations of tests or basic contextual/provenience information about cultural materials and radio- , carbon dates. Third, sampling at some project prehi:;toric sites has not provided the basic information needed to assess their significance (and hence, NRHP eligibility), due to inadequate samples, poorly designed and/or reported investigations, and some unreported excavations; other sites have never been examined subsurficially to determine their data potentials and integrity. 49 Table 4.2: Summary of Radiocarbon Dates* and Site Occupational History Sites 14C Dates History of Occupation n range CA-ORA- 78 0 - Unknown Prehistoric CA-ORA- 82 1 4340 B.P. MSH, IH CA-ORA- 83/86 33 7600-2335 B.P. MSH, IN CA-ORA- 84 5 4700-4120 B.P. MSH CA-ORA- 85 5 4180-3500 B.P. MSH IH LPH CA-ORA- 88 0 - MSH (?) CA-ORA-288 0 - MSH CA-ORA-289 0 - Unknown Prehistoric CA-ORA-290 0 - Unknown Prehistoric CA ORA 291 0 MSH, IN, LPH CA-ORA-292 0 - Unknown Prehistoric CA-ORA-293 0 - MSH (?) ( CA-ORA-294 1 2150 B.P. IH (?) CA-ORA-365 3 4365-2900 B.P. MSH, IH CA-ORA-366 0 - MSH (7) MSH: Millingstone Horizon IH : Intermediate Horizon LPH: Late Prehistoric Horizon (after Wallace 1955) * All Radiocarbon Dates are uncorrected. As a result of these gaps in the archaeological record certain sites will require additional work before their NRHP eligibility can be assessed. Moreover, further work is needed to identify and document historic sites outside of areas surveyed during this study. Any such future studies in the project area should be designed to examine regional research issues, such as those proposed by Mason (1987), in i 50 order to maximize the value of recovered data for advancing knowledge. Specific recommendations are provided in Chapter 7. 1 i I 5: FIELD INVESTIGATION This chapter describes IRI's field studies, which were designed to examine and redocument known archaeological sites, and to determine if additional fieldwork was warranted (LACoE 1988). The discussion of field procedures is followed, first, by a summary of findings and a discussion of data limitations. The redocumented cultural resources are described, and their eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places is evaluated, in Chapter 6. Site records and a site location map are presented in a separate data compendium. Field Methods IRI's field work was conducted in areas of the Bolsa Chica and Huntington Beach mesas where archaeological sites were previously docu- mented. The purpose was to reinspect all known cultural sites and update the site records on California Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR) site forms. Field studies also were designed to evaluate whether additional survey or resurvey might be needed. Field work was performed between August 8 and 12 and September 20 and 21, 1988. Procedures followed during this work are described below. Field conditions included many surficial land modifications, some areas with extensive alterations, and other areas covered with exotic plants, especially groves of eucalyptus. Ground visibility was generally fair to good. Most of Bolsa Chica Mesa is covered by agricultural fields, although some oil extraction equipment, roads, the Woodman Pole Company lot, and various World War II coastal defense features are also present. This contrasts with Huntington Beach Mesa, where oil extrac- tion and processing facilities, roads, and pipelines cover much of the surveyed areas. The southwestern portion of Huntington Beach Mesa within the project area remains relatively undisturbed, but is heavily covered with iceplant and grasses, thus restricting ground visibility. All areas where archaeological remains had been reported previously were surveyed intensively by a two-person team, with transects spaced 15 m or closer. This survey coverage is depicted in Figure 5.1. Ground visibility was generally good to excellent, although land modifications and natural colluviation have altered, removed, or obscured original land surfaces and may have buried portions of some archaeological sites. The surveyors examined all bare ground, cut banks, and other exposures likely to reveal evidence of cultural activities. Such evidence in coastal southern California typically includes soil color changes, un- usual topography or vegetation patterns, exotic lithic materials, mollusk shells, rock alignments, artifact scatters, and/or exotic plantings. Once cultural materials were identified, the area surrounding the find(s) was systematically examined to establish the surface extent of the archaeological site or isolate. 51 52n,t{n e... . � ��lO[SfJwS1[R SYo,UP► i 1'„MI'I,N.TY _ __IM,1'YI..M\�— r•��-� - ��—�=_Y—':j_Y � illRMIMA - &UUYIIA II\' _.�_—•—_T...-pp5-��—FT i 7C: r� rS �Se►��I•I. I[.7 t 1 na �d • r .1 �c.u•n.t _�� E' .�_ _. • T�r"� n IY : e 'Q ` `�' !b\j tp[tGp ` Fr as�I�r 1 :� !Eli •7 P11T A! ..- ( y t1 - Op.' 011��[bYUC: , ;1 '1. z1f •I+ r� rtp a y ( •i. : .. Caunlrf N'E t :1= • �p •=/ �f rM rcw>wuwo •, CMa L • ♦ Ol'•r..r=ti .rh'• , r,• / • •�.;..•i J ., T .Y U .� �Tlv Cwntrp c u I �`�^l' % -'-•--•4.•_•p� l --.. Li ,` �°t�wt:cl s awe w *• . . ll.,,I j § f2PIL OR •� ,. `C\ ,�,c T � +•�fob.• -�•i —�, 0 VA � �' a `VC 'i.c .IV Study Area � � f V\ f jo .•N.�r 1 • C Area intensively surveyed during this investigation i o I■n[ �:,��,1 SOD) e000 f0M rE11 •M ••".,C-K. loot. a !ow 70ac` srx •000 _ • _- r Figure 5.1. Portion of U.S.G.S. Seal Beach 7.5' quadrangle showing\study area and portions of it intensively surveyed during this investigation. 53 Defining site limits based on surface indications is at best a very complex and difficult task. Not all material residues are readily discernible, and, generally, only the most recurrent and durable aspects of human behavior are detectable (cf. Ebert 1985; Schiffer 1972, 1976). The problem of the visibility of past human activities becomes even more acute with greater antiquity since decomposition of archaeological re- mains, colluviation, erosion, and other factors can conceal or destroy the material evidence. Complicating the issue is another concern, namely, how to classify and delimit the identified archaeological re- mains. Any definition of a cultural site is necessarily arbitrary, since the importance of particular attributes can be evaluated only with reference to defined questions or objectives. Therefore, what is impor- tant in defining sites is the explicitness of the criteria used. In this study, site„ refers to a place with more than five flakes, three formed tools, 100 ecofacts (e.g., shell or bone in a definitely cultural context), or some combination of such materials in a 100 m2 area; loci with fewer remains are considered isolated finds. Marine shellfish remains were the most common cultural material observed at all project archaeological sites, and for that reason they were often used as the sole basis for defining site boundaries. In areas where arti- facts and features were absent, site boundaries were arbitrarily drawn where the density of shell fell to less than one piece per square meter. Previous site designations were retained for all cultural resources documented during this study. Cultural resources located more than 100 m apart kept their separate designations, while "separate" sites in closer proximity were rerecorded as single sites with compound designa- tions (e.g., CA-ORA-83/86). Sites with both prehistoric and historic non-Indian components at a single location also were treated as a single, albeit multicomponent, site. All cultural sites were plotted on the U.S.G.S. Seal Beach 7.5' quadrangle, and recorded on CDPR forms. Sites were described in detail, mapped to scale using a hand-held Brunton pocket transit and tape measure or pacing, and photographed with black and white and color slide film following CDPR procedures (1986). Descriptions included general information about the site and its physical and biotic setting, the number, types, and distribution of cultural materials, features, and ecofacts, impacts, relationships to other nearby sites, and other inter- pretations and management information. In addition, all rare or temporally sensitive artifacts and at least a sample of the more com- plete or better preserved examples of other formed tools found at project sites were drawn and/or photographed. No sites were excavated during this study. One artifact--a complete cogged stone (Figure 6.6) found at Site CA-ORA-365--was collected with the approval of the Los Angeles District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. That artifact will be curated at the Archaeological Laboratory at California State University, Fullerton. 54 Surrey Results During field work for this project 17 previously recorded sites were systematically reinspected. Two of these known sites (CA-ORA-288) and -290) appear to have been destroyed completely, while the remainder were rerecorded as 12 individual cultural sites. Of the latter, three (CA-ORA-83/86/144, -84/289, and -293/294) consist of formerly separately recorded entities that due to their close proximity and often fairly continuous scatter of cultural materials have been redocumented as single, larger sites. Three historic sites or components were iden- tified and documented as portions of previously recorded sites (CA-ORA- 78, -88, and -365). While not yet over 50 years old, the World War II fortifications on Bolsa Chica Mesa, found at or adjacent to CA-ORA-78, - 83/86/144, and -85, represent another cultural complex that should be documented as appropriate (see Chapter 7). This field study in previously surveyed areas on the Bolsa Chica and Huntington Beach mesas indicates that, while prehistoric remains have likely all been identi- fied in those portions of the project area, historic non-Indian cultural sites have been overlooked. This issue is addressed further in Chapter 7. The following chapter describes each of -the cultural sites redocumented during this study. Data Limitations Because this field study was limited to surface reconnaissance, the potential for buried portions of the known archaeological sites could not be evaluated. At one site, CA-ORA-293/294„ a buried cultural deposit was observed in an erosion-cut bank, and other such instances could be present due to substantial land modifications in the project area. Ground visibility varied from excellent to poor, with heavy grass cover limiting visibility in portions of the surveyed areas. This constrained the delineation of some site boundaries;, as noted on several of IRI's site records (see Data Compendium). These data limitations are - considered in greater detail in Chapter 7. 1� �1 6: CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY AND EVALUATION Thad M. Van Bueren, Susan K. Goldberg, and Michael J. Moratto This ro chapter p provides summary descriptions of known cultural resources in the Bolsa Chica project area and evaluates their eligibili- ty for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). A total of 12 archaeological sites, some including two or more loci formerly desig- nated separately, was recorded during this study; two other previously documented sites in the project area apparently have been destroyed entirely. Of the extant cultural resources, all have one or more pre- historic components; three also register historic non-Indian activities. The chapter first sets forth the criteria by which significance is assessed, followed by descriptions of the individual sites, their integ- rity, and their significant values. Previous archaeological findings at some of the sites are reviewed to clarify data potentials. Complete Archaeological Site Records and site location maps are presented in the Data Compendium. The NRHP is emphasized in the following discussion because, by law, cultural resources included in, or eligible for, the Register must be preserved or otherwise managed in prescribed ways whenever those resources are affected by a Federal undertaking. Cultural remains inadmissible to the NRHP usually do not warrant management consideration (King et al. 1977), unless they possess some other quality whereby they would be considered under the National Environmental Policy Act. A point worth emphasizing at the outset is that significance-- particularly if it is taken to mean NRHP eligibility--is not being determined in this chapter. Only the State Historic Preservation Officer and the agency official may determine that a property is or is not significant. The present task irs to evaluate significance--to render a professional opinion rather than a eggalinding. Further, as discussed below, in a few cases final significance evaluation will require additional study to assess integrity and determine the nature of subsurface deposits and constituents. Significance Criteria The significance of the cultural resources addressed in this study hinges on their eligibility for the NRHP, as defined in 36 CFR 60.4: The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, r55 56 setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and associa- tion and: (a) That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or (b) That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or (c) That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and ' distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or (d) That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Significance takes many forms, and may have historical, scientific (research), ethnic, public, legal , and monetary aspects (Moratto and Kelly 1978:4-18). Of particular concern here is scientific or research significance--the potential for using cultural resources to establish reliable facts and generalizations about the past. Archaeological re- sources are significant and eligible for the NRHP, when they possess such information potential. The scientific importance of individual cultural resources is best judged with reference to a broad, regional context., This is because individual sites, or even multiple sites from a single locality seldom reflect the full range of cultural patterning present in a particular region (Schiffer and Gumerman 1977). Such criteria as representa- tiveness and specific research values are relevant aspects of a site's significance. A knowledge of site structure, content, and integrity is required to evaluate research potentials through they linkage of avail- able classes of data with realistic research questions and domains. At historic sites, additional information regarding 1.he availability of knowledgeable informants and archival data also may be needed to evaluate research potentials. In preceding chapters we have provided a regional context outlining the known prehistory and history of the project area., a context that in part guides the assessment of the values and data potentials of the Bol sa Chi ca sites. As well, two other recent studies of regional pre- history serve as guides for evaluating the significance of the Indian sites at Bolsa Chica. Mason's (1987) research design for coastal ar- chaeological sites in northern Orange County specifically integrates known and anticipated data from many of the sites in the current study area. His model , based in large measure on Koerper's (1981) work at two Newport Bay sites, emphasizes the need for reconstructing prehistoric subsistence-settlement systems. He advances expectations regarding the prehistoric subsistence foci that might be found in particular coastal settings and suggests methods that may effectively elucidate temporal 57 changes in the use of faunal resources, particularly shellfish. While Mason's model is relevant to the present study and explicit in its linkage of research questions and data requirements, its narrow focus on the coastal zone limits consideration of broader intraregional compari- sons that will be required to reconstruct seasonal rounds, settlement patterns, population movements, and exchange systems. Although not as focused on the Bolsa Chica coastal zone as Mason's (1987) research design, a context evaluation of prehistoric resources in the Prado Basin (Goldberg and Arnold 1987) provides a broad framework against which the data potentials of the Bolsa Chica sites can be assessed. Goldberg and Arnold have identified major regional research problems and information gaps, and outlined the data required for inves- tigating numerous research questions. Because many of the archaeologi- cal questions are not locality-specific and will require data from both coastal and inland areas for resolution, the research domains framed for the Prado Basin are applicable to the Bolsa Chica study. Together, Mason's (1987) research design and Goldberg and Arnold's (1987) context evaluation serve as bases for assessing the research potentials, and thus the NRHP eligibility, of the prehistoric sites in the study area. Other research issues may be framed prior to further testing and evaluation of the Bolsa Chica sites. The evaluation of research potentials is largely the process of systematically linking data classes with appropriate questions or hypotheses. The discovery of a housefloor or other structural remains, for instance, would signal the potential to answer questions about architecture, domestic activities, and intra-site functional patterning, with possible implications for mobility, seasonality, ethnicity, and social organization. Human burials would represent potentials for studies of demography, mortuary practices, social organization, diet, health, and biological affinity; charcoal, projectile points, or bottles would permit the study of chronology; obsidian, shell beads, and diag- nostic historical materials are some of the items that would enable studies of trade or commerce. The defined research objectives may be achieved only through the systematic acquisition and study of relevant kinds (and adequate quanti- ties) of data. Explicit recognition of data needs and a clear under- standing of the uses to which they can be put enable identification of sites and groups of sites which may contribute important information toward the resolution of research questions. In turn, comparison of potentially available data classes from specific sites against a list of data requirements enables assessment of a site's research potential and therefore serves as a measure of significance. In Table 6.1 we provide a preliminary classification of archaeological and historical data according to the research domains to which they are relevant. Achievement of most research objectives would require a variety of data from numerous contexts. Environmental, paleoenvironmental, chrono- metric, subsistence, settlement-pattern, technological, ethnicity, ex- change system, demographic, and ethnohistoric data must be collected and integrated. To enable an assessment of the research potentials of the sites in the Bolsa Chica project area, and thus, their significance, r 58 Table 6.1 Archaeological Data Requirements A. Technological Data 1. Artifact morphology 2. Reduction sequences 3. Wear patterns 4. Spatial co-associations 5. Replicative experimental data 6. Breakage patterns 7. Raw material source and use 8. Tool diversity indices 9. Engineering features 10. Architectural features f B. Subsistence Data 1. aunal assemblages (including shellfish) 2. Floral assemblages 3. Economic pollens 4. Subsistence-related assemblages (procurement, processing, storage) 5. Subsistence-related features 6. Site catchment/market area C. Settlement Data �) 1. Site size 2. Site function 3. Intrasite patterning I) 4. Features (especially living surfaces and processing areas) 5. Intrasite spatial distributions 6. Chronological sequences 7. Seasonality D. Exchange Uste�ms 1. Exotic materials (e.g., obsidian) 2. Exotic artifacts 3. Historic artifacts in aboriginal contexts 4. Intensification or specialization in production 5. Exotic subsistence items, non-local market goods E. Eth��nicitx� 1. Cultural markers in artifact assemblages 2. Idiosyncratic features r 3. Subsistence orientations 4. Distinctive technological modes 5. Distinctive art styles 6. Distinctive ceremonial configurations 7. Osteologic/osteometric and odontometric data 59 Table 6.1 (continued) F. Environmental Data 1, hysiograpfi c attributes (elevation, landform, etc. ) 2. Geology, lithology 3. Climatic regimes 4. Hydrographic patterns 5. Botanical composition and zonation 6. Faunal composition and zonation 7. Community/type distribution G. Paleoenvironmental Data 1. Faunal arse ages (especially microfauna and shellfish) 2. Plant macrofossils 3. Pollen spectra 4. Geomorphological sequences 5. Soil structure/zonation 6. Historical documentation of environmental changes H. Chronometric Data 1. Time-sensitive artifacts 2. Stratigraphy 3. Radiocarbon dates 4. Obsidian hydration measurements 5. Thermoluminescence 6. Time-sensitive assemblages and features 7. Ethnographic testimony 8. Historic documentation I. Demographic Data 1. i e surface area 2. Number and floor area of contemporary living surfaces 3. Age and sex of burials 4. Historic documentation of post-contact patterns J. Ceremonial Practices 1. Mortuaryatures and assemblages 2. Ceremonial architecture 3. Ideotechnic artifacts K. Ethnohistoric Data 1. Historic documents 2. Oral testimony 3. Historic artifacts and features 4. Post-contact subsistence/settlement systems 5. Documentation of acculturation/assimilation 60 Table 6.2 presents a linkage of research objectives and questions (as adapted from Goldberg and Arnold (1987) and Mason (1987)) and data classes (as outlined above). An important consideration when evaluating a site's potential to yield significant information is the integrity of its deposits and features. During field recordation of each site in this investigation, prior impacts were noted. However, research potentials may be identified even in severely disturbed site contexts (for example, single components of previously impacted sites may provide valuable data on technology), and thus all sites require careful assessment (Talmage and Chesler 1977). Finally, in addition to scientific significance, both Indian and historical non-Indian cultural resources may possess public and ethnic values. For instance, persons or their descendants associated with a particular site may retain strong connections with that place through memories or folklore. The importance of this aspect of significance lies not only in the strength of these associations eis they contribute to broad patterns of history, but also in the valuable yet ephemeral source of information such memories represent. Indian perspectives on the significance and treatment of cultural resources in the project area are given in Appendix A. Cultural resources may also have broader public significance insofar as they can serve to educate the general f populace about important aspects of national , state, and local history and prehistory. In the following sections, we evaluate the significance of the � ( Bolsa Chica archaeological sites in terms of the NRHP eligibility criteria. The sites are assessed in terms of their potential to provide environmental and anthropological data which might profitably be applied to relevant research topics as shown in Table 6.2. Also considered are public and ethnic values. Descriptions and Evaluations of Bolsa Chica Archaeological Sites Fifteen previously recorded cultural sites situated within the �r project area have been rerecorded during this study as 12 sites, including three (CA-ORA-83/85/144, -84/289, and -293/294) that combine formerly separate loci. In addition, two other cultural resources formerly documented in the area (CA-ORA-288 and -290) apparently have been destroyed entirely. Of the extant cultural sites, all have one or more prehistoric cultural components, while three (CA-ORA-78, -88, and - 365) also register historic non-Indian activities. Summary descriptions of those resources are presented below, while selected attributes of each site and prior impacts to them are listed in Table 6.3. Those data are followed by a brief statement regarding the data potentials of each site, as a measure of their significance. Those potentials also are summarized in Table 6.4. 61 Table 6.2 Research Questions and Data Analysis Requirements Data Analysis Requirements � C (by category) o � a C a to M +j to ea L L. +J +J iC +� +j to O of O b O C ra +j 41 E 4j o 0 O O ra 4j 4/ O •r d >> W L U Q) •� +� C C >% L E > m m a a n an o + — C C � � E 07 to C •r r O O O N a) U C L O t O L O C •r r — M C1 E O C •r O O vN .0 C r O W C t Research Issues > L .0 U E L. s V d V N N W W O U W F- A. Milling Technology Form of milling tools + + Relationship of form and function + + + + Diachronic changes + + + + + Raw material procurement + + + + + Innovation vs. borrowing + + + + + + + + + Non-milling functions + B. Flaked Stone Technology Dominant tool types + Temporal distinctiveness + + External relationships + + + + + + Relationship of form and function + + + + + + + + Diachronic changes + + + + + + + + + + Reduction strategies + + + + + Raw material procurement + + + + + C. Other Technologies Perishable tools + + + + Pottery/basketry origins + + + + + Function of miscellaneous artifacts + + + + + + + + + + Ethnically distinct items + + + + 1 62 Table 6.2 (continued) a N Data Analysis Requirements M (by category) c � N N tp r C d O f0 +j to t6 i L +j 4j rp rj +) -) 0) E 41 � C to E o M � 1d C V d N li •� fp + O •r GJ > L V C i• O •r' O — .6j E c E 4J E " rn cc c o a O N W tJ C L 0 C O L O C •r .— •r f0 C7 E O C •� 4J O N 4J C .0 O Cl C t Research Issues > L -0 +' s u E L. s v c ra Z W 4J x v W +J a W d U N V1 W W O U W I a==c�aaaoaacaa=c=r=ca==c=oaao==a=aaxc_=a===aa======n�aa==n=x=ca=a=a==ova D. Subsistence ► Chronological patterns in floral/ faunal elements + + + Spatial patterns in floral/ faunal elements + + + + Ethnic dietary distinctiveness + + + Changes in effective environments + + + Hunting technologies + + Introduction of bow and arrow + + + + Milling vs. hunting + + + + + Milling tool function + + + Seasonality/scheduling + + + + + + + Seasonal catchment zones + + + + + + + Open Ocean/Protected Outer Coast/ Bay/Intertidal/Marsh exploitation + + + + + Exotic resource exploitation + + + + E. Settlement Patterning Site types + + + + + + + + + + Site functions + + + + + + + + + + + Ethnicity + 1 Ethnic territories + + Settlement system bounding + + + Seasonal patterns + + + + + + + + Settlement scheduling + + + i• + + + + Sociocultural units + + + + + + + Flexibility/rigidity of patterning + + + + Diachronic changes + + + External influences + + + + + 63 Table 6.2 (continued) N Data Analysis Requirements (by category) ro o � N N to C 4J to fo L i. 4.i +) E o rho +j af°i c E •> d N CU +�J d a - N O C C E +J E r 01 to C •r of O C b rn E O C •� O O N +J C = O W C t Research Issues > L .0 � s u E L r U C fo .0 O QJ +J X W 01 W W d U to to W W C U W f- c=exxxxx_=xxxxxexxc=x_ox=axxcxxxx===x x�=xxcxxx=xx=xx=xx=xxx==xx=xcxx=== F. Adaptation to Effective Environments Determinants of settlement location + + + + + Biotic catchments + + + + + Maximization strategies + + + + + + + Effects of social environment + + + + Effects of paleoenvironmental changes + + + + + + + + Effects of siltation on settlement and exploitation + + + + + + + + G. Exchange/External Relations Sources of raw materials + + + + + + Diachronic change + + + + + + + Trade networks vs. ad hoc exchange + + + + + Trade mechanisms — + + + + Form of exotic material + + Trade centers + + + + + + + Distribution centers + + + + + + + Exchange rates + + + + Exploitation of Coso vs. Obsidian Butte materials + + + Export items + + + + Nature and intensity of obsidian procurement + + + + + Exchange of locally available materials + + + + + Local craft items + + + + + Resource selectivity + + + + + Table 6.3. Selected Attributes of Bolsa Chica Archaeological Sites rn 14C Oates Maximum (uncorrected Si3e Depth Artifacts gnd Human 3 years 4 Prior 5 Site Componentsl (m ) (cm) Features Z Remains Ecofacts O.P.) Excavation Impacts Comments References CA-ORA-78 H, P (LH?) 64,000 80+ A?. C/O. 100s listed A, C, D. None 18 m2 ME. B, E. G, P?, Bolsa Chica Cottrell and Rice 8 HS. HT on undated EV, Mammal BT R. WW II Gun Club (1975). Herring previous bone, OS fortifications (1899-1964) (1968). Mason (1987) record; built on site and WWII McKenna (1986), however. artillery Nissley et a). this emplacements (1975). Ross and appears exist at Desautels (1970), very ques- this site SRS (1987) tionable CA-ORA-82 M. I 50,000 130+ A. BA, BM, 8 burials A, AS, C, 4320±200 Largely B, E. G, L?, Excavated ARI (1973), Cottrell C/O, GS, reported CR, FAR, unreported, 0, P, R by PCAS, (1980). Lind (1976). H. M, MS. M, 0, OS, but exten- CSULB, and Mason (1987). P, PP (2 P sive Wiede (1967) Munoz (1975). Ross obsidian excavations OH = 6.8,u and Desautels (1970). flakes) 6.9,u Schroth (1983), Wiede (1967, 1969) CA-ORA-83/ M. I 90,000 200+ A. BA, BM, None A, Bird, 33 dates 253 A. 25+ B. E. G, L. "The Cogged Ahlering (1973). 86/144 C/O. ±400 CS, reported C. CR. ranging BT, Mag, P, R, WW 11 Stone Site," ARI (1971a, 1971b), charmstones, FAR, Fish, from 128.7 m fortifications subject of Butzbach (1975), choppers. 0, OS, T, 7600- ME, exten- on site dispute Carter and Howard t40 D, GS, H, Mammal 2334 sive SC over NRHP (1975). Chace (1969). M, MS, PP, status Cooley (1973), shell beads, OH 2.5,u Cottrell (1980). tarring stones Cottrell and Rice (5 obsidian (1975), Herrin? tools) (1968), Munoz (1975), Ross and Desautels (1970). Whitney- Desautels et al. (1986); see also text discussion CA-ORA-84/ M, I 18,000 60+ A. BH, C/O. None A, C, D, 5 dates 37 BT, B. E, G, L?. ARI (1971). 289 GS, H. HF. M. reported H, 0, OS, ranging 10.5 m2 0, P. R Cottrell and Rice MS, PP, S T from ME, SC (1975). Mason (1987). (1 obsidian 4700- McKenna (1986), flake) 4120 Ross and Desautels (1970), SRS (1988b) Table 6.3. Selected Attributes of Bolsa Chica Archaeological Sites 14C Dates Maximum (uncorrected Si a Depth Artifacts and Human years Prior Site Components) ) (cm) Features2 Remains Ecofacts3 B.P.) Excavation4 Impacts5 Comments References CA-ORA-85 M, I, LH 22,000 90+ A. BA. C/0, Human bone A. C, 5 dates 54.8 m2 ME B. E. G, L?. Presently Anonymous (1964), choppers, noted, but fish, ranging P. R. WW 11 being exca- ARI (1964). Chace daub?.drills, no burials mammal. from fortifications vated by (1969), Cooley H. GS, M, MS. found in 0, OS, 4180- on site Westec (1973). Cottrell PP, S. SB (6+ excavations T 3380 Services, and Rice (1975). items of Inc.; Eberhart (1964), obsidian) ON = 5.9p, Herrin (1968), 6.6,u. 6-gu. Mason �1987). 7JU, 7.90, McKenna and Mason 8.2)u (1987). Ross and Desautels (1970), SRS (1988a). Schilz et al. (1987) CA-ORA-88 H. M? 50,000 70+ A, C/O. GS. None A. C. CR, None None B, G. 0, P?, Site of ARI (1973). Mason 8 HS. HM, reported FAR, 0, known R first oil (1987). Ross and HT. M OS, P. T well on Desautels (1970) Huntington Mesa CA-ORA-268 M Destroyed Destroyed Previously None C, H None 9 BT, Totally Totally Cooley (1973). reported: A. reported SC destroyed destroyed Cottrell and Rice C/O. GS, H. (1975). Mason M. MS (1987). Ross and Desautels (1970) CA-ORA-290 P Destroyed Destroyed A. no arti- None A. C. CR, None BT, Totally Totally Ahlering et al. facts noted reported FAR, M, 5 m2 ME destroyed destroyed (1971b), Mason or previous- 0, OS. P (1987). Ross.and ly reported Desautels (1970) CA-ORA-291 M. I, LH 2,500 140 2 features, None A, AS, None A. BT, B, E, P? Ahlering et al. A. BA. BM, reported bird, C, 89 m2 ME (1971a, 1971b), basketry?, CR, fish, Mason (1987), Ross C/O. choppers, mammal, 0. and Desautels (1970) drills. GS, OS, P. T M. m5, net sinkers. P. PP. SB, tarring, pebbles. 0 PP and 6 flakes of obsidian) o, Table 6.3. Selected Attributes of Bolsa Chica Archaeological Sites rn rn 14C Dates Maximum (uncorrected Sile Depth Artifacts and Human 3 years 4 Prior 5 Site Components) (m ) (cm) Features Remains Ecofacts B.P.) Excavation Impacts Comments References CA-ORA-292 P 3.200 30+ A?, C/D, M. None A, C, FAR, None None B. G?, P, R Cottrell (1980). worked glass reported P Mason (1987), Ross and Desautels (1970) CA-ORA-293/ M. I 40,000 90+ A. C/0. D. GS, None A. C, CR, 2150t3S BT, B. E, G, 0. Very high Cottrell (1980), 294 H, M. MS reported 0, OS, P. 1 m2 ME P?, R debitage Mason (1987). Ross TR density com- and Desautels (1970), pared to SRS (1985) other area sites CA-ORA-364 P 20.000 60+ A. C/D. GS. M. None A, C. CR, None None B, G, 0, R, Mason (1987) MS reported 0, OS. P, grass mowing T CA-ORA-365 M, 1. H 50,000 100+ A, Biface, C/O, None A, AS, C. 3 dates BT, B, E. G, 0, Previously ARI (1973), Mason CS, GS. H, HF?. reported CR, FAR, ranging 6 m2 ME, R also desig- (1987), SRS (1985) HT. M. MS. P. mammal, from SC nated as PP 0 obsidian 0, OS, P 4365 to CA-ORA-88; flake) 2900 historic occupation may be that of Borchard family CA-ORA-366 P 159000 Unknown A?, Biface, GS None A, C, P None None E. G, 0, R Heavily Mason (1987) reported impacted KEY 1. Components: (See discussion in text) 3. Ecofacts: H Historic A Ar� aeguisulcatus D Donax oug ldii M M ty ilus californianus I Intermediate M Millingstone AS straea undosa EV xotic vegetation 0 Ostrea lurida LH Late Horizon P Prehistoric C CUone sp. FAR Fire-affected rock OS DtFer she non-artifactual) CR TrepTJula onys H Haliotis sp. P Polinices lewisif 2. Artifacts and Features: T vF�e1a stu t1 orum A Anthrosols HM Historic machinery TRTres—us nuttaTlii BA Bone artifact(s) HS Historic structure/structural remains 4. Excavation: 5. Prior Impacts: BM Bowl mortar(s) HT Historic trash deposit(s) C/O Core(s) and/or debitage M Mano(s) A Auger boring(s) B Bioturbation CS Cogged stone(s) MS Millin stones) BT Backhoe trench(es) E Erosion D Discoidal(s) P Pestle(s) Mag Magnetometer study G Grading/trenching GS Unclassified ground stone PP Projectile point(s) ME Manual excavation L Looting H Hammerstone(s S Scraper(s) (area in m2) 0 Oil extraction/refining HF Housefloor/living surface (prehistoric) SB Shell bead or other shell artifact(s) SC Surface collection P Plowing/disking R Roads r 67 rTable 6.4 Data Potential'd NTtHP Eligibility 0 o sa hica Cultural Sites L O •fl •L C> G) d rp C Z # O C] N >> O C 4j•r �t GJ C) L G) O (V to (Ar U O C +�► 10 N r L � L C U •r C •r iN f0 4) C d C) f0 = W •r O (A W O _j C G. >> N C Q r 4) >f U +� U OL >> >> r O 7 •- d C O O d N +> > O a •r N U r L = O iz 4j E tM C r O W O a' r � O &A 47 C U O O L O L �► L Z 4j r0 C •r rC •r O O •r d � •r G t N +� t C 0) O O C) C L = L L 'C U G y U t r L E L L U Site Z LA_ 4-Q 4j H t/) N W W a U G U W Q eeaecesea==ee�=m�eaeeasaeeaeeeeaeeeseaaeeeaeaaeeaeeee=ceeea�=====cee=e== CA-ORA-78: - - Prehistoric ? + + + + Historic ? + + + + + + + + CA-ORA-82 + _ + + + + + + + + + CA-ORA-83/86/144 + + + + + + + + + + CA-ORA-84/289 ? +1 + + + + + + + CA-ORA-85 ? +1 + + + + + + + + ? ? CA-ORA-88 Prehistoric ? + + + + ? + + Historic ? + + + + + + + CA-ORA-288 - - + + + ? 1 CA-ORA-290 - _ + + ? CA-ORA-291 + + + + + + + + + CA-ORA-292 ? + + + + ? + + CA-ORA-293/294 ? + + + + + ? + + CA-ORA-364 ? + + + + + + CA-ORA-365 Prehistoric ? + + + + + ? + + ? + Historic ? + + + + + + + ? CA-ORA-366 ? + + + + + + + * NRHP Eligibility: Not eligible (-); possibly eligible, but further data needed for assessment (?) ; probably eligible (+). 1 ** See Recommendations in Chapter 2. *** While sufficient data exist to assess NRHP eligibility, more evalua- tion will be needed at these sites in order to design a data recov- ery program. 1. As designed, investigations underway at this site by Westec Services, Inc., (Schilz et al. 1987) should provide the data needed to assess its NRHP eligibility. r 68 CA-ORA-78 This large site on Bolsa Chica Mesa encompasses an Indian activity area characterized by marine shell, small quantities of chert debitage, and possible anthrosols, and the superimposed remains of the Bolsa Chica Gun Club (see Figure 6.1). Features related to World War II-era use of the site are also present. Limited excavations in the prehistoric component(s) have revealed low densities of shell (60 g/m3) and debitage, with considerable historic disturbance in the upper levels (McKenna 1986; Nissley et al. 1975). Of the recovered shell , 49 percent 1 is that of the Little Bean Clam (Donax o�uld�ii)--a tiny mollusk unlikely to have been of much dietary signer cance.The presence of "hundreds' of human burials noted in the original unsigned record for this site is equivocal , given the paucity of archaeological remains documented in previously reported studies. Historic remains at CA-ORA-78 include at least 14 separate features (some of which were grouped into thematically-related clusters during recording), deposits of domestic and architectural remains, underground utilities, roads, footpaths, and exotic vegetation/'landscaping. At least three features relate to World War II-era use of the site: two gun emplacements and the concrete foundation of a quonset hut. Most of the remaining features are remnants of the Bolsa Chica Gun Club, built in 1899 and razed in 1964. A trash deposit related to the early historic use of this site contains abundant discards including many time-sensitive, domestic artifacts. Natural gas and oil discovered while excavating a water well for the gun club was harnessed for use at the facility, and eventually led to subsequent development of the area for oil extraction and refinement. Further details regarding this site are presented in Chapter 3. The prehistoric component at CA-ORA-78 has been sampled sufficiently to reveal that it contains only very limited quantities of - cultural material which probably cannot significantly advance archaeo- logical knowledge. While testing of the prehistoric deposits has Yielded some limited information regarding subsistence, settlement, exchange, and paleoenvironment, and could be expected to provide minimal chronometric (radiocarbon assays on shell) and technological data, the small quantities of materials present would be inadequate to evaluate most research questions. For this reason, the prehistoric component is probably not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. In contrast, the historic component(s) at CA-ORA-78 likely is (are) eligible for the NRHP based on both research potential and historical association with persons and/or events important in national , state, and local history. The site's historic use can be associated with two distinct activities: operation of the Bolsa Chica Gun Club; and use of two' World War II artillery emplacements and associated features. Remains from both activities are known solely from surface observations recorded during this study and limited background archival research (see Chapter 3, supra). Additional data will be needed to evaluate both adequately. Specifically, subsurface features and artifact deposits need to be identified and sampled as needed to assess their integrity, 69 i F J Figure 6.1. Overview of CA-ORA-78 as it appears today, facing east. (Photograph by J. Sorensen) . structure, and contents. Resource-specific archival data and oral testimony also need to be explored. Based on existing information, the gun club remains may provide data useful in studies of early historic recreational use of the Bolsa Chica area, including information on subsistence, commerce, environment, and chronology. Artifacts from the site may also chronicle important tech- nological changes, and some limited information regarding architecture also can be expected from foundation remnants and structural debris. Comparable data from World War II use of the site can be expected to yield information on the same range of research domains, although remains from that era are just less than 50 years old, and thus are not yet eligible for the NRHP. In addition to the research value, the historic components also are significant historically since they are associated with important developments and people. The discovery and first exploitation of the region's natural gas/oil reserves occurred at the Bolsa Chica Gun Club, ' where they were used for lighting and appliances. The gun club also was largely responsible for initiating the construction of water-control facilities which significantly altered the distribution of natural plant and animal communities and presaged later reclamation of the Bolsa Lowlands. A Signal Bolsa Corporation security guard mentioned that the movie actor Gary Cooper visited the gun club, and other notable persons who may have been members or guests there contribute to the historical importance of this site. While just less than 50 years old, the World War II fortifications at CA-ORA-78, as well as those present at and 70 adjacent to CA-ORA-83/86/144 and -85 constitute the physical remains of i a highly significant historical era for the nation. CA-ORA-82 Located on Huntington Beach Mesa, this large prehistoric site extends across Edwards Street, beyond the study area. It is charac- terized by widespread (est. 50,000 m2) deposits of anthrosols as deep as 130+ cm containing abundant shell and fire-altered rock, and relatively numerous artifacts, including items ascribable to -the Intermediate Horizon. Eight human burials also have been exhumed at the site (Lind 1976; Mu%oz 1975.28)--all from east of Edwards Street (and outside the study area). Only a small portion of the extensive excavations at this site have been reported (Wiede 1967, 1969). A single radiocarbon date of 4320±200 is reported by Schroth (1983:59) for a shell sample of unknown provenience. CA-ORA-82 has been impacted by repeated plowing east of Edwards Street and with other localized disturbance from roads and use of oil extraction equipment west of that road. However, since the site is quite deep in many areas, intact subsurface deposits probably remain. This site appears to have good potential for contributing to research on a wide range of topics. Extant, but as-yet-unreported col- lections from the site may have already yielded information that could contribute to the resolution of some questions. The only human burials excavated at any of the project sites came from CA-ORS,-82, although some human bone also was noted on the surface of CA-ORA-85. Such remains signal the potential to examine questions regarding social organization, ceremonial practices, demography, health and population statistics, and likely other problem domains as well. When combined with chronometric data, grave lots also may contribute substantially to the development of a meaningful local chronology. The large quantities of artifactual and ecofactual material present in this site suggest the potential to resolve diverse questions regarding technology, subsistence, exchange, paleoenvironmental condi- tions, chronology, and possibly other research domains. The deep deposits at this site appear to reflect lengthy u•se--an observation supported by time-sensitive artifacts found there:. Thus, long term cultural changes could be examined in detail. CA-ORA-83/86/144 Known as the "Cogged Stone Site," CA-ORA-83/86/144 consists of a very large (est. 90,000 m2) and locally deep (to 250 cm) deposit of anthrosols with abundant ecofacts, fire-altered rock, and artifacts. Pothunters and archaeologists have collected more than 400 cogged stones, as well as many other time-sensitive items; such as projectile points and shell beads, indicating Millingstone and Intermediate occupa- tions. A suite of 33 radiocarbon dates on shell ranges between ca. 7660 and. 2334 years B.P. for the southwestern portion of the site. While plowing disturbance has resulted in some inconsistencies in the distri- bution of these dates, they trend toward greater ague in deeper deposits. Whitney-Desautels and others (1986) conclude that only a small area 71 within the southwestern portion of the site retains sufficiently abun- dant cultural remains in strati graphically meaningful associations to warrant further study. Two loci, previously recorded separately as CA-ORA-83 and CA-ORA- 86, are combined here because of the continuous distribution of cultural materials between them. Both loci have been sampled extensively during numerous field studies, concentrated mostly at the southern end of the site (i.e.,the CA-ORA-83 locus) (see Mason 1987 and Chapter 4 for a review of these studies). However, the central portion of the site which contains deep anthrosols with copious ecofactual and artifactual materials has never been sampled because it was considered disturbed (Figure 6.2). Significant disturbance has occurred throughout much of the site area, but the subsurface extent of impacts in some areas, particularly in the central portion of the site, has not been assessed systematically. Therefore, some intact deposits--perhaps even fairly extensive ones--may yet exist at this site. While not quite 50 years old, several World War II military features are present on and adjacent to CA-ORA-83/86. These include remains of Shore Battery 128, a second much smaller gun emplacement, and another small battery or other fortification. Within a few years these World War II features may be eligible for the NRHP, at which time they should be evaluated in conjunction with other fortifications present at CA-ORA-78 and -85 elsewhere on Bolsa Chica Mesa. Figure 6.2. Cut bank showing 200+ cm of cultural deposit in Woodman Pole Company lot in central portion of CA-ORA-83/86. (Photograph by T. Van Bueren.) 72 As documented in the Data Compendium for this report, the NRHP eligibility of CA-ORA-83/86/144 has been repeatedly scrutinized and disputed (Hammon 1980, 1983; Marsh and Thornton 1982; Mellon 1982; SRS 1981). No formal determination of eligibility has been made. While intensive testing at the site has indicated important data potentials, the deposits in large portions of the resource are apparently heavily disturbed. No testing has yet been performed to confirm such distur- bance in the central portion of the site now occupied by the Woodman Pole Company lot. Even if the site is extensively disturbed, however, it has the potential to yield some significant information. The site almost certainly functioned as an important cultural center, judging by the abundance, types, and diversity of artifacts and ecofacts recovered there. More cogged stones have been found at CA-ORA- 83/86/144 than anywhere else in southern California, and numerous discoidals, shell ornaments, charmstones, and other artifacts found there together suggest important research potentials in the realms of ceremonial practices, economic exchange, ethnicity, and chronology. Cogged stones remain enigmatic in terms of function, but have been found purposefully buried--suggesting they may have served a non utilitarian use. Elucidation of their function and the temporal sensitivity of particular stylistic variations thus holds great interest. Employing comparative data from other excavated sites in the region, data from this site could be used to examine important questions regarding spheres of social and economic influence, the status and function of CA-ORA- 83/86/144, the chronology of the increasing sociocultu,*al complexity apparent there, and settlement patterns both within the project area and beyond its borders. Abundant faunal remains reflect the exploitation of diverse environments not all of which existed coevally. Thus, both changes in subsistence regimes and alterations in the paleoenvirnment of the area could be explored if reasonably intact, stratified cultural deposits remain at the site. Fossil pollens and other paleobotanical remains, if present, could also significantly contribute to such studies-- particularly if non-site soil deposits also were sampled for comparison. In addition, seasonality of site use (or its permanent occupation) could be explored using the faunal remains. Other materials from the site could provide the data needed to examine issues regarding technology and subsistence, and how they were linked to other aspects of site use. Utilitarian items occur relatively frequently at CA ORA-63/86/144, and include some classes of time-sensitive artifacts such as projectile points that also will be useful for building a local chronology. CA-ORA-84/289 This site combines because of their proximity two loci formerly f recorded as separate sites. Encompassed is an area of some 18,000 m with anthrosols, abundant shell , and Millingstone Horizon artifacts. Five radiocarbon dates on shell from the basal levels of CA-ORA-84 locus range from 4700 to 4120 years B.P., and register some disturbance of the deposits (SRS 1988b:47). A single bowl mortar fragment suggests possible use of the site after the period ascribed to the Millingstone Horizon. 73 The northeast locus (CA-ORA-84) formerly was much more extensive, but has been reduced to a mere remnant by the excavation of a large borrow pit and the construction of roads and oil well pads. Impacts on the southwest locus (CA-ORA-289) have occurred primarily as a result of plowing, although other limited disturbances are also evident. The site has been subjected to numerous backhoe trenches, surface collection, and controlled manual excavations (ARI 1971; McKenna 1986; SRS 1988b), and is scheduled for further testing by WESTEC Services, Inc. (WSI) in the fall of 1988 (Schi 1 z et al. 1987). The CA-ORA-84 locus is now largely destroyed, while the southwestern portion of the site has not been adequately sampled to fully evaluate its subsurface structure, content, and integrity. As designed, WSI's investigation at this site will provide the data needed to assess its NRHP eligibility. While portions of this site have been entirely destroyed, the remaining deposits in the southwest locus may offer the potential for examining important research questions in the domains of technology, subsistence, settlement, exchange, paleoenvironmental conditions, chronology, and architecture. With the exception of another possible housefloor at CA-ORA-365, the living surface documented by ARI (1971) in the CA-ORA-84 locus is the only such feature documented thus far at any of the Bolsa Chica sites. Additional architectural remains at this site may present an opportunity to examine questions about the prehistoric structures and their functions. Fairly abundant faunal remains from the northeastern locus of this site have yielded data regarding diet, exploitation of a variety of environmental zones, seasonality of site use, and paleoenvironmental changes. Lagomorph, smaller rodent, and dog bones recovered from CA- ORA-84/289 reflect procurement from terrestrial areas, while abundant shell and fish, turtle, duck, and other bird bones indicate use of marshland, intertidal, and open/protected outer coast environments. The abalone (Haliotis sp.) noted at CA-ORA-84/289 during this study is worthy of-note, since only trace quantities of that mollusk shell have been found at two other project sites (CA-ORA-288 [now destroyed] and -83/86/144), and it would have had to have been imported frofi some distance except perhaps in early Holocene times. CA-OU-85 This 22,000 m2 site is located on Bolsa Chica Mesa facing the Sunset Gap (now Huntington Harbour). It consists of relatively thick (to 90 cm) deposits of anthrosols containing abundant ecofacts, numerous artifacts, including some possible daub, and human bone. Projectile points and shell beads indicate use of this site beginning in the 1 Millingstone Horizon and continuing into the Late Horizon. Five radio- carbon assays on shell have yielded ages between 4180 to 3380 years B.P.(SRS 1988a). The disjunct stratigraphic position of the dated samples, coupled with the apparent association of a small , triangular point with a sample dated 3500*80 years B.P., may indicate disturbance. The site has been excavated during two field seasons (Mason 1987), but those studies were spatially limited, and the earlier studies by Eberhart remain poorly reported. Investigations presently being 74 conducted at this site by WSI will provide the data needed to assess the NRHP eligibility of CA-ORA-86 (Schilz et al. 1987). However, those data ' are not yet available--so it should be noted that additional information on subsurface structure, constituents, and integrity are still needed for an eligibility evaluation. The integrity of the upper levels of CA- ORA-85 has been significantly compromised by repeated plowing, with other impacts locally confined. It is probable that tie site originally extended northward across Los Patos Avenue. Additional testing will be required to characterize the subsurface structure, contents, and integ- rity of this site sufficiently to adequately assess its NRHP eligibili- ty. Nevertheless, some important data potentials are suggested by existing reports on the site. Several items noted at this site indicate research potentials unique to it, or rarely found in other Bolsa Chica sites. While no burials have been exhumed at CA-ORA-85, human bone has; been noted on the surface of the site. The only other site where human bone has been recovered is CA-ORA-82. These finds suggest the potential for human interments or cremations in the deposits at CA-ORA-85:, and the prospect for examining questions regarding ceremonial practices, health and r population characteristics, social organization and demography, as well as other research domains such as chronology if artifacts are associated with any human remains. The possible presence of daub at this site is unique among the project's sites, and signals the potential for the study of questions about architecture. In addition, only one other site in the study area (CA-ORA-291) has evinced use during the Late Horizon. As a component within the larger, and ever-changing, settlement system of the Bolsa Chica area, these sites therefore hold promise for examining changes in late prehistoric cultural systems. Among the questions which might be resolved with data from this site is the timing and nature of the Shoshonean incursion. The lengthy occupation indicated at this site, combined with its diverse and abundant artifacts and ecofacts also will likely permit the examina- tion of long and short term changes in technology, subsistence, exchange, and paleoenvironmental conditions, as well as providing many data needed for the construction of a local chronology. World War II fortifications at this site includes gun emplacements, and a large, low concrete tank with an open top. These features, along with additional fortifications present at or adjacent to CA-ORA-78 and - 83/86/144, are just less than 50 years old, but should probably be assessed for NRHP eligibility in the near future (see recommendations in Chapter 7). CA-ORA-88 This large (50,000 m2) site on Huntington Beach Mesa consists of both historic and prehistoric remains. The site originally recorded as CA-ORA-88 by McKinney in 1963 was later redesignated as CA-ORA-365 (ARI 1973) because the CA-ORA-88 State trinomial had been mistakenly re- assigned to this resource (Ross and Desautels 1970). IRI has retained the CA-ORA-88 designation for this site to avoid confusion, since many reports have perpetuated the early mistake. The prehistoric component(s) 75 at this site occur in anthrosols, as deep as 70+ cm, with abundant shell , fire-altered rock, small amounts of debitage, and a few ground- stone tools. No sampling of these deposits has occurred to date, and neither diagnostic artifacts or chronometric data are available to aid temporal placement. The historic elements of the site relate chiefly to Standard Oil Company's first oil extraction and processing facility on Huntington Mesa, built in 1919. Remains of this enterprise include eight features: structure pads with associated concrete foundations, roads, pipelines, a 1 wooden trough, some antique machinery (Figure 6.3), and scattered industrial/architectural remains. The first oil well in this location is designated Sol sa No. 1, but may have been known initially as Huntington No. 1. Additional oil wells subsequently were drilled in the immediate vicinity; some of these are still operating. As a result, the prehistoric portion of the site has been impacted significantly. Most of the oilfield machinery once associated with the historic component is now gone. Since the prehistoric component is known only from surface observations and the examination of cut banks, its data potentials remain poorly known and will require testing for more complete assessment. Only limited data potentials are indicated in the realms of technology and exchange, since few artifacts have been observed at the site. However, higher frequencies of artifacts may exist in subsurface contexts. The diverse and plentiful shells present in CA-ORA 88's deposits presently indicate the site can make more important contributions to the solution of inquiries into subsistence, land use/settlement, chronology, and paleoenvironemental conditions. Other potentials may become apparent during testing. �1 4 Figure 6.3. Antique oil heating tanks (part of Feature 6) at first oil well drilled on Huntington Mesa (CA-ORA- 88), facing west. (Photograph by J. Sorensen.) I 76 1 The remains of the historic component at this site are potentially significant both in terms of their research and historical importance. Some antique machinery, wooden troughs, and other facilities present at the site may elucidate early twentieth century technology of the oil industry. Further evaluation by an industrial or engineering historian will be needed to assess the remains present at this site, their rela- tion to the development of the local oil industry, and their scarcity/ uniqueness. CA-ORA-288 This former site in the central portion of Bolsa Chica Mesa I reportedly consisted of a small area (8350 m2) with anthrosols con- taining shell. Limited surface collecting and backhoe trenching led to the recovery of artifacts that suggest site use during the Millingstone Horizon (Cooley 1973). During IRI's examination of the place where this site was previously reported, a few dozen Haliotis sp. and Chione sp. shell fragments were found widely scattered, u—noanthrosols or arti- facts were observed. In agreement with Cottrell and Rice (1975:21), we believe that CA-ORA-288 site has obliterated. For that reason, the site is considered ineligible for the NRHP. CA-ORA-290 This former site consisted of a small (1100 m2) area at the base of Huntington Beach Mesa near its seaward margin. The site was sampled with backhoe trenches and controlled manual excavations which revealed anthrosols containing only shellfish remains (Ahlering et al. 1971b). During IRI's reinspection, the only observed trace of this site was very small amount of possible anthropic soil with shell pushed up in a berm on the side of the road that skirts the northern base of the mesa. The former site area has been used extensively as a borrow pit, and has been graded to nearly the elevation of the adjacent marsh. Because its cultural deposits have been removed or destroyed i0 most entirely this former site is considered ineligible for the NRHP. CA-ORA-291 This site, covering a small (2500 m2) area on Huntingtin Beach Mesa, consists of anthrosols with abundant shell , other ecofacts, at least two features, several concentrations of fire-altered rock, and a relatively low density of artifacts. CA-ORA-291 extends from the top to the mesa base along a moderately sloping hillside. A fairly large sample of archaeological material was recovered through controlled manual excavation (Ahlering et al. 1971a, 1971b). Time-sensitive arti- facts indicate that CA-ORA-291 was used from Millingstone Horizon times more or less continuously into the Late Horizon,. Ahlering and others (1971) documented changes in subsistence practices and technology through time which appear to correlate in part with the changing environment of the Bolsa Chica area. They also delineated several ' activity areas during late prehistoric occupation of the site, while earlier site use patterns were considered to be more diffuse. Heavy ground cover limits our confidence in presently defined site boundaries. 77 This site appears to be in relatively pristine condition with the excep- tion of certain localized impacts and the possibility that the upper portion of the deposit might have been plowed in the past. Data recovered during testing at CA-ORA-291 suggest potential for information of considerable interest, particularly given the lengthy and continuous occupation of the site. The site is therefore probably eli- gible for the NRHP. CA-ORA-291 is one of only two archaeological resources (the other is CA-ORA-85) evincing Late Horizon use. It thus has the potential to elucidate diachronic changes from Millingstone through Late occupations including inquiries into subsistence, techno- logy, resource procurement, exchange, paleoenvironmental conditions, and the Shoshonean incursion. When compared with other project sites it will also provide insights about settlement patterning and possibly other research domains. CA-ORA-291 is one of only a few project sites that have yielded evidence of prehistoric archaeological features--in this case a concen- tration of net sinkers, a possible hearth, and several concentrations of fire-affected rock. Additional features at CA-ORA-291 will permit further delineation of intra-site activity areas, as well as providing data useful for the resolution of questions regarding subsistence, technology, and chronology. The discovery of numerous bone tools, shell artifacts, and a possible basketry impression at this site will permit the examination of many questions not possible at most other project sites. Abundant, well -preserved, and highly varied faunal remains have also been recovered at CA-ORA-291, although they remain inadequately quantified for comparative purposes in Ahlering and other's (1971a) report. The distribution of various mollusk shells and certain broadly classified vertebrate bones led those investigators to conclude that changing frequencies of certain animal remains were correlated with paleoenvironmental alterations. Unfortunately, while research into such correlations should prove a fruitful topic for future investigations at this and other Bolsa Chica cultural sites, Ahlering and others provide only limited support for their conclusion. CA-ORA-292 This small (3204 m2) site on Huntington Beach Mesa consists of possible anthrosols containing moderate amounts of shell and fire- altered rock, and small amounts of debitage and groundstone tools. No archaeological sampling has occurred on this site, and its depth and period(s) of use remain unknown. This site may have been plowed in the past, but has otherwise received few impacts. ' This site probably reflects fairly limited data potentials judging by the low density of cultural materials. Subsurface testing will be needed to fully evaluate its research significance. Use of this site can likely best be understood in relation to the larger and significant- ly more diverse assemblages found at neighboring sites CA-ORA-291 and -293/294. When compared with the locations of other sites in the project area, it will provide data on settlement patterning. This site 78 may also reflect limited potentials to contribute information regarding technology, subsistence, paleoenvironmental conditions, chronology, and possibly exchange. It is therefore presumed to be eligible for the NRHP. CA-ORA-293/294 Situated on Huntington Beach Mesa, this large (40,000 m2) site combines two loci (previously recorded as separate "sites") due to their proximity and the presence of buried cultural deposits observed in an erosion-cut bank between them (Figure 6.4). The site spans the gradual- ly to moderately sloping sides of the mesa from its crest nearly to the edge of the marsh, and extends on both sides of a shal'ow draw, now more deeply entrenched due to recent erosion. The southwest locus (CA-ORA- 293) is characterized by possible anthrosols containing moderate amounts of shell and a few groundstone tools. The northeast locus (CA-ORA-294) consists of anthrosols with abundant shell , fire-altered rock, and debitage, and moderate amounts of other artifactual materials (see Table 6.1). large quantities of debitage and other flaked stone artifacts at this site stand in marked distinction to all other cultural resources examined during this study. The site appears to have been used during the Millingstone and Intermediate horizons, based Dn artifacts found there. A single radiocarbon date of 2150+35 on shell falls .within the timefra me of the Intermediate Horizon. Very limited testing at CA-ORA-293/294 consisting of a single lxl-m unit and one backhoe trench placed in a peripheral portion of the site was reported by SRS (1985). A larger sampling program will be needed to adequately assess the subsurface structure, contents, and integrity of this site. The site appears to be in excellent condition, with the exception of certain localized impacts. CA-ORA-293/294 is potentially eligible for the NRHP based on certain distinctive aspects of its cultural assemblage, the abundance and diversity of the cultural materials present there, and the apparent integrity of most of the site's deposits. Debitage, cores, and flaked stone tools occur more frequently at this site than in any other project archaeological resource, and thus may provide the test opportunity to examine iithic technology, stone procurement, and probably exchange and other related research domains. While no time-sensitive bifaces have been found at CA-ORA-293/294, their presence is likely, given the high density of flaked stone mate- rials found at the site. Diagnostic artifacts and radiocarbon dates from this site have the potential to significantly advance the develop- ment of a local chronology. Abundant ecofactual remains indicate potential data relevant to questions about diet, se<<sonality, and paleo- environmental conditions. When compared with other dated components from sites in the project area, important data regarding diachronic changes in settlement, exchange, tool manufacturing practices, and ethnicity may be forthcoming from this site. Testing may reveal additional data potentials at CA-ORA-293/294. . \ 79 Figure 6.4. Profile of cut bank in gully between loci at CA-ORA-293/294, showing buried cultural deposit. (Photograph by T. Van Bueren.) CA-ORA-364 This site encompasses a 20,000 m2 area on Huntington Beach Mesa that contains anthrosols of moderate depth (60+ cm) with moderate quan- tities of shell and small amounts of debitage and groundstone tools. This site has never been sampled archaeologically, and no firm basis exists for dating. CA-ORA-364 has received some relatively superficial impacts, but appears to retain significant integrity. �I While testing will be needed to fully assess the data potentials and integrity of this site, present knowledge of CA-ORA-364 suggests that it can contribute information needed to examine questions in the domains of subsistence, technology, chronology, and pal eoenv iron mental conditions. When compared with other project sites, CA-ORA-364 will ' also provide additional data regarding settlement and land use patterns. Use of the site may be associated with the occupation of CA-ORA-365, a large and complex archaeological resource located nearby. r, CA-ORA-365 This large (50,000 m2) site is located on the highest portion of Huntington Beach Mesa and extends northwesterly toward the Bolsa Chica lowlands along a minor, gently-sloping ridge. CA-ORA-365 was first recorded by McKinney in 1963 as CA-ORA-88; however, all subsequent investigators applied the CA-ORA-88 designation to another nearby cultural site--an assignment IRI has perpetuated to avoid confusion. 80 i .r Figure 6.5. Profile of cut bank showing possible living surface/housefloor (Feature 3) at CA-ORA-365. (Photo- graph by T. Van Bueren.) CA-ORA- 365 features both prehistoric and historic remains. Extensive prehistoric anthrosols contain abundant shell, moderate amounts of fire- altered rock, and low to moderate amounts of debitage and other arti- facts. During IRI's study a possible living surface or housefloor was also noted (Figure 6.5). A single cogged stone was O served by McKinney in her 1963 recording of the site; a laterally-grooved discoidal stone was collected during IRI's study in 1988 (Figure 6.61. The prehistoric deposits at CA-ORA-365 were investigated minimally with surface collection, backhoe trenching, and some controlled manual excavation during a single field study (SRS 1985). Three radiocarbon dates on shell range from 4365 to 2900 years B.P. These dates, combined with cross-dating of artifacts, indicate that the site was used during both the Millingstone and Intermediate horizons. Substantial impacts are evident on the surface of the site, and a lack of depositional integrity is suggested by the minimal sampling of the prehistoric com- ponent conducted by SRS (1985). However, SRS's sampling was largely in peripheral areas of the site. Further testing will be needed to assess the integrity and structure of prehistoric deposits in much of the central portion of this site. Historic remains at this site consist of two discrete trash deposits containing primarily household debris such .as retail glass con- tainers, tableware, and glassware. Both deposits contain large numbers of time-sensitive artifacts evincing late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century production. These historic features could be related to the Borchard residence, known to exist in the immediate vicinity by 81 1: Sq of r I is .,•��.. ..,rj!�": � .._ +r.• � I •�^ .fir:: ::�•;;••:•... •'r,�, I I I {L '~ r Figure 6.6. A shallowly-grooved discoidal stone of sandstone, from CA- ORA-365. This specimen measures 11.0 cm in diameter by 5.4 cm thick. Nineteen shallow grooves are visible on the perimeter. Caliche encrusts �j the artifact. (T. Van Bueren drawing). 82 1905 (see Figure 3.3 above). No testing has been directed at the evalu- ation of the historic component at CA-ORA-365, although historic arti- facts were reported from some limited sampling in other portions of the site (SRS 1985). Both the prehistoric and historic components at this site may contribute significantly to understanding of the history and prehistory of the area. This site is the only project cult,iral resource on Huntington Beach Mesa known to contain cogged stones, and one of only two where such artifacts have been recovered in the study area as a whole (the other being CA-ORA-83/86/144). This fact, combined with the rich and diverse array of artifacts and shell observed at the site, suggest CA-ORA-365 may have been an important center. If portions of the site retain integrity, then data from the site may productively be used to resolve numerous questions pertaining to diachronic changes in subsistence, technology, exchange, chronology, paleoenvironmental conditions, and possibly ethnicity and ceremonialism. The presence of a possible housefloor at the site indicates the potential to examine the domain of architecture. Among project sites, only CA-ORA-84/289 and possibly -85 also reflect this potential. Intra- si to patterning of activity areas may also be examined with data from CA-ORA-365, although the partial destruction of the site may somewhat limit this contribution. When compared with information from other project resources, this site will contribute additional data regarding settlement patterning. Testing may reveal other data potentials, since this large and complex site remains poorly known at present. 1 The historic component at this site also may elucidate the lifeways of early twentieth century settlers, and how they related to regional and national developments. In addition to archaeological testing, archival work and possibly oral testimony will be needed to fully _ evaluate the importance of this component. Present information suggests that the historic deposits at CA-ORA-365 may contribute data on tech- nology, subsistence, commerce and consumer behavior, and chronology. If structural remains can be located, such data would provide additional information in the realm of architecture. CA-ORA-366 This 15,000 m2 prehistoric site, located on Huntington Beach Mesa, consists of possible anthrosols with abundant shell but few artifacts. No sampling has occurred, and the site has been heavily impacted by his- toric oil extraction activities which may have included grading, and certainly includes oil wells, underground pipelines, and roads. This site remains poorly understood, and will require testing to adequately assess its data potentials, structure, and integrity. The site appears to have limited potential to address questions in the domains of techno- logy, subsistence, exchange or resource procurement, chronology, and paleoenvironmental conditions. Other data potentials may be revealed by subsurface studies. 83 summary Evaluation of extant site conditions, survey reports, and reports of various subsurface archaeological investigations of the cultural resources in the Bolsa Chica project area permit assessment of the NRHP eligibility of six of the 14 prehistoric sites. Archaeological studies have been adequate to demonstrate that three sites will yield signifi- cant data toward the resolution of local and regional research problems and that the cultural deposits retain sufficient integrity to make them eligible for the NRHP. Two prehistoric sites have been destroyed (CA- ORA-288 and -290), while the prehistoric component of a third (CA-ORA- 78) has yielded only small quantities and limited types of cultural remains, from disturbed contexts; these three sites do not meet the criteria for NRHP listing. Existing data are not adequate to allow informed assessment of the significance of eight other sites with pre- historic components or of the historic elements at three sites. Archaeological testing was proposed (WESTEC 1987) and presumably has been completed at two of these eight prehistoric sites; thus NRHP eligibility of CA-ORA-84/289 and -85 can likely be evaluated after the release of WESTEC's testing report. NRHP evaluation at the other six prehistoric sites and three historic components will require further study, recommendations for which are offered in Chapter 7. f OD 7: REC"ENDATIONS Thad M. Van Bueren, Susan K. Goldberg, and Michael J. Moratto This chapter offers recommendations for additional studies to assess the significance and National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility of eight prehistoric and three historic components. The recommended work would provide the CoE with information to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 2(b) of Executive Order 11593, pursuant to 36 CFR 800. Although limited field and library research will be adequate for assessing NRHP eligibility, review of previous work indicates that extant data may be inadequate for planning the management of certain sites. Hence, we discuss, in the final section, supplemental data that would be required for the design of an adequate data-recovery or protec- tion program, should proposed undertakings impact NRHP-eligible sites. Such additional information about site structure and integrity will be needed from the three NRHP-eligible prehistoric sites, and perhaps from some of the eight sites whose data potentials remain to be demonstrated by testing. Prehistoric Sites: Testing for NRHP Eligibility As detailed in Chapter 6, data from eight of the Bolsa Chica prehistoric sites are insufficient,to assess their NRHP eligibility. Most of these sites have not been san pled, while others have been tested only peripherally. Testing at six of the eight sites would elucidate their research potentials and NRHP eligibility. Ongoing studies by WESTEC at the other two sites (Schilz et al. 1987) would provide adequate data for NRHP-eligibility evaluation of CA-ORA-84/289 and -85. The recommended studies would aim to learn whether these sites are "likely to yield... information important to prehistory or history" (36 CFR 60.4). Achieving this goal will require a careful balance between defining data potentials and realizing those potentials. The job at hand is to determine the kinds of information that the sites might yield if more extensive studies were to be performed in the future. Investi- gations must be designed to meet explicit objectives, namely, to: define the extent, content, integrity, age, occupation units or components, and research potentials of selected sites; acquire data regarding intra-site variability at previously-tested rites; and define spatial, temporal, and cultural relationships among sites within the study area. 85 I 86 Ob 'ecti ves As explicated in Chapter 6, assessing the significance of the remaining six prehistoric sites will require explicit: linkage of data potentials, defined through surface and subsurface investigations, with relevant research domains. The ultimate goal of the testing program, however, should not be to answer definitively, the prevailing research questions; rather, the testing should pursue limited, realistic objec- tives. Although one cannot hope to learn much about site structure or prehistoric social organization, for example, from the small test samples required for NRHP-eligibility evaluation, useful information can be generated if these samples are extracted and interpreted thoughtful- ly. IRI believes that seven objectives can be met within the parameters of the Bolsa Chica testing program. These are: (1) To estimate the horizontal and vertical extent of the sites: Reliable knowledge about the spatial distribution cf archaeological remains will be essential for (a) assessing extant and potential im- pacts, (b) developing a realistic basis for management planning, and (c) recognizing intra-site spatial patterning. This should entail mapping the surface extent of anthrosols, artifacts, and features, taking into account the evidence of soil color, chemistry, and texture, topographic irregularities, vegetative patterns, and the surficial distribution of artifacts, shell , fire-altered rock, bone, debitage„ and other exotic materials. The vertical extent of archaeological deposits can be deter- mined most efficiently through augering, probing, inspection of natural soil exposures, and through observations within manually excavated test units and mechanically excavated trenches. Anthropic and non-anthropic deposits observed in these units should be distinguished in terms of physical attributes, archaeological constituents, and visible stratification. (2) To define site content: The object here is to identify and, where possibie, quanti?—y the iverse archaeological materials preserved at the sites to be tested. A knowledge of site content is an absolute prerequisite for evaluating research potentials (see No. 7, below) and for planning realistically for any data-recovery work. Defining site content is mainly the process of compiling an inventory. One must collect specimens and data to answer the following types of questions: (a) What kinds of materials--e.g., bone, shell , fiber, clay, stone, metal , glass, etc.--are found within each of the identified soil or ; stratigraphic units at the sites? (b) Do the sites contain shell , recoverable carbon, obsidian, time-sensitive artifacts, or other remains suitable for dating? (c) Are plant macrofossils preserved in adequate quantity and variety to support meaningful analyses, ,jnd, if so, in what frequencies and contexts do they occur? (d) Are faunal remains suffi- ciently abundant and complete for zooarchaeologiciil identification, quantification, and distributional studies? (e) Do the number and distribution of fire-altered rock warrant analysis of spatial patterning? (f) Can debitage be characterized with respect to material types, technical attributes, and spatial distribution; would intensive debitage analysis likely be profitable? and (g) What: are the types and approximate frequencies of recovered artifacts, and what kinds of analyses would be possible if an adequate sample of these specimens were 87 available? Sampling and analytic methods should be designed specifical- ly to address these and related questions. (3) To investigate site structure: "Structure" refers to the anatomy or arc i ecture of a site.TFie concept encompasses vertical and horizontal stratification, the nature and distribution of features (e.g., hearths, housefloors, shellfish processing areas, etc.), gross evidence of activity areas, and the like. Structure provides the context for site content. Hence, a clear understanding of structure is required to assess site integrity and to develop spatial , temporal, and functional interpretations of the archaeological record. One cannot expect a detailed characterization of site structure to emerge from limited testing; definitions of structure typically necessitate excavations of large areas connected by straticuts, not to mention extensive analyses of recovered assemblages. Even so, we think that some valuable first approximations regarding site structure can be developed in the course of testing. For example, inferences about activity areas may be drawn from the spatial relationships among shell midden deposits, other activity areas, and any housepits that might be discovered. Careful examination of surface manifestations may reveal both midden and non-midden anthrosols, and stratigraphic exposures may shed light on the nature and relative age of deposits associated with various components. Moreover, while samples will be small , quantitative analyses of shell, debitage, fire-altered rock, and other constituents from the test units may offer preliminary indications of intra-site patterning. Finally, the test units may produce at least some initial suggestions of the kinds of subsurface features likely to be encountered. While the foregoing approaches admittedly will not define site structure with any real precision, they will permit assessments of site integrity and complexity, and will provide essential information about the context of the archaeological deposits for assessing significance. (4) To assess the integrity of the sampled sites: This objective seeks to learn the extent to which site structure Tias been modified and, concomitantly, the degree to which context has been disturbed. At issue is the possible attrition of interpretive potential. One may assume at the outset that the Bolsa Chica sites have been affected by the myriad forces of natural pedoturbation--burrowing mammals and invertebrates, root activity, erosion, colluviation, and so on (cf. Wood and Johnson 1978). In addition, the sites variously have been affected by shoreline erosion, plowing and disking, casual and perhaps concerted artifact collecting, recreational use, road grading, and oil extraction ` activities. Such modifications should be examined, individually and collectively, to assess their overall impact on the archaeological deposits. The extent of disturbance should be considered in light of the size, depth, and structure of each tested site so that a meaningful assessment can be made of past damage as well as surviving data poten- tials. In this regard, we anticipate that geomorphological observations and the vertical distribution of time-sensitive artifacts will prove especially helpful in assessing stratigraphic integrity. 88 (5) To identify mayor occupations: To the extent feasible, the aim here is to discover the number and general rature of major occupations at each site. Available data suggest that the Bolsa Chica area witnessed a long sequence of Indian cultural developments, beginning no less than 7600 years ago. Although limited testing will not provide many details about the components, it should at least permit recognition of separate occupation levels and areas. This may be accom- plished partly by reference to strata, features, and artifacts, and partly by comparisons of the Bolsa Chica assemblages wj'th others in the regions (6) To determine the age of identified occupations: Temporal control will be necessary in or-Ter to a eve o�p siTe=specific and local cultural chronologies, (b) compare recovered assemblages with those from dated components elsewhere in the region, and (c) relate specific occupations to dated paleoenvironmental changes and conditions. The relative and/or absolute age of various specimens and analytic units can be determined through radiocarbon dating, geomorphology, strati- - graphy, artifactual cross-dating, featural associations, and possibly obsidian hydration measurement. (7) To assess the research potentials of the sites: In many ways the real zi ati— o n of this ob—a ti ve depen s upon tine ac ni evement of the others (supra). For example, one must control for site content, struc- ture, integrity, and time before research potentials can be evaluated. Still , the assessment of potentials is a distinct process that involves linking available classes of data (i.e., those confirmed by testing) with appropriate research questions and domains. This is the essence of site significance evaluations, and ultimately should be the goal of the testing program. Methods Because the nature of sites and available data vary considerably, IRI recommends site-specific methods to investigate content, extent, depth, integrity, and structure. The methods and sampling plan at each site should be designed to efficiently explore dates potentials and specific parameters (e.g., site disturbance, relationship among site loci) that are, as yet, undefined; again, the goal is to define Potentials, not to realize them. The following methods, used in various combinations, seem appropriate for ascertaining data potentials: (1) Surface collection and mapping of artifacts; (2) Assessment of site size and intra-site structure through collection of shell distribution data (counts and weights) from regularly-spaced surface grid units; phosphate testing; and, in areas where surface materials are not. plainly visible, excavation of shallow (10 cm) surface transect units; 17 89 (3) Assessment of subsurface midden constituent distribution and density, as well as site depth, using regularly-spaced auger borings; (4) Assessment of site content, structure, age, and integrity through the excavation of selectively placed test units, using manual rapid recovery or controlled manual excavation techniques; and r (5) Assessment of stratigraphy and integrity through geomorpho- 1ogica1 study of unit profiles, observation of the stratigraphic distribution of midden constituents, analysis of i samples from control columns, and artifact distributions. Depending on the nature of anticipated future impacts at particular sites, it may be worthwhile, also, to employ backhoe trenching to aid in assessing site integrity, size, stratigraphic relationships, and site structure. While this method may be the most efficient means for defining certain site parameters, IRI does not recommend mechanical exploration unless the site deposits will undoubtedly be destroyed by other activities. Such exploration may be most appropriate during the first phases of a data-recovery program. We recommend that investigation at each site proceed in a phased manner so that results from initial studies (e.g., surface collections, augering) can inform and direct the use of subsequent investigations (e.g., manual excavations and column sampling). This will permit optimal return from labor-intensive work and will preclude unwarranted testing beyond the point when data potentials can be confirmed or refuted. Similarly, laboratory analyses should be phased. Certain analytic procedures which have come to be standard may be inappropriate Tor merely defining research potentials at these eight sites. For example, while detailed quantitative analysis of shell and bone would be required to reconstruct changing dietary preferences and, by inference, paleo- environmental changes that might have occurred in the Bolsa Chica locality, gross quantification of shell and bone weights, volumes, and condition will provide adequate indication of whether detailed analyses would be feasible and appropriate, should a data-recovery program be needed. In keeping with this principle that fewer data may be required for NRHP-eligibility assessment than are necessary for realizing a site's research potential , it may be advisable to scope the field recovery and analytic procedures at different levels for the testing program. That is, while standard field samples, amenable to detailed analyses, can be collected, immediate analyses may be limited to cursory studies that permit assessment of their data potentials. Below, we explicate, site-by-site, those parameters which require further investigation to permit valid assessment of NRHP eligibility. For each of the eight project sites we recommend the types of studies that should provide the necessary information and those recommendations are also tabulated (Table 7.1). In two cases, CA-ORA-84/289 and -85, i * n n n CI) h C')C7 n n II V) O --i D D a b b D D D a 11 �• -+• '^i O�• � O � O "f O �1 O �• '1 O O � O �•O 11 (D N fp M N f9 19 �O fp 7p fp 7t7 N ftt 7�7l7 fD .N N 70 q ?ar+ =r =r SDrt7DDSDefb 11 �t. 1 0 -. 1 -" I I -A• 1 0 1 1 •r• 1 0 1 11 ID N w-1 IA W N W N N N rs) -1 + OOD c01) to OD -4 11 C+ 1•+ Q1�. r+ 01 r+ Q1 C+ 40 & l0It S O Q1 A O th O .P O W O N A O O \A 11 O -1 -1 '1 -1 \ '7 •1 -1 N 11 06 .+. -1. .r. -1. N-4. -6. J. ()0 11 A A A A t0 A A A t0 II W A t� II I O + + + + + + + + + + + n Mapping c n 3 v + + + + + + + + o Phosphate Testing 11 r+ V1 i v + + + + + + Aueri n a 9 g z C► + + + + + ii Surface Transect Units (� 1 + + + + + + Backhoe Trenching* 1w Cr o II C N /9 + + + + + + i Surface Collections Ca+ 0 I�1 � + + + + ii Shovel Test Pits ' M j IIV 0 '^ + + n Metal Detection C+ II -1 O O H O 7 �• + + + + + + Manual Rapid Recovery Units N 1! C+ + + + + T 1 y + u Controlled Manual Excavations N Cr 4. a + + + + + + ii Control Columns IIOn N C + + + i Archival Research a + + + ii Oral Testimony u n n n 91 the required data for NRHP-eligibility evaluation are expected to result from WESTEC's current testing program. Site-Specific Recommendations for Testing CA-ORA-84/289 While investigation of the northeastern lobe of this site (the CA- ORA-84 locus) has revealed important data potentials, almost nothing is known regarding the structure, constituents, integrity, and data poten- tials of deposits in the southwestern locus (CA-ORA-289). Since the northeastern locus is now almost entirely destroyed, it is important to r gather information about the remaining portions of the site in order to evaluate its NRHP eligibility. WESTEC's investigation at this site are expected to provide the data required to assess its NRHP status. WESTEC proposed testing (Schilz et al. 1987) that would include surface collec- tions, sample collection of surface shell , soil phosphate testing, excavation of about 30 shovel test pits, eight 1x1-m controlled manual excavation units, peripheral backhoe trenching, and instrumental mapping. When evaluating the significance of this site, the results of studies in the remaining portions of the site should be compdred with previous findings at the CA-ORA-84 locus. CA-ORA-85 Previous testing at this site has focused on its southeastern lobe, where deposits appear to be disturbed. In order to assess NRHP eligibi- lity, testing should be designed to reveal if intact deposits exist elsewhere on the site. It will also be important to discover if addi- tional Late Horizon materials or structural remains (as suggested by possible architectural daub reported above) are indicated in previously untested areas. The implementation of WESTEC's proposal (Schilz et al. 1987) would provide data needed to evaluate NRHP eligibility. WESTEC recommended surface collection of artifacts and shell samples, phosphate testing, excavation of about 50 shovel test pits and 12 controlled manual excavation units, peripheral backhoe trenching, and instrument mapping. CA-ORA-88 This site has never been excavated, and therefore remains poorly understood at present. Substantial impacts are apparent over large portions of the site, due primarily to oil extraction activities. Testing at this prehistoric component should be directed toward establishing its research potentials by addressing the research objec- tives outlined above, with particular attention to identifying any intact deposits. Initial testing should focus on the delineation of site extent, structure, intra-site patterning and quantification of constituents, and depth of the prehistoric cultural deposits. This could be accomplished most effectively through systematically-spaced surface collection units, augering, phosphate testing, and examination of cut banks along the bluff margin at the southwestern edge of the site. Where few surface 92 indicators exist, surface transect units might be substituted for sur- face collection units in areas where cultural deposits are expected based on augering and/or phosphate testing. These methods can be expected to inform the placement of test units. Manual rapid recovery units with control columns placed strategically in areas with the least apparent disturbance could then be used to assess site constituents, vertical stratification, integrity, and the age of tte occupation(s). If intact site deposits can be identified, controlled nanual excavation units could investigate smaller site constituents. All tests, the extent of deposits, features, and impact areas should be mapped to scale. CA-ORA-292 This small site is characterized by a very low density of cultural materials in an area that has likely been plowed regularly. No testing has occurred to date. Given the scarcity of cultural materials on the surface, characterization of site extent, depth, structure, and the distribution of cultural materials across the site can best be accom- plished with surface transect units, augering, and phosphate testing. Several manual rapid recovery units with control columns can then be placed in areas with the highest concentrations of cultural material to identify the quantities and types of artifacts present, vertical strati- fication, integrity, and the age of the occupation(s) indicated there. All tests and the extent of this site should be mapped accurately. CA-ORA-293/294 This large and complex site includes several distinct activity loci and a buried cultural deposit between them. As described in Chapters 4 and 6, testing at this site has been limited to a single unit and one backhoe trench in a peripheral area. Surface indications suggest that CA-ORA-293/294 may hold significant data potentials„ Thus, the most critical data needed to assess NRHP eligibility is information on the integrity of deposits. Data on site extent, structure, constituents, intra-site patterning, and the age and preliminary characterization of all indicated occupations need only be collected in quantities suffi- cient to confirm the site's significance. Different procedures will be appropriate in varioLis portions of the site to effectively delineate the extent of its cultural deposits and establish the variability in the distribution of cultural materials. Phosphate testing and augering are recommended throughout the site. Those tests should be combined with surface transact units in the southern end of the site where cultural materials aria present only in low quantities, while surface collection units would be most effective in the richer deposits at the northern end of the site. The area between the north locus (CA-ORA-294) and the buried cultural deposit in the gully to the south should be explored with augering, or perhaps backhoe trenching, to clarify the extent of that deposit and its relationship to the rest of the site. Following those tests, and informed by their results, several manual rapid recovery and controlled manual excavation units with 93 control columns could be excavated in each of the site's loci to assess integrity, stratification, the abundance, types, and distribution of + site constituents, and the age and nature of the occupation(s). All tests, features, and impact areas should be mapped to scale. CA-ORA-364 The surface of this large site is characterized by low to moderate densities of shell and few artifacts. Numerous impacts, primarily the results of oil extraction activities, are apparent on the site; nonethe- less, large areas appear to retain their original , gently undulating topography. No testing has yet been done at this site, and only limited �i data potentials are indicated from survey data. Therefore, testing will need to focus on providing data regarding the full range of objectives required for the assessment of data potentials. Given the nature of the surfacial cultural remains at this site, a combination of phosphate testing, augering, instrument mapping, and surface transect units are recommended to identify the extent of the archaeological deposits and the distribution of cultural materials within them. Several manual rapid recovery units and a few controlled manual excavation units with control columns can then be strategically placed in areas that appear to be least disturbed to ascertain depositional integrity and characterize stratification, the distribution and abundance of cultural materials, and the age and nature of the occupation(s). I CA-ORA-365 The prehistoric component(s) at this very large and complex site have been tested minimally--primarily in marginal areas. Those investi- gations indicated rather pervasive disturbance of the sampled deposits. Extensive impacts caused by oil extraction activities and a large borrow pit are apparent at CA-ORA-365, and have disturbed and destroyed large portions of the site. Nevertheless, available data suggest the site may contain important research potentials. The significance of the remains at this site depend in large measure on whether the deposits retain integrity. Thus, a primary goal of additional testing at the CA-ORA-365 prehistoric components is to determine if any intact deposits remain. The extent and depth of the site will need to be explored, and the variability of its cultural contents quantified. Additional attention should also be devoted to testing the possible housefloor. Testing of the prehistoric and historic components of this site should be coordinated closely. Given the relatively abundant cultural materials on the surface of this site, definition of extent, depth, and distribution of cultural materials can be accomplished most effectively with a combination of phosphate testing, surface collection units, augering, instrument map- ping, and the examination of cut banks. Manual rapid recovery and con- trolled manual excavation units with control columns can then be placed in areas most likely to contain intact cultural deposits, including at least one such unit in the area of the possible housefloor, and another where the marginally-grooved discoidal stone was recovered during IRI's survey. Excavation of those units would be designed to provide 94 information on site integrity, constituents, and to better define and date the occupations. CA-ORA-366 This small and apparently much disturbed archaeological site has never been tested. Only limited data potentials are indicated from surface inspections. Elucidation of data potentials will require inves- tigations of the testing objectives outlined above. Given the extensive disturbance, particular attention will need to be focused on integrity. , Since the archaeological deposits may be partially ccncealed by over- burden, augering, backhoe trenching, and surface transect units will be the most effective means to delineate site depth, extent, and the dis- tribution and abundance of cultural materials. However, the presence of buried pipelines and other oil industry facilities on site will need to be considered carefully in the placement of all tests. In areas not covered by fill , phosphate testing and surface collection units are recommended to supplement the augering program. Informed by the results of these initial testing activities, a few manual rapid recovery units - with control columns should then be placed in areas that contain the highest densities of cultural material and have the greatest likelihood of being intact. All tests, impact areas, features, and the extent of this site should be mapped to scale. Historic Resources: Evaluation for NRHP Eligibility Three historic, non-Indian components will require further evaluation before their NRHP eligibility can be assessed. As well , World War II fortifications on Bolsa Chica Mesa will soon be 50 years old--an age at which they should be evaluated for NRHP eligibility. The assessment of the NRHP eligibility of these historic components will require data on both their research potentials and historic/public values. While all of the historic site components should be assessed in relation to regional developments, such consideration is particularly important for sites thematically representing oil exploitation and World War II coastal defense. The objectives of further assessment at the project's potentially significant historic site components are first briefly outlined below. Appropriate data-gathering methods are then summarized, and site-specific recommendations offered. Objectives Investigations at historic site components should be directed toward the same general goals as those at prehistoric components. Accordingly, the studies suggested by IRI would define significance per the NRHP criteria. The research potential of the historic components should be delineated through archaeological studies, archival research, and oral testimony. Such studies may also elucidate the historical and public significance of the sites. Archaeological studies at the historic sites should address the same basic objectives defined for the investigation of prehistoric resources, including definition of horizontal and vertical extent, site content, structure, and integrity; 95 identification and chronological placement of site use; and evaluation of research potentials. Expert opinions should be sought from industrial /engineering historians as needed to assess above-ground features such as those present at CA-ORA-88. Both focused and thematically-directed archival research and oral testimony should be conducted to inform evaluation of research potentials and provide data needed to assess the historic and public significance of the sites. Methods Varied methods will be needed to efficiently gather data regarding the significance of the diverse historic resources in the project area. The study requirements for each site are discussed individually below. Any archaeological testing at the project's historic, non-Indian com- ponents should proceed hand-in-hand with work being conducted at the prehistoric loci of those sites, since each study may provide data useful to the other. Recommendations for each site are also presented in Table 7.1. Site-Specific Reco=endations for Additional Evaluation CA-ORA-78 As described in Chapter 6, the historic, non-Indian components at this site may be significant both in terms of their research potential and historic/public importance. However, additional data are needed to assess both of these domains. The World War II-era features at this site, and those present at or near other recorded sites on Bol sa Chi ca Mesa are discussed separately below, since they should be evaluated together as a thematically-unified group of remains. Data required to evaluate the NRHP eligibility of the Bolsa Chica Gun Club component at CA-ORA-78 include a sample of the archaeological deposits and features present there, and site-specific information on the formation, operation, and membership of the club. Focused archival research and oral testimony should be directed toward establishing the historical and public importance of the gun club, as well as informing the archaeological testing which would follow it. Specific information should be sought on the layout and design of the gun club's buildings, the membership of the club (which possibly included famous persons significant under NRHP criterion [b]) its operation--including water control modifications to the Bolsa Lowlands, and the effect that the discovery of natural gas and oil reserves had on the club. Archaeological testing would then be needed to evaluate the research potentials of architectural remnants and artifact deposits. Shovel test pits, metal detection, and test trenches are recommended to initially identify features and building foundations, determine their structure, and provide data on the types and distribution of artifacts. Artifact-bearing deposits should then be sampled with controlled manual excavation to ascertain details regarding their stratification, integrity, contents, and age. All archaeological tests and identified features should be mapped accurately. 96 CA-ORA-88 While the historic oil extraction and refining remains at this site appear to have both research potential and historic/public importance, insuficient data presently exist to adequately evaluate either dimension of their significance. The industrial remains at this site should not be considered in isolation from the development of the oil industry of the region. Further evaluation of this site should therefore be directed toward the elucidation of both site-specific and thematic historical data and the research potential of the industrial remains. Oil industry trade journals and production records, geological publications of the California Division of Mines and Geology, U.S. Geological Survey, other agencies, and other archival sources should first be consulted to establish the historic context of the industrial remains at CA-ORA-88. Exposure, detailed mapping, and identification of the archaeological remains at the site is then recommended. , Consultation with an industrial/engineering historian may be required to identify and assess the significance of the physical remains, which include some antique equipment. CA-ORA-365 The historic non-Indian component at this site., which reflects early twentieth century occupation, has been heavily impacted by subsequent oil extraction activities. Incidental histo-ical information and surface observations presently available for this component are not adequate to assess its NRHP eligibility. No testing has been directed toward the evaluation of these historic remains to date, although limited subsurface sampling by SRS (1985) did reveal historic artifacts. Further evaluation at this site should therefore be designed to clarify its research potentials and historical importance. Such investigations should be coordinated carefully with studies of the prehistoric - components at this site. Focused archival research and oral testimony are recommended to identify the history of site use. Specific information should be sought regarding the occupants of the site, the duration of their tenancy there, their socio-economic status, and the locations of any structures and other features which may have left archaeological traces at CA-ORA- 88. Such data would then be used to design an archaeological sampling program. The two known trash deposits at the site should be sampled with controlled manual excavation, while shovel test pits, metal detec- tion, and backhoe trenching will probably be the most effective methods for identifying any architectural remnants and other features that may still exist at the site. World War II Fortifications The coastal defense fortifications on Bolsa Chica Mesa will meet the age criteria for possible inclusion to the NRHP in a few years. This fact, combined with their potential historical and public importance, dictate that they should soon be evaluated for NRHP eligibility. For the sake of economy, IRI recommends that they be 97 evaluated for NRHP eligibility in conjunction with the evaluation proposed at other historic site components in the project area. Because of their obvious unity in geographic setting and thematic function, the individual remains noted on and adjacent to Sites CA-ORA-78, -83/86/144, and -85 should be evaluated collectively. Data needed to evaluate the project area's World War II fortifications include historical information derived from archival sources and oral testimony, and assessment of their present condition. Both focused and thematic historical research is recommended to elucidate the specifications, layout, construction, and deployment of the fortifications present in the project area. It is likely that engineering drawings and maps can be found for the Bolsa Chica defenses. Veterans groups and the U.S. Department of the Navy may provide important archival information and leads regarding potential informants stationed at these facilities during World War II. Archaeological documentation should then be prepared regarding the current condition of the resource, include descriptive text, photographs, and if they cannot be located through archival research, scaled plans of each feature. Prehistoric Sites: Data Needed for Management Planning While the studies outlined in the previous section should be sufficient for assessing the NRHP-eligibility of eight of the prehistoric Bolsa Chica sites, and while the NRHP-eligibility of six others (three which qualify for the NRHP and three that do not) has already been demonstrated, additional information may be required from many of the eligible properties to properly and effectively manage those sites. The need for supplemental data regarding site boundaries, site structure, and intra-site variability in integrity will be particularly compelling if management ultimately requires mitigation of impacts through avoidance or data recovery. Here, it is important to distinguish between those known site qualities and data potentials that qualify each property for the NRHP and those site parameters which, despite the confirmation of a site's data potentials, remain poorly defined. That is, while limited testing might have revealed isolated site areas where significant material classes are abundant and deposits retain integrity, thus qualifying the site for the NRHP, such testing may not have succeeded in: (1) defining the limits of the important deposits; (2) revealing the most significant features of the site; or (3) identifying site loci which do not warrant management because of their negligible information potential, by reason of data redundancy or loss of integrity. Such data gaps are typical at most of the Bolsa Chica sites by virtue of the types and extensiveness of previous impacts and because of the research interests of many of the investigators who previously excavated these sites. Impacts from agri- culture and oil extraction activities are widespread and often severe. G Yet, because most excavations at the Bolsa Chica sites have been directed toward the richest shellfish and artifact deposits, the distri- bution of these impacts and of remaining intact deposits has not been explored systematically. So, while we do know that rich and generally 98 intact deposits are present in at least some portions of these sites, the extent of the significant deposits and the integrity of unexplored loci remain poorly defined. These kinds of data will De important for avoiding or protecting significant deposits or for designing a productive data-recovery program. Refined definition of such site parameters as horizontal and vertical extent, site structure, relationships among loci, and integrity may be accomplished through a program that might include extensive and systematic augering, backhoe trenching to explore seemingly peripheral site areas and the relationship between loci , and selectively placed manual excavation units. Depending on the nature and location of anticipated project impacts, such a program would almost certainly be required at the two sites known to be eligible for the! NRHP; data gaps at those sites are reviewed below. CA-ORA-82 While the prehistoric remains at this site are considered potentially eligible for the NRHP, current information is insufficient to design a meaningful data-recovery program there. The structure, contents, intra-site patterning of cultural materials and features, and the location and extent of intact cultural deposits remain poorly de- fined. If appropriate data were collected from the extensive, unreported excavations east of Edwards Street, analysis of that informa- tion might suffice for the delineation of productive! research there. However, testing will be required in the large portion of CA-ORA-82 west of Edwards Street, where only limited sampling has occurred (Weide 1967, 1969), and some additional testing may be needed in the eastern portion of the site if inadequate data exist for that area. Such testing should be directed toward the charac'erization of site structure, contents, integrity, and the age anJ nature of the occupation(s). Particular attention should be devoted to the delinea- tion of intra-site patterning of activity areas. For instance, do burials occur only in the eastern lobe of the site? Was the western end of the site devoted primarily to shellfish processing? Identification and dating of the occupation(s) at this site also merit close attention, since the Intermediate Horizon artifacts reported from the site are not in agreement with the single known radiocarbon date. These goals can be achieved through the examination and selected analysis of previously collected data, supplemented as needed with additional site testing. Augering, surface collection units, surface transect units, phosphate testing, and the examinations of cut banks may all be useful for defining the nature of site loci which presently lack adequate characterization. Such studies should then be used to select the placement of manual rapid recovery and controlled manual excavation units with control columns required for more detailed delineation of site stratification, contents, and the age ar,d nature of the occupation(s). 99 CA-ORA-83 Although this site has been examined by repeated surface and subsurface sampling (Chapters 4 and 6), its central area has been ig- nored and therefore remains poorly understood. The central locus has received heavy impats from the construction and operation of the Woodman Pole Company lot, but intact deposits may yet remain there. Therefore, testing of that area should focus on defining any intact cultural deposits which may still exist. More limited attention should also be directed toward characterization of the structure, contents and ages of the occupation(s), and comparisons of those data with reported sampling in other parts of the site. This additional testing could be pursued most efficiently with backhoe trenching, augering, the examination of cut banks, and, informed by the results of those initial tests, the placement of several manual rapid recovery units with control columns in the least disturbed portions of the central site area. CA-ORA-291 Substantial testing at this site has provided almost all of the information needed to design a productive data-recovery program there. Only chronological information is lacking. Cross-dating of artifacts supports only general inferences regarding age. Therefore IRI recom- mends radiocarbon dating of shell samples recovered from meaningful context by previous investigators. Similar supplemental data about site structure, boundaries, and integrity might also be needed from some or all of the eight sites still requiring testing for NRHP eligibility, again depending on the types of anticipated impacts. While such supplemental data are routinely collected during the first phases of mitigation planning or data recovery, those data can be used most effectively if they are collected early in the management planning process. Therefore, it may be advisable to conduct a supplemental testing program at NRHP-eligible properties as soon as potential site impacts have been defined. Such a program could be a logical and efficient extension of the limited testing program designed to evaluate NRHP-eligibility. 0 a REFERENCES CITED Abbott, W. J. 1985 Letter to Thomas F. Riley, Chairman, Orange County Board of ' Supervisors, dated December 16. Santa Ana. Adams, J. R. 1926 The Sugar Beet in California. Circular 302. University of California Agricultural Experimental Station. Berkeley. Ahlering, M. L., T. G. Cooley, and N. J. Munoz 1971a Excavation and Analysis of 4-ORA-291: A Coastal Shell Midden. Submitted to Signal Properties, Inc. Los Angeles. Ahlering, M. L., T. G. Cooley, N. J. Munoz, and W. T. Scholz 1971b Preliminary Reortrt� on Archaeological Investigations of 4-ORA- 290 and 4-ORA-291. gna I Properties, Inc. Wn—g-eT'es. Amigos de Bolsa Chica n.d. Prehistoric Bolsa Chica : Prehistoric Cogstones... An Archeological Mystery. Unpublished ms. on file, Amigos de Bolsa Chica, 11545 Computer Lane, Huntington Beach, California. Amsden, C. 1935 The Pre-Mission Indians of Los Angeles County. Trails 12(3) :12-13. Archaeological Research, Inc. (ARI) 1971 Summary of Bolsa Chica Archaeology. In An Environmental Evaluation of the Bolsa Chica Area 2(16. Submitted to Dillingham nvironme5t­37 7ompany, Costa Mesa, California. 1973 Report of a Scientific Resources Survey and Inventor Conducted for tTie GiSj o unt��in �oon Beach, a i or in a. u mitted to the City of Huntington Beach, California. Armor, S. 1921 History of Orange County. Historical Record Company, Los Ange es. Arnold, J. E. 1987 Craft Specialization in the Prehistoric Channel Islands, California. Universill of California Publications in Anthropology 16. n_ versity oT—Ca i ornia PFFss, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Ascens16n, A. de la 1615 Relacion de la Jornada que Hizo el General Sevastian Vizcayno al Descubri miento de las Cal i forni as el Ano de 1602 por Mandado del Senor Excelentisimo Conde de Monterey, Virrey Que Era dela Nueva Espana. In Monarchia Indiana, edited by J. de Torquemada, pp. 693-725. Madre '� 101 102 Baumhoff, M. A. 1978 Environmental Background. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol . 8• California, edited by R. F. Hey zr er, pp.-rG=- mithsonian In t tution, Washington, D.C. r�Bean, L. J. ` 1975 Power and its Application in Native California. Journal of California Anthropology 2(1) :25-33. Bean, L. J. , and C. R. Smith 1978 Gabrielino. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California, edited Ty—T-T.- Weizer, pp. 538-F47 . m7 hso inin an nstitution, Washington, D.C. Beck, W. A. , and Y. D. Haase 1974 Historical Atlas of California. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Berger, R., R. Protsch, R. Reynolds, C. Rozaire, and J. R. Sackett 1971 New Radiocarbon Dates Based on Bone Collagen of California Paleoindians. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 12:43-49. er a ey. Blackburn, T. C. 1963 Ethnohistoric Descriptions of Gabrielino Material Culture. University of California, Los Angeles, Archeaological Survey Annual a orL 1 - - O. LosAngel-es. Borden, C. E. 1969 New Evidence on the Early Peopling of the New World. Encyclo- paedia Britannica Book of the Year 1969:101-104. Chicago. Boscana, G. 1978 Chinigchinich: A Revised and Annotated Version of A. Robinson's Translation of Father G. Boscana's Historical Account of the Belief, Usages, Customs and Extravagances of the Indians of r{ this Mission of San Juan Capistrano Called the jkcagchemem Tribe. �f Malki Museum Classics in California Anthropolog 3. Banning, ZaiMr a Bright, W. 1975 The Alliklik Mystery. Journal of California Anthropology 2(2) :228-230. Brock, J., and W. A. Sawyer 1983 Archaeological Assessment Report for the 42.4 Acre Graham Place Pr_ operty in Bolsa Chica, County of Orange, Cafifo`r a. S u 6`mi�ed oovan-De1T an ssociares, Inc., IrvinTe, Ca orn a. Brouhard, M. 1968 Paradise Lost and Regained. Los An eles Times, October 6. �I �I 103 Brubaker, L. B., and E. R. Cook 1983 Tree-ring Studies of Holocene Environments. In Late Quaternar Environments of the United States Volume 2 the Holocene, edited y ri gfiT,�., pp. �2z-z3s. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Butzbach, B. 1975 Preliminary Sampling on a Portion of Archaeological Site CA- ORA-83: Phase u mi tad to i gna Landmark roper l e—s;Inc., Irvine, CaTi7ornia. California Coastal Conservancy 1984 Bolsa Chica Habitat Conservation Plan. On file, Public Affairs Service, University Research Library, University of California, Los Angeles. California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) 1974 Special Report 11. Sacramento. Carter, C. I., and J. B. Howard 1975 Phase I Archaeolo icai Investigations, CA-ORA-83, Orange Co�,- CaTi ornia. u mite to igna an mars roper ies. nc., Irvine, a i ornia. Cook. S. F. 1976 The Population of the California Indians, 1769-1970. University of California Press, Berkeley. I Cooley, T. G. 1973 Report of Test Excavations: CA-ORA-83. CA-ORA-85, and CA-ORA- 288. Submitted to igna roperties' Inc., Irvine, al' ornia. Corps of Engineers (CoE) 1988 Scope of Work, Contract DACW09-88-D-0007, Delivery Order No. 8. Issued by Los Angeles District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles. Costanso, M. 1911 The Portola Expedition of 1769-1770; Diary of Miguel Costanso, edited by F. J. Teggart. Academy of Paci fI oast i story, Publications 2(4):161-327. University of California Press, Berkeley. Cottrell , M. G. 1980 Archaeological Resources Assessment Conducted for the Bolsa Chita rea n r� ange o_ unty, a ornia�5m Tted"�i'g� an marTc�roperties, Inc., Irvine, Cari7ornia. Cottrell , M. G., and G. Rice 1975 An Evaluation of the Archaeological Resources on Bolsa Chica i Mesa. Submitted to Signa Landmark ropert a, Inc.;Trvv1 e. MYMi ornia. r 104 Crespi, J. 1926 Vi age de la Espedi ti 6n de Tierra de San Diego a Monterey. In Historical Memoirs of New California, Vol. 2, translated and ' e d i t e d by H. . Bo ton, pp. -27 o. University of California Press, Berkeley. Curray, J. R. 1960 Sediments and History of Holocene Transgression, Continental Shelf, Northwest Gulf of Mexico. In Recent Sediments, Northwest Gulf of Mexico, edited by F. P. SheparT7r. B. 1hleger, and T. H. Van Andei , pp. 221-226. Davis, J. T. 1961 Trade Routes and Economic Exchange Among the Indians of California. Reports of the University of California Archaeological Survey :1 TI. rerke ey. Ebert, J. I. e 1985 Modeling Human Systems and "Predicting" the Archaeological Record: The Unavoidable Relationship of Theory ,and Method. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Albuquerque. Eckman, E. C., A. T. Strahorn, L. C. Holmes, and J. E. Gurnsey 1919 Soil Survey of the Anaheim Area (map). U.S. Department of Agricu7turel Conservation ervice, Los Angeles. EDAW, Inc. 1979 Report to the Bolsa Chica Studer Group. Submitted to Amigos de Bolsa Chica, Huntington Beach, Cali ornia. Fages, P. 1937 A Historical, Political and Natural De�scri tion of California b Pedro Fa es, Soldier,oTTainn, trans al ted I)y H. 1. Priestley. Universe y� iT"forma lsress�erkeley. Fairbridge, R. W. 1960 The Changing Level of the Sea. Scientific American 202(5):70- 79. Frey, H., R. F. Heim, and J. L. Spruill 1970 Report on Natural Resources of Upper Neewwpoont Bauer and Recommen- dat ons oncerni n thew�ys Development. Submitted to California eTl—partment o s and dame. Friis, L. 1965 Orange County Through Four Centuries. Pioneer Press. Santa Ana, California. Fritts, H. C. , and G. A. Gordon .1982 Reconstructed Annual Precipitation for California. In Climate from Tree Rings, edited by M. K. Hughes, pp. 185-191. Cam rri `ge nivers� , Cambridge. �r ' 105 Gatschet, A. S. ' 1876 Analytical Report on Eleven Idioms Spoken in Southern California, Nevada, and on the Lower Colorado River, their Phonetic Elements, Grammatical Structure, and Mutual Affinities. ' United States Geo ra hical Surveys West of the One Hundredth Meridian... by U. M. wheeler. Annul Report of the Chief of Engineers, Appendix JJ:330-343. Government Pri rFt ng-6fT-1ce, Washington, D.C. Goldberg, S. K., and J. E. Arnold 1987 Prehistoric Sites in the Prado Basin, California: Regional Context an i ni'ficance rvalU ion. u mit e o e os Angeles ' i s ri ct;II. . Army Corps�o '-Eng eers. Grunau, K. N. 1975 The Mountains and Wetlands. Orange County Land Environmental Series 2. Santa Ana. Hale, H. E. 1846 Ethnography and Philology. United States _Exploring Expedition During the years 1838, Vol ..' 1�L�$T1�$�� un e�r��Commando Z'FiarTes�il c1!es—Ufa o ea anrffancha-rU, PTiiTaphia.— Harrington, J. P. 1942 Culture Element Distributions XIX: Central California Coast. University of California Anthropological Records 7(1) . Berkeley. 1962 Preface, in California's Gabrielino Indians, by B. E. Johnston. Southwest Museum,Cos-AngeTes. Harrowby, T. E. 1973 The Environment of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands (Report No. SD73- SA-0058 . Submitted to Earth Resources Program, Rockwell International , Huntington Beach. Heizer, R. F. 1968 The Indians of Los Angeles County: Hugo Reid's Letters of 1852. Southwest Museum Papers 21. Los Angeles. ' 1972 California's Oldest Historical Relic? R. H. Lowie Museum of Anthropology, University o a i orn a-,�erkeley. ' Heizer, R. F., and A. E. Treganza 1944 Mines and Quarries of the Indians of California. California Journal of Mines and Geology 40(3) :291-359. ' Herring, A. K 1968 Surface Collections from ORA-83, a Cogged Stone Site at Bolsa Chica, Orange County, California. Pacific Coast Archaeological ' Society Quarterly 4(3) :3-37. I 106 Hodge, F. W. edit r ' 1906 Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 30. ' Washington, D.C. Hudson, D. T. 1969 The Archaeological Investigations During 1935 and 1937 at Ora- 237, Ora-238, and Ora-239 Santiago Canyon, Orange County, California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 'I 5(1) :1-86. Costa Mesa, Cali{ornia. 1971 Proto-Gabrielino Patterns of Territorial Organization in South Coastal California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society ') Quarterly 7(2) :49-76. Costa Mesa,Cafi ornia. Hudson, D. T., J. Timbrook, and M. Rempe (editors and annotators) 'I 1978 Tomol : Chumash Watercraft as Described in -he Ethnographic Notes 5T7ohn F.arrin ton. Mena Press t�iriip ogica apers 7=ocorro, New exico. Huntington Beach, California, Planning Department 1986 Bolsa Chica White Hole Area. On file, Public Affairs Service, University Research-L brary, University of California, Los Angeles. Johnston, B. E. 1955 The Gabrielino Indians of Southern California, Part I. The Masterkey 29(6) :180-191. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles. 1956a The Gabrielino Indians of Southern California, Part II. The 'I Masterkey 30(1) :6-21. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles. 1956b The Gabrielino Indians of Southern California, Part III. The 'I Masterkey 30(2) :44-56. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles. 1956c The Gabrielino Indians of Southern California, Part IV. The Masterkey 30(3):76-89. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles. 'I 1956d The Gabrielino Indians of Southern California, Part V. The Masterkey 30(4):125-132. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles. 1956e The Gabrielino Indians of Southern California, Part VI. The Masterkey 30(5):146-156. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles. 1956f The Gabrielino Indians of Southern California, Part VII. The Masterkey 30(6):191-196. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles. 1957a The Gabrielino Indians of Southern Californic, Part VIII. The Masterkey 31(1):9-23. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles. 1957b The Gabrielino Indians of Southern California, Part IX. The Masterkey 31(2):49-58. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles. 1� 107 Johnston, B. E. (continued) ' 1957c The Gabrielino Indians of Southern California, Part X. The Masterkey 31(3):95-105. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles. 1957d The Gabrielino Indians of Southern California, Part XI. The Masterkey 31(4):121-130. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles. 1957e The Gabrielino Indians of Southern California, Part XII. The Masterkey 31(5):155-165. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles. 1957f The Gabrielino Indians of Southern California, Part XIII. The Masterkey 31(6):185-197. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles. 1958 The Gabrielino Indians of Southern California, Part XIV: Epilogue. The Masterkey 32(1):11-20. Southwest Museum, Los ' Angeles. 1962 California's Gabrielino Indians. Southwest Museum, Los ' Angeles. Kahrl , W. L., editor ' 1979 The California Water Atlas. State of California, Sacramento. Kesseli , J. E. 1942 The Climates of California According to the Koppen Classification. Geographical Review 32:476-480. King, C. D. ' 1981 The Evolution of Chumash Society: A Comparative Study of Artifacts Used tTie—Mcial S stem MaIntenance in the anfa a b a F-S-T hannel--Reg l d ssertat`ion. Department of Anthropology, versty oTTalifornia, Davis. ' Koerper, H. C. 1979 On the Question of the Chronological Placement of Shoshonean Presence in Orange County, California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 15(3):69-94. Costa Mesa, California. 1981 Prehistoric Subsistence and Settlement in the Newport Bp Area and Environs Or�an�e ount a orn�a: Unpu is a aisser`�o, Department of n ropo ogy, University of ' California, Riverside. Koerper, H. C., J. E. Ericson, C. E. Drover, and P. E. Langenwalter, II 1986 Obsidian Exchange in Prehistoric Orange County. Pacific Coast ' Archaeological Society Quarterly 22(1):33-69. Costa Mesa, a i ornia. Kroeber, A. L. 1907 Shoshonean Dialects of California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology anMhnology - . ' Berkeley. i 108 Kroeber, A. L. (continued) i 1909 Notes on Shoshonean Dialects of Southern California. University of California Publications in American_ Archaeology and I no ogy 8TT): - er ce ey. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American I Ethnology Bulletin 78. Smithsonian Institution;WasTington, D.C. LaLone, M. 1980 Gabrielino Indians of Southern California: An Annotated Ethnohistoric Biblio ra h , Institute of Archaeology, Occasional Paper 6. University of California, Los Angeles. LaMarche, V. C., Jr. 1978 Tree-ring Evidence of Past Climatic Variability. Nature 276:334-338. Langenwalter, P. E. II, and R. W. Huddleston 1986 Vertebrate Animal Remains from CA-ORA-83. In Archaeological Evaluation of CA-ORA-83: The Cogged Stone Site on Bolsa Chica u Mesa, OOr�ra__�nge__ County, California, by N. itne�y-Desaut—T,�� p Mason, L. M. Maher, A. un berg, D. E. Lewa.rch, C. Wills, P. Sutton, J. A. McKenna, P. E. Langenwalter II, and M. L. Peterson, pp. 202-215. Submitted to Signal Landmark Properties, Irvine. u Lee, R. 1969 The !Kung San: Men, Women, and Work in a Foraging Society. Camb it Er'Id Unive'rsity7ress,Hamm ridge. — — Lewis, E. R. 1979 Seacoast Fortifications of the United States. Leeward Publications, Inc. Annapolis, RaryTd. Los Anse�ele��s Times �I 1979 Bolsa Chica Land Agreement in Danger of Collapse. April 29. 1981 Bolsa Chica has Picturesque Past. October 25:VII. 1987 The Battle for Bolsa Chica. August 2. 1988 Bolsa Chica Development Foes Win Major Victory: Court Revives J' Amigos' Suit, OKs New Claims. January 30. Mabry, T. N. 1979 Records Search and Archaeological Reconnaissance Bolsa Chica Mesa Orange County, California. ubm�er oo 5'ignaT�n mar P roper ties,s, I c.Irvine, a i ornia. Marsh L. L. and R. D. Thornton ' 1982 Submission of Signal Bolsa Corporation and Signal Landmark Pro erties Inc. n 0 osition to the PProposea�fomina ion o�1F , ogs one Site, o e ate onT�eF�_ii ste'o i store c Places. Submitted to California Historical Resources Com mission, Sacramento. ' 109 ' Marshall , R. P., and H. Eberhart 1982 Report of Field Work at Bolsa Chica. Ms. on file, California State University, Los Angeles. ' Mason, R. D. 1987 Research Design for Evaluation of Coastal Archaeolo ical Sites in Northern �OOr�tu�ee Count C�iforni a:—Su mi tte o i g aT Lan mar roperTies, Inc. rvine, a i ornia. McKenna, J. A. ' 1986a Archaeological Investigations at CA-ORA-64 Bolsa Chica Mesa, Oran a County, California. cie-nTi i�'c Resource Turveys, nc. Hunt!ng n each. Submittid to Signal Landmark Properties, Inc., Irvine, California. 1986b Archaeological Investigations at CA-ORA-78 Bolsa Chica Mesa, Oran a County_, California. Scienti is esource purveys, nc. uA�gton Beach. Submittid to Signal Landmark Properties, Inc., ' Irvine, California. McKenna, J. A. , and R. D. Mason 1987 Archaeological Investigations at CA-ORA-85 Bolsa Chica Mesa Oran a county, a i ornia. cienfiTic esource urveys,Tnc! Hunt!Fg o�each. SubmiFted to Signal Landmark, Inc., Irvine, California. . McKinney, A. ' 1968 Cogged Stones in Private Collections. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 4(3) :39-55. os a esa, a i ornia. Meadows. D. 1986 Orange County Under Spain, Mexico and the United States. Dawson ssiBook Shop, Los ingeles. Meighan, C. W., F. J. Findlow, and S. P. DeAtley, editors 1974 Obsidian Dates I: A Compendium of the Obsidian Hydration Determinations Made at the U.C.L.A. Obsidian Hydration Laboratory. ' University of California Archaeological Survey Monograph 3. Los ge es. ' Mendenhall 1955 Groundwater and Irrigation Enterprises of the Foothill Belt, Southern California. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper ' 219. Washington, D.C. Merriam, C. H. 1903 Vocabularies of North American Indians: Tong-va (San Gabriel). t Ms. on file, special collections, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley. I 110 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California ' 1985 Letter from Warren J. Abbott, General Counsel to Thomas F. Riley, Chairman of the Orange County Board of Supervisors, ' December 16. Monnett, J. R. , L. Cole, and J. C. Cleland ' 1945 Harbor Defenses of Los Angeles in World War II. On file, U.S. ArmyPiTitary istory Institute, a T sfe,Penns,t�ania. Moratto, M. J. ' 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press. Orlando and London. Moratto, M. J., and 0. K. Davis ' 1988 Paleoenvironments. In Culture Change in the Central Sierra Nevada, 8000 B.C.-A.D. 1950, by Michael J. Moratto, Judith Y or o an7-Laurence H7. 57oup. Final Report of the New Melones Archeological Project 9, pp. 39-86. National Park Service, Washington, D.C. Moratto, M. J., T. F. King, and W. B. Woolfenden ' 1978 Archaeology and California's Climate. The Journal of California Anthroplogy 5(2) :147-162. Morton, P. K., and R. Miller 1973 Geologic Map of Orange County, . California. California Division of Mines and Geology Geoenvironmental Maps of Orange County, Preliminary Report 15. ' Munoz, J. 1975 Report of Archaeological Investigations of the Southwest Portion of CA-ORA-83. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 11(3) :1-32. Costa Mesa, Cal f rnia. Munz, P. A., and D. D. Keck ' 1959 A California Flora. University of California Press, Berkeley. Nissley, C., J. Bringham, and M. G. Cottrell ' 1975 CA-Ora-78: A Review of Bolsa Chica Archaeology. Archaeological ffesearch, inc.Coss .a-Rasa, CaT-fo`rnia. Orange County Environmental Management Agency ' 1985 Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program. North Coast Planning Unit. Bolsa icaZan�[1`se Win: n i e, Orange ounty Environmental Management Agency, Santa Ana, California. Orange County Genealogical Society 1969 Saddleback Ancestors. Orange, California. , Orange County Historical Project 1936 W.P.A. Project No. 3105. O.P. No. 65-3-38,35. Ms. on file, University Research Library, Special Collections, University of , California, Los Angeles. ' 111 Parker, C. E., and M. Parker ' 1963 Orange County from Indians to Industry. Orange County Title Company. Santa Ana,Ca i ornia.— Pierson, L. J., G. I. Schiller, and R. A. Slatter 1987 California Outer Continental Shelf Archaeological Resource Study: Morro jja to Mexico Bor erg naT Report. Submitted to the U.S. Minerals Management Service, Reston, Virginia. ' Pleasants, J. E. 1931 Hi story of Orange County, California. J. R. Fi nnel l & Sons. Los Angeles. Poland, J. F., A. M. Piper, and others ' 1956 Ground Water Geology of the Coastal Zone, Long Beach-Santa Ana Area, California. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1109. Washington, D.C. ' Portola, G. de 1909 Diar of Gaspar de Portola during the California Expedition of 1769-1177/70,ed�tee by D.=.mi tF ands J. T e g g a r 1. Academy' 'Ff ' Pacif Tcoast History, Publications 1(3):31-89. University of California Press, Berkeley. Prosch, R. R. 1978 Catalog of Fossil Hominids of North America. Fischer. New Yor cf an_37i;uttgarT— ' Ricketts, E. F., J. Calvin, J. W. Hedgepeth, and D. W. Phillips 1985 Between Pacific Tides, 2nd ed. Stanford University Press, Stan o—rrd T aT rfo—rn- a. Ross, L. A. , and R. J. Desaautels 1970 Bolsa Chica Archaeological Research Project Phase i Surface Su and Historic Research of the Bolsa Ch a Bad Area, calif rnTa—. u mute to 1gna Properties, Inc. Los Angeles. Santa Ana Register — 191.3 Gun Clubs of Orange County in Supplement: Orange County, the ' Biggest Little County on Earth.April . 1984 Players in Bolsa Chica Drama Laud Compromise. December 1. 1987 Private Developer of Wetlands in Bolsa Chica Would Get Tax Condemnation Powers in Bill . March 14. ' Schilz, A. J., J. M. Clevenger, and D. Gallegos 1987 Proposal to Conduct a Test and Evaluation Program for Archae— o�cal 'rites A- 5 an=A- o sa ica esa, range •un Sub mitted miTto Si naTCan m� Properties. Inc. Irvine, ' California. 112 Schroth, A. 1983 Radiocarbon Dating with Application to Orange County Archaeology. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly ' 19(3/4) :35-81. Costa Mesa, California. Schuiling, W. C. (editor) ' 1972 Pleistocene Man at Calico. San Bernardino County Museum Association. Bloomfield. 1979 Pleistocene Man at Calico. 2nd ed. San Bernardino County Museum Association. Red a�'3n s. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. (SRS) 1981 ORA-83: An Archaeological Evaluation for National Register Status. ubmitte to Signal Land-m-a-FF—ProFer-tTes, Inc. Irvine, California. 1982 Ora-83. An Archaeolo ical Re-evaluation for National Register Sta u� s:'Submit a to igna Lan mart rope�iesT rvine, CalifFrnia. �f 1983 Archaeological Research Design, CA-ORA-83: "The Co�edd Stone i Site: Final Research a T al va a Pro ram. Submitted to Si g aT Landmark-7—roperties, Inc—.—Irvine, California. 1985 Cultural Resources Report on Huntington, Mesa Chevron Oil Fie s, ffia Landmark ro erF !n e i o_f un n on eacTi, Corn i a. Suite tdSign a Tan marK Properties, inc., rvine, and Huntington Beach Company, Huntington Beach, California. 1987 Archaeolo ical Investigations at CA-ORA-78, Bolsa Chica Mesa Oran a Count Ca i ornia. ua-mi'Tffeed— :�i gnalT m Properties, Tnc. Irvine, alifornia. 1988a Archaeological Assessment of a Portion of CA-ORA-85 Bolsa Chicamesa-, Urange, County, Uri 'ornia.-Sugm-RtUeT to Signal Landmark Properties, Inc. Irvine, Galifornia. 1988b Final Archaeolo ical Investigation CA-ORA-84 �Oran e__ County, ' California. Submitted TIE to i gna an mar Woper� s,Inc rvine, Lalifornia. Shipley, W. F. ' 1978 Native Languages of California. In Handbook of North American Indians Vol. 8• California, edited by__K._T-lieWer, pp_._8II: mi sonianT s-ritution, Washington, D.C. Smith, H. C. 1969 The Clubhouse of the Bolsa Chica Gun Club. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 1(2). Costa Mesa, a�r'nia" ' 113 Smith, H. C. (continued) 1965 Letter from Enid H. Douglass, Oral History Office, Claremont Graduate School, Claremont, California, March 19. Collection of the Sherman Library, Corona Del Mar, California. State of California, Department of Fish and Game 1974 Bolsa Chica Marsh Establishment Project, Volume 1. ' Stein, J. E., E. G. Kreppert, and others 1971 An Environmental Evaluation of the Bolsa Chica Area, Volume 1. Submitted to Signal Landmark PropertiesTnc.,Trvine. Stickel , G. E. 1976 Excavations at the Harbor Bluffs Site CA-ORA-555 Located on the Meadowlark Farms Proeerty,. Huntington -Beach, CaliTornia. submitted ro Bucce a Lngineering uMers. Costa Mesa, California. Sutton, P., with J. A. McKenna 1986 Artifact Descriptions. In Archaeological Evaluation of CA-ORA- 83: The Cogged Stone iTn -- o sa �a mesas range oun , ' LaTi form a��ylr�:�Thi tney�esauF s, ason, L. M. Maher, P. A. Sundberg, D. E. Lewarch, C. Wills, P. Sutton, J. A. McKenna, P. E. Langenwalter II, and M. L. Peterson, Volume 1:142-170. Submitted to Signal Landmark Properties, Inc. Irvine, California. 1 Talbert, T. B. 1952 My Sixty Years in California. Huntington Beach News Press. ' Huntington Beach, taTi ornia. Taylor, R. E., L. A. Payen, C. A. Prior, P. J. Sl ota, Jr., R. Gillespie, J. A. J. Gowl ett, R. E. M. Hedges, A. J. T. Jul 1, T. H. Zabel , D. J. ' Donahue, and R. Berger 1985 Major Revisions in the Pleistocene Age Assignments for North American Human Skeletons by C-14 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry: ' None Older Than 11,000 Years B.P. American Antiquity 50(1):136- 140. ' Thomas Y. Bolsa Land Co. 1905 1=aT. Tp—p.-M, in collection of the Los Angeles County Law Library. Tompkins, W. A. 1964 Little Giant of Signal Hill. Prentice Hall , Inc. Englewood Cli s,New ersey. ' True, D. L. 1966 Archaeological Differentiation of Shoshonean and Yuman Speaking Groups in Southern a i orni a. h:6. dissertati on. -6epar men o nA hropTogy, nT versi ty of Ca' lifornia, Los Angeles. 114 I United States Army 1945 History of the Western Defense Command 6(1)::6-13, 20-25. On I file, U.S. Army Milit� ary History Institute, Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania. Van Horn, D. M. 1980 Archaeological Survey Report—: A 21 Acre Parcel of Pro pert Locate Next to the AmT noT OT i�Lease i n tFie 7'tt of-Hunti ngton 7naArcToassoaes Tt� eac 55ri g�c Costa Mesa. ' Wagner, H. R. 1928 Spanish Voyager to the Northwest Coast in the Sixteenth ' Century: the Voyage of Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo. California Historical Society Quarterly 7:20-77. San Francisco. Wallace, W. J. 1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11:214-230. 1978 Post-Pleistocene Archaeology. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California, edited by­R7T77l1 Tzer, pp­72T=�T: mi't 'so an7ns it tution, WasFington, D.C. ' Warren, C. N. 1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in ' Anthropology 1(3) :1- . Weaver, D. K. , and V. H. Wilhelm ' 1934 Geologic Formations and Economic Development of the Oil and Gas Fields of Ca ifornia. Mullet in`33 8. epartment 7_9i'nes. an rF ancisco.o. Weide, M. L. ' 1967 Excavations at Ora-82• Spring 1967. On file, Department of Anthropology, Californiatate University, Long Beach. Whitney-Desauteis, N. A., R. D. Mason, L. M. Maher, F. A. Sundberg, D. E. Lewarch, C. Wills, P. Sutton, J. A. McKenna, P. E. Langenwal ter 11, , and M. L. Peterson 1986 Archaeological Evaluation of CA ORA 83: The Coqqed Stone Site on Bol sa Chi` ca Mesa, ran a oun y, CaTifornTa YTumeT Submitted o Tgnal La ar ropert eels, Inc. Irvine, California. Willey, G. R., and P. Phillips 1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.— 115 ' Wills, C. 1986 Lithic Artifact Composition. In Archaeological Evaluation of CA-ORA-83: The Co ed Stone Site on Bolsa ChIca MeLa, ran e County, CaMfornia, o u� me 1, by N. A. Whitney-Desautel s, R. D. ' Mason, L. M. Maher, F. A Sundberg, E. D. Lewarch, C. Wills, P. Sutton, J. A. McKenna, P. E. Langenwal ter II, and M. L. Peterson, pp. 171-175. Submitted to Signal Landmark Properties, Irvine. Wlodarski , R. J. 1979 Catalina Island Soapstone Manufacturing. The Journal of ' California and Great Basin Anthropology 1(2) :331-355. 1981 Archival Background Research Study for Approximately 44 Acres Adjacent to the East Garden Grove-Wi ntersburg Channel, Bolsa a anT o sa—Zh-ica W1`57fs, Orange County, California. Submitted to the Metropolii tan art ter-Di s rii Et, Los Ange es. ' Woodford, A. D., J. E. Schuellhamer, J. E. Vodder, and R. F. Yerkes 1954 Geology of the Los Angeles Basin. In Geology of Southern California, edited by R. A. Jahns. California Division of Mines and Geology Bulletin 170. _ Young, D. 1988 Personal communication, August 29. Director, Fort MacArthur Military Museum,, San Pedro, California. APPENDIX A: ' NATIVE AMERICAN INTERESTS AND CONCERNS One of the nine tasks identified in the scope-of-work for this study (CoE 1988) was to consult with Indians about cultural resources in the project area. This we have done, initially through contacts with the Native American Heritage Commission and with the Native American ' Coordinator of the State Office of Historic Preservation, and subsequently by letters to 11 Indian groups and individuals in south- western California. An example of our letter and a complete listing of addressees appear in the following pages. The remainder of this appendix presents the replies to our request. 1 1 ' 117 118 f4tec research incorporated 13 March 1989 Ms. Beatrice Alva 122 East Pearl San Gabriel , CA 92776 Re. Bolsa Chica Mesa/ Huntington Beach Mesa Dear Ms. Alva: Our firm has been retained by the Los Angeles District, Corps of Engineers, to ascertain the number and status of cultural resources in the Bol sa Chi ca Mesa and Huntington Beach Mesa area of Orange County, California. The enclosed map shows the boundaries of our study parcel . One objective of our study is to identify and evaluate archaeological sites, historic properties, and places of significance to Native Americans within the study area. The information gathered during our research will be used for environmental planning purposes related to possible future development of the subject parcel . Accordingly, we would be grateful for any information you might share regarding cultural sites (such as former village locations, gathering places, cemeteries, sacred sites, or ritual areas) in the study area.. Because our work schedule is fairly tight, we would appreciate an early reply. Thank you for any information you might provide. Sincerely, Michael`J. Moratto, Ph.D. President tb cc Steve Schwartz, Corps of Engineers ' 19524 Hillsdale Drive.Sonora.CA S15570 (209) 553.2902 • 533-2934 ' 119 • ,lam. I •'J.� L --,' I L., N ' — - Park t. 1 _ _ H ; II L.'' ,A B �L ' S A C �I le Elio :u II wE•[,,�•.i' �1, .I'• Alni . SM� �III i I SIR — on�at•beiir. ••' i. /J Bantry Cll�' 'I. �:::; �...I Country(,lub �� •ate• .n i •. ems• CrERSBURG Trailer I'r CHAN QS :,•��'' _ ]•s_ •' '•' �/ , 1;,. C�• L' al •�� J r':�: ••.�- U .I �% ,The Gn+ntry ,� c Fark C• tf_ r .t' y'•� 1, �_ '(� ,i• —.. .1� - - — ,.. .VARNER Well 1 I. y I• Fi Q •��� I ll .f II •1 • �:::..: :. - A _3 ,I .Lark M. \ 0 ElM:cm.a29 WeLr _D I ' `1.G'a0� 66 f D P cat O J-''' C. •� �� � /�\ ^� _-- ::::::�'!L;� ' I,~ Its- Is �. ••••••r�I�µ i:l =�aagt��i' leicivaia •i ' ./ \ t0 , ZQ ,\ \�-i `.•`!\ ` \\ _ ` I•e l" vp'\' u-SJ Dt •o r _. PROJECT AREA . r�s— 1> , a a��' �— _ Su 36 36 36 �:H•hpoit 73 ' �t tie ' ~ •�•'• 'y't.� ham.n_1 q _ `• �-•,.';:ate�,. `�'.:`yf Portion of USGS Seal Beach 7.5' quadrpngle 120 ' Addressees, 13 March 1989 Letter Ms. Beatrice Alva ' 122 East Pearl San Gabriel, CA 92776 Mr. Art Alvitre 4126 Potrero Road Newbury Park, CA 91320 Ms. Cindi M. Alvitre 1149 Jadestone Lane Corona, CA 91720 Mr. Ray Belardes 16760 Paradise Mt. Road Valley Center, CA 92082 Mr. David Belardes, Spokesman Juaneno Band of Mission Indians 31742 Via Belardes San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Capistrano Indian Council u Att'n.: Ms. Juanita Foy U c/o Mission San Jua Capistrano Capistrano, CA 92600 Mr. Fred Morales 211 East Main Street San Gabriel, CA 91776 Mr. Art Morales 457 Meadow Street Laverne, CA 91750 Mr. Steve Rios Capistrano Indian Council P.O. Box 304 San Juan Capistrano; CA 92675 Ms. Teeter Maria Romero Capistrano Indian Council P.O. Box 304 San Juan Capistrano, CA 926*75 Mr. Jim Velasquez 1226 West Third Street It Santa Ana, CA 92703 121 April 4, 1989 Environmental Planning Section US Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 2711 Los Angeles, CA 90053-2325 (213) 894-3399 Michael J. Moratto, PhD Infotec Research Inc. 19524 Hillsdale Drive Sonora, CA 95370 Dear Mike: ' Enclosed is a phone conversation record pertaining to native American contacts for Bolsa Chica. Please include this in the documentation you are preparing for this project. Mr. Velasquez contacted me in response to your letter to him. He will probably not respond to you directly, though I urged him to. Sincerely, Steven J. Schwartz Archaeologist 1 1 122 TELEPHONE CONVERSATION RECORD March 20, 1989 Subject: ct: Native American Concerns - Bolsa Chica Person Calling: Mr. Jim Velasquez (714) 547•-4237 Person Called: Steven Schwartz (213) 894-3399 Mr. Velasquez represents the Coastal Gabrielino. He has his "papers" from the Bureau of Indian Affairs confirming that he is a Coastal Gabrielino. In fact, he states that the BIA recently reaffirmed his status. Mr. Velasquez stated that the Coastal Gabrielino are very concerned about any development in the Bolsa. Chica area. They are not opposed to development, but do have serious concerns that their cultural values may be compromised by development, if not handled properly. The Bolsa Chica area is very sensitive to Coastal Gabrielino values. There are probably burial sites a17. throughout the area. The Gabrielino buried their deceased wherever they happened to die. As such, burials can be found everywhere within their territory. Any burials, and associated grave goods, located as part of planning or construction of any project in the area, should be reburied with proper respect on another part of the property which will not be subject to future disturbance. a Mr. Velasquez further stated that the sacred sea turtle, which, at one time frequented the Bolsa Chica marsh, no longer visits the area; due to development. Mr. Velasquez concluded by saying that he will be cooperative, and looks forward to being consulted in the future concerning any future development in the Bolsa Chica area. Steven Schwartz u 1 1 1 1 1 1 124 eC - R r .� research incorporated 9 April 1989 Ms. Beatrice Alva ' 122 E Pearl San Gabriel , CA 91776 Re. Bolsa Chica Mesa/ Huntington Beach Mesa Dear Ms. Alva: 1 Thank you for your prompt reply to my March 13th inquiry. Your concern �I for artifacts and other cultural remains in the study area is deeply appreciated. Your letter, along with letters from other Indian groups and individuals, will be appended to our report, Inventory and Evaluation of CuZtural Resources, BoZsa Chica Mesa and Huntington Beach Mesa, Orange County, CaZifornia, which we expect to submit to the Los Angeles District, Corps of Engineers, on or before June 1. If you would like to have a copy of this report, please request one from Steve Schwartz at the Corps. It. is my understanding that gratis copies of the report will be provided to interested parties upon request. Thank you again for taking the time to prepare such a thoughtful response to my earlier letter. Sincerely, J Michael J . Moratto, Ph.D. 1� President. tb 'I cc S. Schwartz 19524 Hillsdale Drive. Sonora. CA 9 5711 (209) 5i.1-2902 • 535.29.14 'I 125 '` k #INTERTRIBAL COUNCIL OF TONGVA formerly, the gabrielino indians 4126 POTRERO RD. NEWBURY PARK, CA. 91320 March 30, 1989 Mr.Michael J. Moratto, President; Infotec Research Incorporated 19524 Hillsdale Drive Sonora, CA. 95370 Dear 11r. Moratto, Thank you for your corporation's inquiry about the Tongva aboriginal areas stillused by the Traditional Tongva today. The site you mention in your correspondence has been one of great controversy, that is to say, one Jim Velasauez has created an unfavorable atmosphere among the Ataham (juaneno/luiseno) and Tongva Communities. As a network of Traditional People, we do not acknowledge this person as a member of any of the mentioned nations, that would also include the Cahuilla and Chumash Nations as well. This network of Traditional Nations mentioned will discount anything this ' person tries to interpret as cultural or spiritual information. As with all Native Americans, we have a protocol which we use. This is called counsel, and in this counsel a Traditional etiquette is used for all decisions and policies. We as a network of the above mentioned have summoned Mr. Velasquez to counsel to answer for his actions regarding the cultural and environmental destruction of Ataham and Tongva lands which he has received vast amounts of monitary reward from the Irvine Corporation and other land developers so that they can comply with the state laws, and write off these sites, and continue their so called progress. You will find inclosed the most recent copy of the Traditional Tongva Policy regarding Aboriginnal Resources, I hope this policy will help your ' corporation with the project and feel free to share this information with other involved agencies dealing with this project. Being Traditionalist, we stand firmly on what has been addressed and hope you understand why our policy has been written. Again, thank you for your correspondence. Sincerely, c.c. Chief Raymond Belardes; Ataham Nation Bob Rivera; Chumash Nation Katherine Saubel; Cahuilla Nation cic� Cindi Alvitre-Porter; Tongva Nation Kote / A' lukoy Iotah; Chumash Nation or t, Tong r Speaker f Vera Rocha; Tongva Nation for the Tongva Nation Fred Morales; Tongva Nation Jim Velasquez; ????? ?????????? Native American Heritage Ccnmission 126 ' TRADITIONAL TONGVA POLICY REGARDING ABORIGINAL RESOURCES ' JANUARY 1989 ' WITH THE CURRENT AMOUNT OF DESTRUCTION TO THE LAND AND RESOURCES BELONGING TO THE TRADITIONAL TONGVA , IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THIS DOCUMENT BE DISTRIBUTED AMONG ALL FEDERAL , STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES . The Traditional Tongva are the remainder of the origional native population from the areas improperly designated as ; Los Angeles county , Orange county , San Bernadino county , Riverside county and parts of the eastern edge of Ventura county . The Tonqva are the Soverign Nation of non-christian indians whom still retain their Oral History , Language , and Religious Value System with their ties to their lands . This Nation and its relations have never received monies from the Bureau of Indian affairs or the California land Claims Act which was payment for land and native heritage . We have never sold any of our land or resources . We have been referred to as "aabrieleno indians or "mission indians; Any person considering themselves as a gabrieleno or the latter is ; 1 . ) a catholic or christian with no concept of Traditional values , 2 . ) received monies from the California Land Claims Act in the late 1960 ' s to sell land that does not belong to them. 3. ) because of the payment received from the C . L . C.A. this would terminate these persons from their according to the B . I .A. The Tongva are not gabrielenos , the latter word being a spanish misnomer. The word Tongva in our native language means" From the Earth,' The Tongva are also part of a National Network of Native Americans whom are Traditional in the same respect. We as Traditional Tonqva have distinguished that only what nature dictates will be absolute. I' 127 Because of the overwhelming amount of abuses to all the resources on the mainland , the ocean and the channel islands , ' this policy has been written . Archaeology : With our tribal experience dealing with the United States goverment in general , and all other agencies including ; State , County ,and city both public and private , We have desided as the Tongva Nation , that all archaeological sites be left undesturbed , that includes all phases of excavation and in the near future , the remains of our ancestors including artifacts , be returned to the Tongva. We know for a fact that the local museums and universities in southern california have collections and remains as well as museums and universities across the United States contain relics that belono to the Tongva. ( ie lowie museum , smithsonian , etc . ) Environmental Destruction of Land Resources : The United States goverment does not have a legal vehicle to possess the lands in southern California belonging to the Tongva nation because congress never designed nor ratified a treaty or land transaction . Therefore , There will be no more projects on Tongva lands which include ; drilling for natural aas , oil or water, mining , controlled burns on the land , the spraying of any chemical ,herbicide , or introduction of biological bacterias , this includes the destruction of canyons , hills , mountains and the flora and fauna in these areas . Road construction , real estate developement both commercial and residential , waterways , rivers , streams , ponds , springs and creeks . This destruction of our homelands has prompted our nation to write this policy , the amount of the present developement has impacted the way of life for our culture , which includes ; 1 fishing in the ocean and on the mainland , hunting , gathering of materials to sustain our way of life such as plants , minerals we use on a daily basis and for ceremonies . 2 128 Environmental Destruction of the Ocean , Fresh/Saltwater inlets ,estuaries and the Channel Islands ; It is now public knowledge that the United Stages goverment in general , as well as State , and local agenc"es have allowed II the dumping of dangerous sewage , which is composed of industrial and agricultural chemicals , pestisides , herbicides , into waterways which empty into inlets , estuaries and the pacific ocean . Dumping city sewage treated or not also has contributed to the loss of water quality and the destruction of many ecosystems that sustain life in the waterways still used by the Tongva nation . Oil wells and offshore platforms are equal con•:ributors to the destruction of many life forms in the ocean . The oil spill in Santa Barbara in the 60 ' s is a good example of habitat destruction , so is the oil spill in Washington State 1� in December of 1988 , which wiped out the entire coast lines of both Washington State and Oregon . These coastal resources belong to the Tongva Nation including the oil reserves on the mainland , the islands , and the ocean , We do not want these resources further exploited by any corporation �I or goverment. Salt/Freshwater Estuaries ; These marsh areas are used as waterways for the gathering of traditional foods , and medicine plants , roots , and animals f used by the Tongva Nation . These areas were also used by countless generations of 'I ancestors long before us . II The Tongva Nation reserves all rights to these resources , and will not be made to pay when at such an area , to site an I example , the california fish and game has begun to charge a fee to enter the Newport Upper Back Bay , this is not acceptable and is in violation of Public Law 95-341 Native American Religious Freedom Law. 1� 40 ,000 years of a culture inhabiting an area makes a big difference , ` but in less then 150 years , our resources have been almost completely destroyed. rl 3 r I The Channel Islands ; 129 Our resources on all these islands also have been overutilized to the point of extinction on both the land and the surrounding waters . The United States Navy has dumped dangerous chemical and nuclear wastes including old nuclear submarines offthe island of San Clemente , not to mention using the island as a bombing and shelling range . Our ancestors gravesites have been damaged or destroyed by these actions , and by allowing people like Andy Yatsco from one of the San Diego Naval Bases to dig up our Ancestors graves without informing our community , Mark Raab , from California State Northridge who has worked with fir. Yatsco , and Clement Meighen from the Universitity of California , Los Angeles . On San Nicolas Island and San Clemente Island , the Naval Department has allowed these morbid barbaric grave robbers to destroy our heritage , This is no longer acceptable , we deplore such actions ! The Traditional Tongva have created this policy as a warning to all the listed agencies . This is not an intent to file suit , but to inform these agencies that because of such actions , catastrophic events have begun to manifest , according to our Oral Prophesies . We will not be responsible for the loss of life , or the damages created by large earth quakes , drought , floods , high winds , or loss of food production on our homelands . These acts will be the spirits of this land warning all people of the amount abuse placed on the land and the ocean . The leaders of the Tongva Nation hope that the agencies listed reviews this policy , and makes a Big change for all persons living on our homeland. Our Nation Has Spoken , Art Alvitre ,. Tomeyar Speaker a-A �.��z 130 research incorporated 18 April 1989 Intertribal Council of Tongva Att'n: Acwot, Tomeyar Speaker for the Tongva Nation 4126 Potrero Rd. Newbury Park, CA 91320 Re: Bolsa Chica Mesa/ Huntington Beach Mesa Dear Acwot: Thank you for your prompt reply to my March 13th inquiry regarding the Bolsa Chica Mesa/Huntington Beach 11esa locality. The valuable informa- tion contained in your letter, together with the Traditional Tongva Policy Regarding Aboriginal Resources, is deeply appreciated. Your letter and policy statement, along with responses from other t Indian groups and individuals, will be appended to INFOTEC's report, Inventory and Evaluation of Cultural Resources, Bolsa Chica Mesa and Huntington Beach ?1esa, range Count , Ca ifornia, w Tc we expect to submit to the Los nge es District, Corps of Engineers, on or before June 1. If you would like to have a copy of this report, please re- quest one from Mr. Steven Schwartz, Environmental Planning Section, Corps of Engineers, P.O. Box 2711, Los Anneles, CA 90053-2325. It is my understanding that gratis copies of the report will be provided to interested parties upon request. Thank you again for taking the time to prepare such a thoughtful reply to my earlier letter. Very best regards. , l Sincerely, Michael J. 'Mora tto, Ph D. President sb cc: S. Schwartz 19524 Hillsdale Drive.Sonora. CA 95370 (209)533.29U2 • 533-2934 r ' THE JUANENO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS 131 Sookesman: oavid 9elardes Secretary: Fred Est:aca Vice-SOokesman: oanie: annmontes Memoer-At-Large: Sonia Zuker Treasurer: Adeline Williams Memoer-at-Large: Gloria car:U:o April 2 , 1989 of arch 1 otec R ese , Inc . 19524 Hillsdaie Dr . Sonora, CA 95370 ATTN: Mr . Michael J. Moratto , Ph .D. RE : Bolsa Chica Mesa/Huntington Beach Mesa Dear Dr . Moratto; In response to your letter dated March 13, 1989, the Tribal Council of the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians wishes to in- form you that we will do what is necessary to insure that you receive the information and documentation that you need to make sure the above named site is handled with the utmost sen- sitivit in regards to it ' s cultural and spiritual significance . ' The project area lies within the territorial boundaries of the Acagchemem Nation, known today as the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians . The Acagchemem Indians have a history of oral facts and statistics . Oral histories through generations of ancestry have provided us with cultural information pertinent to this area . As such, this project has been a great concern to us for many years. There are many letters , statements, and documents in our files pertaining to the importance of this site . There are also many other prople and groups who are concerned, as we are, with this project. First of all , this was a large buriel ground with the major pre- historic village of Lukup nearby . In 1903 , a newspaper company reported removing three wagon loads of human skeletal remains and grave goods from this site. Again, in the late 19301s, the WPA (Works Progress Administration) removed approximately 21 more buriels. The WPA, returning again , removed an estimated 10 more buriels. Naturally , in 1971 , When Jeanne Munoz of Archaeological Research, Inc. in Huntington Beach, CA, did an archaeological in- vestigation of the southwest portion of the area, found very little . However , in 1975, the Pacific Coast Archaeological So- ciety conducted excavations at this site that produced 6 buriels TO DATE. 132 April 2, 1989 page 2 Dr. Michael J. Moratto Infotec Research, Inc . Many of our major village sites , just as this one was , included buriel grounds , sacred areas and ceremonial circles . The Juaneno People have been devastated to know that the remains of our ances- tral Grandfathers and Grandmothers are treated like so much found ' junk to be , in archaeologicaly terms , "analyzed" and kept in dark, dingy basement storage areas for future "examination" . It is also very difficult for us to see that this sacred site may be destroyed and no consideration taken for it ' s environmental , cultural , or ' spiritual importance and significance . If you would like to meet with us for further discussicn , please ' call or write me . Gloria Carrillo and I are overseeing this pro- ject as approved by the Tribal Council . We will be sending you more information and/or documentation in the near future, and thank you for your consideration and co- operation. Sincerely , Sonia Zuker for the Tribal Council 15251 Anaconda St. Whittier , CA 90603 (213) 693-6629 cc : Steve Schwartz - Corps of Engineers Native American Heritage Commission Juaneno Band files 133 *11k�r4s-t ec research incorporated 9 April 1989 The Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Att'n: Ms. Sonia Zuker 15251 Anaconda Street Whittier, CA 90603 Re. Bolsa Chica Mesa/ Huntington Beach Mesa Dear Ms. Zuker: Thank you for your prompt reply to my March 13th inquiry. The valuable information contained in your letter, together with your expression of concern for burials in the study area, is deeply appreciated. Your letter, along with letters from other Indian groups and individuals, will be appended to our report, Inventory and Evaluation of Cultural Resources, BoZsa C'hica Mesa and Huntington Beach Mesa, Orange County, California, which we expect to submit to the Los Angeles District, Corps of Engineers, on or before June 1. If you would like to have a copy of this report, please request one from Steve Schwartz at the Corps. It is my understanding that gratis copies of the report will be provided to interested parties upon request. Thank you again for taking the time to prepare such a thoughtful response to my earlier letter. Sincerely, Michael J. Horatto, Ph.D. President tb cc S. Schwartz 19524 Hillsdale Drive,Stmiorn, CA 95170 1209)751-29u2 9 553 2934 APPENDIX G3 PALEONTOLOGICAL REPORT by: John D. Cooper August, 1991 1 i r r MANAGEMENT SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of an assessment of paleontological resources of the Bolsa Chica area, Orange County, California. Based on literature and records search, the Quaternary sediments within the boundaries of this project area contain no previously recorded paleontologic localities. Therefore, the subject property contains no known surface occurrences of fossils that will be adversely affected by the proposed project. STRATIGRAPHY Geologically the study area is situated within the Newport- Inglewood Fault zone (Morton and Miller, 1981; Woodward-Clyde, 1987 ) , and the "bedrock" stratigraphy is very young (Quaternary) . The oldest exposed sedimentary deposits belong to the shallow marine San Pedro Sand of middle Pleistocene (120,000 to 750,000 years old) age (Morton and Miller, 1981) , exposed within a fault block (see Qtml , Fig. 1) along the east boundary of the project area in the Huntington Beach. Mesa. Somewhat younger middle to late Pleistocene (350,000 to 10,000 years old) marine terrace deposits, generally mapped as the Palos Verdes Sand, are exposed in Huntington Beach and Bolsa Chica Mesas (see Qtm�, Fig. 1) . . The San Pedro and Palos Verdes Sands consist of medium to coarse, cross-bedded sand with occasional stringers and lenses of pebbles and cobbles. Much of the Bolsa Chica Mesa is locally mantled with wind-blown sand and clay-rich soil (Woodward-Clyde, 1987) . The major portion of the study area is contained within the Bolsa Chica lowland (Woodward-Clyde, 1987) , i which contains geologically recent sediments of Holocene (<10,000 years old) age, mapped (Morton and Miller, 1981) as Qac (Fig. 1) . These sediments consist of fluvial sands and gravel of the ancestral Santa Ana River, overlain by organic-rich clays and silts of coastal tidal flats and lagoons, ancestral to the modern setting (Woodward-Clyde, 1987) . ' PALEONTOLOGY According to archival information from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (Vertebrate and Invertebrate Sections) , no previously recorded paleontologic sites are on record for the study area. The closest known paleontologic localities are in the northwest part of the Huntington Beach Mesa, just northeast of the study area (Fig. 1) . Here several UCLA invertebrate localities (3655, 3656, 3657, 1491, now on file at the LACK) include a predominantly molluscan fauna of bivalves and gastropods (Valentine, 1959, 1961) . An additional locality, P-1 (see Fig. 1) , recorded by SRS, Inc. (1985) , from a Woodward- Clyde test pit, produced a fauna that included 17 bivalve molluscs, 11 gastropod molluscs, 1 barnacle crustacean, and 1 echinoid (sand dollar) echinoderm. According to Demere in SRS, Inc. (1985) , this fauna is very similar to that reported by Valentine (1959, 1961) for the UCLA localities (Fig. 1) , and is correlated with this fauna. Based on similarity with a dated fauna in the San Diego area (Demere, 3.981) , this fauna is considered to be middle Pleistocene in age. This age assignment was further confirmed by amino acid racemization dating of bivalve mollusc shells from P-1 (SRS, Inc. , 1985) . Quaternary deposits along the Orange County coast have produced abundant and significant invertebrate fossils (Bruff, 1946; Kanakoff and Emerson, 1959; Valentine, 1959, 1961; Cooper, 1978, 1980) . Dozens of fossil localities are on record from Newport Beach Mesa (Bruff, 1946; Kanakoff and Emerson, 1959) ; Peska (1975) and Cooper (1978) recorded localities of similar age in Coasta Mesa; and Valentine (1959, 1961) recorded similar ' occurrences in Huntington Mesa. These marine invertebrates have provided important information for a clearer understanding of the coastal life and environments in southern California during the ' Pleistocene (ice-age) . The closest recorded vertebrate fossil locality to the study area is LACM 65113, represented by several late Pleistocene mammoth (Mammathus) tooth and tusk fragments and Bison jaw bone fragments. This locality was collected by the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County from a now buried site along Wintersburg Road, north of the project area. in Bolsa Chica Mesa. Scattered but significant numbers of late Pleistocene vertebrate remains of ice-age terrestrial animals have been recorded from a number of sites in south Orange County (Miller, 1971) , including several mammoth bone specimens from the Seal Beach area and abundant marine and nonmarine vertebrate material from Newport Beach Mesa and Costeau Pit near Leisure World. RECOMMENDATIONS There are no known surface occurrences of fossils within the- Bolsa Chica study area that will be adversely impacted by future development. However, because Quaternary deposits of similar age (to those that underlie the bounding mesas) have produced significant vertebrate and invertebrate fossils, it is strongly recommended that any future cutting operations in the mesa areas (east and west margins of property) be monitored by a qualified paleontological field observer under the direction of a County of Orange certified paleontologist. Monitoring in areas underlain by Pleistocene terrace deposits (Fig. 1) can be accomplished on a i half-time (4 hours/day) basis in coordination with the grading contractor. The paleontological field inspector should be at liberty to divert equipment to avoid. destruction of significant fossils that may be discovered during grading, and to call in assistance for the salvage/removal of large specimens or concentrations. Any fossils collected during the development phase should be donated to the Natural History Foundation of Orange County for appropriate disposition. Paleontologic monitoring in the Bosa Chica lowlands is not: necessary because of the geologically young and nonfossilife:rous nature of the ' sediments. REFERENCES CITED Bruff, S. C. , 1946, The paleontology of the Pliestocene molluscan fauna of the Newport Bay area, California: Univ. California Publications in the Geological Sciences Bulletin, v. 27, p. 213-240. Cooper, J. D. , 1978, Assessment of paleontological resources within the City of Costa Mesa, Orange County, California: consultant report submitted to Archaeological Associates for the City of Costa Mesa. Cooper, J. D. , 1980, Paleontological Assessment of Rancho de Santa Ana (Beeco Ltd) property, Newport Beach, California: consultant report submitted to Archaeological Resource Managment Corporation. Demere, T. A. , 1981 , a newly recognized late Pleistocene marine fauna from the city of San Diego, San Diego County, California, in Abbott, P. L. , and O'Dunn, S. , eds. , Geologic Investigations of the coastal plain, San Diego County, California: San Diego Association of Geologists, p. 1-10. Kanakoff, G. P. , and Emerson, W. K. , 1959, Late Pleistocene invertebrates of the Newport Bay area, California: Los Angeles County Museum Contributions in Science, No. 31, p. 1-47. Miller, W. E. , 1971, Pleistopcene vertebrates of the Los Angeles Basin and vicinity (Exclusive of Rancho La Brea) : Bulletin Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, Science no. 10. Morton, P. K. , and Miller, R. V. , 1981, Geologic Map of Orange County, California (Scale 1:48,000) : California Division of Mines and Geology Bulletin 204 , Plate 1. Peska, F. , 1975, Late Pleistocene molluscan fauna from Costa Mesa, California: Preliminary Report: Bulletin Southern California Paleontological Society, v. 17, No. 11, p. 141- 145. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. , 1985, Cultural resources report on Huntington Mesa, Chevron Oil Fields, Signal Landmark property, City of Huntington Beach, California: Consultant Report prepared for Signal Landmark, Inc. and Huntington Beach Company. Valentine, J. W. , 1959, Pleistocene molluscan notes. II: a faunule from the Huntington Beach Mesa, California: Nautilus, v. 73, p. 51-57. Valentine, J. W. , 1961, Paleoecologic molluscan geography of the Californian Pleistocene: Univ. California Publications i Geological Sciences, v. 34, no. 7, p. 309-442. Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1987, Geotechnical Investigation of proposed Bolsa Chica development, Orange County, California: prepared for Signal Bolsa Corporation. Submitted by: John D. Cooper August 2, 1991 Revised by: John D. Cooper November 7, 19 r r r r Mao A M do No A M w A Mae w A, M '! :\;. ���r•••I'�: .. C� .i��. o• Y ,.1�,6� s �, Lark V(e B ... .�. \� .��/4.P., pb '� IyI IyI 5�::.t:.: •� r o• % -? ';"1 �S,h I) �''�\ P�--.II�Iti; /• .IL^H• 'f:!•' -.•::•1 S ..,I;� i .. ..n R� �,., ,� \ \•\'` •r\ l It - "`!Ilr �! 'CIIhIC7112J• •4 'V�tl -p /R• f�r� 0�0 '.T' •••I I`y �,� A M8 66 p' ' •'a• �-- n ut Wl W _ IUi.�IG� 1�.� iu. 1 �. P urn A A v to N O �t n 0• \ >41e m`^ l u03 tofu Pn n Ilp �.a t.,��l• n I .4 is ~ 76 \ \ '•` ,\ �� +� ` a ��.\,`( jl 1`I, \', .I .1.. �� ��.i.,� /1.��1 nit. .II.�t'�•p n 1 Fr N h] .\\• _T 5 5 V) H w 1••' t-4 .fir `x ✓' r wti r Sump 9 to w O rn O > ,� ,.. H w O to n n +n n n %1 f r rt ►-� x :�,'�% t \'I ,�)r. O o ) 1pI I h �• N W 0 N Fl• W fD fr.PO (D H \ \� 9M !�v' "`.\ C rt � w rt G G f-r p aij. rS (D to (D (D ►� r• \� \ ' \/o,. J i7 b .� J ►i rt n G \��\ O , a rt w ul w LTI � � �• �ti .. cD rt - rt (D N fD o iti� e, :ICl/ •` o`�;\G L"�(,,u . ; . N Fa a v �I r soon M M aU Noun 40 0• ar om m r -.. dr o TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC CIRCULATION REPORT j EIS/EIR BOLSA CHICA LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND WETLANDS RESTORATION PROJECT Prepared by: rDKS ASSOCIATES Contact: ABI Mogharab, Ph.D., P.E. 2700 North Main Street, Suite 900 Santa Ana, California 92701 Prepared for. CHAMBERS GROUP, INC. Contact: Thomas C. Ryan 16700 Aston Street Irvine, California 921744834 (714) 261-5414 APRIL 1992 r ��Qm TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC CIRCULATION REPORT EISMIR BOLSA CHICA LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND WETLANDS RESTORATION PROTECT H.1 INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared as a compilation of the analyses of traffic impacts of various Balsa Chica project alternatives and scenarios. The analyses contained herein were prepared by the transportation planning firm of DKS Associates specifically for inclusion in the EIS/EIR,and reflects an equivalent level of analysis for the alternatives considered herein. The information and data included within this report were taken directly from several studies conducted by the traffic engineering firm of Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc. (BDI). The BDI studies were prepared under contract to the City of Huntington Beach. Specifically, the BDI source documents upon which this report is based are, Traffic Analysis for Balsa Chica Local Coastal Program, August 1990 and revised January 1991; Supplemental Traffic Analysis for Balsa Chica Local Coastal Program,August 1991;Supplemental Traffic Analysis for Balsa Chica Local Coastal Program(Alternatives 5,3A,3B,4, 17 and 10),October 1991;and Supplemental Traffic Analysis for Balsa Chica Local Coastal Program(Alternatives lA and 1B), April 1992. The alternatives analyzed herein involve various levels of development(both location and amount), and various roadway configurations as described below: Alternative 1 - This is the proposed project as defined by CEQA and the plan that serves as the basis for the proposed LCP land use plan.This alternative includes construction of up to 4,884 residential units on the mesas and lowland. It will be considered both with and without the Cross Gap Connector roadway. Alternative 3 -This alternative includes wetlands restoration on the Balsa Chica lowland,residential development on the Huntington Mesa, Balsa Chica Mesa, MWD parcel, and Fieldstone parcel (in lowlands). A maximum of 4,000 residential units will be analyzed under this alternative and it will be assessed both with and without the Cross Gap Connector roadway. Alternative 4-Wetlands would be restored under this alternative as described previously and 3,500 residential units would be provided on the Balsa Chica Mesa,Huntington Mesa and MWD parcel. A Cross Gap Connector roadway would not be constructed in this alternative. Alternative 5-Wetlands would be restored under this alternative and construction of a larger regional park in the Balsa Chica lowlands would be provided. Residential development of up to 5,600 units on the Balsa Chica Mesa, Huntington Mesa and the area know as the MWD parcel is assumed. This alternative will be analyzed with and without the Cross Gap Connector roadway. Alternative 8-This alternative would retain the Balsa Chica Mesa and Huntington Mesa as open space and would restore the lowland to wetland status.No residential development would be associated with this alternative.No Cross Gap Connector would be provided. Alternative 10 - This alternative assumes resort hotel developments (500 rooms) and multifamily development (1,400 units)would occur on the Huntington or Balsa Chica Mesas with portions of the mesas retained in open space. Wetlands would be restored as with Alternative 1. No Cross Gap Connector would be provided. H-1 I Alternative 12 PA No Actin Alternative) - This alterative would involve no alteration of Waters of the ' United States. Therefore, no construction or restoration in jurisdictioiud areas nor marsh would occur. Development within non jurisdictional areas on the mesas could occur with 3,500 units assumed. No Cross Gap Connector would be provided. Alternative 13 (CEOA No Proiect Alternative) -This alternative would result in no actions being taken at Bolsa Chica. No wetlands restoration or residential/commercial development would occur. Alternative 15-This is a modification of Alternative 1 which provides a total of 4,800 residential units,plus 16.5 acres of neighborhood serving commercial uses. A Cross Gap Connector is assumed. Alternative 17-This alterative provides for a lower density of development mostly on the Bolsa Chica Mesa. Up to 1,500 residential units are assumed. No Cross Gap Connector is assumed. I Alternative 19 -This alternative is similar to Alternative 1 in the configuraton of development on the mesas and level of development overall (5,700 units is assumed). The placement of residential development in the lowlands differs, however. This alternative is assessed both with and without a Cross Gap Connector. H.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS H.2.1 Traffic Study Area The traffic study area for purposes of this analysis covers a large portion of western Huntington Beach. For traffic conditions and modelling,detailed analysis will occur within the area generally south of Edinger Avenue to the coast and west of Beach Boulevard to the coast. Regional traffic considerations will look at a somewhat larger area to include impacts on Sunset Beach and Seal Beach. Regional access to the area is provided by the San Diego Freeway (1405)which is within three miles north of the site and by Pacific Coast Highway(SR-1) which borders the site on the southwest. Additional regional access is provided by Beach Boulevard(SR-39),approximately two miles east of the project area. Local access is provided primarily by Golden West Street, Bolsa Chica Street, Warner Avenue and by any of several arterial streets which are located near or adjacent to the site including Springdale Street, Garfield Avenue, Talbert Avenue and Ellis Avenue. Presently, there are no public streets on or through the project site. H-2.2 Roadway Characteristics The following paragraphs provide brief descriptions of the existing characteristics of selected roadways in the immediate vicinity of the project site. These roadways will be most directly affected by project traffic generation. Warner Avenue-Warner Avenue is designated on the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways(MPAH) and the City of Huntington Beach Circulation Element as a major arterial. Warner Avenue extends easterly from Pacific Coast Highway along the northern boundary of the project site through the cities of Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley and Santa Ana,and terminates at Redhill Avenue in Tustin at the Tustin Marine Corps Air Station. In the vicinity of the project, Warner Avenue currently functions as a four-lame primary arterial from Pacific Coast Highway to Algonquin Street, and a six-lane major arterial from Algonquin Street to Beach Boulevard. Pacific Coast EUghwav -Pacific Coast Highway is a state highway,and extends from the northern part of the State of California southeasterly to south Orange County. Pacific Coast Highway is a four-lane primary arterial in the vicinity of the project site and is designated as a modified major arterial between Warner Avenue and Goldenwest Street and a major between Goldenwest Street and Beach Boulevard on the MPAH. The City of Huntington Beach H-2 Circulation Element shows PCH as a primary arterial north of Goldenwest Street, and a major arterial south of Goldenwest Street. BoLsa Chica Street -Bolsa Chica Street is designated as a major arterial on the MPAH and the City of Huntington Beach Circulation Element. Bolsa Chica Street extends from Los Patos Road, just south of Warner Avenue, northerly to the San Diego Freeway(1 405)where it becomes Valley View Street. Bolsa Chica is currently a two- lane local roadway from Los Patos to Warner, where it becomes a six-lane major arterial. Graham Street - Graham Street is designated as a secondary arterial on the MPAH and the City of Huntington Beach Circulation Element. Graham Street extends from the project site's northern boundary northerly to Bolsa Avenue. Graham Street operates as a two-lane local roadway from the project site to just north of Heil Avenue, where it becomes a four-lane secondary arterial. Talbert Avenue-Talbert Avenue extends from the northeast boundary of the project site in a southeasterly curve to Edwards Street where it ends. Talbert Avenue starts again from Goldenwest Street 1/2 mile east and 1/4 mile north of Edwards Street and continues through the City of Fountain Valley to the City of Santa Ana, where it becomes MacArthur Boulevard. In the vicinity of the project site, Talbert Avenue is a two-lane local roadway. According to the Orange County MPAH, Talbert is proposed to be connected through to Goldenwest Street and is designated as a four-lane primary arterial. This connection has been proposed to be deleted from the MPAH. The City of Huntington Beach Circulation Element shows Talbert Avenue as a secondary arterial in the vicinity of the project site,with no connection to Goldenwest Street,and a primary arterial east of Goldenwest Street. In a recent update of the status of Talbert Avenue,the connection between Edwards Street and Gothard Street has been deleted. Springdale Sued - Springdale Street extends from the northeastern boundary of the project site northerly to Orangewood Avenue in the City of Cypress, where it becomes Holder Street and continues north through the City of Buena Park. Springdale Street is a two-lane local roadway in the vicinity of the project site which is built out to full arterial highway standards and striped for one lane in each direction with separate left turn lane at local intersections. North of Slater Avenue,Springdale Street is a four-lane primary arterial. Per the MPAH,Springdale Street is a designated as a primary arterial. The City of Huntington Beach Circulation Element also shows Springdale Street as a primary arterial. Garfield Avenue-Garfield Avenue extends from Edwards Street easterly to the Santa Ana River. Garfield Avenue is a two-lane local roadway in the vicinity of the project site and becomes a four-lane secondary arterial east of Goldenwest Street. Garfield Avenue is designated on the MPAH as a major arterial between Edwards and Goldenwest and as a primary arterial east of Goldenwest. The City of Huntington Beach Circulation Element shows Garfield as a major arterial from the project site to Goldenwest Street, and a primary east of Goldenwest Street. Beach Boulevard(SR-39)-Beach Boulevard,also known as State Highway 39,begins at PCH in Huntington Beach and continues northward through the Cities of Westminster, Garden Grove, Stanton, Anaheim, Buena Park, La Mirada, and terminates at Whittier Boulevard in La Habra. It is a six-lane major arterial and is included in the County of Orange CMPHS. H.2-3 Rdifin DailyTraffic Volumes Existing daily traffic volumes on the roadway system in the vicinity of the project are shown on Figure H-1. The source for these volumes is the Orange County Traffic Flow Map (1991). H-3 sn2i-"2 Op js VI D IOLS1 A✓ ,t,000 N f e,000 � 2�.000 �SS.000 r AkFADOEM AY 5� 000 e000 13.000 isom R 13.000 S g S ZS S "Mr" ED/MOER M 31.0001 Ay - %• 3000 C 3000 12.-00 23.000 33.000 3e,0o0 K000 3e.000 ]e,000 dr g A � Q� G� N Mrn AV `` 16,000Z 1S,OOo le,000 11,000 10.000 ,3.000 16.000 Ie.000 19AW SOW .•` '• ti C `4i OOpJi QV r . a� •�`` �� i ,� AV ` 32000 30.000 30,000 S/AOO 3.y00 g34000 SAOOC St,000 2t,000 ` MARNG $I ,3j1 $ � $ ZE 7.7 Ar ` 7,700 � 12.000 13.000 13.000 1e,000 QQ MADOWO QQ rAisrR7 + AY IAL�� soon ,0.00t ,ti000St . $ ¢ a �l � ,-v• [ua -eaoo e000 Ar �i 2000 S000 1 V • •` GAWNnELDAY 10.000• 1i ' 23•= 15.000 171mt1 .M f000 000 ` . s •� 15,000:•� RRr0 AV /` / ` $ s,000 Se,000 2e,000 53.000 22,000 SL000 / g ADAMS AV 33im 34000 33,000 090 ls000 7aoo 13, .wit 11.000 1.•000 .4000 A AV BQ1 y t o 1I000 14j= 14.000 t s,000 ` a MAMILTON Av 17.000 7QQ� 4.01000 °� 3 CITY OF ,,�,� �, fAI1MRIC - All/ HUNTINGTON BEACH 10.0w 30.OW so.000 7oaoo FEE7 EXISTING DAILY TRAFFIC 3000 BOLO FLOW MAP Source: Orange County Environment Management Agency Traffic Engineering-Traffic Flow Map-December, 1991 FIGURE H-1 H-4 H.2.4 Exisfing open• and Conditions The County of Orange County Growth Management Plan(GMP)Element of the General Plan contains policies on the planning and provision of traffic improvements necessary for orderly growth and development. The Traffic Level of Service Policy sets, as general criteria an operating level of service (LOS) of "D" for signalized intersections, which would be a volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio of 0.90 or less. The City of Huntington Beach accepted level of service value for arterial links is LOS C, and for signalized intersections is LOS D. These values will be used to assess the adequacy of the existing circulation system. LOS is a qualitative measure of traffic conditions that describes congestion and service characteristics of highways. Levels of service are usually defined as A through F. Beyond level of service E, capacity has been exceeded, and arriving traffic will exceed the ability of a given street to accommodate it. A description of the meaning of the six Levels of Service (LOS) follows: a. Level of Service A indicates no physical restriction on operating speeds. b. Level of Service B indicates stable flow with few restrictions on operating speed. c. Level of Service C indicates stable flow and more restrictions on speed and lane changing due to higher volumes of traffic. d. Level of Service D indicates approaching unstable flow conditions with little freedom to maneuver and which may be tolerable for short periods. e. Level of Service E is the absolute capacity of the road. It is characterized by unstable flow, lower operating speeds than LOS D, and some momentary stoppages. f. Level of Service F indicates forced flow operation (more traffic demand than there is capacity on the road) where the highway acts as a storage area and many stoppages occur. An analysis of daily operating conditions on the selected roadway segments in the vicinity of the project was conducted, using the County of Orange and the City of Huntington Beach Arterial ADT Capacities and Level of Service Assumptions. The existing average daily traffic volumes for the roadway segments and assumed capacities are presented in Table H-1. Existing daily volumes were compared to their roadway capacities to arrive at the existing LOS of operation. Based on this analysis, the following roadway segments are currently carrying traffic volumes in excess of existing LOS C capacity. ► Pacific Coast Highway: North of Warner Avenue (LOS F) ► Pacific Coast Highway: Warner Avenue to Goldenwest Street(LOS E) ► Pacific Coast Highway: South of Goldenwest Street(LOS E) ► Goldenwest Street: Garfield Avenue to Ellis Avenue (LOS F) ► Goldenwest Street: Ellis Avenue to Talbert Avenue(LOS E) D. Goldenwest Street: Talbert Avenue to Slater Avenue (LOS F) ► Garfield Avenue: Edwards Street to Goldenwest Street (LOS F) H.2.5 Analysis of Intersection Opmdon Eighteen(18)key intersections in the vicinity of the project hale been evaluated to determine the existing peak hour level of service. The intersections analyzed are depicted on Figure H-2 and are as follows: H-S Table H-1 SUVEVIARY OF EXISTING ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE Roadway Capacities Average Roadway Segment Daily LOS LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D LOSE ITraffic Pacific Coast Highway at: North of Warner Avenue 22,500 26,300 30,000 33,800 37,500 42,000 F Warner Avenue to Goldenwe&t Street 22,500 26,300 30,000 33,800 37,500 36,000 E South of Goldenwest Strad 22,500 26,300 30,000 33,800 37,500 34,000 E Warner Avenue at: Pacific Coast Highway to Algonquin Street 22,500 26,300 30,000 33,800 37,500 26,000 B Algonquin Strad to Bolsa Chic&Street 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 32,000 A Bolsa Chica Street to Graham Street 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 30,000 A Graham Street to Springdale Street 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 30,000 A Springdale Street to Edwards Street 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 28,000 A Edwards Street to Goldenwest Street 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 36,000 B Slater Avenue at: Graham Street to Springdale Street 11,100 13,000 14,800 16,600 18,500 11,000 A Springdale Street to Edwards Street 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 12,000 A Edwards Street to Goldenwest Street 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 15,000 A Talbert Avenue at: West of Springdale Street 7,500 8,800 10,000 11,300 12,500 2,000 A Springdale Street to Edwards Street 7,500 8,800 10,000 11,300 12,500 2,000 A Garfield Avenue at: Edwards Street to Goldenweat Street 7,500 8,800 10,000 11,300 12,500 15,000 F East of Goldenwest Strad 22,500 26,300 30,000 33,800 37,500 21,000 A Bolas Chica Strad at: North of Warner Avenue 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 27,000 A Graham Strad at: Slater Avenue to Warner Avenue 7,500 8,800 10,000 11,300 12,500 8,000 B North of Warner Avenue 7,500 8,800 10,000 11,300 12,500 8,000 B Springdale Street at: Talbert Avenue to Slater Avenue 7,500 8,800 10,000 11,300 12,500 4,000 A Slater Avenue to Warner Avenue 22,500 26,300 30,000 33,900 37,500 14,000 A North of Warner Avenue 22,500 26,300 30,000 33,800 1 37,500 1 25,000 1 B �� .�r � r .�■�. � ar •�- r r urn r� - r +r •� -.r �r�► w as Table H-1 SUMMARY OF EXISTING ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE Roadway Capacities Average Roadway Segment Daily LOS LOS A LOB B LOS C LOS D LOS E Traffic Edwards Street at: Garfield Avenue to Ellis Avenue 7,500 8,800 10,000 11,300 12,500 7,000 A Ellie Avenue to Talbert Avenue 7,500 8,800 10,000 11,300 12,500 8,000 A Talbert Avenue to Sister Avenue 22,500 26,300 30,000 33,11W 37,500 8,000 A Slater Avenue to Warner Avenue 22,500 26,300 30,000 33,800 37,500 15,000 A North of Warner Avenue 22,500 26,300 30,000 33,800 37,500 17,000 A Goldenwest Street at: Pacific Coast Highway to Palm Avenue 22,500 26,300 30,000 33,800 37,500 11,000 A Palm Avenue to Yorktown Avenue 22,500 26,300 30,000 33,800 37,300 18,000 A Yorktown Avenue to Garfield Avenue 22,500 26,300 30,000 33,800 37,500 23,000 B Garfield Avenue to Ellis Avenue 15,000 17,500 20,000 22,500 25,000 32,000 F x Ellis Avenue to Talbert Avenue 15,000 17,500 20,000 22,500 25,000 25,000 E v Talbert Avenue to Slater Avenue 15,000 17,500 20,000 22,500 25,000 32,000 F Slater Avenue to Warner Avenue 29,000 32,800 37,500 42,200 46,900 36,000 C North of Warner Avenue 33,900 39,400 45,000 1 50,600 1 56,300 1 41,000 C 62221-12/91 e s 9 o TALOM . 4'v 7 JUL R �.euw.ra� �— INTERSECTIONS ANALYZED c INTERSECTIONS ANALYZED 0. EXISTING CONDITIONS Source: BDI, 1991 FIGURE H-2 ■ H-9 Edinger Avenue at: Talbert Street at: ► Bolsa Chica Street ► Springdale Street ► Goldenwest Street Warner Avenue at: Ellis Avenue at: ► Pacific Coast Highway ► Algonquin Street ► Goldenwest Street ► Bolsa Chica Street ► Graham Street Garfield Avenue at: ► Springdale Street P. Edwards Street P. Goldenwest Street ► Goldenwest Street �- Slater Street at: Yorktown Avenue at: ► Goldenwest Street ► Graham Street ► Springdale Street Pacific Coast Highway at: ► Edwards Street ► Goldenwest Street ► Goldenwest Street All of these intersections are currently signalized except for the following: ► Graham Street at Slater Avenue ► Springdale Street at Slater Avenue ► Talbert Avenue at Springdale Street The level of service for the signalized intersections has been analyzed in terms of intersection capacity, using the Intersection Capacity Utilization(ICU) methodology for signalized intersections. Unsignalized intersections were analyzed using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. The results of the intersection analysis are shown in Table H-2. The analysis indicates that all intersections studied currently operate at level of service D or better, with an ICU of 0.90 or less. H.2.6 Future Roadway+ Network Future roadways in the vicinity of the proposed project are depicted on the County of Orange Master Plan of Arterial Highways(MPAH)and the City of Huntington Beach Circulation Element. These documents provide a j process for locating arterial highways and their associated classifications to satisfy the anticipated traffic growth. Figure H-3 depicts the currently approved (April 1988) Orange County MPAH roadways in the vicinity of the project. Figure H-4 depicts the City of Huntington Beach Circulation Element. As review of these figures shows, some differences in the two circulation plans exist within the study area. The County MPAH shows a Talbert Avenue connection between Edwards Street and Goldenwest Street, and PCH re- routed near Warner Avenue. The connection between Edwards and Gothard has since been deleted from the MPAH. Neither of these features are shown on the City's Circulation Element. The City's plan shows Ellis Avenue extended westward and connecting to the Cross-Gap Connector while the County plan does not. H-9 i Table H-2 SUNIlVIARY OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION EXISTING CONDITIONS A.M.Peak P.M.Peak Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS Edinger Avenue at: Bolsa Chic&Street 0.76 C 0.58 A Graham Street 0.37 A 0.48 A Springdale Street 0.32 A 0.59 A Edwards Street 0.41 A 0.60 A Warner Avenue at: Pacific Coast Highway 0.73 C 0.81 D Algonquin Street 0.53 A 0.53 A Bolan Chica Street 0.50 A 0.57 A Graham Street 0.38 A 0.58 A Springdale Street 0.46 A 0.57 A Edwards Street 0.52 A 0.63 B Goldenwest Street 0.62 B 0.81 D Slater Avenue at: Graham Street` N.A. A N.A. C Springdale Streee N.A. B N.A. B Edwards Street 0.36 A 0.64 B ` Goldenwest Street 0.69 B 0.84 D Talbert Avenue at: Springdale Street' N.A. A N.A. A Ellis Avenue at: Goldenwest Street 0.52 A 0.54 A Garfield Avenue at: Goldenwest Street 0.31 A 0.44 A Yorktown Avenue at: Goldenwest Street 0.49 A 0.61 B Pacific Coast Highway at: Goldenwest Suva 0.75 C 0.66 8 Notes: 'Unsignalized intersection with two-way stop control. 'Unsignalized intersection with four-way stop control. H-10 MOM 111W Mw M �� Qa MJ- AM W WrM* M4W 62221-12J91 >. •. ��•. LEGEND • ANTER,AL MCHWAYS "KISKP CpKCn Vµtmaim ,f� f \\� f OIIY•Ilt / f� fi \ S.iOD.t •Av.q. .......... / Sw I C(wM�t(• -- 111 � r t s \ ORANGE COUNTY 1989 MASTER PLAN OF �y ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS Source: BDI, 1991 FIGURE H-3 62221-12/91 l AMENDMENTS - ""' •K CIRCULATION PLAN OF ARTERIAL STREETS AND HIGHWAYS rr u•. rEr star ADOPTED 6Y CITY COUNCIL 0 -W ai• sm RESOLUTION N0 4368-DEC-12.1976 "*O,w "" ..'em «.. LEGEND 9-v0 •0•• FREEWAY STREET CAPACITY tl MAJOR 45,000 •.wsr 1 _ PRIMARY 30DW SECONDARY 20,000 f' NOTE- ■ 50.10 L645 40CATE E.,STM wWT Or IM 1 NOT KRSSMLY ULTWTE *.GMT OF a.T u .RESS WICK MO AiGHT or vilT EXIFTS � I C • SO♦ � \ r � ♦♦• `.•tea'•...+ �.[ __ ' � K \\ I i r- 0 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH '' ,:-- ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA --�--?-- u , \ CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 0 . CIRCULATION ELEMENT Source: sDL 1991 FIGURE H-4 H-12 �. The most significant feature in both future networks is the planned construction of the Cross-Gap Connector, connecting Bolsa Chica Street on the northwest with Garfield Avenue on the southeast. While some differences between the two proposed configurations exist, the general location and function of the roadway are consistent between the two plans. H.3 TRANSPORTATION U"ACT ANALYSIS H.3.1 Impact Significant Criteria The significance criteria for construction impact will be consistent with City policy contained within the current "Construction Traffic Control Plan General Notes" as provided by the traffic engineering section and will conform to the latest editions of the State of California Department of Transportation Manual of Traffic Controls, Standard Plans, Standard Specifications, and Special Provisions. Traffic control plans are required whenever construction is to be performed within the public right-of-way. The plans shall be prepared under the supervision and signed / by a professional civil engineer registered in the State of California. Basis of Criteria- Analysis of project related traffic impacts will be conducted with these criteria as the basis of evaluation. These standards are also compatible with the level of service standards adopted for the Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP). The CMP's recommended level of service calculation method, Intersection Capacity Utilization(ICU),is employed for intersection and volume-to-capacity(V/C)ratio method for midblock segment capacity analyses. The significance criteria for the project operations will be the same as those developed for the midblock and intersection analyses in the BDI studies and which are consistent with City policy contained within the Circulation Element and the County of Orange Growth Management Plan(GMP)Element of the General Plan. These criteria establish that traffic impacts will be considered significant if any roadway segment affected by the alternatives is projected to achieve a daily level of service (L.OS) D. For intersections, a significant impact is assumed at LOS E or worse for the peak hour. H.3.2 Analysis Methodology The methodology used to conduct impact analysis has been generally based on the procedure used by BDI as documented in the "Traffic Analysis for the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program" dated August 1990 and its related supplemental traffic analysis reports. Analyses generally assume buildout of the area land uses and roadway system, per current General Plan designations and are based on computerized traffic modelling forecasts produced by the Huntington Beach/Orange County Traffic Analysis Model, or HOCTAM. The HOCTAM model has been developed jointly by the County of Orange Environmental Management Agency (OCEMA)Transportation Planning Division and the City of Huntington Beach Traffic Engineering Department. The development of the model involved refinement of the Orange County Traffic Analysis Model (OCTAM) network in the City of Huntington Beach area. For purposes of this analysis, particular attention is paid to the t arterial system within the study area defined by the following boundaries: ► Edinger Avenue on the north P. Beach Boulevard on the east ► The Pacific Ocean on the south and west Within this study area, the roadway network and the traffic analysis zone system are developed to a finer detail in the HOCTAM model than in the OCTAM model. This area is "windowed" from the OCTAM model, to allow travel projections to the detail desired within the study area,but to also allow traffic interface with the region outside the study area. H-13 I The network, as assumed in the HOCTAM model within the study area, is depicted on Figure H-5. The traffic analysis zone structure within the study area, also as assumed in the HOCTAIA model, is depicted on Figure H-6. The zones which comprise the Bolsa Chica development are shown highlighted on Figure H-7. There are a total of 11 zones comprising the Bolsa Chica area. They are zones 565-570, 574577, and 581. The proposed Bolsa Chica residential development will take place within eight zones; zones 565-569,574,575,and 581. Of these eight zones, zones 569, 574 and 581 currently contain existing land uses which have some level of traffic generating characteristics. Additional development will be assumed for these zones with the inclusion of the Bolsa Chica project. The remainder of the zones are the wetlands and F.SHA areas, and were assumed to have little or no traffic generating characteristics. H.3.3 Traffic Generation Rates The traffic generated by the project in all alternatives is determined by multiplying an appropriate trip generation rate by the quantity of land use. Trip generation rates have been determined 1'or daily, morning and evening peak hour traffic for the proposed land uses. By multiplying the traffic generation rates by the land use quantities, the traffic volumes are determined. The following trip generation rates are used in this analysis: TRIP GENERATION RATES Morning Evening Peak Hour Peak Hour Land Use Units' Daily In I Out In Out Single-Family Detached Residential DU 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.5 1 12.0 Multiple-Unit Residential DU 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.2 7.0 Recreational Commercial TSF 0.3 0.2 1.9 1.9 50.0 *DU = dwelling unit TSF = thousand square feet Source: Orange County Environmental Management Agency, Daily Vekide IWp Generation Rotes, August 1982. San Diego Association of Governments, San Diego Thqfflc Generators March 1985. (Residential, peak hour percentages). Institute of Transportation Engineers. WA Generation. Third Edition. I9M2. (Commercial, gah hour percerttagel), T H.3.4 Rggional and Area-Wide Transpgrtation Issues and Relationahiio Circulation master plans for roadways in the area of the Bolsa Chica project have been promulgated by both the County of Orange and the City of Huntington Beach. The Bolsa Chica itrea lies predominantly within an unincorporated area of the County. The area is also completely surrounded by the City of Huntington Beach, and is, therefore, within the sphere of influence of the City. The County and City's circulation plans(Figures H-3 and H4)differ in several respects in the Bolsa Chica area. The County's plan calls for a major realignment of Coast Highway in the northern Bolsa Chica area,with this section of roadway constructed as a major arterial cross section. Bolsa Chic&Road would extend in a south-westerly arc to connect with the realigned section of Coast Highway as a primary arterial. Garfield Avenue would be extended parallel to the coastline along approximately the same H-14 r r.urm �1 M u.W a LA" A 1•. uwa �`� MTI �4 a ' 1 V1 .r VI"W 4 WL6ACMCA M(AMM� M\6F0- \-1 on aw. oft am too m ma 1�1 A 62221-5l92 393 382 364 398 399 401 365 386 380 400 402 388 387 390 391 403 404 408 409 339 :192 363 394 t --- 410 4t1 412 367 J9S 396 a53 381 459 460 ,E � ,� 413 e � 415 421 423 A 05 442 443 46 454 1 467 414 155 v 470 416 410 419 .420 425 1 P1138 440458 a969 471 417 26 t 7 7 s, 2� 568 5 . 6�y y� p74 : _ _ 447 451 568 57:,6 : 479 490 41.9 4" 450 452 bp1� 6 46 l32 Tv . 487 4805 vb pep 494 453 4" 633 576 Set t0 495 SoF su 577 dy 1p 5 04 3 935 536 539 540 543 505 St n 176 506 616 N 536 n a 537 541 542 5" � 516 a 545 546 549 551 $53 on • QQ a rjS $47 546 NO 552 u2 ytih sJi 55S 556 560 01 926 ua 554 s57 655 ss6 0FEET . 0 3000 6000 HOCTAM TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES Source: BDL 1991 x_16 FIGURE H-6 62221-1 M 383 382 384 398 399 401 385 386 380 400 402 388 387 390 391 J 403 101 408 409 389 392 393 394 g 407 410 411 412 397 395 396 453 381 459 460 4113 N n • 443 v v v 415 421 423 435 442 454 461 m 467 414 455 N v 470 416 418 424 oss a 419 420 42S 438 440 "1 458 to469 471 417 428 127 v v 43 56s 475 �: c�1Z y1�^1 e IV 1-1. 446 447 451 • sic - 1 490 M9 36y 5 n 479 448 • 450 452 ;:.:�.tc:s::i: s. A 1497 iE"0p(:iiiiiiiiyiirEEi• -- b � 493 ' 499 533 .'iFiFfE EiFa��"�,1;:•:i :. � .:iiiE. 494 `Siii!it�ii:iiiin::::I:::•�:. .-::::::, is 576 i......Ei`i,i i:: Fi;:,i�......: ' i..EF:::::r:: ;ieii�:�:"::::::;::•�'•'' ��50i 534 iii;�;i Gi€ii8i'•s^' 495 • a 577� `i!eifJirf'sl9i'a:�: s, 503 s ..... ::.. O� • 535 536 539 540 543 504 N to Yf 505 511. P'1 Ste' �+ y M 537 538 $41 542 g" 478 515 516 w N glg 548 649 551 553 J1 in $48 550 552 452 y'ti SJ'p N 555 556 560 561 5 4" 654 557 5" 65i 1 FEET BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN AREA AND _-' 0 3000 8000 SURROUNDINGS BY HOCTAM ZONE Source: BDI, 1991 H-17 FIGURE H-7 alignment as the City's proposed Bolsa Chica Road alignment as a secondary arterial. Seapointe Avenue would be l extended from Coast Highway northerly to Garfield Avenue as a primary arterial. The City's plan calls for the extension of Bolsa Chica Road as a major arterial, parallel to the coastline to approximately Ellis Avenue where it then swings to make a perpendicular connection with Coast Highway (Cross Gap Connector). Ellis and Garfield Avenues would be extended to make perpendicular connections with Cross Gap Connector. Seapointe Avenue would parallel Bolsa Chica Road with a secondary arterial cross section in the vicinity of the coastline and would make a perpendicular connection with Garfield Avenue to the north. The City's plan does not call for an additional east-west connector in the vicinity of Varner Avenue between Cross Gap Connector and Coast Highway or for the realignment of Coast Highway. Pacific Coast hwa SR-1 provides regional access through coastal communities. As a state highway, it is � Y ( ) pgh gh y among the Orange County CMP highway system. Pacific Coast Highway extends from the northern part of the State of California southerly to south Orange County. It is designated as an arterial road in both the City and County plans and has been included in the future roadway system for all alternatives analyzed without being re- routed as shown on the County of Orange Master Plan of Arterial Highways 7APA14). The extension of Bolsa Chica Road(Cross Gap Connector)as an arterial to :onnect with Garfield Avenue is the most significant feature in both the County and City's circulation plans. C-ross Gap Connector will play an important role in future circulation system of the project area. Constructio:s of the Cross Gap Connector will provide additional southeast-northwest connector which would alleviate congested conditions along several area roadway segments. H.3.5 Analysis of Future Traffic Volumes Future traffic volumes have been calculated for post-2010 buildout for two"No Project"conditions. The difference between the two runs is the level of roadway network assumed. One condit:.on assumes construction of the full MPAH network, including the Cross Gap Connector; the second condition assumes that the Cross Gap Connector will not be constructed. In both cases, the Mesa Connector is not assumed to be constructed. The No Project, Full MPAH network is shown on Figure H-8 and the No Project, No Bolsa Chica Road extension network is shown on Figure H-9. These two conditions are referred to as the "Base Case" conditions, against which the appropriate project alternative will be compared. For both conditions, aside from the treatment of the Bolsa Chica Road Extension, the OCEMA MPAH roadway system was assumed, with the following exceptions: ► Edinger Avenue is not extended to Pacific Coast Highway ► Pacific Coast Highway is not assumed to be re-routed ► Talbert Avenue is not assumed to be connected between Edwards Street and Goldenwest Street H.3.6 N idblock Segments For all future analyses, including"No Project"conditions,the future network is assumed to reflect MPAH buildout standards on all arterials. A summary of future roadway configurations and assumed capacities is presented in Table H-3. H.3.7 Study Intersections For all future analyses, including "No Project" conditions, the list of intersections has been expanded to 35 intersections, to include a number of future intersections, and intersections that are expected to carry greater H-19 I 62221-12J91 /U II Yi, Ci/ y11 Y4, LEGEND — — BOLSA CMICA PROJECT BOUNDARY STREETS y�F 1numM STREET ADOITIONS \ �l I � \ p �OrO EirT-C ON U r�" L CIIICA uO"SP / 2 • / O f W H I Q H J 3 / n r d W' I rAur Ic COAST NIGIMAY AREA NETWORK, �r ASSUMING FULL MPAH CONFIGURATION Source: BDI, 1991 FIGURE H-8 62221-1291 'U �l G�. C, y LEGEND Sti — — BOLSA CHICA PROJECT BOUNDARY �1�p STREETS yt f STREET ADDITIONS 0 , s0 e� tt . �c at• / � o 4 O 2 , O W M Q W N J a O t z �e e� 3.r � ►AU►IC CO�Si �uG„W,Y AREA NETWORK, �r ASSUMING NO BOLSA CHICA ROAD EXTENSION Source: BDI, 1991 FIGURE H-9 Table H-3 SUMMARY OF FUTURE ROADWAY CAPACITIES Roadwaytu Segment Roadway Roadway Nnber of n Type Capacity LOSE Lanes Pacific Coast Highway at: North of Warner Avenue Primary 37,500 4 Divided Warner Avenue to Seapoint Avenue Major 56,300 6 Divided Seapoint Avenue to Goldenwest Street Major 56,300 6 Divided South of Goldenwest Street Major 56,300 6 Divided Warner Avenue at: Pacific Coast Highway at Mesa Connector Major 56,300 6 Divided Mesa Connector to Algonquin Street Major 56,300 6 Divided Algonquin Street to Bolsa Chica Street Major 56,300 6 Divided Bolsa Chica Street to Graham Street Major 56,300 6 Divided Graham Street to Springdale Street Major 56,300 6 Divided Springdale Street to Edwards Street Major 56,300 6 Divided Edwards Street to Goldenwest Street Major 56,300 6 Divided Slater Avenue at: Graham Street to Springdale Street Secondary 25,000 4 Undivided Springdale Street to Edwards Street Secondary 25,000 4 Undivided Edwards Street to Goldenwest Street Secondary 25,000 4 Undivided Talbert Avenue at: Cross Gap Connector to Springdale Street Primary - 37,500 4 Divided Springdale Street to Edwards Street Secondary 25,000 4 Undivided East of Goldenwest Street Primary 37,500 4 Divided Garfield Avenue at: Edwards Street to Goldenwest Street Major 56,300 6 Divided East of Goldenwest Street Primary 37,500 4 Divided Bolsa Chica Street at: Cross Gap Connector to Warner Avenue Major 56,300 6 Divided North of Warner Avenue Major 56,300 6 Divided Graham Street at: Cross Gap Connector to Slater Avenue Secondary 25,000 4 Undivided Slater Avenue to Warner Avenue Secondary 25,000 4 Undivided North of Warner Avenue Secondary 25,000 4 Undivided i Springdale Street at: Cross Gap Connector to Talbert Avenue Primary 37,500 4 Divided Talbert Avenue to Slater Avenue Primary 37,500 4 Divided Slater Avenue to Warner Avenue Primary 37,500 4 Divided North of Warner Avenue Primary 37,500 4 Divided H-21 Table H-3 SUMMARY OF FUTURE ROADWAY CAPACITIES Roadway r of Roadway Segment Roadway oadw y Number Type Capacity LOSE Lanes Edwards Street at: Garfield Avenue to Ellis Avenue Secondary 25,000 4 Undivided Ellis Avenue to Talbert Avenue Secondary 25,000 4 Undivided Talbert Avenue to Slater Avenue Secondary 25,000 4 Undivided Slater Avenue to Warner Avenue Secondary 25,000 4 Undivided North of Warner Avenue Secondary 25,000 4 Undivided Goldenwest Street at: Pacific Coast Highway to Palm Avenue Major 56,300 6 Divided Palm Avenue to Yorktown Avenue Major 56,300 6 Divided Yorktown Avenue to Garfield Avenue Major 56,300 6 Divided Garfield Avenue to Ellis Avenue Primary 56,300 6 Divided Ellis Avenue to Talbert Avenue Primary 56,300 6 Divided Talbert Avenue to Slater Avenue Primary 56,300 6 Divided Slater Avenue to Warner Avenue Primary 56,300 6 Divided North of Warner Avenue Primary 56,300 6 Divided Seapointe Avenue at: Pacific Coast Highway to Palm Street Primary 37,500 4 Divided Palm Street to Cross Gap Connector Primary 37,500 4 Divided Cross Gap Connector at: Bolsa Chica Street to Graham Street Mod Primary 25,000 4 Undivided Graham Street to Talbert Avenue Mod Primary 25,000 4 Undivided Talbert Avenue to Springdale Street Mod Primary 25,000 4 Undivided Springdale Street to Seapoint/Garfield Mod Primary 25,000 4 Undivided i t H-22 . volumes of traffic with buildout of the area. The intersections analyzed for all future conditions are presented below and are depicted on Figure H-10. Edinger Avenue at: Talbert Avenue at: ► Bolsa Chica Street ► Springdale Street ► Graham Street ► Goldenwest Street ► Springdale Street ► Edwards Street Ellis Avenue at: ► Goldenwest Street ► Edwards Street Heil Avenue at: ► Goldenwest Street ► Algonquin Street Garfield Avenue at: ► Goldenwest Street ► Main Street Warner Avenue at: ► Edwards Street P. Goldenwest Street ► Pacific Coast Highway ► Mesa Connector Yorktown Avenue at: ► Algonquin Street ► Bolsa Chica Street ► Goldenwest Street ► Graham Street ► Springdale Street Pacific Coast Highway at: ► Edwards Street ► Goldenwest Street ► Goldenwest Street ► Seapointe Avenue Slater Avenue at: Seapointe Avenue at: P. Graham Street ► Springdale Street ► Palm Avenue ► Edwards Street ► Goldenwest Street Cross Gap Connector at: ► Bolsa Chica Street ► Graham Street ► Talbert Avenue ► Springdale Street i ► Seapoint/Garfield For analysis purposes, the future configurations for these intersections are assumed to be the ultimate lane configurations. These generally include three through lanes and dual left-turn lanes on major roadways, and two through lanes and single left-turn lanes on primary and secondary arterials. Where additional lanes beyond these general configurations already exist, those additional lanes are assumed for future conditions. A summary of the future intersection configurations assumed in this analysis is provided on Table H-4. Also for purposes of future intersection operation analysis, all intersections will be assumed to be signalized, and will be analyzed using the Intersection Capacity Utilization methodology. H-?3 62221-1"1 AILAWTA yll CO�.f RO. •A• b�+ taf n 'o •o �R e .e..tow +i0iM11PR� `4 ti SA~ 1 INTERSECTIONS ANALYZED Source: BDI, 1991 FIGURE H-10 H-24 i Table H-4 SUMMARY OF FUTURE INTERSECTION CONFIGURATION Approach and Movement Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Intersection L T R L T R L T R L T R Edinger Avenue at: Bolsa Chica Street 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Graham Street 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 l 2 0 Springdale Street 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 3 0 1 2 1 Edwards Street 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 Goldenwest Street 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 Heil Avenue at: Algonquin Street 1 NA I NA NA NA NA 2 0 1 2 NA Goldenwest Street 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 x 'Gs Warner Avenue at: Pacific Coast Highway 0 2 R 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 Man Connector 2 NA 1 NA NA NA NA 3 0 1 3 NA Algonquin Street NA NA NA 1 0 1 1 3 0 0 3 1 Bolsa Chica Street 2 3 0 2 3 0 2 3 0 2 3 0 Graham Street 1 2 0 l 2 1 1 3 0 1 3 0 Springdale Street 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 Edwards Street 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 Goldenwest Street. 2 2 1 2 3 0 2 3 0 2 3 0 Slater Avenue at: Graham Street NA 2 0 1 2 NA NA NA NA l NA I Springdale Street 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 Edwards Street 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 0oldenwest Street 1 3 1 0 1 3 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 Cross Gap Connector at: Mesa Connector 1 2 NA NA 2 1 1 NA I NA NA NA Graham Street NA NA NA I NA 1 1 2 NA NA 2 1 Talbert Street NA NA NA 1 NA 1 1 2 NA NA 2 I Springdale Street NA NA NA 1.5 NA 1.5 1 2 NA NA 2 1 Sespoint/Garfield Avenue 1 0 1 2 NA NA NA I NA 2 0 2 1 2 NA Table H-4 SUMMARY OF FUTURE INTERSECTION CONFIGURATION Approach and Movement Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Intersection L I T R L T R I L I T R I L T R r albert Avenue at: Springdale Street 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Ooldenwest Street NA 3 0 1 3 NA NA NA NA 1 NA 1 llie Avenue at: Edwards Street NA 2 1 1 2 NA NA NA NA 1 NA 1 Ooldenwest Street 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Oarfield Avenue at: Main Street 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 .� Edwards Street NA NA NA 1 0 1 1 2 NA NA 2 1 Ooldenweat Street 2 3 0 2 3 0 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 Yorktown Avenue at: Ooldenweat Street 0 3 1 2 3 0 NA NA NA 2 NA 2 Pacific Coast Highway(EfW Street)at: Ooldenweat Street(N/S) NA NA NA 2 NA 1 1 3 NA NA 3 1 Seapoint Avenue(N/S) NA NA NA 1.5 NA 1 1.5 1 3 NA NA 3 0 Seapoint Avenue at: nim Avenue NA 2 0 1 2 NA NA NA NA 1.5 NA 1.5 Nt>tet: L = Left4um lase. T - Through Lane. R = Right-turn lane. FR Free tight turn NA This movement is not possible 0 = No lane provided e:chtsively for this movement In some cases,minor streets and driveways are not reflected in the modeling process. i Where the project is shown to cause unacceptable intersection operation, or to have ter than a I% impact on Pe g� �P any intersection already operating under unacceptable conditions, mitigation measures will be identified. �i H.3.8 "No Project" Conditions The projected Average Daily Traffic(ADT)volumes resulting from the No Project/No Bolsa Chica Road Extension run are presented on Figure H-11. The ADT volumes for the No Project/No Bolsa Chica Road Extension were compared to Level of Service(LOS) C daily capacities. All roadway segments projected to operate in excess of LOS C are depicted on Figure H-12. Under this condition,the following roadway segments are projected to carry daily traffic volumes in excess of their LOS C capacities: ► Pacific Coast Highway - north of Warner Avenue (LOS F) - between Warner Avenue and Seapointe Avenue (LOS F) - between Seapointe Avenue and Goldenwest Street (LOS D) - south of Goldenwest Street (LOS D) ► Warner Avenue between Algonquin Street and Bolsa Chica Road (LOS D) ► Slater Avenue between Springdale Street and Edwards Street(LOS D) ► Springdale Street between Slater Avenue and Warner Avenue(LOS D) ► Edwards Street - between Ellis Avenue and Talbert Avenue (LOS E) - north of Warner Avenue (LOS D) A summary of projected intersection operation under the No Project/No Bolsa Chica Road Extension condition is provided on Table H-5. Review of Table H-5 shows that the following intersections are projected to operate at greater than LOS D (0.90)capacity with a level of service of E or F in one or both peak hours: ► Springdale Street at Edinger Avenue (PM LOS = E) ► Springdale Street at Warner Avenue(PM LOS = E) ► Goldenwest Street at Edinger Avenue(PM LOS = E) ► Goldenwest Street at Heil Avenue(PM LOS = E) ► Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue (AM LOS = E, PM LOS = F) The projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT)volumes resulting from the No Project/Full MPAH run are presented on Figure H-13. Review of Figure H-13 shows that the Bolsa Chica Road Extension is projected to carry traffic volumes ranging from 5,500 to 10,600 vehicles without the project. No Project/Full MPAH volumes were compared to LOS C daily capacities. All roadway segments projected to operate in excess of LOS C are depicted on Figure H-14. Under this condition, the following roadway segments are projected to carry daily traffic volumes in excess of their LOS C capacities: H-27 62221-12/91 U J O 11.3 N 12.7 15.7 v 26.6 30.8 ° 48.3 40.6 0 38.9 m EDINGER I , 8.7 31.9 15.8 28.3 21.5 40.0 37.7 55.9 2.4 11.6 15.8 362 18.1 27.6 24.0 23.5 VEILEIL z 3.3 i 26.4 10.4 17.9 127.1 21.2 38.9 125.6 62.7 11.2 8.2 21.4 47.8 41.2 28.1 30.0 37.7 38.0 40.2 WARNER 38.0 37.8 38.0 9.9 12.7 31.6 15.0 31.1 17.5 55.1 12.3 20.4 19.6 19.7 17.0 SLATER 2.8 24.1 11.4 30.5 18.7 51.3 0.2 2.6 5.5 13.4 TALBERT ' ss 6.2%19.6 TALIEAT c 0.2 23.7 28.8 11.9 59.1 18.1 10.7 1 22.3 18.1 ELLIS 11.4 0 9.5 31.7 7.1 /11� 38.9 16.3192 29.3 19. GARFIELD A 15.0 24.8 29.8 C�34.6 < O 5.3 1h 30.1 7.0 2 646.1 26.7 27.1 T YORKTOWN •� b 22.5 19.2 13.4 10.5 b 2.3 13.9 5.2 40.9 � W +A OI A �� ADAW 16.3 13.8 ♦ ,� Se ♦O 8.1 4.3 45.6 �a v 6.1 8.3 INOIANA►OLIS `<�r �*+ �5.4 11.0 9ev ti°j 8.7 1.8 38.9 29.7 31 r� 77 1 ATLANTA � 44 8 1.1 s`a< >>,8 26.6 ss ,y?$ WALNUT i .* 24.7 LEGEND `r9� XX.X-ADT IN THOUSANDS ss SOURCE: HOCTAM MODEL 9 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC NO PROJECT, NO BOLSA CHICA ROAD EXTENSION Source: BDI, 1991 FIGURE H-11 H-28 62221-12191 r• ; r. U ce�..tt+e. x•n. J- S 7.+Ow ••r rti O~ r� LEGEND AM PEAK HOUR ICU EXCEEDS 0.90 r PM PEAK HOUR ICU EXCEEDS 0.90 AM AND PM PEAK HOUR 1CU'S EXCEED 0.90 - ADT EXCEEDS LOS"C"CAPACITY S ROADWAY SEGMENTS AND INTERSECTIONS PROJECTED TO OPERATE AT UNACCEPTABLE LEVELS NO PROJECT, NO BOLSA CHICA ROAD EXTENSION r, Source: BDI, 1991 FIGURE H-12 H-29 Table H-5 SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION UTILIZATION ANALYSIS YEAR 2010 CONDITIONS NO PROJECT/NO BOLSA CHICA ROAD EXTENSION A.M.Peale Hour P.M.Peak Hour Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS Algonquin Street at: Warner Avenue 0.51 A 0.80 C t� Heil Avenue 0.11 A 0.15 A Bola&Chic&Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.70 B 0.81 D Warner Avenue 0.48 A 0.88 D Mesa Connector NA NA NA NA Graham Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.56 A 0.60 A Wamer Avenue 0.43 A 0.68 B Slater Avenue 0.37 A 0.58 A Bolaa Chic&Extension NA NA NA NA Springdale Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.69 B 0.91 E Warner Avenue 0.48 A 0.97 E Slater Avenue 0.60 A 0.67 B Talbert Avenue 0.57 A 0.67 B Bolas Chico Extension NA NA NA NA Talbert Avenue at: Bolaa Chic&Extension NA NA NA NA Edwards Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.51 A 0.84 D Warner Avenue 0.51 A 0.75 C Slater Avenue 0." A 0.56 A Ellis Avenue 0.70 B 0.89 D Garfield Avenue 0.44 A 0.59 A Goldenwest Street at: t� Edinger Avenue 0.86 D 1.24 F Heil Avenue 0.78 C 0.91 E Warner Avenue 0.60 A 0.79 C Slater Avenue 0.50 A 0.74 C Talbert Avenue 0.31 A 0.42 A Ellie Avenue 0.57 A 0.76 C Garfield Avenue 0.46 A 0.59 A Yorktown Avenue 0.31 A 0.49 A Pacific Coast Highway at: Warner Avenue 1.00 E 1.14 F Seapointe Avenue 0.66 B 0.78 C Goldenwest Street 0.73 C 0.90 D Seapointe Avenue at: Palm Avenue 0.16 A 0.20 A Bolas Chica Extension NA NA NA NA Warner Avenue at: Mesa Connector NA NA NA NA Main Street at: Garfield Avenue 0.72 C 0.87 D NA=Not Applicable H-30 62221-12/91 u e C m n < = + CH40.O37.7 u 11.3 w 12.6 8 15.5 26.4 30.6 W 46.1 38.8 m EDINGER 8.8 32.6 15.6, 28.5 21.3 55.8 2.4 11,6 14.9 33.9 18.2 27.6 23.5 HEIL z 3.2 27.7 Oz 10.5 11.3 8 0 a 19.1 25.1 21.0 38.8 25.5 62.8 < 23.1 47.8 38.9 28.7 29.9 37.6 38.0 40.2 WARNER s 0 S� 36.8 37.0 37. 12.7 73,7 28.3 14.8 30,9 A17.6 55.0 8.3 20.0 19.3 19.8 16.9 SLATER 6.2 17.1 111.2 30.3 18.7 1 51.2 S � 2.6 5.5 13.4 TALBERT cy 0.8 6.1 ss1 • `9 ct 11.9 TALBERT 1,3 15.7 28.6 11.9 58.9 co S� 14.5 10.3 121.8 17.9 ELLIS Ft S �o 3-15.3 28.5 7.1 `r ^� 38.5 oo cam s 24.8 30.3 18.9` 16.4 GARFIELD 22.7 25. 30.9 235.4 `Nt 5.3 Ito 31.3 7.1 Al 1 45.7 26.7 � 27,1 YORKTOWN A, Ar 23.4 20.0 13.5 10.5 1 &? 2.3 �D C 14.5 5.2 40.6 10.3 14.3 ADAMS l� 4 v SOSt ,6 .# ��` 8.2 4.4 145,5 Oyp�• •S 59 8.1 8.3 INDIANA►OLIS 0 `t.� 9 5.1 11.1 f � 9 ,ti0 8.8 1.8 19 38.8 17.' 30•9 ATLANTA 9 1,1 4 >>� 26.6 WALNUT LEGEND a9� 248 XX.X-ADT IN THOUSANDS BS SOURCE: HOCTAM MOOEL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 0 NO PROJECT, FULL MPAH Source: BDI, 1991 H-31 FIGURE H-13 62221-12i91 s s Q n w11 1 1 �O �O p+ t 1 J+ c....Re e O' r Y Ol .ter` b.y •+tr..rR7 LEGEND a~� AM PEAK HOUR ICU EXCEEDS 0.90 PM PEAK HOUR ICU EXCEEDS 0.90 • AM AND PM PEAK HOUR ICU'S EXCEED 0.90 • ADT EXCEEDS LOS"C'CAPACITY ROADWAY SEGMENTS AND INTERSECTIONS PROJECTED TO OPERATE AT UNACCEPTABLE LEVELS NO PROJECT, FULL MPAH Source: BDI, 1991 FIGURE H-14 H-32 ► Pacific Coast Highway - north of Warner Avenue(LOS F) - between Warner Avenue and Seapointe Avenue(LOS E) - south of Goldenwest Street (LOS D) ► Warner Avenue between Algonquin Street and Bolsa Chica Road (LOS D) ► Garfield Avenue - east of Goldenwest Street (LOS D) P. Edwards Street - north of Warner Avenue(LOS D) A summary of projected intersection operation under the No Project/Full MPAH condition is provided on Table H-6. Review of Table H-6 shows that the following intersections are projected to operate at greater than LOS D (0.90)capacity with a level of service of E or F in one or both peak hours: ► Springdale Street at Edinger Avenue(PM LOS — E) ► Goldenwest Street at Edinger Avenue (PM LOS = F) ► Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue (AM LOS = E, PM LOS = F) These intersections are depicted on Figure H-13,previously referenced. Comparison of Figure H-12 to Figure H-14 shows that construction of the Bolsa Chica Road extension to Garfield Street would alleviate congested conditions along several area roadway segments as well as at two intersections. Roadway segments which will improve by construction of the Bolsa Chica road extension are: ► Garfield Avenue east of Goldenwest Street ► Goldenwest Street north of Garfield Avenue ► Edwards Street south of Talbert Avenue ► Slater Avenue east of Springdale Street ► Springdale Street north of Slater ► Pacific Coast Highway south of Seapointe Avenue ' Roadway intersections which will improve by construction of the Bolsa Chica Road extension are: ► Springdale Street at Warner Avenue ► Goldenwest Street at Heil Avenue HA IMPACTS OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES A total of 11 alternatives were identified for traffic impact analysis in the EIS/EIR. Among these alternatives are also NEPA and CEQA No Action alternatives. The brief description of each alternative in this section will only cover the density of residential and non-residential developments and the assumed area network to be constructed. H.4.1 Alternative 1: Prop2ad Prsied With 4.884 Units and Lowland Development Total residential development of up to 4,894 units may be permitted in this alternative. Vehicular access to the development on the Bolsa Chica Mesa occurs from Warner Avenue, Bolsa Chica Avenue, and additional local collector roads. Development in the lowlands area will be accessed from Graham Street, Talbert Avenue, and H-33 a as w a a z 0 w o a I: r Table H-6 SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION UTILIZATION ANALYSIS YEAR 2010 CONDITIONS NO PROJECT/FULL MPAH A.M.Peals Hour P.M.Peale Hour Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS Algonquin Street at: Warner Avenue 0.51 A 0.79 C Heil Avenue 0.12 A 0.15 A Bolas Chic&Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.70 B 0.83 D ' Warner Avenue 0.44 A 0.94 D Mesa Connector NA NA NA NA Graham Street at: ' Edinger Avenue 0.56 A 0.59 A Warner Avenue 0.47 A 0.64 B Slater Avenue 0.33 A 0.40 A Bolas Chic&Extension 0.19 A 0.28 A Springdale Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.70 B 0.92 E Warner Avenue 0.43 A 0.86 D Slater Avenue 0.50 A 0.54 A Talbert Avenue 0.34 A 0.41 A Boise Chic&Extension 0.14 A 0.22 A Talbert Avenue at: ' Bolas Chic&Extension 0.14 A 0.21 A Edwards Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.51 A 0.84 D Warner Avenue 0.50 A 0.74 C Slater Avenue 0.43 A 0.56 A Ellis Avenue 0.51 A 0.67 B Garfield Avenue 0.40 A 0.54 A ' Goldenwest Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.86 D 1.24 F Heil Avenue 0.77 C 0.90 D Warner Avenue 0.60 A 0.79 C ' Slater Avenue 0.50 A 0.73 C Talbert Avenue 0.32 A 0.41 A Ellis Avenue 0.47 A 0.69 B Garfield Avenue 0.40 A 0.66 B ' Yorktown Avenue 0.33 A 0.54 A Pacific Coast Highway at: Warner Avenue 0.99 E 1.13 F Sespointe Avenue 0.65 B 0.75 C ' Goldenwest Street 0.72 C 0.88 D Seapointe Avenue at: Palm Avenue 0.16 A 0.20 A ' Bolas Chica Extension 0.40 A 0.68 B Warner Avenue at: Mesa Connector NA NA NA NA ' Main Street at: Garfield Avenue 0.72 C 0.90 D IL NA-Not App�cabk H-33a 1 Springdale Street which run roughly north/south. Two options for the Cross Gap Connector are analyzed. In the ' first option,a cross gap connector would run east-west extending from Bolsa Chica Street to Garfield Avenue(with cross gap connector), and in the second option,no connection is assumed (without cross gap connector). Graham ' Street, Springdale Street and Talbert Avenue would be extended southerly to create a T intersection with the cross gap connector to provide additional access to lowland areas. Also assumed is the construction of the Mesa connector. Access to Huntington Mesa would be from Pacific Coast Highway or an extension of Palm Avenue at , Seapointe Avenue from the south. Access to the northeast section of development would be from Edwards Street. Construction Impacts ' Traffic impact caused by project construction may occur where proposed roadways are connected to existing roadways. These locations are: Pacific Coast Highway at proposed Seapointe Avenue, Warner Avenue at proposed ' Mesa Connector, Bolsa Chica Street at Cross Gap Connector, extension of Graham and Springdale Streets and Talbert Avenue and the Garfield Avenue extension at Edwards Street. In all cases, Traffic Control Plans are required to be submitted for approval prior to permit issuance. 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 the Special Provisions. Buildout Impacts Level of Service Impacts ('With Cross Gap Connector): The project Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes resulting from this alternative with Cross Gap Connector are presented in Figure H-15. Review of Figure H-15 ' shows that daily traffic volumes along the Cross Gap Connector are expected to increase by approximately 2,900 to 5,000 vehicles over the No Project condition. The Mesa Connector is projected to carry 6,700 vehicles per day. Traffic on Bolsa Chica Street adjacent to the project site is expected to increme to 31,000 vehicles per day between ' Warner and Heil. The segment of Warner Avenue between Algonquin Street and the Mesa Connector is shown to experience a slight decrease in traffic of approximately 2,100 vehicles. This decrease can be attributed to the availability of the Mesa Connector as an alternate route to Pacific Coast Highway from the Cross Gap Connector. Substantial increases in project traffic appear to be generally confined to the study area, with most of the daily ' traffic impact dissipating before reaching Edinger Avenue and Beach Boulevard. Some selected roadway segments throughout the study area even experience decreases in traffic, when compared to the No Project condition. Based on the results of the Alternative 1 model run, the following roadway segments are projected to operate at level of service D or worse: ► Pacific Coast Highway: North of Warner Avenue (LOS F) ' ► Pacific Coast Highway: Between Warner Avenue and Seapointe Avenue (LOS E) ► Pacific Coast Highway: South of Goldenwest Street (LOS D) ► Edwards Street: North of Warner Avenue(LOS D) ' ► Garfield Avenue: East of Goldenwest Street(LOS D) ► Warner Avenue: Algonquin to Bolsa Chic& Road(LOS D) ► Slater Avenue: Between Springdale Street and Edwards O'OS D) ' ► Graham Avenue: North of Warner Avenue(LOS D) When compared to No Project conditions, Alternative 1 causes two roadway segments to worsen from LOS D or better to LOS D or worse. This condition is depicted on Figure H-16. H-34 ' 62221-12i91 • W N < N O m - a _ G r 11.3 N 12.5 15.3 v 26.0 30.8 W 46.0 40.5 ° 38.3 m EDINGER 8.7 34.5 40.1 137.6 16.9 29.3 Z1.355.3 2.3 11.7 16.0 35.6 18.7 28.4 24.4 I 23.3 WEIL 3.1 0 31.0 Z 10.1 11.5 7.7 S 27.3 21.4 25.1 21.5 38.6 25.6 62.3 4 47.4 44.1 29.4 31.1 38.5 38.7 40.7 WARNER 66.4 34 9 41.1 34.9 12.8 29.0 15.8 31.0 17.6 54.7 27.2 M fS+ 8.7 21.1 19.6 T0.0 17.4 SLATER CONNECTOR 6.7 ' 8.6 18.7 010.9 630.4 18.4 51.1 10.9 'o a� 2.7 5.5 13.2 TALBERT oy 3.2 6.8 SS C� TALBERT ' 14.2 14.3' 11.7 68.6 2.3 17.H 28.9 o 11.8 16.9 12.0 22.3 18.1 ELLIS f� f tif'y 11.2 ' 13.5 5.8 28.2 1 6.6 *gyp 'Ly 38.3 vS S co 1111, 16.4 26.8 GARFIELD .24.2 Z7A 30.8 31.8 035.8 ,09 SE�ro`~ 14.7 33.0 5.2 26.6 7.2 T 45.3 27.0 VORKTOWN 24.1 20.6 14.1 11.0 .51 31:1 .1 2.3 20.0 r 14.7 5.2 40.6 AOAMS 10.9 14.4 �'eSt 1�6C ;O 8.1 4.4 645.4 v y _e�Ot• S� ,�.• O 8.1 8.2 INDIANAPOLIS 8.8 01.7 38.5 28.8 �r 1j 30.8 ATLANTA 91►*y` 7�s 1.2 26.5 LEGEND SS' ?a WALNUT ' XX.X AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC S 24A (IN THOUSANDS) S� SOURCE: HOCTAM MODEL 63 1 ALTERNATIVE 1 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 4,884 DU, FULL CROSS GAP CONNECTOR ' Source: BDL 1991 H-35 FIGURE H-15 62221-12191 ' 1 • c, I I •w• ecr./e-w I t '4 IL I 9 Y� 4 ' ' � u••Re i r d 0 LEGEND cAM PEAK HOUR ICU EXCEEDS 0.90 PM PEAK HOUR ICU EXCEEDS 0.90 AM AND PM PEAK HOUR ICU'S EXCEED 0.90 ® INTERSECTION WORSENS AS A RESULT OF THIS ALTERNATIVE .►'+ •�.-•• ADT EXCEEDS LOS"C"CAPACITY ROADWAY SEGMENT WORSENS AS A ' RESULT OF THIS ALTERNATIVE ROADWAY SEGMENTS AND INTERSECTIONS PROJECTED TO OPERATE AT UNACCEPTABLE LEVELS , ALTERNATIVE 1: 4,884 DU FULL CROSS GAP CONNECTOR , Source: EIDL 1991 FIGURE H-16 H-36 1 Intersections ' A summary of intersection operation assuming Alternative 1 -4,884 Dwelling Units and Full Cross Gap Connector is provided on Table H-7. The following intersections are expected to operate at level of service E or F in one or more peak hours under this scenario: ► Edinger Avenue at Springdale Street (PM LOS E) ► Edinger Avenue at Goldenwest Street(PM LOS F) ► Heil Avenue at Goldenwest Street(PM LOS E) ' ► Warner Avenue at Pacific Coast Highway (AM LOS F, PM LOS F) ► Warner Avenue at Bolsa Chica Street (PM LOS E) Review of this list of intersections, compared to the list associated with No Project condition, Full Cross Gap Connector, shows that Alternative 1 can be expected to worsen somewhat the already unacceptable conditions at two intersections, and to cause two additional intersections to operate at an unacceptable level of service. ' The measure of the level of impact caused by the project is determined by subtracting the No Project condition ICU values from the Alternative 1 ICU's. Project traffic associated with Alternative 1 would have greater than a 1 percent impact at the following intersections that were projected to already be operating at an unacceptable level of service: ► Edinger Avenue at Springdale Street (PM: 0.02 impact) ' ► Warner Avenue at Pacific Coast Highway (AM: 0.05 impact, PM -0.05 impact) In addition,the project could be expected to cause operating conditions at the following intersections to worsen from acceptable (0.90 or less) to unacceptable (greater than 0.90)conditions: ► Heil Avenue at Goldenwest Street(PM: 0.02 impact) ► Warner Avenue at Bolsa Chica Street(PM: 0.11 impact) Mitigation measures to ameliorate these impacts will be identified in the Mitigation Measures section. Level of Service Impacts(Without Cross Gap Connector): The projected Average Daily Traffic(ADT)volumes ' resulting from the Alternative 1 Without Cross Gap Connector runs are presented on Figure H-17. Volumes were compared to LOS C daily capacities. All roadway segments projected to operate in excess of LOS C are depicted on Figure H-18,with those segments that exceed LOS C as a result of the project highlighted. Under this condition, ' the following roadway segments are projected to carry daily traffic volumes in excess of their LOS C capacities: ► Pacific Coast Highway - north of Warner Avenue(LOS F) - between Warner Avenue and Seapointe Avenue(LOS F) - between Seapointe Avenue and Gotdenwest Street(LOS D) - south of Goldenwest Street(LOS D) ► Warner Avenue - between Algonquin Street and Bolsa Chica Road (LOS D) - between Bolsa Chica Road and Graham Street(LOS D) ' ► Slater Avenue - between Springdale Street and Edwards Street(LOS D) - between Edwards Street and Goldenwest Street (LOS D) ' H-37 Table H-7 SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION OPERATION ' ALTERNATIVE 1: 4,884 DU/FULL CROSS GAP CONNECTOR A.M.Peale Hour P.M.Peale Hour Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS ' Algonquin Street at: Warner Avenue 0.48 A 0.82 D Heil Avenue 0.11 A 0.14 A Bolas Chica Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.72 C 0.88 D Warner Avenue 0.65 B 0.95 E , Mesa Connector 0.30 A 0.34 A Graham Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.57 A 0.62 B Warner Avenue 0.60 A 0.73 C Slater Avenue 0.34 A 0.39 A Bolas Chics Extension 0.22 A 0.34 A Springdale Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.71 C 0.94 E Warner Avenue 0.46 A 0.89 D Slater Avenue 0.56 A 0.59 A Talbert Avenue 0.38 A 0.51 A ' Bolas Chica Extension 0.16 A 0.26 A Talbert Avenue at: Bolas Chica Extension 0.25 A 0.31 A Edwards Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.52 A 0.83 D Warner Avenue 0.53 A 0.76 C Slater Avenue 0.47 A 0.61 A ' Ellis Avenue 0.60 A 0.75 C Garfield Avenue 0.43 A 0.58 B Goldenwest Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.86 D 1.23 F ' Heil Avenue 0.78 C 0.92 E Warner Avenue 0.62 B 0.80 C Slater Avenue 0.52 A 0.75 C Talbert Avenue 0.32 A 0.42 A Ellis Avenue 0.49 A 0.74 C Garfield Avenue 0.42 A 0.70 B Yorktown Avenue 0.33 A 0.56 A Pacific Coast Highway at: Warner Avenue 1.04 F 1.18 F Seapoime Avenue 0.61 B 0.73 C Goldenwest Suva 0.70 B 0.88 D Seapointe Avenue at: t Palm Avenue 0.16 A 0.19 A Bolas Chic&Extension 0.61 B 0.78 C Warner Avenue at: ' Mesa Connector 0.35 A 0.44 A Main Street at: Garfield Avenue 0.74 C 0.90 D , NA-Not Applicable H-38 ' 62221-12t91 O C V 11.3 12.6 0 15.5 v 26.6 „ 37.4 W 463 �� 40.6 u° 38 5 m EDINGER 8.7 633.2 17.2 29.2 P21.5 40.0 37.7 55.6 2.4 11.7 17.1 37.6 18.5 28.5 24.4 23.3 VEIL 3.1 c 29.6 z 10.1 11.4 19.5 27.2 22.0 38.6 25.7 62.6 ' 7.8 � 48.2 25.5 49.3 32.1 30.9 38.3 38.6 40.5 WARNER s� 36.6 •0 41.9 36.6 ' 25.8 14.1 34.1 16.2 31.0 17.7 55.0 M fS. 13.2 22.5 1 20.6 20.8 17.9 SLATER CONNECTOR ' 5.9 26.9 111.5 30.4 18.8 052.0 2.6 5.4 13.4 TALSERT 6.5 s' 1.9 TALBERT ' �? 21.9 1.7 26.0 28.9 612.0 59.0 20.3 11.7 22.8 18.3 ELLIS 11.6 ` 10.7 32.0 7.1 `r D -yh 38.8 s`�o c8.9�' 16.8 f 20.0 29.8 1 GARiIELD 14.g 25. 30.3 �35.1 5.2 y4►TD�Nt 1p0 30.5 �0 7.1 > 45.6 h � N. 27.0 YORKTOWN •� M 22.7 19.3 13.5 10.5 1 h 13.9 5.2 40.4 y� 2.4 e W 10.2 13.8 ADAMS � 9 1 44yt 1� S9 �6 8.1 4.3 45.3 ' p�?� *S� ,�•� O 8.1 8.3 INDIANA/OLIS 5.2 VIP .y°j 8.8 1.8 38.5 0 29. 30.9 ATLANTA 26.5 LEGEND `rS* �q wALNLR XX.X AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 1124.6 (IN THOUSANDS$ `r9,� ' SOURCE: HOCTAM MODEL BS •S ALTERNATIVE 1: AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 4,884 DU, NO BOLSA CHICA ROAD EXTENSION Source: BDI, 1991 H-39 FIGURE 11-17 62221-12i91 ' 8 tl � SI te+nc•o. ^r ' r 'y a.«tte i .o..•ow o` �o LEGEND '• CAM PEAK HOUR ICU EXCEEDS 0.90 PM PEAK HOUR ICU EXCEEDS 0.90 OAM AND PM PEAK HOUR ICU'S EXCEED 0.90 ® INTERSECTION WORSENS AS A RESULT OF THIS ALTERNATIVE ,►+ ..�,... ' ADT EXCEEDS LOS"C"CAPACITY ROADWAY SEGMENT WORSENS AS A ' RESULT OF THIS ALTERNATIVE ROADWAY SEGMFINTS AND INTERSECTIONS PROJECTED TO OPERATE mr UNACCEPTABLE LEVELS ' AD Ila ALTERNATIVE 1: 4,884 DU NO BOLSA CHICA ROAD EXTENSION Source: BDL 1991 FIGURE H-18 H-40 1 ' ► Talbert Avenue - between Springdale Street and Edwards Street(LOS D) ► Springdale Street between Slater Avenue and Warner Avenue (LOS E) ► Edwards Street - between Ellis Avenue and Talbert Avenue(LOS F) - north of Warner Avenue (LOS D) ' A comparison of daily traffic volumes to depict incremental traffic increases as a direct result of the proposed 4,884 dwelling units is provided by subtracting No Project/No Bolsa Chica Road Extension from this alternative ADT. A substantial increase of 15,900 vehicles is projected to take place on Bolsa Chica Road,adjacent to the project site, and lesser increases are generally projected for the area roadways. The segment of Warner Avenue between Algonquin Street and the Mesa Connector is shown to experience a slight decrease in traffic of 1,400 vehicles. This decrease can be attributed to the availability of the Mesa Connector as an alternative route to Pacific Coast Highway from Bolsa Chica Road. The greatest increases in project traffic appear to be on Warner Avenue, east of Bolsa Chica Street and on Bolsa ' Chica Street north and south of Warner Avenue. Some roadway segments throughout the study area experience decreases in traffic when compared to the No Project/No Bolsa Chica Road Extension condition. When compared to the No Project/No Bolsa Chica Road Extension condition,three roadway segments are projected to worsen to LOS D or worse: ► Warner Avenue: Bolsa Chica Road to Graham Street(LOS D) ' ► Slater Avenue: Edwards Street to Goldenwest Street(LOS D) ► Talbert Avenue: Springdale Street to Edwards Street(LOS D) A summary of projected intersection operation under the 4,884 DU/No Bolsa Chica Road Extension Alternative is ' provided on Table H-8. Review of Table H-8 shows that the following intersections are projected to operate at greater than LOS D (0.90)capacity, with a level of service E or F in one or both peak hours: ► Springdale Street at Warner Avenue(PM LOS = F) ► Edwards Street at Ellis Avenue (PM LOS = E) ► Goldenwest Street at Edinger Avenue(PM LOS = F) ► Goldenwest Street at Heil Avenue(PM LOS = E) ► Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue(AM LOS = F, PM LOS = F) ► Pacific Coast Highway at Goldenwest Street(PM LOS = E) ' Comparing this list of intersections to the list associated with the No ProjectfNo Bolsa Chica Road Extension condition shows that this alternative wild cause two additional intersections to operate at an unacceptable level of service. Project traffic associated with this alternative would have greater than a 0.01 impact at the following intersections that were projected to already be operating at an unacceptable level of service: ► Springdale Street at Warner Avenue(PM: 0.09 impact) ► Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue (AM: 0.03 impact, PM 0.04 impact) ' In addition, the project could be expected to cause operating conditions at two intersections to worsen from acceptable to unacceptable conditions: ' ► Edwards Street at Ellis Avenue(PM: 0.06 impact) ► Pacific Coast Highway at Goldenwest Street(PM: 0.01 impact) ' H-i1 Table H-8 SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION UTILIZATION ANALYSIS , YEAR 2010 CONDITIONS ALTERNATIVE 1: 4,884 DU/NO BOLSA CHICA :[LOAD EXTENSION Intersection A.M.Peak Hour P.M.Peale Hour , ICU LOS ICU LOS Algonquin Street at: Warner Avenue 0.50 A 0.81 D Heil Avenue 0.11 A 0.14 A Bolsa Chiaa Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.72 C 0.82 D Warner Avenue 0.73 C 0.89 D Mesa Connector 0.19 A 0.19 A Graham Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.56 A 0.62 B ' Warner Avenue 0.46 A 0.75 C Slater Avenue 0.38 A 0.61 B Bolsa Chiaa Extension NA NA NA NA Springdale Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.71 C 0.90 D Warner Avenue 0.53 A 1.06 F Slater Avenue 0.68 B 0.74 C Talbert Avenue 0.61 B 0.73 C Bolas Chia Extension NA NA NA NA Talbert Avenue at: ' Bolas Chiaa Extension NA NA NA NA Edwards Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.53 A 0.95 D Warner Avenue 0.54 A 0.79 C ' Slater Avenue 0.48 A 0.63 B Ellis Avenue 0.75 C 0.95 E Garfield Avenue 0.47 A 0.62 B Goldenwest Street at: ' Edinger Avenue 0.87 D 1.25 F Heil Avenue 0.79 C 0.92 E Warner Avenue 0.64 A 0.81 D Slater Avenue 0.52 A 0.76 C Talbert Avenue 0.32 A 0.40 A Ellis Avenue 0.57 A 0.92 D Garfield Avenue 0.47 A 0.62 B Yorktown Avenue 0.32 A 0.50 A Pacific Coast Highway at: Warner Avenue 1.03 F 1.19 F Seapointe Avenue 0.64 B 0.79 C , Goldenwest Suva 0.71 C 0.91 E Seapoints Avenue at: Palm Avenue 0.16 A 0.20 A ' Boles Chiaa Extension NA NA NA NA Warner Avenue at: Mesa Connector 0.36 A 0.44 A Main Street at: Garfield Avenue 0.73 C 0.87 D NA-Not H-42 1 Mitigation measures at these intersections will be addressed in the mitigation measures section. H.4.2 Alternative 3: Modified Lowland Developments Total residential development of up to 4,000 units may be permitted in this alternative. Vehicular access to the development on the Bolsa Chica Mesa occurs from Warner Avenue, Bolsa Chica Avenue, and additional local collector roads. Development in the lowlands areas will be accessed from Graham Street, Talbert Avenue, and Springdale Street which run roughly north/south. Two options for the Cross Gap Connector are analyzed. In the first option,a cross gap connector would run east-west extending from Bolsa Chica Street to Garfield Avenue(with cross gap connector), and in the second option,no connection is assumed (without cross gap connector). Graham Street, Springdale Street and Talbert Avenue would be extended southerly to create a T intersection with the cross gap connector to provide additional access to lowland areas. Also assumed is the construction of the Mesa connector. Access to Huntington Mesa would be from Pacific Coast Highway or an extension of Palm Avenue at Seapointe Avenue from the south. Access to the northeast section of development would be from Edwards Street. ' Construction Impacts Traffic impact caused by project construction may occur where proposed roadways are connected to existing roadways. These locations are: Pacific Coast Highway at proposed Seapointe Access, Warner Avenue at proposed Mesa Connector, Bolsa Chica Street at Cross Gap Connector, extension of Graham and Springdale Streets and Talbert Avenue and the Garfield Avenue extension at Edwards Street. In all cases, Traffic Control Plans are i required to be submitted for approval prior to permit issuance. 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 the Special Provisions. Buildout Impacts ' Level of Service Impacts (With Cross Gan Connector): The project Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes resulting from this alternative with Cross Gap Connector are presented in Figure H-19. Review of Figure H-19 shows that daily traffic volumes along the Cross Gap Connector are expected to be between 11,900 and 14,900 vehicles per day with project traffic. Volumes were compared to LOS C daily capacities. All roadway segments projected to operate in excess of LOS C are depicted on Figure H-20, with those segments that exceed LOS C as a result of the project highlighted. Under this alternative and without Cross Gap Connector, the following roadway segments are projected to carry daily traffic volumes in excess of their LOS C capacities: Pacific Coast Highway ' _ north of Warner Avenue(LOS F) between Warner Avenue and Seapointe Avenue(LOS E) - south of Goldenwest Street (LOS D) Warner Avenue - between Algonquin Street and Bolsa Chica Road(LOS D) - between Bolsa Chica Road and Graham Street(LOS D) ' P. Slater Avenue - between Springdale Street and Edwards Street(LOS D) ' - between Edwards Street and Goldenwest Street(LOS D) H-43 62221-12191 U N C , o O < ( C < W i e N ? A c 113 N 12.5 15.3 v 26.0 31.2 W �6.3 cl 40.d 38.3 m ED�NGER i 8.8 35.8 16.9 129.6 121.2 139.7 37.7 55.4 2.3 - 11.7 16.3 35.9 18.9 28.4 1 24.5 23.4 HEIL ' 3.1 • 32.8 z 10.2 11.7 �� 21.4 24.8 21.0 38.5 25.5 62.3 7.7 ` 47.5 29.2 45.4 29.6 31.4 38.6 38.7 40.6 WARNER G 9 42.1 34.8 34.8 30.9 12.8 28.6 15.0 30.6 17.6 54.9 ' 4ps4 9.2 21.1 20.2 20.4 17.9 SLATER CONNECTOR 7.8 8.1 17.3 10.7 30.0 18.4 0 51.1 3.7 2.7 5.4 13.1 TALBERT TALIIERT , •� � �y 13.9 1.3 17.1 28.2 11.8 58.8 °.7 r+ 15.9 11.6 22.1 18.0 ELUS �r ij4s 11.1 /1P, 5.2 28.2 6.7 �, 38.4 r` � C � 27.0 30.7 18.9 16.3 GwRciEto ,a6 24.3 6.6 31.6 T35.7 t r E�fD`N 32.8 5.2 7.2 l 45S gyp?a 26.6 '- 27.0 vORKTOvvh ' •� 24.0 20.7 74 •11.0 s S �!P* 14.3 5.2 40.9 qP 2.3 O W ., �. � aDAMi 10.9 14.4 99 O y� �6 s6' 16C 8.2 4.4 45.4 a� p Dyp�,? Ss 11.y � p9 8.1 8.2 IINOIANAPOLIS p Sr 5.0 11.0 4e! tie 8.8 1.7 38.6 28.8 ' ? 30'6 ATLANTA .T� 0 17.6 94 ` ',�s 1.1 28.5 LEGEND $s. np?� WALNUT ' XX.X AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (IN THOUSANDS) 24.5 SOURCE: HOCTAM MODEL sS •s ALTERNATIVE 3 ' AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 4,000 DU/FULL MPAH , Source: BDI, 1991 H-44 FIGURE H-19 62221-1291 I—,L7 s s a1 1 1 _ e� A4 6 � A + i O LEGEND `k CAM PEAK HOUR ICU EXCEEDS 0.90 ••,� ... PM PEAK HOUR ICU EXCEEDS 0.90 • AM AND PM PEAK HOUR ICU`S EXCEED 0.90 ® INTERSECTION WORSENS AS A RESULT OF THIS ALTERNATIVE ►� ADT EXCEEDS LOS"C"CAPACITY ' 11111119 ROADWAY SEGMENT WORSENS AS A RESULT OF THIS ALTERNATIVE 1 ROADWAY SEGMENTS AND INTERSECTIONS ' PROJECTED TO OPERATE AT UNACCEPTABLE LEVELS ALTERNATIVE 3 i 4,000 DUYULL MPAH Source: BDI, 1991 H-45 RE FIGU H-20 r ► Garfield Avenue r - east of Goldenwest Street(LOS D) ► Graham Street ' - north of Warner Avenue (LOS D) ► Edwards Street ' - north of Warner Avenue(LOS D) A comparison of daily traffic volumes to depict incremental traffic increases as a direct result of the proposed 4,000 , dwelling units is provided by subtracting No Project/Full MPAH from this alternative. A substantial increase of 17,200 vehicles is projected to take place on Bolsa Chica Road,adjacent to the project site,and lesser increases are generally projected for the area roadways. , The segment of Warner Avenue between Algonquin Street and the Mesa Connector is shown to experience a slight decrease in traffic of 2,200 vehicles. This decrease can be attributed to the availability of the Mesa Connector as an alternative route to Pacific Coast Highway from Bolsa Chica Road. ' The greatest increases in project traffic appear to be on Warner Avenue, east of Pacific Coast Highway, on Bolsa Chica Road, and along the Bolsa Chica Road extension. , When compared to the No Project/Full MPAH condition,four roadway segments are projected to worsen to LOS D or worse: ► Slater Avenue: Springdale Street to Edwards Street (LOS D) ► Slater Avenue: Edwards Street to Goldenwest Street (LOS D) ► Graham Street: North of Warner Avenue (LOS D) r ► Warner Avenue: Bolsa Chica Road to Graham Street (LOS D) A summary of projected intersection operation under the 4,000 DU/Full MPAH alternative is provided on Table H-9. Review of Table H-9 shows that the following intersections are projected to operate at greater than , LOS D (0.90)capacity, with a level of service E or F in one or both peak hours: ► Bolsa Chica Road at Warner Avenue (PM LOS = E) ' ► Springdale Street at Edinger Avenue(PM LOS = E) ► Goldenwest Street at Edinger Avenue(PM LOS = F) ► Goldenwest Street at Heil Avenue (PM LOS = E) ► Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue (AM LOS = F, PM LOS = F) , ► Main Street at Garfield Avenue (PM LOS = E) Comparing this list of intersections to the list associated with the No Project/Full MPAH condition shows that this alternative will cause three additional intersections to operate at an unacceptable level of service. Project traffic associated with this alternative level of development would have greater Jum a 0.01 impact at the following intersections that were projected to already be operating at an unacceptable level of service: ► Springdale Street at Edinger Avenue(PM: 0.04 impact) ' ► Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue (AM: 0.07 impact, PM -0.07 impact) In addition, the project could be expected to /cause operating conditions at three intersections to worsen from ' acceptable to unacceptable conditions: r H-46 ' Table H-9 ' SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION UTILIZATION ANALYSIS YEAR 2010 CONDITIONS ALTERNATIVE 3: 4,000 DU/FULL MPAH A.M.Peale Hour P.M.Peale Hour iIntersection ICU LOS ICU LOS Algonquin Street at: Warner Avenue 0.48 A 0.82 D Heil Avenue 0.11 A 0.15 A Bolas Chica Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.74 C 0.90 E Warner Avenue 0.65 B 0.98 D Mesa Connector 0.37 A 0.39 A Graham Street at: 1 Edinger Avenue 0.57 A 0.61 B Warner Avenue 0.53 A 0.75 C Slater Avenue 0.34 A 0.39 A Bolas Chica Extension 0.21 A 0.36 A Springdale Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.72 C 0.96 E Warner Avenue 0.45 A 0.89 D Slater Avenue 0.50 A 0.54 A Talbert Avenue 0.35 A 0.49 A Bolaa Chica Extension 0.15 A 0.26 A Talbert Avenue at: Bolaa Chica Extension 0.27 A 0.32 A Edwards Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.52 A 0.84 D Warner Avenue 0.53 A 0.77 C Slater Avenue 0.45 A 0.58 A Ellis Avenue 0.58 A 0.76 C Garfield Avenue 0.42 A 0.57 A Goldenwest Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.87 D 1.24 F Heil Avenue 0.76 C 0.92 E Warner Avenue 0.63 B 0.81 D 1 Slater Avenue 0.51 A 0.74 C Talbert Avenue 0.31 A 0.41 A Ellis Avenue 0.47 A 0.72 C Garfield Avenue 0.40 A 0.70 B Yorktown Avenue 0.34 A 0.55 A Pacific Coast Highway at: Warner Avenue 1.06 F 1.20 F Seapointe Avenue 0.60 A 0.73 C Goldenwest Street 0.71 C 0.87 D Seapoime Avenue at: Palm Avenue 0.16 A 0.19 A ' Bolas Chic&Extension 0.49 A 0.79 C Warner Avenue at: Mesa Connector 0.37 A 0.47 A ' Main Shed at: Garfield Avenue 0.74 C 0.91 E NA=Not App6caMe H-47 1 ► Bolsa Chica Road at Warner Avenue (PM: 0.14 impact) , ► Goldenwest Street at Heil Avenue (PM: 0.02 impact) ► Main Street at Garfield Avenue (PM: 0.01 impact) Mitigation measures at these intersections will be addressed in the mitigation measures section. Level of Service Impacts (Without Cross GaRConnector: The projected Average Daily Traffic(ADT)volumes ' resulting from this alternative run are presented on Figure H-21. Volumes were compared to LOS C daily capacities. All roadway segments projected to operate in excess of LOS C are.depicted on Figure H-22,with those segments that exceed LOS C as a result of the deletion of the Bolsa Chica Road Extension highlighted. Under this alternative conditions,the following roadway segments are projected to carry daily traffic volumes in excess of their LOS C capacities: P. Pacific Coast Highway - north of Warner Avenue (LOS F) - between Warner Avenue and Seapointe Avenue (LOS F) - between Seapointe Avenue and Goldenwest Street (LOS D) ' - south of Goldenwest Street (LOS D) ► Warner Avenue - between Algonquin Street and Bolsa Chica Road (LOS D) - between Bolsa chica Road and Graham Street (LOS D) ► Slater Avenue - between Springdale Street and Edwards Street (LOS D) - between Edwards Street and Goldenwest Street (LOS D) ► Talbert Avenue , - between Springdale Street and Edwards Street (LOS D) ► Springdale Street ' - between Slater Avenue and Warner Avenue(LOS E) ► Edwards Street ' - between Ellis Avenue and Talbert Avenue (LOS E) - north of Warner Avenue(LOS D) A summary of projected intersection operation under the 4,000 DU/No Bolsa Chica Road extension condition is provided on Table H-10. Review of Table H-10 shows that the following intersections are projected to operate at greater than LOS D(0.90)capacity with a level of service of E or F in one or both peak hours: ► Bolsa Chica Road at Wanner Avenue(PM LOS = F) ' ► Springdale Street at Edinger Avenue (PM LOS = E) ► Springdale Street at Warner Avenue (PM LOS = E) ► Edwards Street at Ellis Avenue(PM LOS = E) ' ► Goldenwest Street at Edinger Avenue(PM LAS = F) ► Goldenwest Street at Heil Avenue (PM LOS = E) ► Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue(AM LOS = F, PM LOS = ID ' ► Pacific Coast Highway at Goldenwest Street (PM LOS = E) Mitigation measures at these intersections will be addressed in the mitigation measures section. r H- r 62221-12i91 u > o u Y 11.3 12.5 15.8 26.6 N 31.5 - d6.5 ,°�! 40.6 °v 38.4 EDINGfR 8.8 35.1 17.1 29.3 •21.4 39.7 37.6 55.8 ' 2.4 11.7 17.9 37.7 18.7 28.5 2-6 23.5 1 -EIL z 3.2 i 10.2 32.8 11.5 18.9 26.8 21.5 38.3 25.5 662.5 7.8 < 28.9 4$� 50.2 33.5 31.9 39.2 39.3 41.2 WARNER 6� 36.7 ? 43.7 36.7 30.4 13.5 34.1 }15.5 30.6 17.6 55.1 �rEs, 12.7 21.9 I 20.6 20.6 17.7 SLATER CONNECTOR 7•6 4.9 25.4 11.4 18.9 52.1 30.0 1.2 2.6 5.4 13.4 ITALBERT 6.1 Se TALBERT 6. 20.9 'c�•c 0.2 24.9 28.3' 12.0 59.2 19.0 11.2 22.6 18.1 ELLIS ' 11.5 h� S 9'9 31.8 7.1 ��� 1• 138.7 16.7 .O 0f 19.0~ GARFIELD A 1p`S 74•8 19.3 29.5 25. 30.1 04.9 3 t T 29.9 5.2 26.7 7.1 T 46.0 27.0 YORKTOWN ' •� 22.4 19.1 73.5 %a.$ 4 ` 13.7 5.2 40.8 2.4 W 0 10.1 13.6 ADAMS 9a,8 O a~ �� Se 16ti 8.1 4.3 45.4 O 8.1 8.2 INOIANAIOLIS ?.y�9'yO 5.2 i t.l 6 y 8.8 01.7 38.7 90 ,r 31,7 ATLANTA 26.6 a LEGEND SSS ?S WALNUT XX.X AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC Sg 24.7 (IN THOUSANDS) ' SOURCE: HOCT.AM MODEL sSB ALTERNATIVE 3 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 4,000 DU/ NO BOLSA CHICA ROAD EXTENSION Source: BDI, 1991 H-49 FIGURE H-21 62221-12/91 ' i q LI 6 e rear• •. •q• ee•.re•e• J a.••,as i .O` 4 e` o`f LEGEND AM PEAK HOUR ICU EXCEEDS 0.90 rw ' PM PEAK HOUR ICU EXCEEDS 0.90 • AM AND PM PEAK HOUR ICU'S EXCEED 0.90 ® INTERSECTION WORSENS AS A RESULT OF THIS ALTERNATIVE �+ ADT EXCEEDS LOS"C"CAPACITY itsiesse ROADWAY SEGMENT WORSENS AS A RESULT OF THIS ALTERNATIVE ROADWAY SEGMENTS AND INTERSECTIONS PROJECTED TO OPERATE AT UNACCEPTABLE LEVELS .ALTERNATIVE 3: 4,000 DU/ NO BOLSA CHICA ROAD EXTENSION Source: BDI, 1991 FIGURE H-22 H-50 i Table H-10 ' SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION UTH IZATION ANALYSIS YEAR 2010 CONDITIONS ALTERNATIVE 3: 4,000 DU/NO BOLSA CHICA EXTENSION A.M.Peale Hour P.M.Peak Hoar Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS Algonquin Street at: Warner Avenue 0.49 A 0.84 D Heil Avenue 0.11 A 0.15 A Bolas Chica Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.74 C 0.85 D Warner Avenue 0.77 C 1.02 F Mesa Connector 0.28 A 0.26 A Graham Street at: ' Edinger Avenue 0.57 A 0.63 B Warner Avenue 0.50 A 0.79 C Slater Avenue 0.40 A 0.62 B Bolsa Chic&Extension NA NA NA NA Springdale Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.73 C 0.94 E Warner Avenue 0.54 A 1.07 F Slater Avenue 0.64 B 0.70 B Talbert Avenue 0.58 A 0.69 B Bolas Chica Extension NA NA NA NA Talbert Avenue at: 1 Bolas Chic&Extension NA NA NA NA Edwards Strom at: Edinger Avenue 0.53 A 0.84 D 1 Warner Avenue 0.54 A 0.78 C Slater Avenue 0.47 A 0.60 A Ellis Avenue 0.74 C 0.93 E Garfield Avenue 0.45 A 0.61 B Goldenwest Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.87 D 1.24 F Heil Avenue 0.77 C 0.92 E Warner Avenue 0.64 B 0.82 D Slater Avenue 0.52 A 0.75 C Talbert Avenue 0.31 A 0.40 A Ellis Avenue 0.56 A 0.79 C Garfield Avenue 0.47 A 0.60 A Yorktown Avenue 0.31 A 0.48 A Pacific Coast Highway at: Warner Avenue 1.05 F 1.20 F Seapointe Avenue 0.65 B 0.79 C Goldenwest Street 0.72 C 0.91 E Seapointe Avenue at: Palm Avenue 0.16 A 0.20 A ' Bolas Chica Extension NA . NA NA NA Warner Avenue at: Mesa Connector 0.38 A 0.49 A Main Street at: Garfield Avenue 0.72 C 0.88 D NA s Not Appfic" H-51 H.4.3 Alternative 4: Modified Lowland Development Total residential development of up to 3,500 units may be permitted in this alternative. Vehicular access to the development on the Bolsa Chica Mesa occurs from Warner Avenue, Bolsa Chica Avenue, and additional local collector roads. No connection is assumed between Bolsa Chica Street and Garfield Avenue (without cross gap connector). Also assumed is the construction of the Mesa connector. Acces.3 to Huntington Mesa would be from ' Pacific Coast Highway or an extension of Palm Avenue at Seapointe Avenue from the south. Access to the northeast section of development would be from Edwards Street. Construction Impacts , Traffic impact caused by project construction may occur where proposed roadways are connected to existing ' roadways. These locations are: Pacific Coast Highway at proposed Seapointe Avenue, Warner Avenue at proposed Mesa Connector, Bolsa Chica Street at Mesa, and the Garfield Avenue extension at Edwards Street. In all cases, Traffic Control Plans are required to be submitted for approval prior to pernut issuance. 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 the Special Provisions. Buildout Impacts ' Level of Service Impacts: The projected Average Daily Traffic(ADT)volumes resulting from this alternative are presented in Figure H-23. Alternative 4 volumes were compared to LOS C dfdly capacities. All roadway segments ' projected to operate in excess of LOS C are depicted on Figure H-24, with(hose segments that exceed LOS C as a result of the project highlighted. Under Alternative 4 conditions, the following roadway segments are projected to carry daily traffic volumes in excess of their LOS C capacities: ' ► Pacific Coast Highway - north of Warner Avenue(LOS F) - between Warner Avenue and Seapointe Avenue (LOS F) ' - between Seapointe Avenue and Goldenwest Street (LOS D) - south of Goldenwest Street (LOS D) ► Warner Avenue ' - between Algonquin Street and Bolsa Chica Road (LOS D) - between Bolsa Chica Road and Graham Street(LOS D) ► Slater Avenue - between Springdale Street and Edwards Street (LOS D) - between Edwards Street and Goldenwest Street(LOS D) , D. Talbert Avenue - between Springdale Street and Edwards Street(LOS D) ► Springdale Street ' - between Slater Avenue and Warner Avenue (LOS D) ► Edwards Street ' - between Ellis Avenue and Talbert Avenue (LOS E) - north of Warner Avenue(LOS D) H-52 62221-12/91 < W h o m N < _ 11 3 12.6 15.6 26.7 1- 31.5 °I 46.4 0' 40.7 ° 38.5 W EOINGER m 8.8 33+48.731.6 28.9 21.4 39.6 37.7 55.7 2,4 11.6 18.5 28.2 24.4 23.4 MEIL z 3.2 29 °z 10.2 26.9 21.2 38.6 25.5 62.5 11.4 7.9 < 25 47.2 31.3 38.5 38.8 40.8 WARNER s 42.3 36.1 36.1 25.4 13.3 33.1 15.0 30.7 17.6 55.2 tiFJ4 12.8 21.1 20.2 20.2 17.4 SLATER CONNECTOR 6.8 2.9 24.5 11.3 30.2 16.9 52.3 0.3 2.6 5.4 13.4 TALBERT 6.1 SS Tw LYEPT 0.2 20.2 24.2 211.5 12.0 59.3 c 18.6 11.0 22.5 18.1 ELLIS 11.5 S 9.7 31.6 7.1 t. tih 38.8 0 19.2 29.4 19.0 cARfIELo 1 ,p9 74,8 5.0 30.0 034.7 t 5.3 29.9 V246.7 7.1 T 46.1 27.1 rORItTOWN A, 44 22.4 19.1 73.5 10.5 S $ 5� 40.8 'cs d 2.4 o W 13.7 h• J. 6 ,ti0' J 10.2 13.7 ACAMS 76' �O •s ,lb'ti 8.1 4.3 45.3 �b O OAP vSB \� � O9 8.2 8.3 INOIANA1pL15 1ticf5.0 11.1 0 v8S ,tier � 8.7 1.8 38.5 29.7 9S0 l� 8 1.2 26.4 LEGEND SS S .s WALNUT • XX.X-AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 1 24.6 (IN THOUSANDS) `s9a ' SOURCE: HOCTAM MODEL sS •s ALTERNATIVE 4 t AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 3,500 DU/ NO BOLSA CHICA ROAD EXTENSION Source: BDI, 1991 FIGURE H-23 H-53 62221-12191 r 1 �t• x.n• eor+•c-o• _ 1 O r S '• w••ea� S a o` �r LEGEND CAM PEAK HOUR ICU EXCEEDS 0.90 ••,� PM PEAK HOUR ICU EXCEEDS 0.90 • AM AND PM PEAK HOUR ICU'S EXCEED 0.90 •''. ® INTERSECTION WORSENS AS A RESULT OF THIS ALTERNATIVE .'' •�•-•• ADT EXCEEDS LOS"C' CAPACITY - ROADWAY SEGMENT WORSENS AS A RESULT OF THIS ALTERNATIVE ROADWAY SEGMENTS AND INTERSECTIONS ' PROJECTED TO OPERATE AT UNACCEPTABLE LEVELS ALTERNATIVE 4 3,500 DU/ .0 NO BOLSA. CHICA ROAD EXTENSION Source: BDL 1991 FIGURE H-24 H-54 ' A substantial increase of 15,500 vehicles is projected to take place on Bolsa Chica Road,adjacent to the project site, and lesser increases are generally projected for the area roadways. ' The segment of Warner Avenue between Algonquin Street and the Mesa Connector is shown to experience a slight decrease in traffic of 1,900 vehicles. This decrease can be attributed to the availability of the Mesa Connector as an alternative route to Pacific Coast Highway from Bolsa Chica Road. The greatest increases in project traffic are on Warner Avenue, east of Pacific Coast Highway and on Bolsa Chica Road, adjacent to the Mesa Connector. Some roadway segments throughout the study area experience decreases in traffic when compared to the No Project/No Bolsa Chica Road Extension condition. When compared to the No Project/No Bolsa Chica Road Extension condition,three roadway segments are projected ' to worsen to LOS D or worse: ► Warner Avenue: Bolsa Chica Road to Graham Street (LOS D) ► Talbert Avenue: Springdale Street to Edwards Street (LOS D) ► Slater Avenue: Edwards Street to Goldenwest Street(LOS D) Intersections A summary of projected intersection operation under Alternative 4 is provided on Table H-11. Review of Table H-11 shows that the following intersections are projected to operation at greater than LOS D(0.90)capacity with a level of service of E or F in one or both peak hours: ► Springdale Street at Edinger Avenue(PM LOS = E) ► Springdale Street at Warner Avenue (PM LOS =F) ► Edwards Street at Ellis Avenue(PM LOS = E) ► Goldenwest Street at Edinger Avenue (PM LOS = F) ► Goldenwest Street at Heil Avenue (PM LOS = E) ' ► Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue (AM LOS = F, PM LOS = F) ► Pacific Coast Highway at Goldenwest Street(PM LOS = E) Comparing this list of intersections to the list associated with the No Project/No Bolsa Chica Road Extension condition shows that Alternative 4 will cause two additional intersections to operate at an unacceptable level of service. The measure of the level of impact caused by the project is determined by subtracting the No Project/No Bolsa Chica Road Extension ICU values from the Alternative 4 ICU values. Project traffic associated with the Alternative 4 level of development would have greater than a 0.01 impact at the following intersections that were projected to already be operating at an unacceptable level of service: ► Springdale Street at Edinger Avenue(PM: 0.03 impact) ► Springdale Street at Warner Avenue (PM: 0.07 impact) ► Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue (AM: 0.03 impact, PM: 0.05 impact) In addition, the project could be expected to cause operating conditions at two intersections to worsen from acceptable to unacceptable conditions: ► Edwards Street at Ellis Avenue(PM: 0.02 impact) ► Pacific Coast Highway at Goldenwest Street (PM: 0.01 impact) Mitigation measures at these intersections will be addressed in the mitigation measures section. H-55 Table H-11 SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION UTILIZATION ANALYSIS YEAR 2010 CONDITIONS , ALTERNATIVE 4: 3,500 DU/NO BOLSA CHI('.A EXTENSION A.M.Peals Hour P.M.Peals Hour Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS Algonquin Street at: Warner Avenue 0.49 A 0.81 D Heil Avenue 0.11 A 0.15 A Bolse Chica Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.72 C 0.82 D Warner Avenue 0.70 B 0.86 D Mesa Connector 0.21 A 0.24 A Graham Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.56 A 0.63 B Warner Avenue 0.45 A 0.75 C Slater Avenue 0.38 A 0.61 B Bolsa Chica Extension NA NA NA NA Springdale Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.70 B 0.94 E Warner Avenue 0.52 A 1.04 F Slater Avenue 0.65 B 0.67 B ' Talbert Avenue 0.56 A 0.67 B Bolsa Chica Extension NA NA NA NA Talbert Avenue at: Bolsa Chica Extension NA NA NA NA Edwards Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.52 A 0.83 D Warner Avenue 0.52 A 0.78 C , Slater Avenue 0.44 A 0.57 A Ellis Avenue 0.71 C 0.91 E Garfield Avenue 0.43 A 0.60 A Goldemvest Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.86 D 1.25 F Heil Avenue 0.77 C 0.91 E Wanner Avenue 0.63 B 0.82 D Slater Avenue 0.51 A 0.74 C Talbert Avenue 0.31 A 0.39 A Ellis Avenue 0.55 A 0.76 C Garfield Avenue 0.46 A 0.58 A Yorktown Avenue 0.31 A 0.50 A Pacific Coast Highway at: Warner Avenue 1.03 F 1.19 F Seapointe Avenue 0.65 B 0.78 C Goldenwest Street 0.72 C 0.91 E Seapointe Avenue at: Palm Avenue 0.16 A 0.19 A , Bola&Chica Extension NA NA NA NA Warner Avenue at: Mess Connector 0.36 A 0.46 A Main Street at: Garfield Avenue 0.72 C 0.88 D NA=Not Applicable H-56 HAA Alternative 5: Lowland Regional Park with Upland Development Total residential development of up to 5,600 units may be permitted in this alternative. Up to 4,600 units would be located on the Bolsa Chica Mesa side and up to 1,000 units on the Huntington Mesa side. Also, a total of 7.5 acres of support commercial would be considered for this alternative. Vehicular access to the development on the Bolsa Chica Mesa occurs from Warner Avenue, Bolsa Chica Avenue, and additional local collector roads. Development in the lowlands areas will be accessed from Graham Street, Talbert Avenue, and Springdale Street which run roughly north/south. A Cross Gap Connector would run east-west extending from Bolsa Chica Street to Garfield Avenue (Cross Gap Connectors). Graham Street, Springdale Street and Talbert Avenue would be extended southerly to create a T intersection with the Cross Gap Connector to provide additional access to lowland areas assumed is the construction of the Mesa Connector. Access to Huntington Mesa would be from Pacific Coast Highway or an extension of Palm Avenue at Seapointe Avenue from the south. Access to the northeast section of development would be from Edwards Street. Construction Impacts rTraffic impact caused by project construction may occur where proposed roadways are connected to existing roadways. These locations are: Pacific Coast Highway at proposed Seapointe Avenue, Warner Avenue at proposed Mesa Connector, Bolsa Chica Street at Cross Gap Connector, extension of Graham and Springdale Streets and Talbert Avenue and the Garfield Avenue extension at Edwards Street. In all cases, Traffic Control Plans are required to be submitted for approval prior to permit issuance. 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 the Special Provisions. Buildout Impacts Level of Service Impacts (With Cross Gap Connector): The projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes resulting from this alternative with Cross Gap Connector are presented in Figure H-25. Alternative 5 volumes were compared to LOS C daily capacities. All roadway segments projected to operate in excess of LOS C are depicted on Figure H-26,with those segments that exceed LOS C as a result of the project highlighted. Under Alternative 5 conditions, the following roadway segments are projected to carry daily traffic volumes in excess of their LOS C capacities: ► Pacific Coast Highway - north of Warner Avenue(LOS F) - between Warner Avenue and Seapointe Avenue(LOS E) - between Seapointe Avenue and Goldenwest Street (LOS D) - south of Goldenwest Street (LOS D) 1 ► Warner Avenue between Algonquin Street and Bolsa Chica Road (LOS D) ► Slater Avenue between Springdale Street and Edwards Street (LOS D) ► Garfield Avenue I - east of Goldenwest Street (LOS D) P. Graham Street - north of Warner Avenue(LOS D) H-57 62221-12/91 Y U i O - i O � o O Z V C 11.3 12.5 a 15.3 u 26.1 31.2 °� 46.3 °u 40.5 °u 38.3 m EOINGER 8.9 34.7 16.6 29.4 21.3 39.8 37.7 54.9 2.3 11.6 16.3 35.9 18.9 28.0 24.4 23.3 HEIL , z 7.7 0 31.8 z 10.2 11.6 J 20.9 24.9 20.9 38.9 25.7 62.1 3.1 < 46.9 28.1 44.7 29.2 30.9 38.0 38.3 40.2 WARNER 66.7 35.0 ' 42.0 35.0 28.8 12.3 28.9 1:;.0 31.4 17.7 54.6 MEN � 8.8 20.4 19.8 20.1 17.7 SLATER CONNECTOR 19 6.9 17.4 111.1 30.8 18.5 51.9 3.0 2.7 5.5 13.2 TALBERT A °• TAL[[Rr vb, 141 9+0 1 EI.O 1 1.7 29.3 11.9 59.0 ?0 �; 16.8 11.9 1 22.2 18.1 1 ELLIs 7.8 28.6 /6.9 r '1y 38.4 � 29.8 32.4 16.2 GARFIELD ,$5 ?7.1 28. 32.6 �36.5 ��� 5.2 111gE'f0 33.0 26.5 7.3 T 45.3 26.9 YORKTOWN , A,� V 24.1 20.7 74.7 11.1 s%sv '3�0 14.6 5.2 40.7 sy 2.5 0� W �y O� ; ,�• � AOAMS e� �9 �� 10.9 14.4 0 "'g 1y. 8.1 4.3 045.4 3�� 4 ,,y D 8.1 8.2 INOIANA►OLIS f5.0 10.9 oe ,yA 8.8 1.7 38.5 •� 28.7 tT'`r 9 77•S 30.7_ ATLANTA 26.4 Ss WALNUT LEGEND IV XX.X-AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC S9 24'4 (IN THOUSANDS) 1 SOURCE: HOCTAM MODEL sS •S ALTERNATIVE 5 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 0 5,600 DUYULL MPAH Source: BDI,1991 FIGURE H-25 H-58 sail-1zis1 I ` 0 8 i r - .. .f.. !v a 0. a' ,- 7 Y o� AD-weLEGEND ..` cAM PEAK HOUR ICU EXCEEDS 0.90 .Aaw alq.l PM PEAK HOUR ICU EXCEEDS 0.90 • AM AND PM PEAK HOUR ICU'S EXCEED 0.90 ® d{ INTERSECTION WORSENS AS A RESULT OF THIS ALTERNATIVE ..arM. ADT EXCEEDS LOS"C"CAPACITY 1111111r ROADWAY SEGMENT WORSENS AS A RESULT OF THIS ALTERNATIVE ROADWAY SEGMENTS AND INTERSECTIONS PROJECTED TO OPERATE AT UNACCEPTABLE LEVELS 0 ALTERNATIVE 5: 5,600 DU/FLLL MPAH Source: BDI, 1991 FIGURE H-26 H-59 ► Edwards Street - north of Warner Avenue(LOS D) A comparison of daily traffic volumes to depict incremental traffic increases as a direct result of the proposed 5,600 dwelling units is provided by subtracting No Project/Full MPAH from Alternative 5 ADT. A substantial increase of 15,000 vehicles is projected to take place on Bolsa Chic&Road, adjacent to the project site, and lesser increases are generally projected for the area roadways.The segment of Warner Avenue between Algonquin Street and the Mesa Connector is shown to experience a slight decrease in traffic of 2,000 vehicles. This decrease can be attributed to the availability of the Mesa Connector as an alternative route to Pacific Coast Highway from Bolsa Chica Road. The greatest increases in project traffic appear to be on Warner Avenue, east of Pacific Coast Highway, and along the Bolsa Chica Road Extension. Some roadway segments throughout the study area experience decreases in traffic when compared to the No Project/Full MPAH. When compared to the No Project/Full MPAH condition,four roadway segments are projected to worsen to LOS D or worse: ► Pacific Coast Highway: between Seapointe Avenue and Goldenwest Street(WS D) ► Pacific Coast Highway: south of Goldenwest Street (LOS D) ► Slater Avenue: Springdale Street to Edwards Street (LOS D) ► Graham Street: north of Warner Avenue (LOS D) Intersections A summary of projected intersection operation under the 5,600 DU/Full MPAH Alternative is provided on Table H-12. Review of Table H-12 shows that the following intersections are projected to operate at greater than LOS D (0.90)capacity, with a level of service E or F in one or both peak hours: ► Bolsa Chica Road at Warner Avenue (PM LOS = E) ► Springdale Street at Edinger Avenue (PM LOS = E) ► Goldenwest Street at Edinger Avenue(PM LOS = F) ► Goldenwest Street at Heil Avenue(PM LOS = E) ► Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue (AM LOS = F, PM LOS = F) Comparing this list of intersections to the list associated with the No Projoct/Full MPAH condition shows that Alternative 5 will cause two additional intersections to operate at an unacceptable level of service. The measure of the level of impact caused by the project is determined by subtracting the No Project/Full MPAH ICU values from the Alternative 5 ICU values. The project traffic associated with the Alternative 5 level of development would have greater than a 0.01 impact at the following intersecti.ons that were projected to already be operating at an unacceptable level of service: ► Springdale Street at Edinger Avenue (PM: 0.03 impact) ► Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue(AM: 0.06 impact, PM: 0.0E impact) In addition, the project could be expected to cause operating conditions at two intersections to worsen from acceptable to unacceptable conditions: ► Bolsa Chica Road at Warner Avenue(PM: 0.12 impact) ► Goldenwest Street at Heil Avenue(PM: 0.01 impact) Mitigation measures at these intersections will be addressed in the mitigatiotL measures section. H-60 Table H-12 SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION UTILIZATION ANALYSIS YEAR 2010 CONDITIONS ALTERNATIVE 5: 5,600 DU/FULL MPAH A.M.Peals Hoar P.M.Peals Hour Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS Algonquin Street at: Warner Avenue 0.49 A 0.81 D Heil Avenue 0.11 A 0.14 A Bois&Chic&Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.73 C 0.89 D Warner Avenue 0.64 B 0.96 E Mena Connector 0.49 A 0.51 A Graham Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.58 A 0.61 B Warner Avenue 0.52 A 0.73 C Slater Avenue 0.33 A 0.37 A Bolas Chica Extension 0.23 A 0.34 A Springdale Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.72 C 0.95 E Warner Avenue 0.45 A 0.88 D Slater Avenue 0.51 A 0.52 A Talbert Avenue 0.35 A 0.49 A Bolsa Chica Extension 0.16 A 0.26 A Talbert Avenue at: Bolas Chica Extension 0.26 A 0.32 A Edwards Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.53 A 0.85 D Warner Avenue 0.52 A 0.77 C Slater Avenue 0.44 A 0.57 A Ellis Avenue 0.59 A 0.76 C Garfield Avenue 0.45 A 0.61 B Goldenwest Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.88 D 1.25 F Heil Avenue 0.76 C 0.91 E Warner Avenue 0.63 B 0.80 C Slater Avenue 0.53 A 0.74 C Talbert Avenue 0.32 A 0.42 A Ellie Avenue 0.49 A 0.76 C Garfield Avenue 0.42 A 0.71 C Yorktown Avenue 0.34 A 0.55 A Pacific Coast Highway at: Warner Avenue 1.05 F 1.19 F Seapointe Avenue 0.63 B 0.78 C Goldenwest Street 0.69 B 0.87 D Seapointe Avenue at: Palm Avenue 0.17 A 0.22 A Bolas Chica Extension 0.51 A 0.82 D Warner Avenue at: Mesa Connector 0.37 A 0.47 A Main Street at: Garfield Avenue 0.76 C 0.90 D NA w Not ApAcaMe H-61 HAS Alternative 8: Parks. Open Space, Wetland Restoration No residential development would occur under this alternative. The bluff auras would be retained in open space with some development associated with park uses. Typical uses may include a visitor facility and public restrooms. Baseball diamond,playground,picnic areas, and similar functions may also be included. A linear park is included and wetland restoration would occur in the lowlands area. Two options for the Cross Gap Connector are visualized. In the first option,a cross gap connector would run east-west extending from Bolsa Chica Street to Garfield Avenue, and in the second option, no connection is assumed. Construction Impacts Traffic impacts caused by project construction will be minimal. Limited access links may be needed for park users. The traffic generated associated with this alterative will be nominal and, then4ore, would not have any significant impact on area circulation. Buildout Impacts Level of Service Impacts(With Cross Gap Connector): The projected midblock and intersection operation under this alternative would be basically similar to that of the No Project/Full MNG1 condition. Under this condition, the following roadway segments are projected to carry daily traffic volumes is excess of their LOS C capacities: ► Pacific Coast Highway - north of Warner Avenue(LOS F) - between Warner Avenue and Seapointe Avenue (LOS E) - south of Goldenwest Street (LOS D) ► Warner Avenue - between Algonquin Street and Bolsa Chica Road (LOS D) ► Garfield Avenue - east of Goldenwest Street(LOS D) ► Edwards Street - north of Warner Avenue (LOS D) Under the No Project/Full MPAH condition, the following intersections arr projected to operate at greater than LOS D (0.90)capacity with a level of service of E or F in one or both peak hours: ► Springdale Street at Edinger Avenue(PM LDS = E) ► Goldenwest Street at Edinger Avenue(PM LOS = F) ► Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue(AM LOS = E, PM LOS = I) Level of Service (Without Cross Gap Connector): Under this condition, the following roadway segments are 1 projected to carry daily traffic volumes in excess of their LOS C capacities: ► Pacific Coast Highway - north of Warner Avenue(LDS F) - between Warner Avenue and Seapointe Avenue (LOS F) - between Seapointe Avenue and Goldenwest Street (LOS D) - south of Goldenwest Street (LOS D) H-62 I ► Warner Avenue - between Algonquin Street and Bolsa Chica Road (LOS D) ► Slater Avenue - between Springdale Street and Edwards Street (LOS D) ► Springdale Street between Slater Avenue and Warner Avenue (LOS D) ► Edwards Street - between Ellis Avenue and Talbert Avenue (LOS E) - north of Warner Avenue (LOS D) Under the No Project/No Bolsa Chica Road Extension condition,the following intersections are projected to operate at greater than LOS D (0.90)capacity with a level of service of E or F in one or both peak hours: ► Springdale Street at Edinger Avenue (PM LOS = E) ► Springdale Street at Warner Avenue(PM LOS = E) ► Goldenwest Street at Edinger Avenue(PM LOS = E) ► Goldenwest Street at Heil Avenue(PM LOS = E) ► Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue (AM LOS = E, PM LOS = F) H.4.6 Alternative 10: Clustered Hith Density Upland Development This alternative involves development on the mesas only,in the form of clustered high density development. Resort hotels or high density multi-family developments would be located on the Bolsa Chica Mesa and Huntington Mesa with some open spaces left on the mesas. Conceptual development plan indicates that up to 500 hotel rooms and 1,400 residential units(40 acres) could be provided. This development on the Bolsa Chica Mesa would be accessed from Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street. The latter would be extended from its present terminus at Los Patos Avenue (northeast) toward a connection with a primary mesa connector road. From Warner, the area would be accessed via the primary mesa connector road and a local collector road. Access to the Huntington Mesa would be from Pacific Coast Highway or from an extension of Palm Avenue at Seapointe Avenue. Construction Impacts Traffic impact caused b project construction may occur where proposed roadways are connected to existing �P Y P J Y P P� Y 8 roadways. These locations are: Pacific Coast Highway at proposed Seapointe Avenue and Warner Avenue at proposed Mesa Connector. In all cases, Traffic Control Plans are required to be submitted for approval prior to permit issuance. 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 the Special Provisions. Buildout Impacts Level of Service Imoaets: The projected Average Daily Traffic(ADT)volumes resulting from this alternative are presented in Figure H-27. Alternative 10 volumes were compared to LOS C daily capacities. All roadway segments projected to operate in excess of LOS C are depicted on Figure H-28, with those segments that exceed EIR LOS C capacities: H-63 i 62221-12191 i D O o � m <n = o z u _ o W 11.3 12.6 15.7 0 26.7 31.1 2 46.2 �o 40.7 u 38.8 m EDINGER 8.8 32.1 t6.2 28.6 21.2 40.1 37.7 56.1 2.4 11.7 16.0 35.9 18.1 27.8 24.2 23.5 HEIL 3.3 c 26.9 Z 10.4 11.3 c 18.7 26.8 21.2 38.9 25.6 62.8 8.1 < 22.0 46.6 43.1 29.0 30.4 37.9 38.4 40.4 WARNER ssy 40.0 37.0 37.0 13.3 31.8 14.9 31.0 17.5 55.212.5 20.4 19.7 19.9 17.1 SLATER CONNECTOR )12.9 9 24.3 o 11.5 130.4 18.8 51.3 0.2 2.6 5.4 13.4 TALBERT 6.3 sj 20.0 TALBERT 1.2 24.1 28.9 11.9 59.1 c 111.2 10.9 22.4 18.0 ELLIS /IP,10.031.9 7.2 38.6 S� r� cD 20.1 19.2� 16.7'A29.8 GARFIELD 1y9 15.0 25 30.1 034.9 5.3 T Est 30.1 7.0 45.7 �2. 26.6 _ 27.1 " 73.S 10.5 YORKTOWN A,(y 22.7 19.4 4 S 5.2 40.5 2.4 0 13.9 W 10.4 13.9 1 ADAMS 9 SSA �(O 8.1 4.3 1145.4 8.1 8.2 INOIANA►O LIS C yr O GD `<.� �9s++y�5.2 11.0 f yes ,L°j 8.7 1.7 38.7 29.1 �r 31'0 ATLANTA ltom v 7j.d q� 26.5 LEGEND �5 SS4 �s WALNUT XX.X AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC Sy 24.7 ON THOUSANDS! S SOURCE: HOCTAM MODEL sS ALTERNATIVE 10 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 1,400 DU/ NO BOLSA CMCA ROAD EXTENSION Source: BDI, 1991 FIGURE H-27 H-64 r � • S a � [ � e• a p.�,• 62221-12)91 r (pMIC"• r Mn r s LEGEND CAM PEAK HOUR ICU EXCEEDS 0.90 PM PEAK HOUR ICU EXCEEDS 0.90 �• AM AND PM PEAK HOUR ICU'S EXCEED 0.90 ® INTERSECTION WORSENS AS A RESULT OF THIS ALTERNATIVE ADT EXCEEDS LOS"C"CAPACITY silliest ROADWAY SEGMENT WORSENS AS A RESULT OF THIS ALTERNATIVE ROADWAY SEGMENTS AND INTERSECTIONS PROJECTED TO OPERATE AT UNACCEPTABLE LEVELS ALTERNATIVE 10: 1,400 DU/ 0 NO BOLSA C11ICA EXTENSION Source: BDI, 1991 FIGURE H-28 H-6S r ► Pacific Coast Highway - north of Warner Avenue (LOS F) - between Warner Avenue and Seapointe Avenue (LOS F) - between Seapointe Avenue and Goldenwest Street (LOS D) - south of Goldenwest Street (LOS D) ► Warner Avenue - between Algonquin Street and Bolsa Chica Road (LOS D) ► Slater Avenue - between Springdale Street and Edwards Street (LOS D) ► Springdale Street - between Slater Avenue and Warner Avenue (LOS D) ► Edwards Street - between Ellis Avenue and Talbert Avenue (LOS E) - north of Warner Avenue(LOS D) A comparison of daily traffic volumes to depict incremental traffic increases as a direct result of the proposed 1,400 dwelling units is provided by subtracting No Project/No Bolsa Chica Road Extension from Alternative 10 ADT. A slight increase of 3,400 vehicles is projected to take place on Bolsa Chica Road, adjacent to the project site, and lesser increases are generally projected for the area roadways. The segment of Warner Avenue between Algonquin Street and the Mesa Connector is shown to experience a slight decrease in traffic of 1,000 vehicles. This decrease can be attributed to the availability of the Mesa Connector as an alternative route to Pacific Coast Highway from Bolsa Chica Road. The greatest increases in project traffic appear to be on Warner Avenue,east of Pacific Coast Highway and on Bolsa Chica Road, adjacent to the Mesa Connector. Some roadway segments throughout the study area experience decreases in traffic when compared to the No Project/No Bolsa Chica Road Extension condition. When compared to the No Project/No Bolsa Chica Road Extension condition,no roadway segments are projected to worsen. , Intersections A summary of projected intersection operation under the 1,400 DU/No Bois&Chica Road Extension Alternative is provided in Table H-13. Review of Table H-13 shows that the following intersections are projected to operate at greater than LOS D (0.90)capacity with a level of service of E or F in one or both peak hours: ► Springdale Street at Edinger Avenue (PM LOS = E) ► Springdale Street at Warner Avenue (PM LOS = E) ► Goldenwest Street at Edinger Avenue(PM LOS = F) ► Goldenwest Street at Heil Avenue (PM LOS = E) ► Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue (AM LOS = F, PM LOS = IF) ► Pacific Coast Highway at Goldenwest Street (PM LDS = E) H-66 Table H-13 SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION UTILIZATION ANALYSIS YEAR 2010 CONDITIONS ALTERNATIVE 10: 1,400 DU/NO BOLSA CHICA ROAD EXTENSION ' A.M.Peale Hour P.M.Peale Hour Interswbon ICU LOS ICU LOS Algonquin Street at: Warner Avenue 0.51 A 0.79 C Heil Avenue 0.11 A 0.15 A Bolas Chica Street at: ' Edinger Avenue 0.70 B 0.81 D Warner Avenue 0.49 A 0.86 D Mesa Connector NA NA NA NA Graham Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.56 A 0.60 A Warner Avenue 0.45 A 0.71 C Slater Avenue 0.37 A 0.59 A Bolas Chiaa Extension NA NA NA NA Springdale Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.70 B 0.92 E Warner Avenue 0.50 A 0.99 E Slater Avenue 0.60 A 0.68 B Talbert Avenue 0.57 A 0.68 B Bolas Chia Extension NA NA NA NA Talbert Avenue at: Bolas Chiaa Extension NA NA NA NA Edwards Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.51 A 0.84 D Warner Avenue 0.51 A 0.76 C Slater Avenue 0.44 A 0.56 A Ellis Avenue 0.71 C 0.90 D Garfield Avenue 0.45 A 0.62 B Goldenwest Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.87 D 1.24 F Heil Avenue 0.78 C 0.91 E Warner Avenue 0.60 A 0.80 C Slater Avenue 0.51 A 0.74 C Talbert Avenue 0.32 A 0.39 A Ellis Avenue 0.56 A 0.76 C Garfield Avenue 0.46 A 0.59 A 1 Yorktown Avenue 0.31 A 0.51 A Pacific Coast Highway at: Warner Avenue 1.01 F 1.16 F Sespointe Avenue 0.66 B 0.80 C Goldenwest Street 0.74 C 0.92 E Seapointe Avenue at: Palm Avenue 0.18 A 0.22 A Bolas Chiaa Extension NA NA NA NA Warner Avenue at: Mesa Connector 0.30 A 0.40 A Main Street at: Garfield Avenue 0.72 C 0.88 D NA=Not AppBcabk H-67 Comparing this list of intersections to the list associated with the No Project/No Bolsa Chica Road Extension condition shows that Alternative 10 will cause one additional intersection — Pacific Coast Highway at Goldenwest Street -- to operate at an unacceptable level of service. The project traffic associated with the Alternative 10 level of development would have greater than a 0.01 impact at the following intersections that were projected to already be operating at an unacceptable level of service: ► Springdale Street at Warner Avenue (PM: 0.02 impact) ► Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue (PM: 0.02 impact) In addition,the project could be expected to cause operating conditions at one iitersection to worsen from acceptable to unacceptable conditions: ► Pacific Coast Highway at Goldenwest Street (PM: 0.02 impact) Mitigation measures at this intersection will be addressed in the mitigation measures section. H.4.7 Alternative 12: NEPA No Action Total residential development of up to 3,500 units may be permitted in this alternative. Vehicular access to the development on the Bolsa Chica Mesa occurs from Warner Avenue, Bolsa Chica Avenue, and additional local collector roads. No connection is assumed between Bolsa Chica Street and Garfield Avenue (without cross gap connector). Also assumed is the construction of the Mesa connector. Access to Huntington Mesa would be from Pacific Coast Highway or an extension of Palm Avenue at Seapointe Avenue from the south. Access to the northeast section of development would be from Edwards Street. Construction Impacts Traffic impact caused by project construction may occur where proposed roadways are connected to existing roadways. These locations are: Pacific Coast Highway at proposed Seapointe Avenue, Warner Avenue at proposed r Mesa Connector, Bolsa Chica Street at Mesa, and the Garfield Avenue eater lion at Edwards Street. In all cases, Traffic Control Plans are required to be submitted for approval prior to permit issuance. 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 the Special Provisions. Buildout Irnpacts Level of Service Impacts: The projected Average Daily Traffic(ADT)volumes resulting from this alternative are presented in Figure H-29. Alternative 12 volumes were compared to LOS C daily capacities. All roadway segments projected to operate in excess of LOS C are depicted on Figure H-30, with those segments that exceed LOS C as a result of the project highlighted. Under Alternative 12 conditions,the following roadway segments are projected to carry daily traffic volumes in excess of their LOS C capacities: ► Pacific Coast Highway - north of Warner Avenue(LOS F) - between Warner Avenue and Seapointe Avenue (LOS F) - between Seapointe Avenue and Goldenwest Street (LOS D) - south of Goldenwest Street (LOS D) H-68 62221-1291 V p i N _ ; o F u 11.3 12.6 15.6 26.7 31.5 ° 46.4 40.7 e° 38.5 a EDINGER 8.8 33.5 16.8 126.9 21.4 39.6 37.7 55,7 2.4 11.6 17.1 37.2 18.5 28.2 24.4 23.4 -EIL z 3.2 0 29.9 z 10.2 11.4 0 18.9 26.9 21.2 38.6 25.5 62.5 7.9 25.8 47.2 11 48.7 31.6 31.3 38.5 38.8 40.8 WARNER s> 36.1 •v� 42.3 36.1 25.4 13.3 33.1 15.0 30.7 17.6 455.2 v Fri 12.8 21.1 20.2 20.2 1 17.4 SLATER :7NNECTOR 6.8 2.9 24.5 P11.3 30.2 18.9 52.3 0.3 2.6 5.4 13.4 TALBERT 6.1 s� TALBERT y mac` 02 20.2 28.5 12.0 59.3 242 18.6 11.0 1 22.5 18.1 ELLIS 11.5 0 S 9.7 31.6 7.1 �� '1y 38.8 �� 1 16.7 7j 19.2 29.4 19.0 GARFIELO ,pg T4.8 25. 30.0 334.7 5.3 1 SE�vD` 29.9 26 7 ,, 7.1 T 46.1 27.1 rORKTOwn 41•� 22.4 19.1 73_S 10.5 52 A40.8 2.4 W 13.7 J. A do j 102 13.7 ADAMS s 6 y� %� S8 ,6ti 8.1 4.3 45.3 8.2 8.3 INOIANAIC 115 �5.0 11.1 8.7 1.8 38.5 9 , 29.1 r 31.1 � T AruNTA 4.0 )� 8 1.2 5� .9 (0 26.4 LEGEND SS ?,S WALNUT XX.X-AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC S (IN THOUSANDS) $ 24.6 19 1 SOURCE: HOCTAM MODEL sS ALTERNATIVE 12 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 3,500 DU 0 NO CROSS GAP CONNECTOR Source: BDI, 1991 FIGURE H-29 H-69 62221-12191 -------4 eo•-.cue. S w••eae I ' • a _ e` 4� LEGEND ~ AM PEAK HOUR ICU EXCEEDS 0.90 4 PM PEAK HOUR ICU EXCEEDS 0.90 • AM AND PM PEAK HOUR ICU'S EXCEED 0.90 ® INTERSECTION WORSENS AS A RESULT OF THIS ALTERNATIVE a' •�•� ADT EXCEEDS LOS"C" CAPACITY maissi ROADWAY SEGMENT WORSENS AS A RESULT OF THIS ALTERNATIVE ROADWAY SEGMENTS AND INTERSECTIONS PROJECTED TO OPERATE AT UNACCEPTABLE LEVELS ALTERNATIVE 12: 3,500 DU 0/� NO CROSS GAP CONNECTOR Source: BDI, 1991 FIGURE H-30 H-70 ► Warner Avenue - between Algonquin Street and Bolsa Chica Road (LOS D) - between Bolsa Chica Road and Graham Street (LDS D) ► Slater Avenue - between Springdale Street and Edwards Street(LOS D) - between Edwards Street and Goldenwest Street (LOS D) ► Talbert Avenue - between Springdale Street and Edwards Street(LOS D) ► Springdale Street - between Slater Avenue and Warner Avenue(LOS D) ► Edwards Street - between Ellis Avenue and Talbert Avenue (LOS E) - north of Warner Avenue (LOS D) A substantial increase of 15,500 vehicles is projected to take place on Bolsa Chica Road,adjacent to the project site, and lesser increases are generally projected for the area roadways. The segment of Warner Avenue between Algonquin Street and the Mesa Connector is shown to experience a slight decrease in traffic of 1,900 vehicles. This decrease can be attributed to the availability of the Mesa Connector as an alternative route to Pacific Coast Highway from Bolsa Chica Road. The greatest increases in project traffic are on Warner Avenue, east of Pacific Coast Highway and on Bolsa chica Road, adjacent to the Mesa Connector. Some roadway segments throughout the study area experience decreases in traffic when compared to the No Project/No Bolsa Chica Road Extension condition. When compared to the No Project/No Bolsa Chica Road Extension condition,three roadway segments are projected to worsen to LOS D or worse: ► Warner Avenue: Bolsa Chica Road to Graham Street(LDS D) ► Talbert Avenue: Springdale Street to Edwards Street(LOS D) ► Slater Avenue: Edwards Street to Goldenwest Street(LOS D) Intersections A summary of projected intersection operation under Alternative 12 is provided on Table H-14. Review of Table H-14 shows that the following intersections are projected to operation at greater than LOS D(0.90)capacity with a level of service of E or F in one or both peak hours: ► Springdale Street at Edinger Avenue(PM LOS = E) ► Springdale Street at Warner Avenue(PM LDS = F) ► Edwards Street at Ellis Avenue(PM LOS = E) ► Goldenwest Street at Edinger Avenue(PM LOS = F) ► Goldenwest Street at Heil Avenue(PM LDS = E) ► Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue(AM LDS = F, PM LOS = F) ► Pacific Coast Highway at Goldenwest Street(PM LOS = E) Comparing this list of intersections to the list associated with the No Project/No Bolsa Chica Road Extension condition shows that Alternative 12 will cause two additional intersections to operate at an unacceptable level of service. H-71 Table H-14 SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION OPERATION ALTERNATIVE 12: 3,500 DU/NO BOLSA CMCA EXTENSION A.M.Peek Hoar P.M.Peak Hoar Interswdon ICU LOS ICU LOS Algonquin Street at: Warner Avenue 0.49 A 0.81 D Heil Avenue 0.11 A 0.15 A Bolas Chica Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.72 C 0.82 D Warner Avenue 0.70 B 0.86 D Mesa Connector 0.21 A 0.24 A Graham Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.56 A 0.63 B Warner Avenue 0.45 A 0.75 C Slater Avenue 0.38 A 0.61 B Bolas Chic&Extension NA NA NA NA Springdale Suva at: Edinger Avenue 0.70 B 0.94 E Warner Avenue 0.52 A 1.04 F Slater Avenue 0.65 B 0.67 B Talbert Avenue 0.56 A 0.67 B Bolo Chita Extension NA NA NA NA Talbert Avenue at: Bola&Chic&Extension NA NA NA NA Edwards Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.52 A 0.93 D Warner Avenue 0.52 A 0.78 C Slater Avenue 0.44 A 0.57 A Ellis Avenue 0.71 C 0.91 E Garfield Avenue 0.43 A 0.60 A Goldenwest Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.86 D 1.25 F Heil Avenue 0.77 C 0.91 E Warner Avenue 0.63 B 0.82 D Slater Avenue 0.51 A 0.74 C Talbert Avenue 0.31 A 0.39 A Ellis Avenue 0.55 A 0.76 C Garfield Avenue 0.46 A 0.58 A Yorktown Avenue 0.31 A 0.50 A Pacific Coast Highway at: Warner Avenue 1.03 F 1.19 F Seapointe Avenue 0.65 B 0.78 C Goldenwest Street 0.72 C 0.91 E Seapointe Avenue at: Palm Avenue 0.16 A 0.19 A Bolas Chica Extension NA NA NA NA Warner Avenue at: Mew Connector 0.36 A 0.46 A Main Street Garfield Avenue 0.72 C 0.88 D NA=Not AppS¢" H-72 The measure of the level of impact caused by the project is determined by subtracting the No Project/No Bolsa Chica Road Extension ICU values from the Alternative 12 ICU values. Project traffic associated with the Alternative 12 level of development would have greater than a 0.01 impact at the following intersections that were projected to already be operating at an unacceptable level of service: ► Springdale Street at Edinger Avenue (PM: 0.03 impact) ► Springdale Street at Warner Avenue(PM: 0.07 impact) ► Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue(AM: 0.03 impact, PM: 0.05 impact) In addition, the project could be expected to cause operating conditions at two intersections to worsen from acceptable to unacceptable conditions: ► Edwards Street at Ellis Avenue (PM: 0.02 impact) ► Pacific Coast Highway at Goldenwest Street(PM: 0.01 impact) Mitigation measures at these intersections will be addressed in the mitigation measures section. r HAS Alternative 13: CEOA No Action This alternative assumes no development on the Bolsa Chica site, and no Cross Gap Connector is constructed. The assumed network reflects deletion of the Cross Gap Connector from the MPAH network. Also,the Mesa Connector is assumed to not be constructed. Construction Impacts There would be no construction impact on area circulation as a result of this alternative. Buildout Impacts Level f Service The projected Average Daily Traffic(��volumes resulting from the No Project/No Bolsa Chica Road Extension run are presented on Figure H-31. The ADT volumes for this alternative were compared to level of service C daily capacities. All roadway segments projected to operate in excess of LOS C are depicted on Figure H-32. Under this condition,the following roadway segments are projected to carry daily traffic volumes in excess of their LOS C capacities: ► Pacific Coast Highway - north of Warner Avenue (LOS F) - between Warner Avenue and Seapointe Avenue(LOS F) - between Seapointe Avenue and Goldenwest Street (LOS D) - south of Goldenwest Street(LOS D) ► Warner Avenue - between Algonquin Street and Bolsa Chica Road(LOS D) ► Slater Avenue between Springdale Street and Edwards Street(LOS D) ► Springdale Street between Slater Avenue and Warner Avenue(LOS D) H-73 62221-12i91 0 W Q m N Z O v 11.3 H 12.7 a 15.7 v 26.6 d 30.8 ° 48.3 40.8 0 38.9 m EDINGER 8.7 31.9 15.8 28.3 o 21.5 1140.0 37.7 655.9 2.4 11.6 15.8 36.2 18.1 27.6 24.0 23.5 NEIL 3.3 i 10.4 26.4 17.9 27.1 4,21.2 38.9 25.6 62.7 11.2 8.2 6 21.4 47.8 41.2 28.1 30.0 37.7 38.0 40.2 WARNER s 38.0 37.8 38.0 9.9 12.7 31.6 15.0 31.1 17.5 55.1 12.3 20.4 19.6 19.7 17.0 SLATER 2 8 24.1 011.4 630.5 118.7 151.3 0.2 2.6 5.5 13.4 TALBERT 6.2 -� s 19.8 TALBERT � ,c 0.2 4 23.7 28.8 11.9 59.1 18.1 10.7 1 22.3 18.1 ELLIS 11.4 0 9.5 31.7 7.1 `1 by 38.9 t 16.3 s` Cam 19.3 29.3 19.0�� GARFIELD 15.0 241 29.8 R34.6 O 5.3 t►�`e► �h' 30.1 7.0 f 46.1 26.7 T 27.1 TOPKTOwN •� v 22.5 19.2 13.4 10.5 b u 2.2 �O ai 13.9 5.2 40.9 W 10.3 13.8 8.1 4.3 145.6 8.1 8.3 fNOfANAlOLfS 5.4 11.0 Leo ti°j 8.7 1.8 38.9 29.1 31,l ATLANTA r ) e >>8 26.6 WALNUT LEGEND `tilt 24.7 XX.X-ADT IN THOUSANDS eS SOURCE: MOCTAM MODEL .& AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC NO PROJECT, 0. NO BOLSA CHICA ROAD EXTENSION ` Source: BDI, 1991 FIGURE H-31 H-74 62221-12i91 14, ate. j A 6.••Yl0 O 4� M../ wO.•r0.i{ tea• LEGEND AM PEAK HOUR ICU EXCEEDS 0.90 PM PEAK HOUR ICU EXCEEDS 0.90 • AM AND PM PEAK HOUR ICU'S EXCEED 0.90 - ADT EXCEEDS LOS "C"CAPACITY ROADWAY SEGMENTS AND INTERSECTIONS PROJECT TO OPERATE AT UNACCEPTABLE LEVELS ALTERNATIVE 13, NO PROJECT, 0. NO BOLSA CHICA ROAD EXTENSION Source: BDI, 1991 FIGURE H-32 H-75 P. Edwards Street - between Ellis Avenue and Talbert Avenue (LOS E) - north of Warner Avenue (LOS D) A summary of projected intersection operation under this alternative is provided on Table H-15. Review of Table H-15 shows that the following intersections are projected to operate at greater than LOS D (0.90)capacity with a level of service of E or F in one or both peak hours: ► Springdale Street at Edinger Avenue (PM LOS = E) ► Springdale Street at Warner Avenue (PM LOS = E) ► Goldenwest Street at Edinger Avenue (PM LOS = F) ► Goldenwest Street at Heil Avenue (PM LOS = E) ► Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue (AM LOS = E, PM LOS = F1 HAS Alternative 15: Proposed Project Configuration With 4.M Units Total residential development of up to 4,800 units may be permitted in this alternative. A total of 16.5 acres of commercial development will also be permitted. Vehicular access to the development on the Bolsa Chica Mesa occurs from Warner Avenue, Bolsa Chica Avenue, and additional local collector roads. Connection is assumed between Bolsa Chic& Street and Garfield Avenue (with Cross Gap Connector). Also assumed is the construction of the Mesa connector. Access to Huntington Mesa would be from Pacific Coast Highway or an extension of Palm Avenue at Seapointe Avenue from the south. Access to the northeast section of development would be from Edwards Street. Construction Impacts Traffic impact caused by project construction may occur where proposed roadways are connected to existing roadways. These locations are: Pacific Coast Highway at proposed Seapointe Avenue,Warner Avenue at proposed Mesa Connector, Bolsa Chica Street at Cross Gap Connector, extension of Graham and Springdale Streets, and Talbert Avenue and the Garfield Avenue extension at Edwards Street. In all cases, Traffic Control Plans are required to be submitted for approval prior to permit issuance. 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 the Special Provisions. Buildout Impacts The projected average daily traffic volumes resulting from the Alternative 15 run are presented on Figure H-33. The Bolsa Chica Road extension is projected to carry between 11,200 and 14,500 trips per day with project traffic. Alternative 15 volumes were compared to LOS C daily capacities and all roadway segments projected to operate in excess of LOS C are depicted on Figure H-34. Under Alternative 15 condi.tions,the following roadway segments are projected to carry daily traffic volumes in excess of their LOS C capacities: P. Pacific Coast Highway - north of Warner Avenue(LOS F) - between Warner Avenue and Seapointe Avenue(LOS E) - south of Goldenwest Street(LOS D) ► Warner Avenue - between Algonquin Street and Bolsa Chica Road (LOS D) H-76 Table H-15 SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION UTILMATION ANALYSIS YEAR 2010 CONDITIONS ALTERNATIVE 13: CEQA NO ACTION A.M.Peak Hour P.M.Peak Hour �. Intersection ICU LOS ICU IDS Algonquin Street at: Warner Avenue 0.51 A 0.80 C Heil Avenue 0.11 A 0.15 A Bolas Chica Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.70 B 0.81 D Warner Avenue 0.48 A 0.88 D Mesa Connector NA NA NA NA Graham Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.56 A 0.60 A Warner Avenue 0.43 A 0.68 B Slater Avenue 0.37 A 0.58 A Bolas Chica Extension NA NA NA NA Springdale Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.69 B 0.91 E Warner Avenue 0.48 A 0.97 E Slater Avenue 0.60 A 0.67 B Talbert Avenue 0.57 A 0.67 B Bolen Chics Extension NA NA NA NA Talbert Avenue at: Bolas Chica Extension NA NA NA NA Edwards Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.51 A 0.84 D Warner Avenue 0.51 A 0.75 C Slater Avenue 0.44 A 0.56 A Ellie Avenue 0.70 B 0.89 D Garfield Avenue 0.44 A 0.59 A Goldenwest Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.86 D 1.24 F Heil Avenue 0.78 C 0.91 E Warner Avenue 0.60 A 0.79 C Slater Avenue 0.50 A 0.74 C Talbert Avenue 0.31 A 0.42 A Ellis Avenue 0.57 A 0.76 C Garfield Avenue 0.46 A 0.59 A Yorktown Avenue 0.31 A 0.49 A Pacific Coast Highway at: Warner Avenue 1.00 E 1.14 F Seapointe Avenue 0.66 B 0.79 C Goldenwest Street 0.73 C 0.90 D Seapointe Avenue at: Palm Avenue 0.16 A 0.20 A Bolaa Chica Extension NA NA NA NA Warner Avenue at: Mesa Connector NA NA NA NA Main Street at: Garfield Avenue 0.72 C 0.87 D NA=Not Ap@6cable H-77 62221-1 Ml C i < < o C 113 12.5 = 15.2 ci 26.0 N 30.8 415.0 0 40.6 v° 38.3 a EOINGER 8.8 34.1+21-3 29.4 213 39.8 37.8 55.3 2.3 11.7 18.7 28.6 24.5 •23.3 MEiL = 30.6 3.1 10.2 11S o 25.1 I1.5 38S 25.6 62.0 7.7 26.9 47.0 4 30.9 =8.4 38.7 40.8 wwRNER �s8 40.8 34.5 34•5 26.8 132 29.1 16.0 30.8 17.7 54.7 ~� 8.9 21.6 19.8 203 17.5 sLATFR CONNECTOR 8.6 9 3 19.1 10.5 302 1118.8. 51.7 2.8 5.4 132 TALBERT y 6.8 _ c A• SS A TALBERT ys a taS 28.8 11.8 58.7 .�, 'boo �• 18.0 )? � '17.0 12.1 22.4 18.2 ELus �+ .'"tr 112 I?�Qt 73 28.1 6.6 '`+ 'yy I38.2 .� 27.9 30.9 id g 783 GARFIELD A 24.7 26 31.8 035 y SE�tO`N� ,p9 33.3 52 ��•2 s 45.2 b ,p. 26 9 14.2 112 YORKTOwN 24.2 20.8 gs? 2.4 9 O .. 14.7 5.2 40.6 11.0 14.4 ApAMs 1 8A 4.4- 45.4 4 9.1 92 INOIANA10L1f ,4r 5:0 11.0 oB 0 8-8 1.7' 38.6 28S 30 '� ATLANTA 1js -V )' 1.1 26.5 w ALNVT LEGEND +a y XX.X-ADT INTHOUSANDS 1 9 SOURCE: NOCTAM MODEL Sy 245 ss ALTERNATIVE 15 ` AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 4,800 DU, FULL MPAH Source: BDI, 1991 FIGURE H-33 H-78 62221-12t91 s a a 7 �o 'o s,�oti Y.wR� O� 4� LEGEND CAM PEAK HOUR ICU EXCEEDS 0.90 PM PEAK HOUR ICU EXCEEDS 0.90 r'+ • AM AND PM PEAK HOUR ICU'S EXCEED 0.90 ® INTERSECTION WORSENS AS A RESULT OF THIS ALTERNATIVE ■�� ADT EXCEEDS LOS"C"CAPACITY 81111for ROADWAY SEGMENT WORSENS AS A RESULT OF THIS ALTERNATIVE ROADWAY SEGMENTS AND INTERSECTIONS PROJECTED TO OPERATE AT UNACCEPTABLE LEVELS ALTERNATIVE 15 4,800 DU, FULL MPAH Source: BDI, 1991 FIGURE H-34 H-79 ► Slater Avenue - between Springdale Street and Edwards Street (LOS D) ► Garfield Avenue - east of Goldenwest Street (LOS D) ► Graham Street - north of Warner Avenue (LOS D) P. Edwards Street - north of Warner Avenue(LOS D) A comparison of daily traffic volumes to depict incremental traffic increases wi a direct result of the proposed 4,800 dwelling units is provided by subtracting No Project/Full MPAH from Alternative 15 ADT. A substantial increase of 13,000 vehicles is projected to take place on Bolsa Chica Road, adjacent to the project site,and lesser increases are generally projected for the area roadways. The segment of Warner Avenue between Algonquin Street and the Mesa Comiector is shown to experience a slight decrease in traffic of 2,500 vehicles. This decrease can be attributed to the availability of the Mesa Connector as an alternative route to Pacific Coast Highway from Bolsa Chica Road. The greatest increase in project traffic appear to be on Warner Avenue, east of Pacific Coast Highway, on Bolsa Chica Road, and along the Bolsa Chica Road extension. When compared to the No Project/Full MPAH condition,two roadway segments are projected to worsen to LOS D or worse: ► Slater Avenue: Springdale Street to Edwards Street (LOS D) ► Graham Street: North of Warner Avenue (LOS D) Intersections A summary of projected intersection operation under the 4,800 DU/Full MPAH Alternative is provided on Table H-16. Review of Table H-16 shows that the following intersections are projected to operate at greater than LOS D (0.90)capacity, with a level of service E or F in one or both peak hours: ► Springdale Street at Edinger Avenue (PM LOS = E) ► Goldenwest Street at Edinger Avenue (PM LOS = F) ► Goldenwest Street at Heil Avenue (PM LOS = E) 1 ► Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue (AM LOS = F, PM LOS = 1.:,) Comparing this list of intersections to the list associated with the No Project/Full MPAH condition shows that Alternative 15 will cause one additional intersection — Goldenwest Stree. at Heil Avenue — to operate at an unacceptable level of service. The measure of the level of impact caused by the project is determined by subtracting the No Project/Full MPAH ICU values from the Alternative 15 ICU values. The project traffic associated with the Alternative 15 level of development would have greater than a 0.01 impact at the following intersections that were projected to already be operating at an unacceptable level of service: ► Springdale Street at Edinger Avenue(PM: 0.02 impact) ► Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue (AM: 0.06 impact, PM: O.05 impact) H-80 Table H-16 SUM WARY OF INTERSECTION UTILIZATION ANALYSIS YEAR 2010 CONDITIONS ALTERNATIVE 15: 4,800 DU/FULL MPAH A.M.Peak Hour P.M.Peale Hour Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS Algonquin Street at: Warner Avenue 0.49 A 0.79 C Heil Avenue 0.11 A 0.15 A Bolsa Chica Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.73 C 0.85 D Warner Avenue 0.63 B 0.86 D Mesa Connector 0.31 A 0.35 A Graham Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.58 A 0.61 B Warner Avenue 0.60 A 0.73 C Slater Avenue 0.35 A 0.39 A Bolsa Chic&Extension 0.22 A 0.35 A Springdale Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.70 B 0.94 E Warner Avenue 0.45 A 0.90 D Slater Avenue 0.57 A 0.60 A Talbert Avenue 0.40 A 0.52 A Bois&Chic&Extension 0.16 A 0.27 A Talbert Avenue at: Bolas Chic&Extension 0.26 A 0.32 A Edwards Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.53 A 0.93 D Warner Avenue 0.53 A 0.77 C Slater Avenue 0.48 A 0.62 B Ellis Avenue 0.60 A 0.76 C Garfield Avenue 0.43 A 0.59 A Goldenwest Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.86 D 1.24 F Heil Avenue 0.78 C 0.91 E Warner Avenue 0.63 B 0.80 C Slater Avenue 0.53 A 0.75 C Talbert Avenue 0.32 A 0.39 A Ellis Avenue 0.49 A 0.75 C Garfield Avenue 0.41 A 0.73 C Yorktown Avenue 0.38 A 0.56 A Pacific Coast Highway at: Warner Avenue 1.05 F 1.18 F Seapointe Avenue 0.61 B 0.73 C Goldenwest Street 0.70 B 0.87 D Seapointe Avenue at: Palm Avenue 0.16 A 0.19 A Bolan Chic&Extension 0.49 A 0.81 D Warner Avenue at: Mesa Connector 0.36 A 0.44 A Main Street at: Garfield Avenue 0.75 C 0.90 D NA=Not Appficable H-81 In addition,the project could be expected to cause operating conditions at one uitersection to worsen from acceptable P J P� Pe g P to unacceptable conditions: ► Goldenwest Street at Heil Avenue (PM: 0.01 impact) Mitigation measures at these intersections will be addressed in the mitigation measures section. HALO Alternative 17: Low Density Mesa Development This alternative represents minimal residential development at Bolsa Chica. Tie development would take place only on the mesas and mostly on the Bolsa Chica Mesa. Up to 1,500 residential dwellings will be permitted. The Bolsa Chica Mesa would be accessed from Wanner Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street. The latter would be extended from its present terminus at Los Patos Avenue (northeast) toward a connection with a primary mesa connector road. From Warner Avenue, the area would be accessed via the primary mesa connector road and a local collector road. There would be no Cross Gap Connector. Construction Impacts Traffic impact caused by project construction may occur where proposed roadways are connected to existing roadways. These locations are: Pacific Coast Highway at proposed Seapointe Avenue and Warner Avenue at proposed Mesa Connector. In all cases, Traffic Control Plans are required to be submitted for approval prior to permit issuance. 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 the Special Provisions. Buildout Impacts Level of Service Impacts: The projected Average Daily Traffic(ADT)volumes resulting from this alternative are presented in Figure H-35. Alternative 17 volumes were compared to LOS C daily capacities. All roadway segments projected to operate in excess of LOS C are depicted on Figure H-36, with those segments that exceed LOS C as a result of the project highlighted. Under Alternative 17 conditions,the following roadway segments are projected to carry daily traffic volumes in excess of their LOS C capacities: P. Pacific Coast Highway - north of Warner Avenue (LOS F) - between Warner Avenue and Seapointe Avenue (LOS F) - between Seapointe Avenue and Goldenwest Street (LOS D) - south of Goldenwest Street (LOS D) ► Warner Avenue - between Algonquin Street and Bolsa Chica Road (LOS D) - between Bolsa Chica Road and Graham Street (LOS D) P. Slater Avenue - between Springdale Street and Edwards Street (LOS D) - between Edwards Street and Goldenwest Street(LOS D) ► Springdale Street - between Slater Avenue and Warner Avenue(LOS D) H-82 . 62221-1"1 < „ p Y u _ W � _ w p t7 • O O 2 C O N ( Z 112 12.5 15.7 26.7 31.2 W 46.5 ° 40.7 u° 38.8 m EDINGER 8.7 32.8 16.4 28.8 213 39.8 37.7 56.1 2.4 11.7 16.3 36.4 18.3 27.9 24.3 23.4 rIEIL 2 32 0 282 z 10.3 71.3 18.7 27.0 21.2 38.5 25.5 62.7 8.1 < 47 1 23.8 45.1 29.8 30.5 37.9 38.2 40.3 WARNER 669 40.5 36.7 36.7 17.7 13.0 32.5 15.0 30.8 17.5 155.1 VEs4 12.7 21.0 20.2 20.3 1 17.4 SLATER CONNECTOR - 4,7 /2z9 24.3 11.4 302 18.8 51.3 0.3 2.6 5.4 13.4 ITALBERT 6.1 sJ • 20.0 TALBERT 02 24.0 28.6 12.0 59.0 18.4 11.1 1 22.5 18.1 ELLIS 9.6 31.T 7.1 vo 38.7 16.8 •rA GARfIf LD ,a9 14•9 19.2 29.3 4. 29.9 234.7 t 1 SE.tD�N 29.9 52 26.67.1 ? 46.0 �• 26.9 m VORKTOWN AA�y 22.4 19.1 73.4 10.5 b •, S �� 13.8 5.2 40.8 2.4 W 10.2 13.7 ADAMS 9s4` ,�6 Se �`O• 8.1 4.3 45.6 8.1 8.3 INDIANAPOLIS y E SS 11'� O G �� ?ss+tip 5.2 11.1 R 8.7 1.8 38.8 29.1 37•1 ATLANTA �B 72 9 1.1 26.6 S~ •9 LEGEND SS9 ,y?,y WALNUT %X.X AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 24.7 (IN THOUSANDS) S9S SOURCE: HOCTAM MODEL sS •9 ALTERNATIVE 17 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 1,500 DU/ NO BOLSA CHICA ROAD EXTENSION Source: BDL 1991 H-83 FIGURE H-35 j. 62221-12/91 - i : • _ o •Yip CO�.IC�O. M'I� il•^• _ ••lwf•• J� w•••el• i O LEGEND ~• o"' CAM PEAK HOUR ICU EXCEEDS 0.90 PM PEAK HOUR ICU EXCEEDS 0.90 • AM AND PM PEAK HOUR ICU'S EXCEED 0.90 ® INTERSECTION WORSENS AS A RESULT OF THIS ALTERNATIVE �+ AOT EXCEEDS LOS"C"CAPACITY —4.-w 11,111sr ROADWAY SEGMENT WORSENS AS A RESULT OF THIS ALTERNATIVE ROADWAY SEGMENTS AND INTERSECTIONS PROJECTED TO OPERATE XP UNACCEPTABLE LEVELS ALTERNATIVE 17 1,500 DU/NO BOLSA CHICA ROAD EXTENSION Source: BDI,1991 FIGURE H-36 H-84 P. Edwards Street - between Ellis Avenue and Talbert Avenue (LOS E) - north of Warner Avenue (LOS D) A comparison of daily traffic volumes to depict incremental traffic increases as a direct result of the proposed 1,500 dwelling units is provided by subtracting No Project/No Bolsa Chica Road Extension from Alternative 17 ADT. An increase of 7,800 vehicles is projected to take place on Bolsa Chica Road,adjacent to the project site,and lesser increases are generally projected for the area roadways. The segment of Warner Avenue between Algonquin Street and the Mesa Connector is shown to experience a slight decrease in traffic of 1,300 vehicles. This decrease can be attributed to the availability of the Mesa Connector as an alternative route to Pacific Coast Highway from Bolsa Chica Road. The greatest increases in project traffic appear to be on Warner Avenue,east of Pacific Coast Highway and on Bolsa Chica Road, adjacent to the Mesa Connector. Some roadway segments throughout the study area experience decreases in traffic when compared to the No Project/No Bolsa Chica Road Extension condition. When compared to the No Project/No Bolsa Chica Road Extension condition,two roadway segments are projected to worsen to LOS D or worse: ► Warner Avenue: Bolsa Chica Road to Graham Street (LOS D) ► Slater Avenue: Edwards Street to Goldenwest Street (LOS D) Intersections A summary of projected intersection operation under the 1,500 DU/No Bolsa Chica Road Extension Alternative is provided in Table H-17. Review of Table H-17 shows that the following intersections are projected to operate at greater than LOS D (0.90)capacity with a level of service of E or F in one or both peak hours: ► Springdale Street at Edinger Avenue (PM LOS = E) P. Springdale Street at Warner Avenue (PM LOS = E) ► Goldenwest Street at Edinger Avenue(PM LOS = F) ► Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue(AM LOS = F, PM LOS = F) ► Pacific Coast Highway at Goldenwest Street(PM LOS = E) Comparing this list of intersections to the list associated with the No Project/No Bolsa Chica Road Extension condition shows that Alternative 17 will cause one additional intersection—Pacific Coast Highway at Goldenwest Street-- to operate at an unacceptable level of service. The project traffic associated with the Alternative 17 level of development would have greater than a 0.01 impact at the following intersections that were projected to already be operating at an unacceptable level of service: ► Springdale Street at Edinger Avenue(PM: 0.02 impact) ► Springdale Street at Warner Avenue(PM: 0.03 impact) ► Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue(AM: 0.03 impact, PM: 0.03 impact) In addition,the project could be expected to cause operating conditions at one intersection to worsen from acceptable to unacceptable conditions: ► Pacific Coast Highway at Goldenwest Street(PM: 0.01 impact) Mitigation measures at this intersection will be addressed in the mitigation measures section. H-85 Table H-17 SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION UTILIZATION ANALYSIS YEAR 2010 CONDITIONS ALTERNATIVE 17: 1,500 DU/NO BOLSA CHICA EXTENSION A.M.Peals Hoar P.M.Peak Hour Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS Algonquin Street at: Warner Avenue 0.50 A 0.80 C Heil Avenue 0.11 A 0.15 A Bolas Chica Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.71 C 0.82 D Warner Avenue 0.61 B 0.86 D Mesa Connector 0.17 A 0.19 A Graham Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.55 A 0.61 B Warner Avenue 0.50 A 0.74 C Slater Avenue 0.38 A 0.60 A Bolas Chic&Extension NA NA NA NA Springdale Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.71 C 0.93 E Warner Avenue 0.50 A 1.00 E Slater Avenue 0.60 A 0.68 B Talbert Avenue 0.56 A 0.67 B Bolsa Chica Extension NA NA NA NA Talbert Avenue at: Bois&Chica Extension NA NA NA NA Edwards Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.52 A 0.83 D Warner Avenue 0.52 A 0.76 C Slater Avenue 0.44 A 0.58 A Ellis Avenue 0.71 C 0.90 D - Garfield Avenue 0.39 A 0.60 A Goldenwe&t Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.97 D 1.25 F Heil Avenue 0.77 C 0.90 D Warner Avenue 0.61 B 0.80 C Slater Avenue 0.51 A 0.74 C Talbert Avenue 0.31 A 0.39 A Ellis Avenue 0.56 A 0.75 C Garfield Avenue 0.46 A 0.58 A Yorktown Avenue 0.31 A 0.50 A Pacific Coast Highway at: Warner Avenue 1.03 F 1.17 F Seapointe Avenue 0.66 B 0.78 C Goldenwest Stint 0.73 C 0.91 E Seapoime Avenue at: Palm Avenue 0.16 A 0.20 A Bolas Chica Extension NA NA NA NA Warner Avenue at: Mesa Connector 0.33 A 0.41 A Main Street at: Garfield Avenue 0.71 C 0.87 D NA-Not Applicable H-86 H.4.11 Alternative 19: Modified Wetland/Lowland Development Total residential development of up to 5,700 units is assumed with this alternative. Vehicular access to the development on the Bolsa Chica Mesa occurs from Warner Avenue, Bolsa Chica Avenue, and additional local collector roads. Development in the lowlands areas will be accessed from Graham Street, Talbert Avenue, and Springdale Street which run roughly north/south. Two options for the Cross Gap Connector are analyzed. In the first option,a cross gap connector would run east-west extending from Bolsa Chica Street to Garfield Avenue(with Cross Gap Connector), and in the second option,no connection is assumed (without cross gap connector). Graham Street, Springdale Street and Talbert Avenue would be extended southerly to create a T-intersection with the Cross Gap Connector to provide additional access to lowland areas. Also assumed is the construction of the Mesa connector. Access to Huntington Mesa would be from Pacific Coast Highway or an extension of Palm Avenue at Seapointe Avenue from the south. Access to the northeast section of development would be from Edwards Street. Construction Impacts � Traffic impact caused by project construction may occur where proposed roadways are connected to existing roadways. These locations are: Pacific Coast Highway at proposed Seapointe Avenue, Warner Avenue at proposed Mesa Connector, Bolsa Chica Street at Cross Gap Connector,extension of Graham Street and Talbert Avenue, and the Garfield Avenue extension at Edwards Street. In all cases, Traffic Control Plans are required to be submitted for approval prior to permit issuance. 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 the Special Provisions. Buildout Impacts Level of Service Impacts (With Cross Gap Connector): The project Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes resulting from this alternative with Cross Gap Connector are presented in Figure H-37. Review of Figure H-37 shows that daily traffic volumes along the Cross Gap Connector are expected to increase by approximately 3,000 to 5,000 vehicles over the No Project condition. The Mesa Connector is projected to carry 8,300 vehicles per day. A substantial increase of 23,000 vehicles is projected to take place on Bolsa Chica Street, adjacent to the project site, and lesser increases are generally projected for the area roadways. The segment of Warner Avenue between Algonquin Street and the Mesa Connector is shown to experience a slight decrease in traffic of approximately 1,600 vehicles. This decrease can be attributed to the availability of the Mesa Connector as an alternate route to Pacific Coast Highway from the Cross Gap Connector. Substantial increases in project traffic appear to be generally confined to the study area, with most of the daily traffic impact dissipating before reaching Edinger Avenue and Beach Boulevard. Some selected roadway segments throughout the study area even experience decreases in traffic, when compared to the No Project condition. Based on the results of the Alternative 19 model run, the following roadway segments are projected to operate at level of service D or worse: ► Pacific Coast Highway: North of Seapointe Avenue(LOS F) ► Pacific Coast Highway: Goldenwest Street to Main(LOS D) ► Pacific Coast Highway: 1st to Beach Boulevard (LOS F) ► Goldenwest Street: North of Warner Avenue (LOS F) ► Edwards Street: North of Warner Avenue (LOS F) ► Garfield Avenue: East of Goldenwest Street (LOS E) ► Warner Avenue: Algonquin to Graham (LOS D) H-87 62221-12,91 i o t ' M O w f O f N f = 113 12.7 .15.3 v 26.7 31.5 46.7 42.2 38.7 s tort:tw 9.1 36•9 17.1 30J 2'..4 38.8 39.7 55.6 2.5 9.9 / 6 36.6 19.5 29.2 25.4 23.8 Mt,L t 5:1 33.3 29a 22.1 25.8 21L4 37.6 27.9 82 e 8.9 < 48.4 45.4 28.7 31.4 38.9 39.3 40.9 wAwrtw •s 43.5 36.1 31 A 16.0 28.8 111.5 29.7 19.7 55.3 4+. 104 22.4 20.4 20.4 18.3 $LATtw CONN[CTOw 8.3 8.6 - 19.9 1 D'0 29.1 20A 51 6 �A 5.7 4.7 2.7 5.9 13.3 T•L/twr coo+ S.4 14.8 T/.1/twT 2.8 11.9 27.2 15.2 UA 12.8 122 22.2 18.1 nut O,y t� 11.3 +�of 10.4 21.8 38.0 �o '� +f 32.0 30.2 26.7 3S.7 L424 24,4 31.8� 30.6 5.2 s26.3 13.8 11.4 •TowM 20.8 1 ~ 2.33 ! - 212 4.1 40.2 h ; `e 10.0 12.6 .oAyt ti �P ,1�0 12.8 13.4 KA d` .0 '' 7.9 8.2 „rouN•ro�a 8.0 15.4 y ,tie 13.1 IA 38.1 •° + �� 2e.o 30.0 ATLANTA �4 27J WAINVT 24A LEGEND �'I XX.X-ADT IN THOUSANDS " SOURCE: MOCTAM MODEL �♦ ALTERATIVE 19 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 5,700 DU, 0. FULL CROSS GAP CONNECTOR Source: BDI, 1991 FIGURE H-37 H-88 ► Slater Avenue: Springdale to Gothard (LOS D) P. Graham Avenue: Warner to Heil (LOS D) When compared to No Project conditions, Alternative 1 causes four roadway segments to worsen from LOS D or better to LOS D or worse. This condition is depicted on Figure H-38. Intersections A summary of intersection operation assuming Alternative 1 -5,700 Dwelling Units and Full Cross Gap Connector is provided on Table H-18. The following intersections are expected to operate at level of service E or F in one or more peak hours under this scenario: ► Edinger Avenue at Springdale Street (PM LOS E) ► Edinger Avenue at Goldenwest Street (PM LOS F) ► Heil Avenue at Goldenwest Street (PM LOS E) ► Warner Avenue at Pacific Coast Highway (AM LOS F, PM LOS F) ► Warner Avenue at Bolsa Chica Street (PM LOS E) Review of this list of intersections, compared to the list associated with No Project condition, Full Cross Gap Connector, shows that Alternative 19 can be expected to worsen somewhat the already unacceptable conditions at three intersections, and to cause two additional intersections to operate at an unacceptable level of service. The measure of the level of impact caused by the project is determined by subtracting the No Project condition ICU values from the Alternative 19 ICU's. Project traffic associated with Alternative 19 would have greater than a 1 percent impact at the following intersections that were projected to already be operating at an unacceptable level of service: ► Edinger Avenue at Springdale Street(PM: 0.04 impact) ► Edinger Avenue at Goldenwest Street(AM: 0.04 impact) ► Warner Avenue at Pacific Coast Highway(AM: 0.09 impact, PM -0.08 impact) In addition,the project could be expected to cause operating conditions at the following intersections to worsen from acceptable (0.90 or less) to unacceptable (greater than 0.90)conditions: ► Heil Avenue at Goldenwest Street(PM: 0.03 impact) ► Warner Avenue at Bolsa Chica Street(PM: 0.15 impact) Mitigation measures to ameliorate these impacts will be identified in the Mitigation Measures section. Level of Service Impacts(Without Cross Gap Connector): The projected Average Daily Traffic(ADT)volumes resulting from the Alternative 19 Without Cross Gap Connector runs are presented on Figure H-39. Volumes were compared to LOS C daily capacities. All roadway segments projected to operate in excess of LOS C are depicted on Figure H-40,with those segments that exceed LOS C as a result of the project highlighted. Under this condition, the following roadway segments are projected to carry daily traffic volumes in excess of their LOS C capacities: ► Pacific Coast Highway - north of Warner Avenue(LOS F) - between Warner Avenue and Seapointe Avenue(LOS F) - between Seapointe Avenue and Goldenwest Street(LOS D) - south of Goldenwest Street(LOS D) H-89 62221-12A1 f .r A•t�A LEGEND o --�• AM PEAK HOUR ICU EXCEEDS 0.90 4 PM PEAK HOUR ICU EXCEEDS 0.90 • AM AND PM PEAK HOUR ICU'S EXCEED 0.90 ADT EXCEEDS LOS"C"CAPACITY ® INTERSECTION WORSENS AS A RESULT .r,.�. OF THIS SCENARIO iisisses ROADWAY SEGMENT WORSENS AS A RESULT OF THIS SCENARIO ROADWAY SEGMENTS AND INTERSECTIONS PROJECTED TO OPERATE KIP UNACCEPTABLE LEVELS ALTERNATIVE 19 0. 5,700 DU, FULL CROSS GAP CONNECTOR Source: BDI, 1991 FIGURE H-38 H-90 Table H-18 SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION OPERATION ALTERNATIVE 19: 5,700 DU/FULL CROSS GAP CONNECTOR A.M.Peale Hour P.M.Peak Hour Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS Edinger Avenue at: Bolsa Chica Street 0.79 C 0.99 D Graham Street 0.61 B 0.62 B Springdale Street 0.72 C 0.96 D Edwards Street 0.56 A 0.83 D Goldenwest Strad 0.89 D 1.23 F Heil Avenue at: Algonquin Street 0.18 A 0.19 A Goldenwest Street 0.79 C 0.92 E Warner Avenue at: Pacific Coast Highway 1.09 F 1.22 F Mesa Connector NA NA NA NA Algonquin Strad 0.54 A 0.83 D Bolo Chica Street 0.66 B 0.99 E Graham Street 0.55 A 0.79 C Springdale Street NA NA NA NA Edwards Street 0.55 A 0.79 C Goldenwest Street 0.63 B 0.82 D Slater Avenue at: Graham Strad 0.40 A 0.51 A Springdale Strad 0.53 A 0.63 B Edwards Strad 0.46 A 0.63 B Goldenwest Street 0.51 A 0.74 C Cross Gap Connector at: Bolsa Chic&Street 0.33 A 0.37 A Graham Sired 0.19 A 0.31 A Talbert Street 0.26 A 0.32 A Springdale Street 0.15 A 0.24 A SeapointelGarfield Avenue 0.39 A 0.57 A Talbert Avenue at: Springdale Strad 0.42 A 0.57 A Goldenwest Sired 0.32 A 0.41 A Ellis Avenue at: Edwards Street 0.48 A 0.57 A Goldenwest Strad 0.48 A 0.55 A Garfield Avenue at: Main Street NA NA NA NA Edwards Street 0.43 A 0.66 B Golden west Strad 0.40 A 0.68 B Yorktown Avenue at: Goldenweat Street 0.34 A 0.52 A Pacific Coast Highway at: Goldenwest Strad 0.67 B 0.87 D Sespointe Avenue NA NA NA NA Se&pointe Avenue at: Palm Avenue 0.15 A 0.18 A NA-Not Applicable H-91 62221-12i91 < r w Y fJ J > p � � O 1.1 _� V C W t • Y J < 113• 12.6 °m 15.8. tci 26,5 M 31.5. 2 46.1 0 40.6 v 38.3 : [GANGER 33.9 8.8 17.4 29.2 Y1,5 40.1 37.6 55.7 2.3 11.7 18.0 37.5 18.6 28.6 24.5 23.2 VEIL z 3.1 0 31.3 10.1 11.4 J 273 19.1 27.0 21.1 38.5 25.6 62.5 7.8 48.4 49.3 33.2 31.8 39.2 39.4 41.3 WARNER s a 43.1 36.9 36.9 " 27.4 14.3 33.9 16A 31.0, 17.7 55.1 133 22.5 20.4. 20.4 17.5 SLATER CONNECTOR6.9 /6.7 27.6 11.5 30.5 1, 18.8 52.1 24 :1.6 5.6 135 TALBERT 61 . TA&./ERT 22.4 23 26S 29.0 12.0 59.1 20.7 11.8• 22.9- 18.3 1 ELus 12.0 132.2 /7i 1y. 38.6 ?� t cO 15.0 18.9 16.8 �JA 20.2. 30.0 GAR s IELD 1E,� 55 30.6 035.3 t 5.3 e- st��`� 30.6 26.77.1 > 45.7 ��3 w 27.1 'ORKTOWN 22.7 193 13.6 10.6 O t3 8 5Z •40.5' Spy 2.4' C as A 102 T3.7 AOAMS 43 45.1' ,�lp ' 8.1 83. INDUNAIOIIS `a�• ?��7.� 5.2 11.1 P •B� �� 3 8.8 1S 38S 20.0 ATUNTA �0'0,a Y>� � 26S LEGEND SS A ?� WALNUT XX.X-ADT INTHOUSANDS s 24.6 SOURCE: HOCTAM MODEL S� ss 7 ALTERNATIVE 19 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 5,700 DU, NO BOLSA. CHICA ROAD EXTENSION Source: BDI, 1991 FIGURE H-39 H-92 62221-12M co.+rt+e, •rrrr J O.,rfl� f ♦fir �rO�r O♦ 4� err` .OW LEGEND AM PEAK HOUR ICU EXCEEDS 0.90 4M..fR• PM PEAK HOUR ICU EXCEEDS 0.90 AM AND PM PEAK HOUR ICU'S EXCEED 0.90 + ® INTERSECTION WORSENS AS A RESULT OF THIS ALTERNATIVE „♦,,,,r ADT EXCEEDS LOS"C"CAPACITY smaller ROADWAY SEGMENT WORSENS AS A RESULT OF THIS ALTERNATIVE ROADWAY SEGMENTS AND INTERSECTIONS PROJECTED TO OPERATE AT UNACCEPTABLE LEVELS ALTERNATIVE 19: 5,700 DU, 0. NO BOLSA CHICA ROAD EXTENSION Source: BDI, 1991 H-93 RE FIGU H-40 ► Warner Avenue - between Algonquin Street and Bolsa Chica Road (LOS D) - between Bolsa Chica Road and Graham Street (LOS D) ► Slater Avenue - between Springdale Street and Edwards Street (LOS D) - between Edwards Street and Goldenwest Street (LOS D) ► Talbert Avenue - between Springdale Street and Edwards Street(LOS D) t ► Springdale Street - between Slater Avenue and Warner Avenue (LOS D) ► Edwards Street - between Ellis Avenue and Talbert Avenue(LOS F) - north of Warner Avenue(LOS D) A comparison of daily traffic volumes to depict incremental traffic increases as a direct result of the proposed 5,700 dwelling units is provided by subtracting No Project/No Bolsa Chica Road Extension from this alternative ADT. A substantial increase of 17,500 vehicles is projected to take place on Bolsa Ctaca Road,adjacent to the project site, and lesser increases are generally projected for the area roadways. The segment of Warner Avenue between Algonquin Street and the Mesa Connector is shown to experience a slight decrease in traffic of 1,100 vehicles. This decrease can be attributed to the availability of the Mesa Connector as an alternative route to Pacific Coast Highway from Bolsa Chica Road. The greatest increases in project traffic appear to be on Warner Avenue,east of Pacific Coast Highway and on Bolsa Chica Road, adjacent to the Mesa Connector. Some roadway segments throughout the study area experience decreases in traffic when compared to the No Project/No Bolsa Chica Road Extension condition. When compared to the No Project/No Bolsa Chica Road Extension condition,three roadway segments are projected to worsen to LOS D or worse: ► Warner Avenue: Bolsa Chica Road to Graham Street(LOS D) ► Slater Avenue: Edwards Street to Goldenwest Street (LOS D) ► Talbert Avenue: Springdale Street to Edwards Street (LOS D) A summary of projected intersection operation under the 5,700 DU/No Bolsi Chica Road Extension Alternative is provided on Table H-19. Review of Table H-19 shows that the following intersections are projected to operate at greater than LOS D (0.90)capacity, with a level of service E or F in one or both peak hours: ► Bolsa Chica Road at Warner Avenue (PM LOS = F) ► Springdale Street at Edinger Avenue(PM LOS = E) ► Springdale Street at Warner Avenue(PM LOS = F) ► Edwards Street at Ellis Avenue(PM LOS = E) , ► Goldenwest Street at Edinger Avenue (PM LOS = F) ► Goldenwest Street at Heil Avenue(PM LOS = E) P. Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue(AM LOS = F, PM LOS = :F) ► Pacific Coast Highway at Goldenwest Street (PM LOS = E) Comparing this list of intersections to the list associated with the No Prc ject/No Bolsa Chica Road Extension condition shows that this alternative will cause three additional intersections to operate at an unacceptable level of H-94 Table H-19 SUMM ARY OF INTERSECTION UTILIZATION ANALYSIS YEAR 2010 CONDITIONS ' ALTERNATIVE 19: 5,700 DU/NO BOLSA CHICA ROAD EXTENSION A.M.Peals Hoar P.M.Peals Hour ' IIItedO° ICU LOS LOS ICU Algonquin Street at: ' Warner Avenue 0.50 A 0.84 D Heil Avenue 0.11 A 0.15 A Bolas Chics Street at: ' Edinger Avenue 0.73 C 0.85 D Warner Avenue 0.76 C 1.01 F Mesa Connector NA NA NA NA Graham Street at: ' Edinger Avenue 0.58 A 0.63 B Warner Avenue 0.49 A 0.78 C Slater Avenue 0.40 A 0.60 A Bolas Chic&Extension NA NA NA NA ' Springdale Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.71 C 0.94 E Warner Avenue 0.53 A 1.07 F ' Slater Avenue 0.71 C 0.76 C Talbert Avenue 0.64 B 0.74 C Bolas Chica Extension NA NA NA NA Talbert Avenue at: ' Bolss Chica Extension NA NA NA NA Edwards Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.53 A 0.94 D ' Warner Avenue 0.56 A 0.80 C Slater Avenue 0.48 A 0.65 B Ellis Avenue 0.76 C 0.97 E Garfield Avenue 0.49 A 0.63 B ' Goldenwest Street at: Edinger Avenue 0.87 D 1.25 F Heil Avenue 0.79 C 0.92 E Warner Avenue 0.64 B 0.92 D Slater Avenue 0.53 A 0.77 C Talbert Avenue 0.31 A 0.42 A Ellis Avenue 0.59 A 0.94 D Garfield Avenue 0.47 A 0.61 B ' Yorktown Avenue 0.32 A 0.49 A Pacific Coast Highway at: Warner Avenue 1.04 F 1.18 F Seapointe Avenue 0.65 B 0.79 C Goldenwest Street 0.71 C 0.92 E Sespointe Avenue at: Palm Avenue 0.17 A 0.20 A ' Bolas Chica Extension NA NA NA NA Warner Avenue at: Mesa Connector 0.38 A 0.46 A ' Main Street at: Garfield Avenue 0.72 C 0.88 D NA:Not Applicable ' H-95 1 1 service. Project traffic associated with this alternative would have greater than a 0.01 impact at the following intersections that were projected to already be operating at an unacceptable level of service: ► Springdale Street at Edinger Avenue (PM: 0.03 impact) ' ► Springdale Street at Warner Avenue(PM: 0.10 impact) ► Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue (AM: 0.04 impact, PM 0.04 impact) , In addition, the project could be expected to cause operating conditions at three intersections to worsen from acceptable to unacceptable conditions: ► Bolsa Chica Road at Warner Avenue (PM: 0.13 impact) , ► Edwards Street at Ellis Avenue (PM: 0.08 impact) ► Pacific Coast Highway at Goldenwest Street (PM: 0.02 impact) ' Mitigation measures at these intersections will be addressed in the mitigation measures section. H.5 MaUGATION MEASURES ' In this section, mitigation measures will be identified for those intersections twat experience a significant impact as ' a result of the addition of project traffic. The measure of significance is defined for the purposes of this study as any intersection that is already operating at an unacceptable level of service and to which the project has more than a one percent impact; or any intersection that operates acceptably without the project, and that is caused to operate unacceptably as a result of the project. ' Once again, it should be noted that the OCTAMMOCTAM modeling process is a planning tool with some inherent limitations,and that review of detailed results, such as peak hourly turning movements at intersections, should be ' conducted with recognition of this fact. It is recommended that prior to actual implementation of the following recommended improvements, the intersections identified as impacted be monitored to determine if the identified improvements are in fact needed, and/or if they are appropriate for the actual conditions observed at the intersections. , H.5.1 Mitigation Measures Analysis ' In the Mitigation Section of this report, project impacts at area intersections have been identified for key project scenarios, and mitigation measures have been listed. In order to isolate project impacts, a progression of analysis has been conducted, as follows: 1. "No Project" Alternatives ' ► Identify intersections projected to operate unacceptably (LOS E or worse) ► Identify intersection improvements needed to improve level of service to LOS D or better. , 2. "With Project" Alternatives ► Identify intersections projected to worsen from LOS D or better to LOS E or worse as a result of project ' traffic. ► Identify improvements needed to improve operation to LOS D or better. ' H-96 ' ' H.5.2 "No Project" Operation Conditions ' Five intersections have been identified as operating at unacceptable levels of service in one or more peak hours under the No Project/No Bolsa Chica Road Extension condition. The intersections are: ► Springdale Street at Edinger Avenue (PM LOS = E) ' ► Springdale Street at Warner Avenue (PM LOS = E) ► Goldenwest Street at Edinger Avenue(PM LOS = F) P. Goldenwest Street at Heil Avenue (PM LOS = E) ' ► Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue (AM LOS = E, PM LOS = F) Three of these same intersections have been identified as operating under unacceptable conditions under the No Project/Full MPAH condition. The intersections are: ► Springdale Street at Edinger Avenue (PM LOS — E) ► Goldenwest Street at Edinger Avenue (PM LOS = F) ' ► Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue(AM LOS = E, PM LOS = F) ' H.5.3 "No Project" Recommended Improvements Based on the projected intersection operations outlined above, a list of recommended improvements for the five intersections operating at level of service E or worse under No Project/No Bolsa Chic& Road Extension and No ' Project/Full MPAH have been identified. Table H-20 summarizes worst-case intersection operation before and after mitigation, and Table H-21 summarizes the lane configurations assumed at each of the five intersections. The movements where improvements are recommended are marked with an asterisk. Review of Tables H-20 and H-21 ' shows that the recommended improvements will bring each intersection to LOS D or better operating conditions. It should be noted that the improvements needed to achieve LOS D operations generally include one or more lane additions to accommodate a particularly heavy peak hour movement. Improvements on Pacific Coast Highway at ' Warner Avenue call for three through lanes in each direction on PCH to accommodate heavy peak hour through volumes. ' It should also be noted that each improvement represents the addition of intersection capacity beyond the ultimate General Plan configuration. ' H.5.4 "With Project" 0UMtiv& Conditions Each of these improvements were then assumed to be in place, and an analysis of the improvements needed to mitigate project impact was conducted. This analysis was conducted at the previous five intersections, to determine if further improvement would be needed to ensure acceptable operation with the project traffic. Where project traffic would worsen conditions to LOS E, additional analysis was conducted. The results of the analysis for Alternatives 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17 and 19 are summarized below: Alternative 1 (With Cross Gap Connector): Two intersections are projected to worsen to LOS E or worse in one or more peak hours: ' ► Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue (PM LOS = E) Alternative 1 (Without Cross Gap Connector): One intersection that had been improved to LOS D with ' mitigations is projected to worsen to LOS E with project traffic; and three additional intersections are projected to operate at LOS E or worse: ' H-97 Table H-20 SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION OPERATION WITH AND WITHOUT MITIGATION AT INTERSECTIONS PROJECTED TO OPERATE AT LOS E OR WORSE UNDER NO PROJECT CONDITIONS Unmitigated Mitigated Intersection A.M.Peale Hours P.M.Peak Hours A.M.Pear Hours P.M.Peale Hours ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS Springdale at Edinger 0.70 C 0.92 E 0.59 A 0.83 D Springdale at Warner' 0.48 A 0.97 E 0.47 A 0.80 C Goldenwest at Edinger 0.86 D 1.24 F 0.62 B 0.88 D Pacific Coast Highway at Warner 1.00 E 1.14 F 0.66 B 0.85 D x Uoldenweat at Heil' 0.78 C 0.91 E 0.65 B 0.80 C o� Then intersections exceed LOS D in No Project/No Bolsa CLica Road Extension only. Table H-21 INTERSECTION CONFIGURATION WITH AND WITHOUT MITIGATION UNDER NO PROJECT CONDITIONS Number of Lanes Northbound Soulhbotmd F,asdxmmd Westbound Intersection Springdale at Edinger Unmitigated 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 3 0 1 2 1 Mitigated 1 2 •1 1 2 0 1 3 0 1 2 1 Springdale at Warner' Unmitigated 1 2 1 l 2 1 1 3 1 1 3 I Mitigated -2 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 doldenwest at Edinger 'X Unmitigated 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 `$ Mitigated 1 3 0 1 3 •1 02 3 0 1 1 3 0 Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Unmitigated 0 2 F 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 Mitigated 0 03 F 2 -3 0 0 0 0 2 0 •F Uoldenwest at Heil' Unmitigated 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 I 2 0 Mitigated 1 3 0 1 3 0 •2 2 0 1 2 0- Not": L Left-torts lase. T Throogb lase. a = Itight-tbep la". Fit Free right torn lane 1 = Imprnremea a shown are needed only for the"No Bobs Chica Extension"network alternative. 0 SIpAs additional brae at ehaoge in lade toafigura$ea to aehiere LOS.D or better. 1 ► Edwards Avenue at Ellis Avenue (PM LOS = E) ' ► Pacific Coast Highway at Goldenwest Street (PM LOS = E) Alternative 3 (With Cross Gap Connector): One intersection that had been improved to LOS D with mitigations ' is projected to worsen to LOS E with project traffic;and two additional intersections are projected to operate at LOS E with the addition of project traffic. The intersections are: ' ► Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue (PM LOS = E) ► Bolsa Chica Road at Warner Avenue (PM LOS = E) ► Main Street at Garfield Avenue (PM LOS = E) Alternative 3 Without Cross Gap Connector): The following additional two intersections are projected to operate at LOS E with deletion of the Bolsa Chica Road Extension: ' P. Edwards Street at Ellis Avenue(PM LOS = E) ► Goldenwest Street at Pacific Coast Highway (PM LOS = E) Alternative 4 Without Cross Gap Connector): The following two intersections are projected to operate at LOS , E with the addition of project traffic: ► Edwards Street at Ellis Avenue (PM LOS = E) , ► Goldenwest Street at Pacific Coast Highway (PM LOS = E) Alternative 5 (With Cross Gap Connector): One intersection that had been improved to LOS D with mitigations ' is projected to worsen to LOS E with project traffic; and one additional intersection is projected to operate at LOS E or worse. The intersections are: ► Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue(PM LOS = E) ► Bolsa Chica Road at Warner Avenue(PM LOS = F) Alternative 8 nth Cross Gap Connector: Three intersections have been identified as operating under ' unacceptable conditions: ► Springdale Street at Edinger Avenue (PM LOS = E) ► Goldenwest Street at Edinger Avenue (PM LOS = F) ► Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue (AM LOS = E, PM LOS = F) Alternative 8 Without Cross Gap Connector): Five intersections hive been identified as operating at ' unacceptable levels of service in one or more peak hours: ► Springdale Street at Edinger Avenue (PM LOS = E) ' ► Springdale Street at Warner Avenue(PM LOS = E) ► Goldenwest Street at Edinger Avenue(PM LOS = F) ► Goldenwest Street at Heil Avenue (PM LOS = E) ► Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue(AM LOS = E, PM LOS = 1� ' Alternative 10 Without Cross Gap Connector): The following intersection is projected to operate at LOS E with the addition of project traffic: ' ► Goldenwest Street at Pacific Coast Highway 1 H-100 ' r ' Alternative 12 Without Cross Gap Connector): The following intersections are projected to worsen to LOS E: ► Heil Avenue at Goldenwest Street (PM LOS = E) ' ► Warner Avenue at Bolas Chica (PM LOS = E) ► Warner Avenue at PCH (AM LOS = E, PM LOS = F) Alternative 13 (Without Cross Gap Connector): Five intersections have been identified as operating at unacceptable level of service in one or more peak hour under No Project, No Cross Gap Alternative: ► Springdale Street at Edinger Avenue (PM LOS = E) ' ► Springdale Street at Warner Avenue (PM LOS = E) ► Goldenwest Street at Edinger Avenue( PM LOS = F) ► Goldenwest Street at Heil Avenue(PM LOS = E) ► Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue(AM LOS = E, PM LOS = F) Alternative 15(With Cross Gap Connector): All intersections previously mitigated under No Project conditions ' are expected to continue to operate at acceptable levels of service. Alternative 17(Without Cross Gap Connector): The following intersection is projected to operate at LOS E with the addition of project traffic: ► Goldenwest Street at Pacific Coast Highway (PM LOS = E) Alternative 19 (Without Cross Gap Connector): The following intersections are projected to operate at unacceptable level of service: ► Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue(PM LOS = E) ► Bolsa Chica Road at Warner Avenue (PM LOS = F) ► Edwards Street at Ellis Avenue(PM LOS = E) ► Pacific Coast Highway at Goldenwest Street (PM LOS = E) ' H.5.5 "With EMied" Mitigation Measures ' The improvements needed to achieve LOS D or better operations at the four impacted intersections are summarized on Table H-22. Improvements needed to mitigate project impacts are signified by two asterisks. As indicated on Table H-22, the projected volumes at PCH and Warner Avenue would require a fourth northbound through lane ' on PCH. The recommended improvements are shown on Figure H-41. H.5.6 Recommendations The foregoing analysis has defined project impacts at a number of intersections, assuming all other projects in the area are built out, and all network facilities are built to their ultimate configurations. ' As pointed out previously, the traffic modeling process is a planning and analysis tool with recognized limitations. Model generated peak hour turning movement volumes provide only a general idea of travel demand throughout an area, and should not be assumed to be able to accurately project exact future intersection volumes. The volumes ' actually occurring in the future may be higher, lower, or generally equal to those resulting from the OCTAM Il model runs. It is likely that this project will be developed over a number of years, concurrent with, or prior to development of other area projects. The actual intersection operation and the improvements required to achieve acceptable ' H-101 r operations will depend on actual traffic levels, and actual roadway and intersection configurations at the time the ' project is to begin construction. To ensure proper project mitigation,it is recommended that intersection operation be monitored through actual site r counts at the time that project development is proposed, and mitigation measures be identified, as appropriate, to suit the conditions and the needs at the time. Future improvements and project mitigation may incorporate more ' of, fewer, or entirely different improvements and mitigation measures than outlined in this section. r i 1 1 r r r r 1 1 1 1 . i H-102 ' r �■ �r r r r r r r� r r r� r� r r� r� r■� r� r Table H-22 INTERSECTION CONFIGURATION WITH AND WITHOUT MITIGATION FOR WITH PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Number of Lanes Northbound Southbomd Eastbound Westbound Alternatives Applicable Intersection L T R L T R L T R L T R Springdale at Edinger Without Project Mitigation 1 2 1• 1 2 0 1 1 37 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 With Project Mitigation Additional Mitigation Not Necessary Springdale at Warner Without Project Mitigation 2• 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 With Project Mitigation Additional Mitigation Not Necessary t�. Goldenwest at Edinger Without Project Mitigation 1 3 0 1 3 1• 2• 1 3 1 0 1 1 1 3 1 0 With Project Mitigation Additional Mitigation Not Necessary PwYk Coast Highway at Warner Without Project Mitigation 0 URI 2 3• 0 0 0 0 2 0 F* 1,3,5, 8, 12, 13, 19 With Project Mitigation 0 2 3• 0 0 0 0 2 0 F• Goldeowest at Pacific Coast Highway Without Project Mitigation 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1,3,4, 10, 17, 19 With Project Mitigation 0 3$* 1 1 3*• 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 Bolsa Chica at Warner Without Project Mitigation 2H30 0 2 3 0 2 3 0 2 3 0 I,3,5, 19 With Project Mitigation 2 2 3 F*• 2 3 0 2 3 0 Table H-22 INTERSECTION CONFIGURATION WITH AND WITHOUT MITIGATION FOR WITH PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Number of Lanes Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Alternatives Applicable lnterSeCtlOn L T R L T R L I T I R I L I T R Goldenwesst at Hail Without Project Mitigation 1 3 0 1 3 0 2• 1 2 0 1 1 2 1 0 With Project Mitigation Additional Mitigation Not Necessary Edwards at Ellis Without Project Mitigation 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1, 3,4, 19 r� With Project Mitigation 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 2a• Main at Garfield Without Project Mitigation 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 3 With Project Mitigation 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 2*0 24 0 1 Notes: L c i fi4am Law. T 0 Throuo Lase. R = Right-turn;lane. FR is Free right tern LANE. • = Signifies previous intersection improvements. •• = Signifies Improvements needed to mitigate project impact. 62221-12i91 1 t FJ F - 1Zttt f, Cy , C' '•F J9 ti 'o F rfoy I t r .•••yew 11 �\ r y V 1 V ' ..sYrww I LEGEND S ••� —� TRAVEL ORECOMMENDED LANE ADDITION ' F FREE RIGHT RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS FOR BOLSA CIRCA DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES 0 (ALL DEVELOPMENT LEVELS ANALYZED) Source: BDI, 1991 FIGURE H-41 H-105 I a a F i Ud' a U ar �r r rr �■r rr rr �r rr �r rr �r rr ■r �r �r �r r �r i i III _ FISCAL IMPACT REPORT BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH r 1 r March 1992 PREPARED FOR City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 ' PREPARED BY David Taussig and Associates, Inc. 1301 Dove Street, Suite 600 Newport Beach, California 92660 (714) 752-1554 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Section Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iii ' I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 A. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I B. LIMITING ASSUMPTIONS, SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY . . . . . 2 II H. PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 ' A. LAND USES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 B. PROJECT VALUATION 5 C. PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 D. LAND USE AND INFRASTRUCTURE PHASING . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 E. DEMOGRAPHICS 7 III. RECURRING FISCAL IMPACTS: City of Huntington Beach . . . . . . . . 8 A. NET RECURRING IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 B. ANALYSIS OF RECURRING REVENUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 C. ANALYSIS OF RECURRING COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 IV. ONE-TIME FISCAL IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 A. CAPITAL FACILITIES IMPACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 B. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL FEE REVENUE IMPACTS . 19 V. ANALYSIS OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES : . : . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . 21 A. INTRODUCTION . . . 21 B. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 C. SUMMARY OF FISCAL OUTCOMES . . . . . . . : . . . . . : . . . : . . 21 D. COMPARISON TABLE 22 • i 1 ' TABLES, EXHIBITS, AND APPENDICES i TABLES ' Table 1: Summary of Recurring Fiscal Impacts Table 2: One-Time fiscal Impacts Table 3: Comparison of Alternatives-Net Recurring Impacts Table 4: Analysis of Project Alternatives EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Map - Existing Land Use Exhibit 2: Map - Alternative #1 Exhibit 3: Map - Alternative #2 Exhibit 4: Map - Alternative #3 r APPENDICES Appendix A: Fiscal Model, Alternative #1 (4884 unit plan) I I Appendix B: Fiscal Model, Alternative #2 (4800 unit plan) 1 Appendix C: Fiscal Model, Alternative #3 (3500 unit plan) �! _ Appendix D: Fiscal Model, City Budget Analysis Appendix E: One-Time Fiscal Impacts, Alternative #1 Appendix F: Agencies and Individuals Contacted Appendix G: Fiscal Analyses and Fiscal Models for additional Alternatives -Alternative #4; 1,400 unit plan with Resort Hotel -Alternative #5; 1,500 unit Single Family Detached r r r r ii r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION This report analyzes the fiscal impacts on the City of Huntington Beach ("the City") from development of the Bolsa Chica Specific Plan ("the Project"). The proposed Project site is comprised of 1,654 acres in unincorporated Orange County in the northwestern portion of the City of Huntington Beach. I Many alternative development scenarios are being evaluated for the Bolsa Chica site. Most _ of the development scenarios share the following features: Annexation of the site into the City of Huntington Beach; Proposed development that is predominantly residential; Preservation/restoration of an extensive portion (1,100-plus acres) of the site as wetlands and open space; And the dedication of over 80 Project acres to the County of Orange for a regional park. From the range of Project alternatives, City staff has selected the three following scenarios for fiscal evaluation: • ALTERNATIVE #1 - The Project Proponent's Proposed Alternative: This alternative, as proposed by the developer, consists of 4,884 dwelling units ("DUs"). Development would occur on consolidated acreage in the lowlands. The "Cross Gap" connector roadway would be constructed. A wetlands restoration plan would be implemented on a total of 1,132 acres of the 1,654 acre site. • ALTERNATIVE#2 - The 4,800 DU Alternative: This alternative consists of 4,875 dwelling units and is distinct from Alternative #1 because of its 11.5 acres of neighborhood commercial retail development. As in the proponent's alternative, development would occur in the lowlands area and the "Cross Gap" connector roadway would be constructed. A wetlands restoration plan would also be implemented in this alternative. • ALTERNATIVE #3 - The 3,500 DU Alternative: This lower density alternative is comprised of 3,567 dwelling units with no development in the lowlands and no "Cross Gap" connector roadway. Wetlands restoration is also projected to occur in this alternative. The report focuses on Alternative #1 and utilizes it as the vehicle for describing the fiscal analysis herein. The other two alternatives, while fully analyzed and evaluated in the computer fiscal model, are limited to summaries in the body of the report. Note: Since the completion of the draft of this report, the City has requested fiscal analysis of two additional alternatives - Alternative l4 and Alternative 15. The analysis of these two alternatives is included as Appendix G in this Report. i i Description Specific Plan Alternative #1 includes a total of 4,884 dwelling units in 36 planning areas ("PAs") on 395 acres of the 1,654 acre site. The 1,260 lower density units (0.0 to 9.99 DUs per acre) are projected to range in price from $300,000 to $750,000 in 1991 dollars. The 390 medium density homes (10.00 to 15.99 DUs per acre) range in price from $240,000 to ' $370,000. The 3,234 homes in the higher density category (16.00 DUs per acre and above) span a projected price range of $210,000 to $335,000 per unit. The overall weighted average value per dwelling unit is $325,000, in today's dollars. The plans for Project Alternative#1 show the southern and western three-quarters of the site as open space, including 1,121 acres of restored wetland, '74 acres of environmentally sensitive habitat acres ("ESHA"), 38 acres of habitat buffer area, and 83 acres of regional park. Other facilities on site are 16 acres of public local parks, nine acres of private parks, a two acre fire station, a two acre reservoir site, a 13 acre flood control channel and three ' acres for the "Cross Gap" connector roadway. Sales absorption is presently projected to last 10 to 11 years beginning in fiscal year 1994/95. Development will progress from the northwest to the southeast corners of the site - from the "Bolsa Mesa" area east, then south along the eastern portion of the lowlands. The "Cross Gap" connector road will be completed early in the development time table to ease City circulation and improve emergency access to the northwest portion of the City. The Project is anticipated to have a resident population of just over 12,000 persons. This equates to 2.46 persons per household. Overall average residential development area density is 12.4 DUs per acre. Limiting Assumptions. Scope and Methodology This analysis assumes that the wetlands, ESHAs, and regional parks areas will not be the fiscal responsibility of the City. It is further assumed that any possible fiscal impacts and facilities financing impacts to the City associated with the future disposition of these areas will be evaluated as part of the implementation plan review process. The fiscal impacts identified in this report focus on recurring impacts from the development of the Specific Plan on the City of Huntington Beach. This fiscal impact report ("FIR") also identifies one-time revenue impacts on the City resulting from facility impacts and , development control fees. The methodology employed in estimating fiscal impacts involves the Case Study method for the majority of cost categories, and the Case Study and Per Capita Multiplier methods for revenue categories. Fiscal impacts have been estimated based on interviews with City staff and detailed analysis of the City's approved budget for the current fiscal year 1991/92. All fiscal impacts discussed in this report are stated in 1991 dollars. iv RECURRING FISCAL IMPACTS Project Alternative #1 As shown in table I, development of the Bolsa Chica Project Alternative #1 is estimated to generate a recurring fiscal surplus to the City of Huntington Beach of about $787,000 per year at Project buildout. On a base of$5,462,000 in recurring annual costs, the Project is projected to generate $6,249,000 in recurring annual revenues, for a revenue/cost ratio of 1.14. A fiscal surplus to the City is expected to occur from the third year of Project completions/occupancies (Project Year 3). At this point the revenue/cost ratio is estimated at 1.15. The revenue/cost ratio fluctuates between 1.02 and 1.19 from Project Year 4 through Project year 8. It then stabilizes at the 1.14 to 1.15 range from Year 9 to Project ' buildout in Project Year 12, FY 2005/06. The cumulative fiscal surplus to the City through Project buildout is projected to be $5,998,000. Recurring Costs. Recurring costs to the City at Project buildout include over $1.562 million for police services (29 percent of total Project generated costs to the City); $1.458 million for annual fire protection costs (27 percent); followed by $987 thousand for public works and public parks, streets, street lights and City landscape maintenance (18 percent); and $450 thousand for general government and administration (8 percent). The City budget category "Non Departmental" - City utility and facilities leasing expenses - generates a cost of $364 thousand annually from the Project (6.5 percent of total City costs). Community services - park, recreation, and education programs - required by the Project will generate $359 thousand in annual expenses to the City (6.5 percent of total costs). Library services for the Project generate $197 thousand in annual costs (3.5 percent). And last, community development activities - planning and building inspection functions - required by the Project will result in recurring costs of $86 thousand per year (1.5 percent of total costs). Table A-5 in Appendix A and the body of the report provide more details about all recurring costs and the assumptions used in their derivation. Recurring Revenues. Recurring revenues to the City at the buildout of Project Alternative #1 include secured and unsecured property taxes totalling $3.493 million per year (56 percent of total revenues accruing to the City from the Project). Various per capita general fund revenues, notably motor-vehicle-in-lieu subventions, utility unitary taxes, recreation fees, and parking lot revenues, amount to $1.154 million annually at buildout (18.5 percent of total revenues). These are followed by sales and use taxes of $603 thousand (9.5 percent). Next are utility taxes and franchise fees totalling $498 thousand (8 percent of buildout revenues). Gasoline tax subventions and the fire-medical fund combined generate$353 thousand per year in revenues (5.5 percent, combined). Real property transfer taxes and City oil extraction taxes will generate $87 thousand and $62 thousand, respectively, at Project buildout (1.5 and 1 percent). Tables A-1, A-2, and A-3 in Appendix A and Tables A-3a and A-3b in Appendix D, as well as the body of the report, provide more detail about all recurring revenues and the assumptions used in their derivation. v ONE-TIME FISCAL IMPACTS One-time fiscal impacts of the development of Specific Plan Alternative #1 on the City of Huntington Beach consist of two types: 1) Impacts on City capital facilities and infrastructure. 2) Impacts of one-time fee revenues on the City as a source of income from which to provide planning, engineering, and building and safety services ("development control" services) to the proposed Project. Capital Facilities Impacts , The City has the responsibility for assuring that capital facilities for services and infrastructure are adequate to meet the present and future needs of the community. The City ' provides capital facilities for police, fire, parks (and beaches), libraries, public streets, and storm drainage. Currently, City programs exist for mitigating the impact of development on streets (traffic), parks, libraries, and drainage. At this time, however, the City does not have specific programs for mitigating development impacts on capital facilities for police and fire. In the absence of specific programs, the developer will be working with the City to mitigate Project-related capital facilities impacts as processing moves forward. The upper ' portion of Table 2 in this Executive Summary provides an illustration of the amount of capital facilities impact fees that would be paid to the City for Alternative #1 if all fees were paid by the developer. Because the developer intends to negotiate a waiver of the park and recreation impact fees in return for park land dedication, it is probable that the City will not receive revenues from this fee. Development Control Fee Revenue Impacts As can be seen on Table 3, Alternative #1 of the Specific Plan is estimated to generate a total of more than $7.5 million in planning, engineering and building permit fees during the course of Project buildout. This fiscal impact analysis assumes that the City sets these development processing and control fees at a level whic'.1 will continue to offset the Community Development and Public Works Departments' costs for providing these services to the proposed Project. EVALUATION OF PROTECT ALTERNATIVES i In addition to Alternative #1, which is the Project proponent's proposal for development of the Bolsa Chica site, two additional development scenarios have been selected by City staff for fiscal evaluation. Alternative #2, with 4,875 DUs, is similar to Alternative #1 except that Alternative #2 includes 11.5 acres of commercial development. Alternative #3, with 3,567 DUs, is a smaller, yet higher density Project Alternative. It does not include the Cross Gap connector roadway or development in the Lowland areas. Table 3 in this Executive Summary shows the comparative net recurring fiscal impacts. The fiscal impacts of Alternatives #2 and #3 have been derived by processing these two Alternatives through the same fiscal model used to evaluate: Alternative #1. City revenue and cost assumptions remain the same for the analysis of each Alternative. Differences in fiscal impact outcome are caused by variations in the design features of the Alternatives. vi I As can be seen on Table 3, Alternative #2 generates an annual fiscal surplus at buildout of $854 thousand; Alternative #3 produces a small recurring deficit of $37 thousand. At buildout Alternative #2 creates annual revenues of $6.500 million over costs of $5.646 million for a revenue to cost ratio of 1.15 to one. Alternative #3 generates $4.292 million in revenues over $4.329 in costs with a resulting revenue to cost ratio of 0.99 to one. Alternative#2 generates a cumulative fiscal surplus to the City at buildout of$5.505 million. Early project year costs for fire protection create a cumulative deficit fiscal impact for Alternative #3 at buildout of $2.503 million. More detail on the comparative features and fiscal impacts of these Alternatives may be found in Section V, "Analysis of Project Alternatives," and in the respective sections of the appendices containing the fiscal model output. vii, TABLE 1 12/12/!1 BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (4114 FIR BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC KAN (4110) .FIR SUMMARY OF RECURRING FISCAL INP TS DAVID TAUSSIG i ASSOCIATES. INC. 10 CITY Of HUNIINGION BEACH: GENERAL fUNO AND ROAD FUND ••••••• PROPERTY TAX INCREASE ASSUNPIIONS GENERAL FUND AND ROAD FUND REVENUE • -------------E------------------- INCREASE ASSUMPTIONI 1.01 ••• ••• 1EIIERAL FUND AND ROAD FUND COST • INCREASE ASSUNIPTION1 1.01 • uu••• 1 BUILOOUT FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: 1 2 2 1 5 0 1 1 1 10 11 12 13 (18 x1001) 1910-15 Ills-16 list-11 I111-11 1111-99 Illl-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-22 2002-01 2004-05 2005-41 2005-01 CITY GENERAL FUND It ROAD FUND y t s } s O WING°Costs�s 1Sol s1151, 1J;111 K 1 f 11;f01 ii;iii yl;lfl �1;111 �S;]lf t6;1f2 IS;lit �S;li2 �S;I�t ANNUAL ONGOING SUMUS/(DEFICIT) (°{{1s (°`iii) fli4' Iiii lM 00 1i12 1i51 $1ii 1i16 1i22 M? MI M? CUMULATIVE SURKUS/(DEFICIT) (1l5; (51011 1220 1705 1623 11.225 11.11) 12.114 12.510 10.411 IS.211 15.111 16.110 .................................................................................................................................i.............2............ ----- ------ ..D u.o. .n.r.nu : !. A.c A-0 1117111RG DISIAICI. IMCIYOti MI <.W ti luau.:w.cv w�....v......... .....-..... ._._ FABLE 2 ONE-TIME FISCAL IMPACTS BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH (Alternative #1 - 4,884 Units) i i CAPITAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEES (ESTIMATE") City Fees Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees ($750/du) $ 3,663,000 Library Fees ($0.15/sq. ft. Res. & Bus.) 1,098,900 Park and Recreation Fees ($2,440/du, avg.)" 11,916,960 Sewer Fees ($150/du) 732,600 Water Fees ($60/du) 293,040 Drainage Fees ($0 - $9,000/ac) N/A Total City Facilities Impact Fees (Estimate) $17,704,500 Orange County Sanitation Districts #3 and #11 Sewer Fees ($2,350/du) $11,477,400 School Facilities Impact Fees ' Estimated School Fees, ($1.58/sq. ft., Res. - if required) 11,575,080 Grand Total Facilities Impact Fees $40,756,980 tONE TIME DEVELOPMENT CONTROL FEE REVENUES (ESTIMATE") Planning Department - Plan Check Fees $ 516,000 Building Department - Plan Check, Permit, Inspection Fees 5,152,620 Plumbing, Mechanical, Electrical ($200/du, estimate) 976,800 Grading Plan Review, Permit, Inspection 60,000 Street Improvement Plan Checking 36,000 Engineering and Inspection Fee (8% of Const. Cost) 665,000 Final Tract Map Processing (City Only) 122,100 Total One-Time Develo meet Control Revenues $ 7,529.520 GRAND TOTAL ONE-TIME IMPACT FEES $48,285,500 AVERAGE REVENUE PER DWELLING UNIT $ 9,886 NOTES: 1. This list shows application of current fees. The City may agree to alternative methods for mitigating impacts on particular facilities. ' 2. If park fees were to be paid in lieu of a parkland dedication agreement with the City. 3. Based on current City fees and estimates of relevant Project variables. SOURCE: City of Huntington Beach Fee Schedules i 03/24/1992 TABLE 3 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES NET RECURRING FISCAL IMPACTS Description FIR Alternative #1 FIR Alternative #2 Fir Alternative N3 (Project Proponent's (EIR Alternative#15) (EIR Alternative#4 (all ra x 1000) Alternative) Modified) Residential Dwelling Units $787 $4875 $3567 Business Development None 11.5ac None Recurring Surplus/(Deficit) at Buildout $787 $854 ($37) Recurring Costs at Buildout $5,462 $5,646 $4,329 Recurring Revenues at Buildout $6,249 $6,500 $4,292 Revenue/Cost Ratio at Buildout 1.14 1.15 0.99 Minimum Revenue/Cost Ratio 0.84 0.80 0.53 Project Year of Occurrence 1 1 2 Maximum Revenue/Cost Ratio 1.19 1.18 1.00 Project Year of Occurrence 1 8 8 9 Cumulative Surplus/(Deficit) at Buildout $5,998 $5,505 ($2,503) ■r �w �r ra rr rr rr rr r rr rr rt r r r� ar rr � r I. INTRODUCTION 1 A. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES This report provides an analysis of the fiscal impacts on the City of Huntington Beach ("the City") resulting from development of the proposed Bolsa Chica Specific Plan ("the Project"). The Project site is comprised of 1,654 acres located in unincorporated Orange County in the northwestern portion of the City of Huntington Beach (please see Exhibit 1, "Existing Land Use"). While many Project alternatives have been, and are currently being evaluated, most of the alternatives share common features. Most alternatives are predicated on the assumption that the site will be annexed into the City of Huntington Beach. All proposed development scenarios for the site are. Almost all alternatives propose the preservation/restoration of a minimum of 1,100 acres of wetlands and environmentally sensitive habitat areas ("ESHAs"). Most scenarios include the dedication of 80 to 100 acres along the southeastern project boundary for development of a County regional park. From the wide range of potential Project alternatives, three have been selected for analysis in this report. The three Project alternatives evaluated in this ' analysis are as follows: Alternative #1 - The Project Proponent's Proposed Alternative: This alternative, as proposed by the developer, consists of 4,884 dwelling units ("DUs"). Development would occur on consolidated acreage in the lowlands. The "Cross Gap" connector roadway would be constructed. A wetlands restoration plan would be implemented on a total of 1,132 acres of the 1,654 acre site. Alternative #2 - The 4,800 DU Alternative: This alternative consists of 4,875 dwelling units and is distinct from Alternative #1 because of its 11.5 acres of neighborhood commercial retail development. As in the proponent's alternative, development would occur in the lowlands area and the "Cross Gap" connector roadway would be constructed. A wetlands restoration plan would also be implemented in this alternative. Alternative #3 - The 3,500 DU Alternative: This lower density alternative is comprised of 3,567 dwelling units with no development in the lowlands and no "Cross Gap" connector roadway. Wetlands restoration is also projected to occur in this alternative. Alternative #1, the Proponent's alternative, is evaluated in this analysis as the baseline alternative. The majority of this report will focus on Alternative #1. The ensuing, more detailed, project description and discussion of the Project's assumptions and specific methodologies for assessing fiscal impacts will reference this alternative. Analysis of the impacts of the other alternatives, while they have been fully modelled in the computer analysis, will be limited to summaries and corresponding Appendices in later sections of this report. These summaries will • ,sr r � 44+•� �/,/i ,DI f� �`'i� �j�,,+�t►`�`.�:: *��j� 'h'., .+� �Gf.rr••f/j��/�•�'4 • �', �'.����;,,,•�',;r,!°;�. ♦°�,��j.�%� ,I• ` :I .�. �,�yi,Y, t�'�•'+F � i' � ;,.'''F��7} ;��`%:,'':'1'�' }'O^%4 •�\\ IC\,;WC•'•`�` f�F INS ,0�' `••�••/' � � ,!� ��;,, •r�•�.o.••.�,.t♦t'hy�• rr��' / +. t _ �F•.�:•'Irii1 1� ,1 •/•I' \ +, •,�� ,•T ��•F�•;� rr fr +(t`1�,•� err•`,a of 5���*•/t%•, .1+� � ��.. ��'C r'i•�,' �}l•�%•�•• •,, 'j �•`,• • + \ 1•A� IQ r�.�`�,• rt {tf• •+`j�jl•�y�o%�l/f f '1v\t�/';M1,%'\,o�'%r��:�+`'A,LtFf•.:•"S'1 f{•,�,, � .,, 'e • WN �ri•/r••r'�+ �%� ;•:••' t};��LT. • � 4.,,,,'• '`'��i'•• 't�l•�y}''k+•'yf�+� v r � , ` ,,•;� \_ �.Aid1 6 J'\+]} 4'• t,'!!/tee r �,L•,;'•,,, t J�!}fir,, _ .t /(/. 'tV�' ♦ •+�Ni+ P`F.'.G+ f�♦ ••,• �ti''' ,�� i t1�,•'•;}�ir•••.`•.•` +••••�.••,••,,'s'•�t F l'1' ,�� ,,I� ♦ �, �4':%°���%%,1 • • G 4=t'''• �•�'•`••1,1, ,,•I�••:b�.+.�yril� fp�.0 1 � � '� � �''Y, /�� , rt if r ' f • +� r •/`.� II', �fir •yaL �� �• ,11 • • .••.r ill \, XM 2If,• �'i t• , LEGEND RESIDENTIAL PLANNING AREA PARK(PUBUC/PRIVATE) W I' WATER RESERVOIR District S )fi Estate 30 pS FIRE STATION District 2 FS DISTRICT BOUNDARY LINE 29 31 Lowland 1 +--� 23 P 27 26 P ® )4 _ li P P-0 33 _ IT 19 'Q 12 16 2S a r 21 20 24 '-3 r" I S tri >` District 1 22 P z H Bolsa ChIca Mesa 14 District 7 9 tr 13 ud MWD 2) P Wetlands H 10 11 12 S LT1 n 9 i 7 6 4 District 4 Linear Part I 2 ) 4A I � Tidal lnlet— __ __ Bo1sa Chica Study Area BounSuL BOLSA CHICA sat;int:plan � row ® RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL LINEAR REGIONAL MWD PARK BO LSA MES oNN�cTOA CROSS GAP C HUN .11 TON RESTORED IVI A > WETLANDS LINEAR REGIONAL STATE -- PARK ,,.�.'.• ECOLOGICAL RESERVE .::..::.::.. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY TIDAL INLET (CIR) ALTERNATIVE 15 4.800 UNITS WITH CROSS - GAP CONNECTOR. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL. AND RESTORED WETLANDS. �1 r� w4 ■r r� r� �rr ter. rr. �r r ■r �Ir r rli �r � � r m m r r m m m m w Mao m m m m m w m m ® RESIDENTIAL LINEAR REGIONAL MWD >.::` PARK , .._--- - •�-GAP ���:�*�1�, BOLSA :. MES ' RESTORED HUN TON r WETLAND A a t� LINEAR ,� --- -- -- - REGIONAL STATE ` PARK p / ECOLOGICAL RESERVE PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY TIDAL -_ INLET _ (EIR) ALTERNATIVE 4 (MODIFIED) 3,500 UNITS WITHOUT CROSS -GAP CONNECTOR. AND WITH RESTORED WETLANDS 1 Bolsa-Chica FIR Page 2 describe only the differences in fiscal outcome as driven by the different development features of these alternatives. B. LIMITING ASSUMPTIONS, SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 1. Limiting Assumptions This analysis assumes that wetlands areas, ESHAs, and the regional linear park will be dedicated to agencies other than the City of Huntington Beach and that the City will not be responsible for the maintenance and operations of ' these open space/park areas. The capital costs of facilities for, or for restoration of, these open space/park areas are b-.yond the scope of this report. In sum, it is assumed that any potential fiscal and capital financing impacts to the City associated with the future disposition of these areas will be evaluated as part of the wetlands implementation plan review process. 2. Scope of Analysis The fiscal impacts identified in this Fiscal Impan Report ("FIR") include both recurring and one-time impacts from development of the Specific Plan on the City of Huntington Beach. Recurring impacts receive primary emphasis in this analysis. -- For each year of Project development leading to buildout, and at least one year beyond buildout, individual recurring revenue and cost impacts on the City are quantified and the resulting fiscal balance assessed. This process is repeated for each Project alternative. In this FIR, one-time impacts are discussed in the context of the existing City fee structure. Existing City public facilities impact mitigation fees are identified and quantified for the Project Alternative #1. City development control fees (planning, engineering, and building - review, permit, and inspection fees) are also estimated. Detailed assessment of the Project's one- time impacts on public facilities and the cevelopment of corresponding mitigation strategies are beyond the scope of the FIR. This type of analysis, a public facilities financing plan ("PFFP") or equivalent, is recommended as part of the implementation plan process, especially in relation to plans for the final disposition of the Project's wetlands/open space areas. 3. Methodological Approach The methodology employed in estimating fiscal impacts relating to the City utilizes the Case Study method for the majority of cost and revenue categories. The Case Study approach projects fiscal impacts based on future service demand or revenue potential, determined through review of City planning documents (master plans for services, the general plan, management studies, etc.) and fiscal documents (budgets), analysis of recently completed FIR's on 03/24/1992 Bolsa-Chica FIR Page 3 similar local projects, comparisons with the consultant's prior experience and data sources, and, most importantly, interviews with relevant City, and other related government agency staff. These various sources of information on service demand and revenue potential are then evaluated for their applicability to the particular characteristics of the Specific Plan. Those fiscal impacts not evaluated by Case Study have been estimated using the Per Capita Multiplier method, which assumes that recurring costs or revenues will result from the Project at the same rates per person as currently prevail within the City. Two different methods for assessing impacts are implied by the term Per Capita Multiplier as used in this analysis. These two methods are explained below: Standard Per Capita Multiplier ("Per Cap 1") The first and more standard method is applied to those costs or revenues that are determined to be directly generated by City resident population only. As an example, motor-vehicle-in-lieu revenues from the state are subvented to local jurisdictions based, for the most part, on local residential population. On the cost side, the level of local library service costs are generally agreed also to be a factor of residential population. Per Acre/Per Capita Multiplier ("Per Cap 2"1 The second type of per capita multiplier used in this analysis is more accurately termed a Per Acre/Per Capita Multiplier method. In this approach, when it is determined that a cost or revenue is generated by non-residential (business) as well as residential land uses, then the City-wide cost or revenue impact is first prorated across relative City-wide non-residential versus residential developed acres. (According to a prior draft fiscal analysis on this Project by Williams Kuebelbeck and Associates, the current developed-acre split in the City is approximately 11,000 acres residential acres and 3,000 acres non-residential acres.) The second step of this method is to divide the residentially related portion of the impact by City population to obtain a per capita multiplier for determining Project impacts due to residential development. The impacts of non-residential uses are calculated on a per- acre basis. An example of a "Per Cap 2" revenue is traffic fines; a "Per Cap 2" cost would be City department administration costs not included in a case study analyses. In this analysis, the Case Study method is used to estimate the majority of recurring costs relating to general government, police, fire protection, and public works. Community development, community services, and library costs are estimated using the Per Capita Multiplier Method. On the revenue side, the Case Study method is employed to determine secured and unsecured property taxes, real property transfer taxes, oil extraction taxes, sales and use taxes, utility taxes, and franchise fees. All other City revenues, including, notably, State subventions; fines, forfeitures and penalties; use of money and 03/2411992 i Bolsa-Chica FIR Page 4 property; and recreational fees are estimated using the Per Capita Multiplier Method. Where possible, fiscal impacts have been estimated based on detailed analysis of the City budget for fiscal year 1991-92, and reflect current City service standards. All fiscal impacts shown in this analysis are in constant 1991 dollars. The fiscal model employed in this analysis is designed to be able to test the impact of different rates of cost and revenue inflation on long term City fiscal balance. However, model outputs are very sensitive to the inflation assumptions. And, much uncertainty is invclved in predicting inflation variables. Furthermore, insertion of the inflation variables into the model masks the desired picture to the reader as to what the Project's impact would be if it were built under fiscal conditions existing today. For these reasons the fiscal analysis as discussed here is stated in "flat" 1991 dollars. 03/24/1992 1 Bolsa-Chica FIR Page 5 a II. PROTECT DESCRIPTION A. LAND USES The ro Project onent's alternative for the Specific Plan Alternative #1 is J P P P > divided into 36 planning areas ("PAs"). All 36 PAs contain residential land uses. They encompass 4,884 dwelling units on 394.6 acres for an overall density in the residential development areas of 12.4 units to the acre. Residential development is located along the northern and eastern perimeter of the 1,654-acre project site. _ The southern and western three-quarters of the site (more than 1,200 acres) are open space including 1,121 acres planned as restored wetlands, 74 acres of environmentally sensitive habitat areas, 38 acres of habitat buffer area, and 83 acres of regional linear park. Other public usage and public facilities areas include 16 acres of public local parks, nine acres of private parks, a two acre fire station site, a two acre reservoir site, a 13 acre flood control channel, and three acres for the "Cross Gap" connector roadway. The 4,884 DUs in Alternative #1 are located in three Project phases. Phase I, the Mesa District in the Northwest corner of the Project, is the largest with 3,397 DUs on 174.6 acres. Phase II, the MWD District in the Northeast, includes 615 DUs on 49.7 acres. Phase III, the Lowlands District along the Eastern boundary, encompasses 872 DUs on 171.3 acres. Of the total Project homes, 1,260 are low density (0 to 9.99 units per acre), 390 are medium density (10 to 15.99 units per acre), and 3,234 are high density (16 per acre and above). Based on preliminary market assessment, the low density units are projected to range in size from 1,500 to 3,750 square feet. The middle density units are anticipated to range in size from 1,500 to 1,950 square feet. The higher density multi-family units range from 1,000 to 1,400 square feet in size. Table A-Stat-Sum (Statistical Summary) in Appendix A provides more details about projected land uses. B. PROJECT VALUATION For Project Alternative #1, low density single family units are projected to range in price from $300,000 to $750,000 in 1991 dollars. Medium density homes are anticipated in the $240,000 to $370,000 range. High density multi-family units are assumed to have a value range from $210,000 to $335,000. In addition to these base prices, the developer anticipates an overall average lot premium per dwelling unit of approximately $2,700. The resultant weighted Project average value for all 4,884 dwelling units is about $325,000, including lot premiums. The total estimated value of Alternative #1 in current dollars is $1,589,646. 0312411992 i Bolsa-Chica FIR Page 6 C. PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE Specific Plan Alternative #1 is estimated to require nearly 21 lane miles of arterial streets and collectors and 14 lane miles of local interior streets. The Project is also anticipated to include about 19.5 acres of landscaped parkways and medians (streetscape); more than 750 street lights. As stated earlier, this Project alternative includes 16 acres of publicly owned local parks. These are located at three sites within the residential development area. The "Warner" park site is four acres in size. The "Overlook" park is two acres. The "Mesa Connector" park is 10 acres. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that all these facilities will be operated and maintained by the City of Huntington Beach. ' (Possibly, a landscape and lighting district will be formed for maintenance of street lights and street landscaping.) D. LAND USE AND INFRASTRUCTURE PHASING v 1 is rc'ected to take approximately Overall absorption of Project Alternative # p � pp y 10 years, from initial occupancies in fiscal year ("FY") 1994/95 through 1993/94. Development will progress generally from the northwest to the southeast corner of the site. As discussed in Section II.A., Land Uses, the developer divides the Project into three development phases or districts. Phase I, the Mesa District, will experience the majority of its development from FY 1995/96 through 1997/98. Phase II, the MWD District, will absorb from FY 1994/96 through 1999/2000. Phase III, the Lowlands District will experience the bulk of its development during the period FY 1998/99 through buildout in 2003/04. Of course, future market conditions and other factors will have an impact on length of buildout and Project phasing. The Project Description section of the fiscal model in Appendix A prov:.de more details on land use phasing assumptions. Most Project infrastructure facilities in this analysis are assumed to be turned over to the City for maintenance and operation simultaneous with the completion (occupancy) of residential units in adjacent planning areas. The major exception to this is the Cross Gap connector roadway whic:.1 has been determined by the City to be needed for overall City circulation and public safety access to the Project, and the northern portion of the City, at the time of initial Project occupancies in 1994/95. This is four to five years in advance of residential development adjacent to this roadway. Tables A..-6a and A-6b in Appendix A provide more details on infrastructure requirements and infrastructure phasing. 03/24/1992 ' Bolsa-Chica FIR Page 7 E. DEMOGRAPHICS The 4,884 dwelling units in this alternative are projected to generate a total population of 12,034 persons at Project buildout, based on the population factors shown in Table A-Assumptions in Appendix A. These factors are derived from David Taussig and Associates' data and experience on other similar local projects. These factors are also in line with previous FIRs on projects in the area and with 1990 Census data. i' 03/2411992 1 Bolsa-Chica FIR Page 8 III. RECURRING FISCAL IMPACTS: City of Huntington Beach This section identifies each of the recurring revenue and cost impacts to the City of Huntington Beach arising from development of the Specific Plan. It also discusses the methodology and assumptions used in projecting these impacts. Detailed numerical analysis of the impacts discussed below are contained in Tables A-1 through A-9 in Appendix A. A. NET RECURRING IMPACTS Development of Alternative #1 for the Specific P:.an is projected to generate a recurring fiscal surplus to the City of Huntington Beach of about $787,000 at project buildout. On a base of more than $5.462 million in recurring annual costs, Alternative #1 is projected to generate over $6.249 million in recurring annual revenues, for a revenue/cost ratio of 1.14. In this alternative, a fiscal surplus to the City is expected to occur beginning in the third year of project completions/occupancies, with the revenue/cost ratio estimated at 1.15. The revenue/cost ratio dips to 1..02 in Project Year Four and then climbs back to a 1.15 ratio in Year Seven. It remains at that level or above through Project buildout. A deficit occurs in the first two project years. The deficit is largely a result of the allocation of full project share from "day one" for the operation of a local City Type 2 Fire Station (Type 2 = Paramedic Assessment Engine and Company). The cumulative fiscal surplus to the City at buildout is projected at nearly $6.000 million. B. ANALYSIS OF RECURRING REVENUES 1. Property Taxes--Secured Roll The Count Auditor/Controller identifies property tax rates as a percentage of Y P P Y P g total assessed valuation by Tax Rate Area (TRA). The Specific Plan covers all or portions of three TRAs in unincorporated Orange County. These three TRAs are as follows: 073-002, 064-006 and 0154-001. The Master Property Tax Transfer Agreement 6ctates how property taxes will be allocated between the City and County subsequent to an annexation. Based on the tax allocations in the subject TRAs, application of the terms of the agreement results in an allocation of 17.75 percent of the one percent basic property tax levy to the City of Huntington Beach General Fund. Please see osn4n": Bolsa-Chica FIR Page 9 Table A-1, Appendix A for the factors used in estimating the City's property tax allocation amount. In addition to the general fund amount, the City of Huntington Beach receives an additional property tax allocation above the basic one percent for the purposes of debt service for the City's Public Employee Retirement System ("PERS"). The PERS allocation equates to between four and five percent of M the one percent basic levy amount. This PERS allocation is assignable as project-generated revenue because it offsets a cost which would otherwise be paid from general fund revenues. - Multiplying the estimated Project valuation of nearly $1.590 billion by the average tax rate for PERS plus the City General Fund results in secured property tax revenues to the City of $3,458,000 per year at project buildout. This represents more than 55 percent of recurring City revenues from the Project. 2. Property Taxes--Unsecured Roll Unsecured property taxes are levied on tangible personal property that is not secured by real estate. Examples of unsecured property include trade fixtures (e.g., manufacturing equipment and computers), as well as airplanes, boats, and mobile homes on leased land. Tax rates for unsecured property in a given fiscal year are the same as tax rates for secured property in the preceding fiscal year. Based on experience with other projects in Southern California, unsecured property values are assumed to average about one percent of secured value for residential land uses and 15 percent of secured value for commercial uses. Based on these assumptions, Alternative ail is projected to generate about $35 thousand per year in unsecured property taxes for the City General Fund at project buildout, which represents 0.55 percent of recurring City revenues from the Project. 3. Property Transfer Tax The property transfer tax applies to all sales of real property, and is imposed by the County of Orange at a rate of$1.10 per $1,000 of sale or resale value, excluding assumed liens or encumbrances. Within incorporated areas, revenues from this tax are divided equally between the City General Fund and the County General Fund. This analysis includes revenues from this source at the time the developer sells the property to its first buyer and subsequently each time the property is resold. It is assumed that residential property is resold every 10 years, for an average annual turnover rate of 10 percent, and that commercial/industrial 03124/1992 1 Bolsa-Chica FIR Page 10 property is resold every 20 years, for an average annual turnover rate of five percent. Assuming that continuing liens and encumbrances are insignificant, property transfer taxes to the City from Alternative #1 are projected to total about $87 thousand per year at project buildout, or 1.4 percent of recurring City revenues from the Project. 4. Oil Extraction Tax (Oil Barrel Tax) The City imposes a tax on each barrel of oil extracted from active wells within the City. The current tax rate is $0.2081 per barrel. Oil well production on the project site is estimated at 876,000 barrels in 1992/93. Oil production is expected to decline at eight percent per year. Based on these factors, the City will be receiving about $62 thousand per year from this revenue source at the buildout of Alternative #1. This amount equates to 0.99 percent of City revenues at buildout. (Note that this is a continually declining source of revenue.) Please refer to Table A-1, Appendix A for more detail on this revenue source. 5. Sales and Use Taxes The fiscal model shows potential Project sales and use tax revenues coming from two sources. Direct sales tax revenues will accrue to the City from taxable retail sales at on-site retail facilities. Indirect sales tax revenues will result from Project residents' taxable expenditures, or stimulation of expenditures, within Huntington Beach City limits. While Alternative #1 includes no on-site commercial and, therefore, generates only the indirect sales tax revenues, other Project alternatives generate: both direct and indirect sales r tax revenues. Therefore, the method and assumptions for calculating both types of sales tax revenues are discussed below: Indirect Sales Tax Revenues The Project will contribute sales tax receipts to the City by increasing the local population, hence, the total purchasing power of local residents. These indirect sales tax revenues can be estimated based on anticipated household income within the Project, using an assumed retail expenditure share and a City retail capture rate. Household income can be projected by dividing various home price levels in the Project by an estimated price/income ratio. The expected house prices for the range of Project housing types can be found under "Valuation Range" in Appendix A, Table A-Assumptions. Also on the same table, under "Projected Household Income" are listed the anticipated household incomes corresponding to the house prices. These incomes are derived from the home price/income ratios based on the 1988 Consumer Attitude '�urvev of new home buyers in Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside and San Diego Counties, published by the 03/24/1992 i Bolsa-Chica FIR Page 11 Building Industry Research Council. These ratios appear on Table A-Assump immediately to the left of the Household Income column. The Consumer Expenditure Survey published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics suggests that about 25 percent of total household income takes the form of taxable retail expenditures. While some have argued that this figure may be too low, more research is needed to justify changing this assumption. The percentage of new taxable retail sales captured by city retailers cannot be accurately estimated without a retail market study, which is beyond the scope of this report. However, recent fiscal impact studies for projects within the City put this capture rate at the equivalent of between 50 and 58 percent. The rate in this analysis has been set at 50 percent. (As an additional comparative, but not directly related, figure- the ratio of Huntington Beach per capita retail sales to countywide per capita retail sales is .72 to 1.00 (72 percent), i.e. City retailers capture the equivalent of 72 percent of City residents' taxable expenditures.) Based on these assumptions, taxable retail expenditures by Alternative #1 residents at Project buildout are estimated at about $120,664,000 per year, with $60,332,000 in taxable sales being captured by City retailers. Projected sales tax revenues equal one percent of this amount, or about $603,000 per year at Project buildout. Please see Table A-2 of the various fiscal models for more details regarding estimation of Project sales tax revenues. Direct SalesTax Revenues For Project alternatives which include retail commercial, a building square footage to site area ratio of 25 percent is assumed. An estimate of $150 annual taxable sales per building square foot is assumed for the neighborhood tcommercial uses proposed for some of the Project alternatives. This estimate is based on the consultant's prior experience and from the ranges shown for this factor from data - 1) for shopping centers in the Western United States compiled by the Urban Land Institute; and 2) for food and drug store expenditures compiled by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The City's share of sales tax equals one percent of taxable sales. In this fiscal model, for alternatives with direct sales tax revenues, only 50 percent of the direct on-site tax revenues are included as revenues to the City. Otherwise double counting occurs if on-site retailers' taxable sales to Project residents are counted as dir= sales tax revenues, while at the same time Project residents' taxable expenditures within the Project portion of the City are counted as indirect sales tax generation. As can be seen in the "Direct Sales Tax Generation Assumptions" column on Table A-2 in Appendix A, a correction is made for this double counting by assuming that 50 percent of on- site retailers' sales are to Project residents. Therefore, direct sales tax 03na/1992 I Bolsa-Chica FIR Page 12 generation by on-site retailers is reduced by this 50 percent factor for any Project alternative which includes on-site retail. Total Sales and Use Taxes Sales and use tax revenues accruing to the City from development of Alternative #1 are projected at approximately $603 thousand per year at project buildout, or 9.7 percent of recurring City revenues from the Project. The total for this alternative is composed of no direct sales tax revenues and $603 thousand in indirect sales tax revenues from Project residents' expenditures within the City of Huntington Beach. 6. Utility User Taxes and Franchise Fees ✓ Utility user taxes are levied on residential and commercial consumers of electric, gas, cable, water, telephone and refuse collection services. The Citv of Huntington Beach assesses the consumers of" all of these services except refuse collection at a tax rate of five percent of service billings. Franchise fees may be levied on privately owned utility companies (except telephone companies), cable television companies, and selected other businesses for the privilege of using City rights-of-way. The City of Huntington Beach levies a five percent franchise fee on the local cable company. Three of the five percent accrues to the general fund, two of the five percent is earmarked for a City cable/video fund. To offset the loss of taxes on water utility assets, the City water utility is assessed an in-lieu tax of 15 percent of revenuers. Utility tax and franchise fee revenues accruing to the City from the Project i have been estimated based on 1) average service usage factors for residential and commercial/industrial customers supplied by various Southern California utilities, and 2) billing rates obtained from local service providers and the City. Based on these factors, utility tax, franchise fee and in-lieu water utility tax revenues to the City are estimated to total about $498 thousand per year at buildout of Alternative #1, or nearly 8 percent of recurring City revenues from the Project. For more detail on these calculations, please see Table A-2a in Appendix D and Table A-2 in Appendix A. 7. General Fund Per Capita Revenues All the revenue sources evaluated above are Case Study Revenues. Calculation of the balance of revenues to the City from Project development are based on either the "Per Cap 1" or "Per Cap 2" per capita multiplier approaches as discussed in paragraph two of "Methodological Approach" in Section I.B.3. 03/24/1992 Bolsa-Chica FIR Page 13 Analysis of the 1991/92 per capita City budget revenues is shown in Table A- 3a, "General Fund Revenue Sources" in Appendix D. "Per Cap 1" and "Per Cap 2" general fund revenues total $95.88 per Project resident. Non- residential revenues total $1,097.76 per acre. The largest single per capita revenues is the state motor-vehicle-in-lieu subvention at $37.52 per person; followed by Utility Unitary Tax, $6.02; Recreation Fees, $6.02; and Parking Lots, $5.67. Business License Taxes are the single largest non-residential per acre revenue source at $413.96; followed by Parking Lots, $93.95; Transient Occupancy Tax, $78.00; and Charges to the Water Fund, $78.00. As can be seen on Table A-3, Appendix A, Project Alternative #1 generates - $1.154 million in per capita/business acre revenues annually at project buildout. This represents 18.47 percent of total recurring revenues. 8. Other Revenue Sources Table A-3b in Appendix D lists sources other than the General Fund which will contribute Project-generated revenues to offset Project-generated costs. Road Fund revenues consisting primarily of State gas tax subventions equal $18.56 per capita. Fire/Medical Program Fund revenues are estimated at $10.70 per capita and $177.52 per business acre. In total these "Other" revenues sources generate an additional $352,000 per year at buildout, or about 5.63 percent of total recurring revenues from the Project. C. ANALYSIS OF RECURRING COSTS 1. General Government and Administration This analysis utilizes the ratio of general government and administrative costs (City Council, Administration, Treasurer, Attorney, Clerk, and Administrative Services-- "G&A") to all other general fund operations and maintenance costs as the factor for establishing the cost of providing City G&A services to the Project. This ratio is applied annually to the total of all project-generated direct City operation and maintenance ("O&M") costs to determine a corresponding yearly share of G&A costs for the project. As may be seen on Table A-5b, Appendix D "City Budget Analysis - 1. General Government," based on the 1991/92 City Budget, the ratio of G&A costs to other City costs is .0897 to one. At buildout, the result is an annual recurring cost of $450 thousand to the City from Project Alternative #1. As can be seen on Table A, this is 8.23 percent of total Project generated costs. 2. Non-Departmental Costs Non-Departmental costs consist mainly of City utilities such as gas to power flood control and sewer lift stations, water for park and city landscaping 03/24/1992 1 Bolsa-Chica FIR Page 14 maintenance, electricity for street and traffic lig'.it illumination, and funds to pay the cost of certificates of participation ("COPs" - debt service/lease) on ' civic center buildings. As shown on the bottom portion of Table A-5b in Appendix D, this cost is spread as a "Per Cap 2" cost and is assessed to both residential and business land uses. After deducting for the costs of City park land irrigation and streetlight illumination, which are accounted for later in this analysis as case study costs, the resultant non-departmental costs are $30.35 per resident and $501.66 per business acre:. These multipliers generate a recurring yearly Non-Departmental cost of$364 thousand at the buildout of Alternative #1. This represents 6.67 percent of annual buildout costs to the City. 3. Police Services This fiscal analysis utilizes the police department's calls-per-land-use-type data combined with a current cost per call calculation to determine Project generated police costs. When projected across all existing City land uses, the police factors on calls by land use type do not account for total current police calls. This consultant estimates that only 50 percent of annual calls are explained by applying the factors to current City land uses. This may be a result of the survey nature of the police study in which a sample of land uses were analyzed for occurrences of police calls. It is postulated that a significant portion, approximately 50 percent, of City police activity translated into police calls is not attributable Table to any specific land use. As shown on Table A-5c, "Budget Analysis - 2. Police Services" in Appendix D, calls for each land use were increased by an equal proportion until all City calls are explained. Calls per land use type have been, in essence, doubled to explain all current City calls. Police department costs per call are determined by dividing the total City police budget by total calls. The result is a cost of$299 per call. Police costs are determined by multiplying Project land uses by their respective number of annual police calls. The derived annual Project calls are then multiplied by the cost per call to determine annual Project police costs. (Please see Project Description section, Appendix A, Tables "A - Assump" and "Annual Police Calls" for additional relevant details on the dezivation of Police calls/costs.) As shown on Table A-5, Appendix A, police services to the Project (Alternative #1) are anticipated to cost the City $1.562 million per year at buildout. This equals 28.29 percent of total recurring Project costs. 03/24/1992 Bolsa-Chica FIR Page 15 4. Fire Protection Services The Fire Protection Service cost analysis is comprised of two components--a per capita ("Per Cap 2") cost for administration and city-wide services and case study analysis for fire control and paramedics. Table A-5d in Appendix D shows the derivation from the City budget of the Per Cap 2 cost component of $9.72 per resident and $161.18 per non-residential acre. Also seen on Table A-5d are station operation expenses from the Fire Department and other case study factors which combine to determine the Project's fire control and paramedics costs. The fire department estimates that �- - the ultimate configuration of a full Type 1 Fire Station, with 27 (nine around- the-clock) fire fighters/paramedics, a fire truck, fire engine and a paramedic van will cost $2.378 million per year to operate, not including station depreciation. An "interim" Type 2 Station will be on line from Project day- one. It will consist of a staff of nine firemen (three men round-the-clock) manning a paramedics assessment engine, and is estimated by the fire department to cost $800,217 per year to operate. At present the "first-in" service radius of both the interim and full fire station encompasses the Bolsa Chica and Holly Seacliff developments. Cost responsibility is divided between �( these two developments based on relative numbers of dwelling units at buildout. With the 4,884 DUs in Alternative #1, Bolsa Chica will carry 56 percent of fire operations costs each year. As can be seen on Table A-5d, use of the above cost factors generates an initial year fair share cost of $451,092 for operation of the interim, Type 2 station and a buildout year fair share cost of $1,340,795 to operate the fully staffed Type 1 station. To provide for an intermediate jump from the interim Type 2 station to full operation of the permanent, Type 1 station this analysis stipulates a transitional operations level for the permanent station at about two- thirds of full operations costs at buildout ($1,000,000 "fair share" cost). This jump will occur at the point when this alternative has 2,500 occupied units. The threshold for transition to the full permanent station operation is set at 4,500 occupied units. Table A-5 in Appendix A shows the annual progression of fire control and paramedics costs based on these cost and phasing assumptions. The buildout year cost of $1.341 million is 24.55 percent of all Project recurring costs. Combined with $117 thousand for administration and City-wide services, total fire protection costs are 26.69 percent of all Alternative #1 recurring City expenses at buildout. 5. Public Works Administration, Engineering, and Facilities Maintenance - The Public Works "Per Cap 2" multipliers of$35.76 per capita and $592.95 per business 0312411992 Bolsa-Chita FIR Page 16 acre cover expenses for public works department administration, engineering, and traffic services, and for maintenance of sewer, flood control, and general City facilities. At buildout the recurring costs for these services is estimated at $430 thousand annually or 7.88 percent of tota� on-going expenses. Please see Table A-5e for additional detail. Local Park Maintenance - The costs for maintaining Bolsa Chica Project local park acreage are based on consultation with City park maintenance staff. The total park maintenance cost of$4,964 per acre is comprised of$3,853 per acre for the basic landscape maintenance contract plus $619 per acre for tree trimming and $492 per acre for irrigation water. At buildout the 16 acres of local parks result in $79 thousand in recurring maintenance costs or 1.79 percent of all recurring costs. Please see Table A-5 and A-6 in Appendix A for cost phasing, Table A-6b in Appendix A for park phasing assumptions. Street Maintenance - As detailed in Table A-5e, Appendix D street maintenance costs are estimated at $3,350 per lane mile. This cost figure is composed of $1,350 for annual recurring maintenance (sweeping, concrete repair, minor street repairs, and signs and striping). An additional $2,000 per lane mile per year is included in the $3,350 for long term street repair and replacement. This $2,000 amount per lane mile is based on the consultant's experience with other similar projects in Southern California. This Project Alternative's 34.6 lane miles of streets equate to a total cost of$116 thousand in recurring street maintenance costs at buildout, or 2.12 percent of total recurring Project costs to the City. Street Landscape Maintenance - City park maintenance staff indicates that landscaped street medians and parkways cost about $11,980 per acre per year to maintain. In addition, street tree trimming anti irrigation water cost $1,750 and $492 per acre respectively. Thus, total per-acre streetscape maintenance equals $14,221. Alternative #1's 19.47 acres of parkways and medians at buildout will cost $277 thousand per yea to maintain. This is 5.07 percent of recurring costs, as can be seen on Table A-5, Appendix A. Street Light Illumination and Maintenance - Based on previous DTA experience, a street light costs about $111 per year for electricity and maintenance. Alternative#1's 763 street lights will generate $85 thousand per year in maintenance expenses to the City at buildout, or 1.55 percent of total recurring costs. Please see Table A-6a and A-63 in Appendix A for detail on street light and other public facilities phasing and Tables A-5 and A-6 for more detail on the progression of annual maintenance costs. 03/24/1992 1 Bolsa-Chica FIR Page 17 6. Community Development As shown on Table A-5f in Appendix D, the net program cost for the Community Development Department (planning and building departments) is $1,662,449 for Budget Year 1991/92. This program cost, which is net of fees and reimbursements, equates to a "Per Cap 2" multiplier of$7.11 per resident and $117.88 per business acre. At buildout the Community Development Department's Project-generated costs will be approximately $86 thousand or 1.57 percent of total recurring costs to the City. 7. Community Services The analysis of Community Service Department costs employs a mix of Per Cap 1" and "Per Cap 2" multipliers depending on whether the individual program is determined to benefit City residents only or both City businesses and residents. Please refer to Table A-5g in Appendix D to see these determinations. Generally, if a program is felt to either generate users from the business community (adult sports), to create more City economic activity (beaches), or to improve the image of the town (cultural activities, seniors programs), the program has been assigned a "Per Cap 2" cost factor, with business thereby contributing to program support. Based on these determinations, the resultant multipliers are $29.80 per resident and $421.58 per business acreage to support Community Service Department programs. Alternative #1 for the Bolsa Chica Project creates recurring costs of S359 thousand per year to the City at buildout, as shown on Table A-5, Appendix A. This is 6.57 percent of total recurring expenses. i 8. Library Services Library Service costs are estimated at $16.41 per capita ("Per Cap 111) based on the 1991/92 City Budget. This results in a recurring cost to the City from Project Alternative #1 of $197 thousand per year from the 12,000 Project residents. Library costs are 3.62 percent of total recurring expenses to the City. 03/24/1992 1 Bolsa-Chica FIR Page 18 IV. ONE-TIME FISCAL IMPACTS One-time fiscal impacts of the proposed Specific Plan on the City of Huntington Beach consist of two types: 1) Impacts on City capital facilities and infrastructure, 2) Impacts of one-time fee revenues on the City as a source of income from which to provide planning, engineering, and building and safety services ("development control" services) to the proposed Project. (Please refer to Section I.B. "Limiting Assumptions, Scope and Methodology" for additional definition of the content of this section of the FIR.) A. CAPITAL FACILITIES IMPACT The City has the responsibility for assuring that capital facilities for services and . infrastructure are adequate to meet the present and future needs of the community. The City provides capital facilities for police, fire, parks (and beaches), libraries, public streets and storm drainage. Currently, City programs exist for mitigating the impact of development on streets (traffic), parks, libraries, and drainage. At this time, however, the City does not have specific programs for mitigating development impacts on capital facilities for police and fire. In the absence of specific programs, the developer will be working with the City to mitigate Project-related capital facilities impacts as processing moves forward. , To provide for development impacts on City streets, the City collects a Traffic Impact Fee of$75 per Average Daily Trip (ADT) generated by new development. A typical residential unit will generate an average of about 10 trip ends per day and, therefore will require a traffic impact fee of$750. As can be seen on Table E-1, Appendix E, Project Alternative #1 is estimated to produce more than $3.6 million in traffic impact fees for citywide streets. To assure that parks and park facilities remain abreast of need, the City of Huntington Beach requires Park and Recreation fees ranging from $1,064 to $3,120 per residential unit for projects not requiring a tract map. For projects requiring a tract map, such as the proposed Specific Plan, the City requires parkland dedication of 5 acres per 1,000 populatio:� or the payment of in-lieu fees equivalent to the market value of the land not dedicated. However, in the case of Project Alternative #1, as well as most other Project Alternatives, the proposed dedication of more than 1,000 acres of wetland/open space, more than 80 acres of regional parkland, and 16 acres of local parkland is intended to satisfy the formal City requirement for parkland dedication or the payment of Park and Recreation Fees. Please refer to Table E-1, Appendix E, for an estimate of what these Project park fees would amount to if collected in-lieu of land dedications. 03/24/1992 Bolsa-Chica FIR Page 19 The City also assesses a fee of 15 cents per square foot for new residential or commercial construction to offset development impacts on the City library system. As shown on Table E-1, this fee is estimated to generate nearly $1.1 million in one-time revenues for City library system facilities at the buildout of the Project (Alternative #1). As also can be seen on Table El, additional City impact mitigation fees include sewer, water, and drainage fees. Based on the current fee schedule, at $150 and $60 per dwelling unit for City sewer and water fees, respectively. Project Alternative #1 will generate about $730 thousand for sewer facilities and $290 thousand for water facilities. Because the developer will be required to contribute significant reconstruction of existing on-site drainage facilities during the course of Project construction, the City currently does not plan to assess a drainage impact fee. Other impact fees collected by the City for other local agencies include a school facilities impact fee and an additional sewer facilities fee. The City collects a school fee (currently $1.58 per square foot residential, $0.26 per square foot commercial) which is divided among the Huntington Beach School District, the Huntington Beach Union High School District, and the Ocean View School District. At current fee levels, Alternative #1 is estimated to produce nearly $11.6 million in school facility revenues at Project buildout. The City also collects a sewer impact fee for the Orange County Sanitation District (Districts #3 and #11) amounting to $2,350 per residential unit and $470 per 1,000 square feet of commercial/industrial building construction. At current levels, Project Alternative #1 will generate nearly $11.5 million in sewer fees for the County Sanitation District. These fee amounts collected for other agencies are also shown on Table E-1. B. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL FEE REVENUE IMPACTS As can be seen on Table E-1 in Appendix E, Alternative #1 of the Specific Plan is estimated to generate a total of more than $7.5 million in planning, engineering and building permit fees at Project buildout. This fiscal impact analysis assumes that the City sets these development processing and control fees at a level which will fully offset the Community Development and Public Works Departments' costs in providing these types of services to the proposed Project. 03124/1992 Bolsa-Chica FIR Page 21 V. ANALYSIS OF PROTECT ALTERrJATIVES A. INTRODUCTION Two additional plans for development of the Bolsa Chica site have been evaluated for their fiscal impact on the City. This section summarizes the fiscal outcome of these two Alternatives - Alternative #2 and Alternative #3. Also summarized are the variations in proposed design features which cause the differences in fiscal outcomes among the Alternatives. Complete computer model analyses have been performed for Alternative #2 and Alternative #3. These may be found in the appendices. B. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES • Alternative #2 (EIR Alternative #15) includes 4,800 DUs (4,875 DUs) and 11.5 acres of neighborhood commercial. Development is proposed for the Bolsa Mesa and for the lowlands along the eastern project boundary. The Cross-Gap connector roadway is to be constructed in this Alternative. • Alternative #3 (EIR Alternative #4 - Modified) includes 3,500 DUs (3,567 DUs), no business development, no development in the lowlands and no Cross-Gap connector Roadway. C. SUMMARY OF FISCAL OUTCOMES • Alternative #2, the 4,875 unit plan with 1.1.5 acres of commercial, if developed, is projected to generate an annual fiscal surplus of more than $850 thousand at buildout. Recurring costs are nearly $5.65 million per year. Annual revenues are nearly $6.5 million. T;.ie resulting ratio of recurring revenues to recurring costs is 1.15 to one. As can be seen in the Summary of Recurring Impacts, Table A-9, Appendix B, the cumulative fiscal impact through Project buildout results in a $5.5 million surplus. As in the case of Alternative #1, the Alternative shows a fisca:i deficit in the first two years, mainly as result of the cost of full operation of the "Type 2" fire station from first Project occupancies. • Alternative#3, the 3,567-unit plan is projected by the fiscal model to produce a recurring deficit of $37 thousand at buildout. Yearly revenues of $4.29 million over costs of$4.33 million result in a revenue to cost ratio of 0.99 to one. Appendix C, Table A-9, which summarizes the annual fiscal impact for Alternative #3 also shows a cumulative deficit of $2.50 million at buildout. 03/24/1992 �l 1 1 Bolsa-Chita FIR Page 22 As is the case with any of the Project alternatives which do not include the "Cross Gap" connector roadway, the 3500-unit Alternative is anticipated to experience significant early project year cost impacts for fire protection. Without the "Cross Gap" connector road to keep response times from the station(s) adjacent to the Project to within City policy guidelines, it will be necessary to locate and operate a fire station on the Project site from the initial years of Project occupancies. The fire department has indicated the need for operation of a Type 2 fire station (4 fire fighters, full-time) from the time of initial occupancies in order to provide adequate fire protection to the Project area. As can be seen on Table A-5, Appendix C, fire protection costs for this alternative include $1.130 million per year for operation of the Type 2 station and a "fair share" cost for a fire truck (Equivalent Dwelling Unit ("EDU") share of total truck service area). D. COMPARISON TABLE The following Table, Table 4, shows significant descriptive data for each Alternative analyzed in the body of this report and shows information summarizing the projected fiscal impact on the City from each Project alternative. Additional information on individual revenue and cost impacts may be found either in the respective Appendix section showing the analytical model for each Alternative or in Appendix D which shows revenue and cost assumptions as derived from the current City budget. Further explanation of the relevant assumptions and methods of calculating recurring revenues and cost impacts may be found in Section III, "Recurring Fiscal Impacts," of this report. 1 . Wbolta.fir(cb) 03/2511"2 BOLSACHICAFIR TABLE 4 25—Mar-92 DAVIDTAUSSIO A ASSOCIATES,INC. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS FIR FIR FIR ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE M1 M2 N3 (PROJECT PRO— (EIR ALT M 15) (EIR ALT M4 DESCRIPTION (all$'s x 1000) PONENT'S ALT) MODIFIED) 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND OVERVIEW LAND USES a DEMOGRAPHICS —NO.OF DUS 4,884 4,875 3,567 —ACRES OF RES DEVELOPMENT 395 440 218 —ACRES OF BUS DEVELOPMENT 0 11.5 0 — LOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT MESA YES YES YES LOWLANDS YES YES NO —CROSS GAP CONNECTOR STREET? YES YES NO —PROJECT ABSORPTION PERIOD 11 YEARS 11 YEARS 9 YEARS —NUMBER OF PLANNING AREAS RESIDENTIAL 37 31 20 BUSINESS 0 0 0 — RESIDENTIAL DENSITY(DUs/DEV'D AC) 12.4 11.1 16.3 — PROJECT POPULATION RESIDENTIAL 12,034 12.051 8.304 EMPLOYMENT 0 501 0 INFRASTRUCTURE — LANE MILES OF ARTERIALS 20.62 20.96 8.07 —LANE MILES LOCAL STi,"ETS 13.99 14.20 6.12 —ACRES OF LNDSCP PARKWAYS 3 MEDIANS 19.41 19.80 7.68 — LOCAL PARK ACRES 16.00 14.00 14.00 VALUATION (TODAY'S$) — RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT VALUATION $1.589.646 $1,629.041 $1,068.832 — BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT VALUATION $0 $11.500 $0 —TOTAL VALUATION OF DEVELOPMENT $1.589,646 $1,640,541 $1.068.832 —AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL UNIT VALUE $325 $334 $300 2. RECURRING FISCAL IMPACTS NET RECURRING IMPACTS — RECURRING SURPLUS/(DEFICIT)AT BUILDOUT $787 $854 ($37) — RECURRING COSTS AT BUILDOUT $5,462 $5,646 $4.329 — RECURRING REVENUES AT BUILDOUT $6.249 $6,500 $4,292 — REVENUEICOST RATIO AT BUILDOUT 1.14 1.15 0.99 —MINIMUM REVENUE/COST RATIO 0.84 0,80 0.53 PROJECT YEAR OF OCCURRENCE 1 1 2 —MAXIMUM REVENUEJCOST RATIO 1.19 1.18 1.00 PROJECT YEAR OF OCCURRENCE 8 8 9 Exclu Yr 1 —CUMULATIVE SURPLUS/(DEFICIT)AT BUILDOUT $5.998 $5,505 ($2,503) IM Aft aft r4ft .*A 60 4M 4W WK �R 1" 0 400 BOISACHICAFIR TABLE 4 25-Mar-92 DAVI D TAU$IO Q ASSOCIATES,INC. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS FIR FIR FIR ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE /1 N2 M3 (PROJECT PRO- (EIR ALT N 15) (EIR ALT/4 DESCRIPTION (all$'s x 100� _ PONENT'S ALTO _- RECURRING REVENUES(BUILDOUT YEAR) -PROPERTY TAXES SECURED PROPERTY TAXES $3.458 55.33% $3,568 54.90% $2,325 54.31% UNSECURED PROPERTY TAXES $35 0.55% $39 0.60% $23 0.54% -TOTAL PROPERTY TAXES $3.492 55.89% $3.608 55.51% $2.346 54.85% -REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAXES $87 1.40% $90 1.30% $59 1.37% -OIL RESERVE AD VALORUM(PROPERTY)TAXES NA NA NA NA NA NA -OIL EXTRACTION TAXES $62 0.99% $62 0.95% $73 1.70% -SALES TAXES,DIRECT+ INDIRECT $603 9.65% $704 10,83% $413 9.65% -UTILITY TAXESIFRANCHISE FEES $498 7.97% $514 7.91% $360 8.41% -PER CAPITA GENERAL FUND REVENUES $1.154 18.47% $1.160 17.97% $798 18.60% TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES $5,897 94.36% $6,145 94.54% $4.049 94.59% TOTAL GENERAL,GAS TAX, FIRE-MED FUND REVENUES $6.249 100.00% $6.500 100.00% $4,292 100.00% RECURRING COSTS(BUILOOUT YEAR) -GENERAL GOVERNMENT 6 ADMINISTRATION $450 8,23% $466 8.23% $356 8.23% - NON DEPARTMENTAL(UTILITIES,LEASING) $364 6,67% $370 6.56% $251 5.80% - POLICE SERVICES $1,562 28.59% $1.717 30.41% $1.199 27.70% - FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 3 CITY WIDE SERVICES $117 2,14% $119 2,11% Sol 1,86% FIRE CONTROL BPARAMEDIC $1.341 24.55% $1.340 23.73% $1,437 33,19% - PUBLIC WORKS ADMIN,ENG 6 CITY FACIL MAINT $430 7.88% $431 7.64% $297 6.86% LOCAL PARK MAINTENANCE $79 1,45% $69 1.23% $69 1,61% STREET MAINTENANCE $116 2,12% $116 2.09% $48 1.10% STREET LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE $277 5.07% $282 4.99% $109 2.52% STREET LIGHT ILLUM 6 MAINTENANCE $85 1.55% $87 1.54% $39 0.90% -COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT(PLANNING 6 BLDG) $86 1.57% $87 1.54% $59 1.36% -COMMUNITY SERVICES $359 6.57% $364 6.45% $247 5.72% - LIBRARY SERVICES $197 3.62% $198 3.50% $138 3A5% TOTAL GENERAL FUND,ROAD FUND ONGOING COSTS $5.462 100,00% $5,646 100.00% $4.329 100,00% APPENDIX A FISCAL MODEL, ALTERNATIVE IJl (4,884 UNIT PLAN) 1 '� mn4nss: low am a TOLE A ASSUNP r PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS LOOKUP TABLE 12//14/11 11:56 AN i r SOLSA CHICA (IIII - FIR PROJECT DESCRIPTION DAVID TAUSSI0 6 MATES, INC. (CONTRIBUTING ASSUMPTIONS ------------------------ UNIT VALUATION RANGE UNIT HONE PRICE/ PROJECTED LAND USE DENSITY MONTHLY (x1000) AVERAGE CORSI HMD INC HOUSEHOLD PERSONS LAND USE TYPE ABBREV. (DUs/AC) ABSORPTION LOW MID PT HIGH SO Ff COST/SF RATIO INCOME (0000) PER OU at ttatut----------------tut a»t----------------------------tt t t ut tt-----------t ttt ttta t t tt t t ut a t tat u t u t---------------------t a u t o tt RESIDENTIAL: ESTIMATE SFO 1 2.10 1115.0 3.750 N/A 3.00 1196.1 PER YEAR 1.10 SFO-2 4.00 1610.0 3,110 M/A 3.10 1162.6 PER YEAR 3.10 SFO-3 3.60 1534.0 2.730 M/A 3.10 1140.5 PER YEAR 1.10 SFO'1 11.00 1/19.0 2.140 N/A 3.36 1133.6 PER YEAR 3.10 SFO-13 10.00 1109.0 1,460 N/A 3.25 195.1 PEN YEAR 2.50 IN 1 5.00 {370.0 1,140 N/A 3.25 1113.1 PER YEAR 2.15 in-s 9.f0 1231.0 1.310 N/A 3.00 119.1 PER YEAR 2.50 TH)FL9 12.00 1201.0 1.110 N/A 3.00 f69.0 PER YtAR 1.90 fl 10_ 1.10 1110.0 212.0 1,010 M/A 3.00 110.7 PER YEAR 1.90 WIT 1.00 261.01,310 N/A 3.00 161.0 PER YEAR 2.50 FL'12 10.00 334.0 1.390 M/A 3.25 1102.6 PER YEAR 2.50 SFO 6 10.00 I'm M/A 1.25 1113.1 PER YEAR 2.15 OPEN 2 OPEN-3 OPEM'1 BUSINESS SITE COVERAGE TAXABLE SO Ff/ LAND USE RATIO VALUATION (0010) SAL FS EMPIOYt.t. ttu ttt tttttttttttt tt tt/t tt ----------------------------------------ttttttaatttt.......... tt#0t0tt CON CON 1.25 N/A 1,000.0 PER ACRE 1150.00 At 250 NEIGH CON 0.25 M/A 11,000.0 PER ACRE 1150.00 /sf ?50 RESIDENTIAL - POLICE CALLS PER DWELLING UNIT: 'oriy' 'ad ustsd' DENSITY RANGE CALLS OUs COPY- �OPY- S'x' /OU PER CALL -_OUI OUT uttattat---------------------------tutttttt -- -------- 1.99 LOM 0.96 I.01 2.04 1.04 11.10 15.91 MEDIUM 1.37 0.73 1.11 0.13 16.00 6 ABOVE HIGH 1.01 0.93 1.13 0.93 RANGE NAME: CALLS OU BUSINESS-SGUARE FEET PER POLICE CALL BUSINESS LAND USE TYPE 'orfq' 'adJusted' --- ---------------------------------- SO Ff COPY- COPY- FACTOR: ABBREV. DESCRIPTION PER CALL OUT DUT 0.501129 ttttttttttt---------------------------ttitttttt -------- ------------ NEIGH CON NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL 1.396 2,115 1,396 1.396 CON CON COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL 1,79f 2,115 1,396 1.316 IND' INDUSTRIAL 1.519 2,916 1.519 1.519 RANGE NAME: SF CALL - 1 '� - A`. _ �IwN O W N r Or ON P M wW M r OrOrw N PWMr Or O rwMOWMr-1 �Oy mC 112 {T2 5_=1 G 1 IA fA 1 (/� (/TN� O I YIWW WW NNNN NN---------r-r-r-------r-r r_=• Uzi ~;N r 1 yN •f� =f�00 I r I 107 fVTOaV 1000110a01TTT000Va01a bO1VOa 10VT e_2T s a �' N �1 N II.IW W W W W WNNMNMNNNNN-_rr-rrr-r�OOOOP•000 � C )iY j � 1 11)N�WN_OrONwNPWMrOrOrwMPWMrOrOWwY1aPWN- •v� f/IA-1 - 1 1 rw •ITT��TTss==rrr rrrrxxssxxrrxxx�"=�m2.�.�i� v 0/=0e00000 v v 1 v \v \v ear eo 1 O TOO wo T--r--_O T ww r rrNNNNo r rrrerr rrr =�� � w a� 1 I • ��� 41 PN 10 �' •OO• W00wWMrONOO------------ rMwNNwPWONPN =� Nam+ w; O P 1 :0 0• M P V N WN rW W r Mw O NO Yl0 NO r O W O P W ONM NOOMO WO 0= P A 1 •OeC� 1 fi9 r 1 N 1 00 PMPMPOrrr O..�..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' wON�NOrrMOYl000000000wPOO�+000000000MY.0 �>•V.•�1 LEA 1 r N N - 00 O a N O N 0 0 0 Or 0 0 00 O P O O w 00 O O O 00 O 00 O O K t 1 i wf0 i NOrwr--------r-O-NPr-rWrrOWWOMwN Fap 1 O P ; O SIN r O N P N P W P P N O O OW O w M P O O O O O 00 O O NO MO WP W P Far-: 1 1 N_MNu.n�wlwwo------------wPrNPY.Y1wPWO NPN :f�ppY i 9- 6 O O O O O 6 6 6 66 66 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0---0-6 6 6 00 O P P O I T O A 1 w Y•�MwMMrww�MwwwMMMMMw�MwMMMwM l'Ym O T 1 PPV�PWUWNNNNNWUWUN.rNNNNNNNNNNWNNWWr I I�� O O O.d1 r--r-O N O r O O r r-N r r O r r-O O V N i � a c 1 1 ie e w.....w..w.w...N r�w+.....•........•r...w..r w...�w i apo O 1 wm .N..wWWW��aN.)oWW-oa-o-Woe•N. rs i eii 00 000aomm�.•.•000e----------------.------r----l�i.P . 1 i 1 N V �-w� _ �.rw`wur w .r.w rr�www�wwww�►=w` � Nr 1 -1 OV��-PN NO.WPrwPr er~rWOPMWr�N N.IOUNMrNOvO . <� 1 =� _ Vet-rON-�rOrPW--�-- N-rr-VY.r NN-uN-rN-O 'rr P. O O O O O O G O P O P O V O O O P_N N O.VV N N'.••)ti O��O O O O O O O-O M W O P W r 0 I C 1 y.P VOOOV+1 ' 1 ` r__r�ru=W=�WWWWOW-�W--)rO--W►-r__MV-r 1 �� N ----------------N-N.�NNNrNrNN--Nrr-NN------- . p p . 0000•�O---r-r rY.-N-VVMMM------- •• O n A O s ---P NPOUWPrOrYs-Pmr•.) --------O...m O O O W-W-O-r N W-O-0 0 0 u V r m r O V-w�V--r V W V s 1 16a6 a/90 1OLSA CHICA (1/14) - FIR PROJECT DESCRIPTION D.IAUSSIG 6 ASSOCIATES. INC. CLOSINGS(OCCUPANCIES) BY FISCAL YEAR 1 2 3 1 S 6 7 1 9 10 11 I2 ABS OEM- FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY UNIT PRICE PER START SITY CR- 1194 1195 1196 1991 1991 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 PHASE PA TYPE 1121 Is DUg QTR QTR (L,N,H) SUN 110 1191 1991 1991 1199 2000 2001 2002 2001 2004 2005 2006 ------------ -------- -------- --------- ----- ------ -------- ----- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- RESIDENTIAL 1 PA 01 TO 1 f317 124 15.0 6 MEDIUM 124 1S 60 19 1 PA-12 SFD I 1116 63 8.4 IS LOW 63 31 29 1 PA-03 SFD-1 115 51 1.4 23 LOW 51 31 20 1 PA-11 TH 1 1311 13 15./ 6 MEDIUM 13 IS 60 1 1 PA"01A 111"T )11 30 15.0 10 MEDIUM 30 IS IS 1 PA"IS F1-11 261 135 21.0 6 HIGH 13S 21 108 1 PA"06 TOM 9 207 101 36.0 1 HIGH 101 72 36 1 PA-17 SFD 13 1309 IS 30.0 9 LOW 15 1S 1 1A"11 TH 1 211 11 21.1 9 MEDIUM it 5/ 20 I PA"01 IH7FL_9 212 130 36.0 6 HIGH 130 16 91 I PA 11 TH/FL 9 201 110 36.0 6 HIGH I10 31 1/ 1 PA"11 FL 10 212 210 20.8 11 HIGH 210 115 95 I PA"12 FL. 11 261 190 27.0 10 HIGH 190 21 101 SS I ►A-13 TH7Fl9 201 161 36.0 6 HIGH 160 36 124 1 PA"11 TH/Fl_9 21S 120 36.0 11 HIGH 120 120 I PA-IS TH 1 " 231 I1/ 21.1 II HIGH 110 110 1 PA'16 TO-1 231 11 21.1 9 HIGH 11 51 30 1 POT TOM 9 201 114 36.0 16 HIGH 114 101 6 1 ►A-11 TH 1 231 1S 21.1 1/MEDIUM 1S 29 16 1 ►A-11 FL-10 212 246 21.1 11 HIGH 246 S0 115 13 I PA"26 FL-12 345 231 30.0 31 HIGH 239 120 111 I ►A-21 FL-12 331 111 10.0 13 HIGH 111 60 120 13 1 ►A"22 FL"12 334 161 30.0 22 HIGH 161 30 120 Is �(y F I PA'?) FL-12 334 221 30.0 II HIGH 221 120 101 1 PA-24 FL-11 261 120 27.0 13 HIGH 120 51 66 1 ►A"2S IH1FL_1 231 IIS 36.0 13 HIGH 115 72 13 2 PA-26 TH 1 231 114 20.1 16 HIGH 114 06 91 2 PA: TM/FL 9 207 114 36.0 20 HIGH 114 101 66 2 PA 21 TH 1 - 231 93 21.6 21 HIGH 93 86 1 2 PAIS SFD 6 310 66 30.0 1 LOW 66 66 2 PA-30 SFD_6 311 95 30.0 9 LOW 9S 60 35 2 PA-31 SFO'6 310 11 30.0 10 LOW 11 30 11 3 PA'32 SFD-1 119 225 13.0 Is LOW 225 33 132 60 3►A-33 SFO"1 119 240 31.0 33 LOW 240 66 132 12 3 PA-34 SFD'3 534 159 10.8 22 LOW 159 11 13 13 11 19 3 PA"3S SFO'2 610 252 12.0 22 LOW 2S2 12 IB 18 18 48 18 3 PA-36 SFD-2 611 17 12.0 31 LOW 17 17 ----- -------- -------- -------- --------- ----- ------ -------- ----- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- INCREMENTAL 4.184 165 119 1.01) 805 $54 SID 136 294 317 90 CUIRIUTIYE 1,184 165 1,111 2,157 2,963 3.511 4,041 1,103 4,111 1,194 4.084 4,884 4.084 IUSA/CHICA (4814) - FIR PROJECT DESCRIPTION O.TAUSSIG 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. ' PROJECT ASSESSED VALUATION (FLAT) 1 : 3 4 s c 1 e t 10 n 12 TOIL PA FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY fY fY FY PLANNING PRIMARY AVG UNIT VALUE CHCKSUN 1994 1995 1116 1111 1198 logo 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 AREA(PA) USE DUs VALUE (XI000) 41000) lots 11% 1991 1996 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2001 -------- ------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- PA 11 IN 1 121 311 11,001 41,001 15,107 23,221 11,970 PA"12 SFD 1 63 111 3 11,11 41,t15 26,011 22,121 PA-01 SFO-I SI 145 10,230 40,230 25,012 15,198 ►A-44 IN 1 13 391 12,960 32,960 15,951 23,121 3,117 PA-04A 1N"I 31 314 11,100 111,100 5,550 5,550 ►A-05 FL-11 135 211 35,l35 35,235 91,047 21,111 PA"06 THYL 1 101 207 22,356 22,356 11,901 I'm SFD 11 45 309 13,o0S 13,105 13,205 PA-01 IN 1 11 231 18,564 10,564 13,701 4,ISS PA"09 TN1FL 9 130 212 21,540 21,540 1,626 19,914 PA-il TH/FL 9 110 267 12,710 22,110 1,152 IS,318 PA-11 FL 10 210 212 II,S20 II,S20 21,422 20,09t PA"12 FL-11 NO 211 It,St0 1t,590 1,011 11,111 11,355 PA"13 TM1FL 1 160 201 33,121 33,120 17,452 25,661 PA"14 TN/FL 9 120 215 25,140 25,140 25,140 PA"15 1N 1 111 231 26,180 26,180 26,180 PA"16 IN"1 11 231 20,944 20,914 13,109 T,235 POT 1N1FL 1 114 201 23,519 23,598 22,356 1,242 PA"11 IN 1 1S 231 11,150 11,e50 6,854 10,916 PA"19 FL-11 246 212 $2,152 52,152 12,211 24,422 1S,SIe ►A11 FL-12 231 145 11,192 81,912 41,341 40.651 PA-21 FL-12 193 314 61,162 64,162 20,040 40,010 4,342 PA"22 FL-12 160 134 $6,112 $6,112 10,020 40,060 6,012 PA-21 FL-12 221 334 76,152 16,152 40,011 36,012 f`. PA-24 FL-11 120 261 31,320 11,320 14,094 11,221 PA"25 TH1fl 1 115 231 26,615 26,606 16,657 9,941 PA'?6 IN 1 104 230 43,112 41.792 20,561 23,229 PA'21 TN1FL t 174 20A 36,011 36,011 22,356 13,662 PA-21 TN 1 13 23 22,134 22,134 20,563 1,571 PA-21 SFD 6 66 310 21,420 24.420 24,420 PA-30 SFO-6 15 III 3S,ISo 35,150 22,200 12,9So ►A-31 SFD"6 11 370 116,210 16,210 11,100 5,180 PA'32 SFD"1 225 449 1101.025 1101.025 14,817 51,268 26,940 PA"33 SFD"1 240 $49 107.110 101.760 29.614 S9,?68 16,658 ►A-34 SFO"3 159 $34 114.106 114.106 5,161 23,069 23,069 21,069 9,932 ►A-35 SFD"2 252 611 9155,716 1155.731 7,416 29,664 29,661 29,664 29,664 29,664 PA-36 SFO"2 I1 611 110,506 110.506 10,506 -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- 4,114 11,569,646 11,519,646 s41,341 269.541 211.767 233,114 180,181 114,528 15,514 114,213 139,516 42,522 141.341 1310,882 1512,619 1816.463 1997.353 11.191.881 11,267,395 11,401,608 11,541,124 11,589,646 11,589,646 $1.569.646 RANGE NAME: SR" TOIL PA SITE VALUE VALUE PA USE ACRES ACRE (0000) CHCKSUM ------- -------- -------- ------- ---------- ---------- TEST PA1 C011 CON S1,000 TEST"PA2 NEIGH CON 11,000 -------- -------- -------- ------------------- -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---- - -- --------- ---- TOTAL: RANGE NAME: SR NR" 91 I2 /CHICA 1 1111 SA -FIR PROJECT DESCRIPTION DJAUSSIG 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. ►INJECT POPULATION CALCULATOR 1 2 3 1 5 6 1 1 9 10 11 17 FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY PLANNING PRIMARY POP TOIL 1191 1195 1996 1191 1991 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 PHASE AREA(PA) USE ph FACT POP CHCKSUN 1995 1916 1991 1991 1929 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 »-'------------------------- ------------------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- 1 ►A 11 TH 1 124 2.15 341 341 11 165 13S I ►A-12 SFD 1 63 3.1 1t5 its 104 91 1 PA-03 SFO-1 SI 3.1 161 161 104 63 I to-14 IN 1 13 2.15 221 221 11 165 22 1 PA'I/A 10-1 3/ 2.15 13 13 11 I1 1 PA'IS FL-11 13S 2.5 33t 331 61 270 1 PA-06 1N1FL 9 101 1.1 20S 205 111 68 1 PA-17 SFD 13 IS 2.5 113 111 113 1 PA'11 IN 1 11 2.5 Its its 111 51 I ►A"Ot THJFL1 130 1.9 241 211 61 111 1 ►A"10 TH/fl_1 110 1.2 201 209 61 111 I WIT FL 10_ 210 1.9 399 391 219 110 PA'12 FL-11 111/ 2.5 416 115 61 210 131 PA-11 THJfL t 160 1.t 304 304 61 236 1 PA-11 IN/FL-1 IN 1.9 221 221 221 I PA'1S 1N 1 111 2.5 215 215 215 1 PA'16 TH-1 11 2.S 220 220 111 16 1 PA"11 TH1Fl 9 114 1.1 211 211 20S 11 1 PA It IN 1 is 2.S llt 111 12 116 I PA-11 fl'11 246 1.9 467 461 102 211 139 1 PA-21 FL'12 111 2.5 SIS M 300 295 1 ►A'21 il'I2 193 2.5 113 411 ISO 300 39 1 PA-22 FL-12 160 2.5 420 420 1S 300 IS 1 ►A-23 FL-12 220 2.5 510 SIG 300 270 1 PA-24 FL-11 111 2.5 300 300 135 165 I PA'2S THJFI t 115 1.2 219 211 137 12 2 PA"26 IN 1 114 2.6 460 460 216 211 2 PA'21 IN1Fl t 111 1.9 331 331 205 12S 2 ►A"20 IN 1 93 2.5 233 233 216 16 2 PA'29 SFD 6 66 2.75 102 112 162 2 PA'31 SFD_6 IS 2.13 261 261 165 96 2►A'31 SFD'6 /1 2.11 121 121 t3 39 3 PA'32 SFD-1 22S 3.1 611 616 102 409 116 3 PA'33 SFD'1 240 3.1 111 111 205 109 130 3 PA'31 SFO"3 ISt 3.1 493 493 33 134 134 114 S1 3►A'31 SFD"2 252 3.1 111 111 31 149 111 149 149 149 3 PA'36 SFO-2 11 3.1 53 53 S3 ---�------------------ ---------------------------------- ---------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- TOTALS 4,014 12,034 12.034 3SS 2,302 2.151 1,111 1.350 1,3SI 407 810 911 219 CUNULATIYE 355 2.651 5,014 6,116 1,211 1,597 10,00S 10,115 11,755 12.031 12,031 12.034 RANGE MANE: POP CUN' BLOB SF TOIL FAR PA USE SF /ENP POP CHCRSUN -------- -------- -------- ---------------- -------- -------- 1.25 TEST PA1 CON CON ISO 1.2S TEST PA2 NEIGH-CON 250 -------- -------------- -------- -------------------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ---- --- -------- ---•---• -•------ -------- .-.-, ,. TOTALS TOTAL: CUNULATIYE RANGE MANE: POP CUN BUS' 1 5/CBICA (I(4111) - FIR PROJECT DESCRIPTION AAIS , O.ISIO 6 ASSOCIATES. INC. PROJECT DEVELOPED ACRES FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY PLANNING PRIMARY AVG UNIT TOIL ►A 1194 1995 1196 1997 1998 1199 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 AREA(PA) USE DUg VALUE ACRES CHCMN 1l9S 1996 toll 1991 1991 2000 2011 2002 2003 2004 200S 2005 --------------- ------ ---------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- PA 11 IN 1 121 311 12.40 12.40 1.50 6.00 4.10 PA-02 SFD 1 63 716 14.00 14.00 1.11 1.53 ►A"13 SFO"1 SI 14S 12.00 12.00 1.11 I.51 PA"11 TN 1 13 311 0.30 1.30 I.SO 6.00 0.10 PA"PIA TN"1 30 316 3.00 3.00 1.50 1.50 PA-15 FL-11 135 261 4.50 4311 0.16 3.60 PA'16 TN]FL 1 101 201 6.01 6.86 4.00 2.00 ►A-$I SFO 13 15 309 5.00 5.01 5.00 PA-18 IN 1 11 231 5.20 5.20 3.14 1.36 PA"/9 TNjFL 9 131 212 6.50 1.50 1.10 4.70 PA"1R FIN/FL_9 1111 p2611 TS.50 5.55 1.10 3.70 PA-1? FL-II III 111 1.31 6.30 1.10 3.56 1.62 PA-13 TN)FL 9 160 207 6.40 6.40 1.11 4.96 ►A"14 TN/FL 9 120 21S 6.10 6.00 6.00 PA-IS IN 1 111 231 6.30 6.30 6.30 ►A"Ii TN"/ 11 231 5.00 S.00 3.21 1.11 ► IT TH)FL 9 114 207 5.70 S.10 S.10 0.30 ►A-18 IN 1 1S 238 $.$a S.00 1.12 3.01 PA"19 FL-10 246 212 0.20 8.20 1.92 3.14 2.11 ►A'21 FL-12 236 31S 6.10 6.00 3.43 3.11 ►A-21 WIT 113 334 $31 6.50 1.71 3.42 0.37 ►A"22 FL-12 166 334 4.10 4.10 0.86 3.43 0.51 PA 23 FL-12 221 331 6.50 6.50 3.42 3.01 (: PA-24 FL-11 120 261 4.00 4.00 1.10 2.20 ►AIS IM1fl 9 PIS 231 4.66 4.60 2.11 1.72 ►A"26 IN 1 114 231 10.60 10.50 4.23 S.51 ►A-21 TNJFL 1 114 201 0.70 1.70 5.40 3.30 ► ill IN 1 93 231 5.30 S.30 4.12 0.11 PA'29 SFO 6 66 310 8.30 6.30 8.30 PA"31 SFD"6 95 311 11.90 11.90 7.52 4.31 PA-31 SFO"i 11 31/ 5.50 5.50 3.75 1.75 PA-32 SFO"1 225 111 43.31 43.30 6.15 25.40 11.55 ►A-33 SFD"1 241 119 46.20 46.20 12.71 25.41 8.09 ►A-34 SFO_3 159 $34 30.50 30.S1 2.07 1.29 0.21 1.29 3.51 PA" s SF _} 2S2 61 50.10 50.10 2.10 9.60 9.60 9.60 9.60 9.60 PA_ SFS_! 11 611 3.50 3.50 3.50 --------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- 4.111 314.60 394.60 1.11 68.16 51.03 41.11 $2.14 S0.99 23.31 JI M 11.95 17.6% 1.94 17.81 128.13 110.40 223.14 214.13 291.4S 334.91 376.92 394.60 394.60 394.60 RANGE NAME: AC RES- SITE PA USE ACRES CNCKSUN -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- TEST ►AI CON CON TEST"PA2 NEIGH CON -------- ------- -------- -------------------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------• -------- -.... . . TOTAL: RANGE NAME: AC BUS' no m w w w w w �w ,� w w w� w w w� w w �■ iw■ w� w IIUSA CIAICA Iltl) - FIR/ROJECT DESCRIPTION O.TAUSSIG 6 ATES, INC. DEVELOPED ACRES-FOR PUBLIC STREETS 6 1 e ! 10 11 12 FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY HAMMING PRIMARY OUVAC TOTL PA 1114 Ills 1996 1991 1911 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 AREA(PA) USE OUt (DENSITY) ACRES CNCMSUN 1995 1996 1991 1991 1119 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2006 2001 -------------- ---------------- ---------------- -------- ---------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ►A 11 TN 1 124 10.00 12.60 12.40 1.60 6.00 4.10 PA-02 SFD 1 61 4.50 14.00 14.00 1.11 6.51 PA"13 SFD'1 Si 4.50 12.60 12.60 7.11 4.53 PA-04 IN 1 13 10.00 1.30 1.30 130 1.00 0.10 PA"OIA TN-1 30 10.00 3.00 3.00 1.50 1.50 PAIS FL-11 135 31.00 PA"O6 IN FL I 101 11.00 PA"07 SF 13 IS 1.00 5.00 S.00 5.00 PA"11 IN 1 71 15.08 PA-19 TN7FL 1 130 20.00 PA-II IN/FL"! 111 21.00 ►A"lI FL To- 21e 31.00 PA-12 FL-11 NO 30.16 PA-13 TN7FL ! 161 25.00 PA"11 TN/FL"! 120 20.01 PA" 'IS IN 1 110 17.46 PA"16 TN"1 11 17.60 PA-I1 TN7FL 9 114 20.10 PA-II IN 1 " is 15.00 PA-19 FL-10 246 30.00 ►A-26 FL-12 231 35.00 PA-21 Fl"12 111 35.09 PA-22 F1-12 161 35.00 PA"23 FL'12 226 15.01 PA-2S TN7FL ! 115 2S.00 ►A"26 TN 1 " 110 I1.S2 PA-21 107FL 9 ill 20.00 PA-21 IN 1 ' 93 11.SS PA-21 SFD 6 if 1.95 1.30 1.30 0.30 PA-30 SFO"6 !S 7.91 11.10 11.10 7.52 4.31 PA'31 SFD"6 11 6.00 5.50 S.50 3.75 1.15 PA"32 SFO"1 225 5.20 43.30 43.10 6.35 2S.10 11.55 PA"33 SFO-1 200 5.11 66.20 46.20 12.71 25.41 0.01 ►A'31 SFD-3 159 5.21 30.50 10.50 2.01 1.29 1.29 0.29 3.57 ►A-35 SFD"2 252 5.10 50.41 50.40 2.40 9.60 9.60 9.60 9.60 9.60 PA 36 SFO-2 11 4.16 3.60 3.50 3.50 -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- 6,116 254.30 256.30 3.00 10.01 13.33 11.12 16.41 36.90 22.42 34.09 31.56 11.69 3.00 41.07 S6.10 61.22 104.63 141.53 163.9S 190.04 236.62 251.30 254.30 254.30 RANGE MANE: AC SIS" 11 IIOISA/CNICA (1(1111) - FIR PROJECT DESCRIPTION I D.IAUSSIG 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. PROJECT RESIDENTS' INCOME -FOR SALES TAX CALCULATIONS AVERAGE 1 2 3 1 5 6 7 1 9 10 11 12 HOUSEHOLD TOTL PA FY FY FY FY FY FY FY fY FY FY FY FY PLANNING PRIMARY INCOME INCOME 1111 1995 1221 1191 1291 1999 2000 2001 2002 2001 2004 2005 AREA(PA) USE DUf (x1000) (x1000) CHCNSUN IM 1996 1991 1191 1199 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 200S 2006 ( -------- ------ -------- -------- -------- -------- ----------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ►A 01 IN l I 113.111 11,117 111 11,111 11,701 16,031 15,511 PA"02 SFO 1 63 196.053 12.351 12,351 $6.S11 15,764 PA"13 SFO"1 SI 1!6.053 IO,SI1 ,5it 16.517 11.199 PA-04 TN 1 13 113.IIf l,11I 9,/l! 11,101 i,131 I911PA"IBA 1N"1 31 113:146 MIS MISI,IOtII101►A-05 FL-11 135 I1.000 1 1,7IS 11,115 $2,311 9,391 I PA-06 INFL I 111 6I.000 1,IS2 1,I52 1,ltt 12,414 PA"O1 SF 11 4 1 25.017 1,211 1,211 1,211 PA-01 IN 1 11 71.333 6,111 1,111 I,S10 11,111 PA_f9 TNTfI I 131 61.010 1,1110 1,l10 2,414 1,116 PA-11 TN/FL! "I il.000 11.5to 1,SS0 12,484 5,106POT FL f 1A-12 FL-11" 1 1 0 17.000 16,530 16,530 11,55{ 11,111 1{,699 Ili. 40 114.140 1,396 11,115 PA 13 TNJFL 1 160 69.to to*006 11,010 11,040 12,111 PA-14 TN/FL"! 120 61.001 1,210 1,210 11,280 PATS TN 1 " I10 19.333 1,121 1,127 1.727 PA-16 IN-0 11 11,313 6,l11 i,l11 11,510 2,112 ► IT IN1FL 9 111 N.000 l,lfi 1,1{6 11,152 1414 PA-II TN 1 1S 119.331 IsIlso IS.950 12.215 13,66S PA"11 Will 21{ 11.f61 1IS1! I11I.,I3S14! 11,070 11,141 IS,173 PA-21 it"I2 16 2/ 112,)32 112.127 /A"21 fl"12 1 .16 , , 321 PA-22 Wit 161 102.761 11,2336S 17,265 13,013 112,332 11,156 PA"2Will 221 1102.169 2311 23,131 112,112 111099 PA-24 FL"II 1i .100 10,110 10,110 I,NI 5.142 PA2S T07FL l 115 1 06 11,935 11,935 4,161 2 961 PA-21IN 1 " 1141l,313 {II,SI1 {II,S91 6,854 11,IS2 17.743 6,151 1521 PA"27 TN)FL ! 114 19.000 12.006 12,OOf ►A-21 IN t I3 ill. 33 1,311 7,311 ►A-29 SFO f {i 113.I11 11.514 11.514 $1,514 PA-30 SFD"f IS 113.i1f 11t,tIS IIO,IIS 1,17t 7,115 PA-31 SFO-11 11 111.m 5,00, 15,009 13,115 11,594 PA-32 SFO-4 22S 133.{31 10.161 110,061 14,410 IIl,E39 $1,011 PA"33 SFD"1 210 133.p1 32,011 12,071 11,120 117,639 IS,613 ►A"34 SFO 3 15! IIO.S2i l2,311 22,311 1,5121 f,011 6,011 6,011 2,614 PA-3S SFO-2 2S2 tit.63! 40,113 10,113 11,952 11,B0b 11,10f 1,10, 11,806 17,906 PA"36 SFO 2 ii ;2,?55 t),115 2,165 -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- 1,111 1412.656 1412.656 113.216 11S,613 116.661 }12,!!1 }SS,011 157.391 120.250 131,194 140,116 113.111 13 21i 91,909 1115,512 Ill? 1113.612 1311.007 1391,2S7 1429.051 1469,231 f182,6S6 1412,656 1412.656 RANGE NAME: RES INC- SITE SITE TAXABLE ►A USE ACRES COVERAGE SALES/SF CNCNSUN -------- -------- -------- -------- --------- -------- TEST PAI CON CON O.2S 1150.00 TESL/A2 NEIGH CON 0.25 1150.00 -------- -------- -------- --------------------------- --------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- .....-._._ -._...,_ TOTAL: RANGE NANE: SALES TAX- � rr �r r �■ �■ r �■ � r �■ r r r r rr r rr ■� Ilull/of SA CHIC ( 1/ A 8111 -FIR PROJECT DESCRIPTION O.TAUSSIG 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. ANNUAL POLICE CAMS 1 2 7 1 S 6 7 t 9 10 11 12 FV FY FY FV FY FY FY FY FY fV fY fY PLANNING PRIMARY DENSITY CALLS 1994 1195 1916 1911 1928 fill 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 AREA(FA) USE OUs (OUs/AC) PER OU CHCKSUN 1195 1996 1997 1198 1991 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 - -.�---------------- ------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- PA 11 IN 1 111 10.00 1.37 161.16 20.55 12.19 67.12 PA"12 SFD 1 63 AM 0.16 61.56 32.31 21.27 PA-03 SFO-I SI 4.50 0.16 SI M 32.11 11.62 PA"01 IN 1 1) 11.00 1.31 113.10 2035 12.19 10.96 PA 14A TN1 30 10,00 1.31 41.10 20.55 20.66 PA-05 FL-11 13S 30.00 1.08 145.16 21.03 116.13 PA-06 THJFL 9 101 11.00 1.01 116.13 11.42 31.71 PA-01 SFD 13 45 9,00 0.96 43.21 43.21 PA-01 TH 1 11 15.08 1.31 106.15 11.10 21.15 PA-0 THJFL 1 11130 20.00 1.01 139.t7t0 31.11 101.01 IA"11 Fl/11"1 t10 10.00 1.01 i11.11 31.11 19.51 123.17 161.91 PA-12 FQI ISO 30.16 1.01 204.30 21.03 116.13 51.14 PA 13 787FL_9 161 25.00 1.08 112.04 31.71 133.31 PA"11 IN/FL-1 120 26.00 1.60 121.03 129.03 PA IS IN t 110 17.46 1.01 118.28 110.20 PA-16 TH-1 11 17.60 1.06 91.62 61.91 32.69 PA'11 THJFL 9 114 20.00 1.01 122.61 116.13 6.45 PA It IN 1 is 15.00 1.11 102.14 31.45 63.29 PA:19 FL-11 246 30.00 1.01 261.S2 61.94 123.17 71.71 PA'21 F1-12 231 3S.00 1.01 25S.91 129.03 126.88 PA-21 1,02 193 35.09 1.08 201.53 64.52 129.03 13.91 PA-22 FL'12 166 35.00 1.01 110.65 32.26 121.03 19.1S ( � PA-23 FL-12 221 3S.Ot 1.01 245.16 129.03 11E.13 PA-24 F1-11 120 30.00 1.01 129.03 58.06 10.91 ►A-25 THJFL 9 11S 25.00 1.00 123.66 11.42 46.24 PA-26 TH t 111 11.62 1.11 111.05 12.10 104.15 PA"21 THJFL 9 174 20.00 1.01 117.10 116.13 70.97 PA'16 IN 1 93 17.55 1.01 100.00 92.90 1.10 PA-21 SO 6 66 1.95 0.16 63.46 63.46 PA-30 SFO'6 9A 7.11 0.16 11.35 57.69 31.65 PA-31 SFD-6 1 1.00 0.96 42.31 21.85 13.46 PA 32 SFD_1 22S 5.20 1.16 216.35 31.71 126.12 51.69 PA'33 SFD'1 210 5.11 0.16 230.11 63.46 126.92 40.38 PA-34 SFD-3 151 5.21 1.96 1S2.11 10.18 41.54 11.51 II.S4 11.88 PA-35 SFO-2 252 5.01 0.56 242.31 II,S4 46.15 46.15 16.15 46.15 46.15 ►A-36 SFD_2 17 1,16 0.16 16.36 I6.35 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.16 0.16 ------ -------- ------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- /,111 S,223.20 5,223.20 116.21 1.015.05 1.124.12 151.45 S11.15 519.31 131.76 296.53 317.04 85.54 116.26 1,211.31 2,106.03 3,264.41 3.839.23 4,381.53 4,S22.29 4,819.12 5,136.67 5.223.20 5.223.20 5.223.20 RANGE NAME: RES CALLS' SITE BLDG CAMS PER PA USE ACRES SMALL DEV O AC CNCKSUN -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- TEST?At CON CON 1,391 7.80 IEST_PA2 NEIGH CON 1,316 1.10 ------ -------- -------- ------ - -------- TOTAL: RANGE NAME: BITS CAIIS- 20:41 SOLSA CHICA (4116) -fit PROJECT DESCRIPTION 03AUSSIB i ASSOCIATES, INC. PROJECT ABSORPTION BY DENSITY RAKES 1 2 3 6 S 6 1 1 9 10 11 12 FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FT RANGE: OUS AC 1196 1995 1196 1197 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 FROM- TO Ills 1996 1911 1198 Ills 2000 2001 2002 2001 2004 2005 2006 -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- LOW 9.99 201 41 67 184 115 112 I14 199 90 INCRENENTAL ABSORPTION= NEDIUN 10.80 15.99 30 221 139 HIGH 16.00 i ABOVE 135 SSi 126 739 170 346 25 120 III TOTAL 165 919 1.011 80S $50 $30 136 294 111 90 CUIOLATIVE ABSORPTION: LOW 1.91 201 250 111 501 618 111 111 1.170 1,260 1,260 1.260 NEDIUN 10.81 ISM 30 251 390 390 391 320 320 320 390 390 390 390 HIGH 16.00 i ABOVE 135 692 1,511 2,251 2.626 2,911 2.916 3.116 1.231 3,211 3.231 3.231 TOTAL 165 1.116 2.151 2.963 3,511 6,047 4.181 4,111 1,194 4,084 1,884 1,884 X<-REBIS 02-DOC-91 1 2 3 1 S 6 1 1 9 10 11 , 12 13 11 1 1,114 -UNIT PLAN FT FT FY FY FY FY FY FY ' FY FY FY FT FY FY F 1991 1915 1196 1917 1991 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2002006 2001 200, INCRENENIALS: 1995 1991 1191 1990 1999 2000 2001 2002 2001 2004 2005 2006 2001 2001 200 ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -------- TOTAL UNITS 1,114 MO.OUs N/ DENSITY 1a10 3.624 1,116 OUS ABS OU - RES 165 919 1.013 IDS SSI 630 136 294 111 90 0 0 N/A Al ABS BUS -SEE AC9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 11.511,{li AYi AV - RES 311.341 1261,541 1271.761 1233,111 $180,189 $114,528 115,514 1134,213 1139,516 148,522 f0 10 10 AYI AV -BUS 90 10 s0 10 90 s0 f0 10 10 10 90 90 ( 12,1 1 PERSONS POP- RES 35S 2,302 2.357 1,111 1,351 1.151 401 040 911 272 0 0 1 PERSONS POP - EMP 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 314.1 AC OEV'0 AC- RES 0.1 69.0 51.0 41.5 $2.1 $1.0 21.3 37.5 41.9 17.7 0.0 0.0 1.4 AC DEV'0 AC -BUS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 256.31 AC AC SIB- LO RES 3.00 31.07 13.33 13.12 36.41 36.90 22.42 3/.09 31.51 11.69 0.00 0.00 M/A AC AC SIS-BUS IN/A) N/A N/A N/A M/A N/A N/A M/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A I112,{ i RESIDENT INCOME RESIDENTS' INCOME 113.211 IIS,613 I1i,663 172,999 $55.041 151.126 120,250 $37,194 140,186 113.419 0 0 10 TAXABLE SALES BUS - TAXABLE SALES 90 10 10 10 9/ 10 90 s0 t0 f0 0 0 5,223. 1 CALLS-RES POLICE CALLS - RES 116.26 1,095. 5 1.124.72 851.45 511.15 549.31 133.16 296,51 111.11 46.51 0.00 0.00 1.11 CALLS-BUS POLICE CALLS-BUS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PROJECT YEAR --> 1 2 3 1 5 6 1 1 9 10 11 12 13 11 I 14.911.411 RES AV GROMIH 111,115 1140,096 1614,514 1974,626 11,226,611 11.513.524 11,655.811 11.111,513 12,150.398 12.216.012 12,353,066 12.424,103 12.501.211 12,512.121 12.661.40 I/ BUS AV GROWN 10 30 10 30 f0 10 10 f0 s0 90 s0 10 10 s0 I 3.09% <--- 30th yr lneruss 0,001 608.27% 13.35% 11.41% 25.11% 23.16% 1.41% 14.23% 13.69% 6.11% 2.93% 3.05% 3.15% 3.25% 3.3 ASS M: TAX GRIM: 2.0% RES TURNOVER: 10.0% RES NRKTI 4.0% BUS TURNOVER: 6.0% BUS MRKI: 4.0% INCRE STRI YR: 1993 Y �. TABLE A-la 12 12/91 IOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (1111) - FIR O.IAUSSIG 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC FACILITIES RAIMIENANCE QUANTITIES STREET SECTION ASSUMPTIONS: PUBLIC III, ART I/1' ART 10' ART 10' COL LOCAL SI sesesesesa ssesssesese asesesesese sesesses •assess No. lanes 6 1 1 ! 2 lanes Rt of Mar 121 100 10 60 60 it Ikray M$Cps 21 20 20 20 16 0 1t (r/aut sidarlk) S dsrlk Width 2s II 11 11 II 10 it Nedlm width 11 11 1 0 0 it Paved Width 11 66 61 10 10 it RaN Pkwy LrAscpe 1 10 6 10 10 it St Luse 0 Y it is 75 7s 110 100 It Streets as 1 at site 20% STREET QUANTITIES: ARTERIAL LIN FT NILES OF NO. LANE St. PARKNY MEDIAN STREET NAME TYPE ARTERIALS ARTERIALS LAMES NILES LIGHTS ACRES ACRES sesessessesesessse sssesesses •seas/----- asses/----- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- CROSS BA/ 121' 121' ART 1,33S 0.25 6 1.52 11 0.61 0.43 CROSS BA► 101' 100, ART 12.015 2.21 1 9.10 110 5.52 3.16 TOTAL CROSS W 13.350 2.51 10.12 111 6.13 1.21 MESA CONNECTOR 100' ART S,ISO 1.03 1 4.13 73 2.50 I.1S SPRINGDALE AVE 100' ART 1.000 0.11 1 0.16 13 0.46 0.32 TALBERT AVE 11' ART 1.050 0.20 1 0.10 II 0.41 0.00 GRAHAM St 10' ART ISO 8.11 1 0.12 13 0.11 0.00 MESA LOOP RD 60, COL 3,100 0.64 2 1.21 31 1.25 0.00 FAULT ROAD 60' COL 0 0.00 2 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 LOS PATOS (PKNY) 60' COL 2.600 0.49 2 0.91 26 0.1/ 0.00 WARNER (I( 9fC�• 100' ART 1.150 0.13 1 1.31 23 0.10 O.S6 TOTAL AARRTERIAL 16,200 3.01 10.00 196 6.41 2.61 (NOT INCL CROSS GA/) ALL LOCAL STREETS LOCAL ST 36.924 1.99 2 13.99 119 0.00 0.00 IGIAL OiWiLi SS,!?! 17.S9 31.61 111 12.54 6.11 • (■ 1/1 FULL SECTION LENGTH) OTHER FACILITIES ASSUNPTIpIS AND QUANTITIES: TRAFFIC SIGNALS NUMBER OF PROJECT SIGNALS MIA seseseses LOCAL PARKS TOTAL LOCAL PARK ACRES 16.0 sa•aaaaas APPROXIMATE ACRES PER PARK S.3 ••aaa•aaa REGIONAL (LINEAR) PARK TOTAL REGIONAL PARK ACRES 13.2 •'aaaaaaa PROJECT OPEN SPACE WETLANDS ESNA's BUFFER 1,132.0 ••aaaaaas BALANCE bF MESA WK 1.2 sasaaaase CIRCULATION 3.2 'sassaaaa RESERVOIR 2.0 saaa'aase FIRE STATION 2.1 aaaaaaaaa FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL 12.1 •sass's•' TOTAL OPEN SPACE ACRES 1211.4 (INCLUDES REGIONAL PARK ACRES) TOTAL DEVELOPED ACRES 194.6 TOTAL PROJECT ACRES 1.655.0 (PARKS, REG PARK, OPEN SPACE, OEV'D AC - MOI TAILE A-11 11/82/91 IOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (6111) FIR O.TAUSSIG 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. INFRASTRUCTURE AND PU/LIC FACILITIES RAINTENANCE QUANTITIES - PHASING i FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEARS YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR ( (ir MOOD) TOTALS 1194-15 1995-16 1196-91 1917-21 1991-99 1991-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-32 2003-04 2004-05 20CS-06 ------------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ARTERIAL DEDICATION PHASING PERCENTAGE Of CROSS UP CONNECTOR DEDICATED IOO.Ot STREET NILES DEDICATED TO CITY CROSS GAP CONNECTOR 0.00 2.53 2.S3 2.53 2.53 2.53 2.53 2.53 2.53 2.53 2.53 2.51 ARTERIALS 0.01 0.61 1.00 1.32 1.14 2.13 2.11 2.10 2.93 1.01 3.07 3.01 LOCAL STREETS 0.01 1.13 1.51 1.11 2.11 3.19 4.51 6.65 6.61 6.99 6.99 6.99 TOTAL STREET NILES 0.15 6.26 S.03 6.13 1.16 I.5S 9.35 10.51 11.91 12.59 12.59 12.59 LANE NILES OEOICAIED 10 CITY CROSS GAP CONNECTOR 0.00 11.62 10.62 10.62 10.62 10.62 10.62 10.62 10.62 10.62 10.62 .10.62 ARTERIALS 0.23 1.11 3.21 6.32 5.15 6.95 1.54 2.69 1.55 10.60 10.00 10.00 LOCAL STREETS 6.11 2.26 2.19 3.1S 5.75 1.11 1.02 10.19 13.01 13.99 13.99 13.92 TOTAL LANE NILES 0.31 14.15 16.11 11.69 22.03 2S.3S 21.11 30.00 33.11 3/.61 31.61 34.61 STREET LIGHTS INTERVAL, FT CROSS GAP CONVECTOR 15 0 111 III 111 171 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 ARTERIALS 1S 5 13 11 91 122 ISO 163 111 206 216 216 216 LOCAL STREETS 100 6 60 19 99 152 205 231 211 341 369 369 369 TOTAL STREET LIGHTS 9 211 321 310 IS2 $13 S19 649 121 16) 16) 16) I MAY FIC SIGNAL INSTALLATIONS N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PARKMAY RAINT ACRES CROSS GAP CONNECTOR 0.00 6.13 6.13 1.13 1.13 6.13 6.13 6.13 6.13 6.13 6.11 6.13 ARTERIALS O.IS 1.21 2.09 2.11 3.62 4.65 6.61 S.66 6.12 6.41 6.41 6.41 LOCAL STREETS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL PARNNAY NAINTENANCE ACRES 0.16 1.39 1.22 1.90 1.15 10.51 10.96 11.57 12.2S 12.54 12.54 12.54 MEDIAN NAINT ACRES CA064 GAP CONNECTOR 1.00 4.29 6.29 6.21 6.21 6.29 4.29 4.29 6.29 4.29 6.29 6.29 ARTERIALS 0.06 0.62 0.16 1.16 1.19 1.13 1.19 2.24 2.52 2.64 2.64 2.64 LOCAL STREETS 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL NEOIAN NAINTERANCE ACRES 0.06 6.01 5.16 S.43 S.11 1.12 6.20 6.53 6.11 6.93 6.93 6.93 LOCAL PARK NAINTENANCE ACRES AVG PARK SIZE: TOTAL PARK AC: Nsrner Pk Ovrlook Pk Ness Connector Pk 5.33 I6 INCRE: 0.00 0.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 S.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CUN: 0.00 0.00 6.00 6.00 1.00 11.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 COMMUNITY PARK NAINTENANCE ACRES AVG PARK SIZE: TOTAL PARK AC: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A r rr rr rr rr rr r �r rr rr r rr r r r r ar rr r� 191 LIS ELI US US 161 HIS Ill$ oils Itlt ills ►SIS /its lots SHVl N0113YVIXI 110 A113 AII3 01 S3XV1 191 691 Ill 911 9" 901} 111} O[1} [11} I6" Ill} 161} OIZ} DEC' MUOIVA OV 1VIIIIHOd E61't11 S01'6E1 Il9 E11 OS9'I11 ESO'ISS 916 65l OIE 99$ OSZ ELl 16L 011 If6 111 L06 lfs ItS l01} 111 Ill} 19S fit} lYA 035S3SSY 19S'ISI'1 Ill'ISl'Z 116'Sl0'E 610'!il'I ISS'901'( 111'012'1 lll'N9'1 OZI'ISI'S lIS'619'S tli'192'9 (OS'161'1 IE9'9LS l 110'Ilt 1 0001111 f ON)S1I8 3A13S31 Olt'961 910'11E 180'USE IZS'OIE E19'EII OIS'6I1 tl91111P L9l'IES SSE'LLS 015'LZ9 Ift'119 900'111 116101 000'90 31VMI1S3 N01130001d 1111SL'Z L16'Sl0'l 610'91►'E ISS'90I'E 191'O11'l 1,111'6991 O11'ISI3 LIS'6893 E16'99Z'9 EOS'lil'9 IE9'91S'1 0104111 000111'6 000'000'01 938 S188 3A13S31 90-SOOZ SO-1001 10-EOOZ ZE-1001 10-1001 10.0001 00-6661 66-1661 111-1,661 16-1661 16-S661 S6-1661 114661 ti-11161 (0011.111VIA{IV SI! 'NOI1V1O31V3 XV1 N3801YA OV OWN0113VVLXI 1110 'A113 3111 Ol 9NIn833V S3ON3A31 031V83N30-133Md IV101 3111 NI 030010111 ION 1118 383H NOS SI 311113A38 SIMI ISOJ393MI 'NOIIYX3NNV 10 SNOIIIQNO3 NO IN30NI430 SI 3111301 SIMI l0 1413318 A113 'i W1111NIM IV)SUR 1104 ONl 804 S31M13A31 3S3111 OIA13338 3AVH 1114 AID 3111 (1 1A 1331O8d) S6-1661 Al l0 ON] 3111 18 N341 t6-1661 Al 8NIUM S80330 MOIIVX3NMV 31 IVHI 383H 03MnSSV SI 11 36-1661 Al 9 16-061 Al 11108 10l 3MO3N1 301113111 66-1661 Al 80l SMA38 1 VION LLt....Coil if tL/tt4itLt_t_ffiQLtiiCii/Qf/fftitifffif f[f ffifi/iftf ttif tiff ifs/it■ff■•/i[fitflf//if/■ffffifif[iffttf[fiiffff/ffffft■off i91 191 4[1$ 6l1 911 161 Z011 111{ 8i1{ lt1{ ills Zit{ I�S3lVMI1S3 311113A31 01 N0113Y11X3 110 A113 191 691 US 981 161 SOIL Bill Otl$ toil ISIs Ill$ lots VIA S3XV1 (Al13dNd) M3801VA OV 3A13S31 110 iat Ili loll ISIS loll Loll 1911 Ills ISIS L91$ ISIs (is 63XV1 V31SM I A113d01d iYf�7i IVIOL Ot Of 01 Of 01 Of Of OS of 0 :' 0! S31YS31 A183M S31-MN ( wif tlBf■7Y 0 0$ 01 01 01 OS 0$ 01 0$ 0$ 0{ 0} 1!it►faoiauov ...'.......... 0t1 0I1 ti1 IL It II toil 6 ills 6111 it if it{s S31VS A113do41i IV�1i I933111NIN :MO1l 631M13A31 XV1 13ISMI A113M 1Y31 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_.--_-------- lost 1191 11 9 E9 99S 11 "1 11I0 OEE SE 9S Ll '3011Y 031SAS 1N3M31113 33AOId 311MW OS1'ZS OSI'll as$$ E91 1 EIS} 1111111 El} l 191} 1i} S I ONOI 1V1311 M3V38 N01911111N111 l0 A113 (038(03SNO t 03IRM) 9311I13A31 XV1 A113101d 1V101 91 9$ 91 91 91 Ss St If ff it 11 01 3o11Y N319AS I M311131 33AOIM 3Il1IN Iis its Bit LIS US US Its Its 11s Ot$ 91 1 ONOl 1"11139 H3131 MD19NIIWM l0 A113 '(SdNM 33S) IVIIN30IS38-NDN 9 IVIIN3012M 1101111WIVO 311113011 XV1 A1131M 031103611111 f 919} 9E91 119} 9l9} 1111 SOS} 111} 61E1 11E1 W m ILIf 3011V M31SAS 111311311131 33AOIM 31IIO�d ill 1S its Z$ 11I 2t 9El 11 lot it OSl lS 911 if 8L1 Is 611 lS IEO I$ Issl tl1 OIMII 1VNIN39 I0V38 11019111111111 l0 A113 :SNOI1VU01V3 3MA38 XVL A1131O1d 031032 100'0 100'0 %SI't W,6 165'OI 11t'9 10S'fl 19 V1 tE1.91 1Zt'L1 t66'IS9 (8V3A 1011d 13AO 35Y313N1 t) 919'68S'11 919'685'l{ 919'68S'IS ►!1'IIS'l! 809'100'11 Si{{['l92'1{ 1{1/'lf1'ls E{Sf 166s E`91 9llf 619'ZIS$ itl'Olf{ IIf'll{ !f!'61S't$ NOIlVn1VA 133f01d 3AI1Y111M0 Oat f Of i 0{ Of 01 Of Of 01 Of 01 H 01 SS3NISI18- 01VA OIIX03O AV SSIM 919'61S'll 919'61S'li 9191IS'll IZI'IIS'll 109'101'If SIE'L9i'IS 1111 161'Is ESE1661 E91'9111 61911S$ itl'Olt{ 11E'tl$ 919'616'1$ IVIINJOIS31- 301VA 03SSISSY ------- ------- --- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------ ------------------------- 90-S001 SO-1001 10-EOOZ ' ZE-Z001 10-1001 10-0009 00-1661 69-0661 16-1661 16-9661 96-S661 S6-1661 S1V101 (OOOIX $0 it II OI 6 1 1 9 S 1 f 2 1 :8V3A :8V3A :8V3A :8Y3A '8Y3A '8V3A :8V3A :8Y3A '1V3A 1Y3A 1Y3A :8V3A 1V3A IMIl IrloOune (110/s188 Ol( 113N 911011001d 83d) 180Z'OS 110 30 1388V8 834 XVI A113 00101 3011V M31SAS 111311311111311 33AOldM3 31111N- ------------------------------------ ISSO'0 S1V1100 S31VS l0 1) XVl 831NVUI Slll'/ 'ONU IVVIN39 MOV38 N018NI11NM l0 A113- SHOl1dMnSSV XVI N0113Y11X3 110 AID 10'S 31VO 83AO-Mono dO1d 003 9 SnO '(XV1'dud toll l0 1101171111) P013V1 1N3MN01110/1V 10101 31VO 83AO-NNOI d08d IVIIN30IS38 3Vl 1N3MN01180ddV 33S) AID 01 31VV XVI -------------------------------------- SNOI1dWWV XV1 A113001d 01'I11 3111VA 03SS3SSV 031VMI1S3 1N30810 SN0114WMV XV1 13JSMV81 A1830101d IV38 '301VA O3SS3SSV ) 100.1 3NI1330 N0 1 1 3110 08d 000'91,8 11011311008d 031VMIIS3 10'Sl :03SM3S 10 t SV - IVII930IS38-NON 133f01d l0 SIXIIiVI(01V3 911111111113130 SNOI1d1W 000'000'01 SIA83S38 110 031YWIISI 10'1 '0381133S 40 t SY - IVIIN30IS38 10i N011319 110114183S30 133f011 O1 13131 3S1(311 ------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- SNOI1dMnSSV XV1 A183d08d SIA83S38 110 SMOIIdMOSSV XY1 A183dWd 038n33SNn SNOl1dMOSSV NOIIVOIVA 03S53SSV S3XV1 831SNV11 A113dO1d IV30 OMY 3111 'S31V13OSSV 9 916=1 OIAVO ' SHV1 AL13d01d 'S3nN3A31 A0019 3SY3 11l- (tell) am 3111314 V3110 VS101 .tt3MON��� 11l (1111) MY1d 3111336 V3110 VS108 16/91/11 ��i�31 b MOIIYlY3Slitt 1-V 31OV1 t-V 311V1 TABLE A-2 TABLE A-2 , IOLSAICHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (I114) - FIR CASE SUDYAREVENlEBC PLAN (1011) FIR DAVID TAUSSIG 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. SALES FAXES, UTILITY TAXES, FRANCHISE FEES RESIDENTIAL INDIRECT SALES TAX GENERATION ASSUMPTIONS DIRECT SALES TAX GENERATION ASSUMPTIONS UTILITY TAX/FRANCHISE-FEE ASSUNPTIONS -------—-------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- --------------------- --- --- ------- -CALCULATION METHOD 11 'BASIC' SALES TAXES TO CITY (t Of SALES): 1.00% UTILITY UTIL FAX t FRANCH FEE t\2 PROJECT RESIDENTS' PURCHASES WIN CITY (t): 50.011 PROJECT TAXABLE SALES PER SO FT: --------- ----------- --------------- 4EXCLUDING ONSITE PUAGIASES RETAIL NEIGHBORHOOD 1150 WATER S.Ot 15.0% to lieu ( RETAIL TAXABLE EX/ENOIIUAES IAS t OF INCOME): 25.0% BUSINESS (OFFICE, INDUSTRIAL) 110 GAS 5.0% N/A -CALCULATION REDO 12 TELEPHONE 5.0% N/A AVERAGE ANNUAL SALES TAXES PER HOUSEHOLD: 1141 \1 It SALES TO NON-PROJECT RESIDENTS 50.0% ELECTRICITY 5.0% N/A CABLE 5.0% 3.011 BUILDOUI FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR- 1 2 3 / S 6 1 1 ! 10 11 12 (to X1100) TOTALS 1114-IS 1195-16 1916-11 I1l1-91 1911-19 I111-06 2000-01 2001-02 2002-32 2601-04 2004-05 1005-06 SALES TAX REVENUE CALCULATIONS: INDIRECT SALES TAX GENERATION -CALCULATION NEIN00 11 (t INCOME) ANNUAL RESIDENTIAL INCOME 113.216 $91.109 1115,512 1251,510 1313.612 131I,D01 1191,251 1129,051 $469,237 1412.656 $402.656 1482.656 TAXABLE PURCHASES N/IN CITY 11.652 112 361 123 1316 111 ail 119 201 116 316 11A 111 153 631 150 655 160.332 160 112 160,312 TOTAL INDIRECT SALES TAX GENERATION 111 1121 1232 1323 1392 1461 1109 1536 1S01 1601 1603 1603 -CALCULATION NEINOD 12 (SALES TAXES PER OU) PROJECT HDUSEBOLOS 16S 1 141 2 151 2.163 3 511 1 011 1 103 1 IT1 4,794 1 001 4.184 1,184 TOTAL INDIRECT SALES TAX GENERATION 124 1161 1301 1424 1503 1511 1591 1610 1681 1691 1691 1690 ---------------------- ------------------------- ( (; DIRECT SALES TAX GENERATION (ibis Pro TAXAB RETAIE SALE a,ct alternative includes no sources of direct sales tax revenues.) TO�ASANNUAL TAXABLE BUSINI SALES 0 t0 10 tD t0 to to t0 $0 EO t0 t0 IRECT SALES TAXSGENERATION 0 1 10 so f0 ���_------------------------------------ TOTAL SALES TAX REVENUES (INDIR(11)MR) 117 1124 1232 1323 1392 1464 1119 1516 15/1 1603 1603 1603 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UTILITY TAX/FRANCIISE FEE REVENUE CALCULATIONS: (SEE ASSUMPTIONS ABOVE AND IN TABLE A-?a) 1}}}Q TTER ;a�ua�ptlbml'pngr1resident/eaployee) 13 23 136 1! SI y61 1117953 11192 119 1100 1180 1100 TELEPHONE awraga b1111.9 s ELECTRICITY avaraga b1111nq 11 25 `I1 6S 11 19 92 91 1105 1101 1101 1101 CABLE everage billing x penetration rate) 11 29 t54 11 11 1101 1105 1112 1120 1122 1122 $122 TOTAL UTILITY TAX/FRAMCHISE FEE REVENUES 116 Ills 1211 1299 1156 1110 1424 1155 1409 1491 1490 1490 ....,.■.........................:,,, ,..,,.,,,.,,..,..,.,.......,.,.._.,.........=._....,_...:=:.._=.....:__ ::..::,:::::._.::_::::::,:::::::::::::::::::::::::_:::::::: - - - _-----------•---- - NO1ES: 1. SOUACE - NINDFRLIIER, DELLANAS 6 ASSOCIATES: CITY SALES TAX CONSULTANT 2. PORTION OF fb"ISE FEE WHICH CONTRIBUTES REVENUE 10 THE CITY GENERAL FUND TABLE A-3 TABLE A-3 $$$ESCALATION RATESaai 12/12/11 BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (1114) FIR •$$NONE$$* IOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (4114) -FIR PER CAPITA GENERAL FUND REVENUES AND DAVID TAUSSIG 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. ONGOING REVENUE SUMMARY x CITY REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS/PER CAPITA MULTIPLIERS CITY REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS/PER CAPITA MULTIPLIERS ---------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- CITY POPULATION (1/1/11 STATE DOF EST 112.100 PLEASE REFER TO TABLES A-31 6 A-Sb FOR CITY BUDGET PROJECT BUILOOUT RESIDENTIAL POPULATI 12 014 1vq/hhold ANALYSIS AND REVENUE MULTIPLIER ASSUMPTIONS. ( AVG PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD f.46 PROJECT BUILOOUT BUSINESS ACRES 0 BUIlDOUT FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: PERCENT 1 2 3 1 S 6 1 1 9 10 11 12 Of TOTAL (11 x1111) 1914-15 199S-96 1916-11 1997-91 199t-19 1991-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-32 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 REVENUES -- ------------------------ ------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- RESIDENTIAL POPULATION 355 2.657 5.014 6.111 1,211 1,511 10.00S 10,IIS 11,155 12.034 12.034 12.034 MINESS DEVELOPED ACRES 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GENERAL FUND R VINES (PER CAPITA/BUS AC SOURCES)__ s OiNERRIOC�l1fA1IE91TARY) T S 2 If 11 1133 1 116 1S6 Is il It 6f12 ;110 110 f10 1.28t FINES/FORFEITURES/►FNALTIES 2 11 USE OF HONEY i PROPERTY _ i SO 91 "1 ISI 1t0 111 1203 1220 {{225 1225 1225 3.60% REVENUE FROM OTHER CHARGES FOR CURRENT SEENCIES RVICES S 1{3S i111 i6 1111 101 121 1132 121 162 1113 1159 1151 2.56t { �21 132 113 ISS {ISf 115! 1159 2.SIt OTHER REVENUE I 1 II 19 23 ti ttt11121 1{{{30 32 33 37 113 0.53% TRANSFER FEN OTHER FUNDS 1 ! Ii 22 2i 31 12 lS ll l! 31 131 0.62% TOTAL PER CAPITA/BUS AC SOURCES 134 1255 1411 16111 {190 1920 19S9 11.040 11,121 11,1S1 11,154 $1.1" 18.41% oaflip UtpNptiii■N altiaNftf ttp+t+fl pfltfftf{i■Uaiiil......aafit+aita:+tl■tfitauaa++......:aaia is Haaat::a L'iiitaaa aaa:aai:fa:a:: OTHER REVENUE SOURCES OAS TAX REVENUES 11 149 193 1121 1153 $111 {Ili 1201 1211 1223 1223 1223 1.57% TRANSPORTATION FUND(MEASURE N,SALES TAXI 12 113 124 131 141 lit ISi 156 162 161 163 161 1.01% (ESTIMATED BUT NOT INCLUDED IN REVENUE OTALS) FIRE-KOICAL PROGRAM REVENUES it 126 {SI 174 111 1103 1101 1116 1126 1129 1129 1129 2.06% 000aoforiiiriifita to oo... oai... tatt000fftitltiitt aao.........aaa::++iaff iiffof rfa:......+a ........ CITY REIIf31UE SUIBIARY ►ROIERTY TAXES (GENERAL FUND• 'PERS'): SECURED PROPERTY TAXES 190 1616 11,261 11.776 12.169 12.593 12.757 13,049 13,152 11,450 11,458 11,458 55.33% UNSECURED PROPEMY TAXES 11 11 113 111 122 s26 120 110 134 135 {is 135 0.5lt TOTAL /ROPERiY TAXES {91 ii13 11 210 11 191 12 191 12 ill 12 111 {3 O1f Il Sli "1 3 492 13,192 13.192 $5.19% xu PWIOFITY TRANSFER TAXES I23 ISI {li7 {161 {111 {lit {101 {I11 {ISI {I11 I11 ill I./Ot OIL RESERVE AD YAIORUN (PROPERITj IAii[$ ii/n +ice rat: N/A N/A M/A N/A N/A N/A N/A M/A N/A 0.00% OIL EXTRACTION TAXES 1122 142 24 I�1 {120 III 102 0i i:: s::9 61 {V3 161 lb? 0.99% UIILIIYES AiAXES/FRERANCMISE FEES 11E 1IIS 211 yy199 156 ss110 1464 {ss121 {ISS I119 I491 IT {19/ 7.911 PER CAPITA GENERAL fUMO REVENUES �1/ �255 sill lic0 190 49c0 {S51 1%9 0 S1,121 11,154 $1.154 11.154 18.41t TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES 1503 11,469 12.500 13,357 13.914 11,671 14,150 15,340 15.021 15,112 15,902 15,891 11.36% oioito+toaof■tfffiafaroatafa...I....itiritirta{tarittf if of oat h..."'c+taali....II:a::a:aai.....f................a a+++aa..... ......ai S: 1513 11.541 .S._a.ca..L....... TOTAL GENERAL, GAS TAX, FIRE-NED FUND REV 12,654 13,551 11,225 11,951 IS,151 IS,158 16.165 16,264 16,251 16,219 100.00% inutuuuuauuuiutiraasaifa+■ufoot+utt ......ita+ai+aaacs..-.......... 0.........ta ........scat............aa:ss:s: s.s s.s TOTAL GENERAL GAS TAX, FIRE-RED FUND REVS: 1513 11.511 12.654 13.559 14,225 11,957 15,151 15,668 16,165 16.284 16,254 16.249 100.00% ESCALATED AT THE FOI.LONING RATE: 1.0% uuiwuiaiiasiafouuictasort�fsautauas�uff.....atrac+......aru............+c+atoiat:ifiara..............=.........cas:ass isssssss :v:ssssss:s rr rr rr rr rr r rr rr� rr rr �r rr rr rr rr rr rr rr rr •■ : : yy 1pp1��II tit 1 1 1 1 1181 (s1p 1 A yu 1SN� Ts �11 m4Ty1 ^ '� OY=AI I/1: ^ Al r�i' Aliil�v-mc 1 TAI ^ T:> • r 1��IwTyrZ Z 1rT - SN I $9•e e e -��'� - $�^ a O iN ZMA POy 1" N y 1 I1 pwp SNOT pK I T �1:TO O U.N. N r �=r OIPT ti 1 TPA` vvRm ice.1 A a r w. Y• r C �! K >• pe 11 59- 1 A: • r AC T T a�� N T I '^� C4 SAS 1 88 �sarn p � SM'o 1 i Y y�y yy Iyp��' N i !TA my t 9 Ny <I x fO yN� 114 iiiAAA : �•P: O w tT/I v� �1 Nr 1• N:O V1:/A• T I r � N:O « • �1 N ON r r x A 1 _ : v • : a8 1 L l r♦ rw: �►: : w y i� rKil �."• s: o tie: �.r•rrNNN� �W M.. i.i A ee • �n�r w-.u�W.�oW wee Ins•• oos P« 1 Y M 1 TS7 Q 11• • N _ N M e 1 M T �p6 P W Z W y OON M Nr Y W O N 2 1 r a G C C Y on O M O; O.Ow�1 I.ITP~ ^': i I r T ��a I�easrrl n �Y�M O�Nw.ON w••� � �M.� V 1 O A 66 N.O PO.O y00 ter• IONO ;WW•• G r.SA � : : J ]•r N M r �• I J K O K S W W MN N M wN I r T pn= rsz i.i a CIOJ^� .i:yr -----WO- or w zz _ 1 T N _ O 11 r• MP.00~PON 00 O.ON 1 ON••-0• ■ r 1 d � x y NI NNMMNNW M r y t O a ' P P x -------- OW NO>11 OP9 11 1 _ I N 1 O _ _ _ r.►W 1 O ON � .s n.0 r�PP�WN V�O� 1 O a P O•..OM�r•O Or NWO �ti••W 11 W I I I I I I I T =g a• -W.IMMO�q 00 P d O a a=Z!•fa l.1 1 Yl•'f «o: OWN o.os oIn Rio Ns•• K�_� �e I� .� i O Zm.0.1 y�•j�rZ.l N -� M n M r NM rM P_ - -Nr• 1 0 wKf T<r<..�. = i W my N.Ir� _ P W P W� y r: uOP��r.e0 �� P wir� N[•fOP �� T �� 1 tn��_f w1 ip N n N Y 0 T Ii elm C a Z=K : N w.. .. .►w �. i n P I t--M3P10O --Z 1 N=p N m r-A .O V'm0•ti r.dW d•PY� O.rAC N r�OPMtiP.00 �� �V�O PN•- rO�PNM: C ' n I =t:V-Z. v_ : p O a O K N�� 1 a A AAA/AAAA AA AAA � Osvin alP 1 l'f TABLE A-6 TABLE A-i 12/12/91 BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (4114) FIR BOLSA CNICA SPECIFIC PLAN (1114) -FIR RECURRING CITY COSTS: DAVID IAUSSIG 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. PUBLIC WORKS/OTHER FACILITIES NAINIENANCE GENERAL FUND, COST FACTORS OTHER FACILITES. COST FACTORS ------------------------------------ --------------------------------------- LOCAL PARK NIINTENAMCE !1,l61 /acTyr PARKWAY LANDSCAPING 114.221 /ac/yr CONIINIIIY PARK M/A/ac/yr MEDIAN LANDSCAPING $11 221 /ac/yr / ROAD FUND, MAINTENANCE COST FACTORS SIRELT LIGHIS (IILUN/MAINT) 1111 /light/yr STREET MAINTENANCE/REKACENENf 13,350 /lanra 61/yr BUILOOUI FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: 1 2 3 1 S i 1 1 9 IO 11 12 (15 Mole) 1991-95 1995-96 1196-97 1197-91 1191-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-32 2001-04 2004-05 2005-06 ----,----------------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- GENERAL FUND, PARR FACILITIES NAINIENANCE , LOCAL PARK NAINTEMANCE f0 10 120 130 130 I55 111 179 111 119 $79 119 COMMITY PARK MAINTENANCE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A M/A N/A N/A TOTAL GENERAL FUND PARK MAINTENANCE COSTS: f0 10 120 130 130 f55 $79 179 119 179 179 179 nn{■n{nauu■aaagoffattaguaauawa..uaasaasu{af.aa.f.s.a.u.aaaat....as............2........:asat:xaaa.ta....a:a::uraaxs:aaa:a:::a:xa::xar_a::x:aa ROAD FIND, RIGHT OF MAY MAINTENANCE F CROSS W CONNECTOR f0 136 36 JU !36 116 136 136 136 136 136 136 ARTERIALS fl �1 11 ll 119 121 125 120 112 1]3 133 SIT LOCAL STREETS I 1 10 11 119 126 130 136 111 111 141 $41 TOTAL ROAD FUND FACILITIES MAINTENANCE COSTS: 11 ISO 151 163 I11 $15 SIT $100 $111 1116 1116 $116 {{{{{{•it{{t{ttf{t{.tfta...a...{...a{f.a.a......igt•.l{ta.a...............a......x...............aax.:aa.LLat_II..xa.aatx.a_xat..atiai............ .._.....xaxi3.xa.x.x......._---.-.Z.... STREET LANDSCAPING 6 LIGHTING MAINTENANCE PARKWAY LANDSCAPING 2 f10S fill 1121 $111 $ISO 1156 1165 1111 1111 1176 Silo ft...'—'MwpLpM0 11 #il f13 17 112 141 111 SIT 191 191 S91 $91 STREET LIGHTS :1 !! Ii 11 $50 (S9 164 172 Sol SOS SOS SOS TOTAL STREET LAN0SCAPING i LIGHTING COSTS 11 1205 1227 1245 1271 1211 1309 1329 1152 1362 1162 1162 {.goat{{.as...■sat.............a................a..........xz :ax.....=.....asxiai:ta.aaaa:ssx:ixxa:::aixi:aIIIIxataaaa..:ex:x:xas:x:a...:::::::::IIix::::..=:::xxx::;- ::::::.:•:::::t::::::::::.. TABLE A-1 TABLE A-) 11/12/91 BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (1114) FIR BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (4114) - FIR LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT DAVID TAUSSIG 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. PARCEL CHARGE ESTIMATION BUILDOUI FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: 1 2 3 1 S 6 7 1 9 10 11 12 (1s x1010) 1991-11 1995-96 1996-117 1997-91 1990-99 1919-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-32 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 OEVELDPNEN/ACREAGE SPLIT - RESIDENTIAL VERSUS BUSINESS ACRES RESIDENTIAL ACRES 1.9 77.1 121.9 170.4 223.1 214.1 297.4 335.0 976.9 394.6 394.6 394.6 MINESS ACRES 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DEVELOPMENT ACRES 0.1 11.9 121.9 170.4 223.1 274.1 291.4 335.0 376.9 391.6 391.E 194.6 FRACTION OF RES ACRES 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 RESIDENTIAL UNITS 16S 1.111 2.157 2.963 1,511 1,041 4,183 1,111 ' 4,191 1,884 4.114 4.114 ESTINATION Of LANDSCAPE 6 LIGHTING DISTRICT CHARGES: DISTRICT COSTS /OUT ADMIN COSTS OF. 15.0% 114 12210's 95 122,21,261 �282 211 211 l356 1319 105 t116 t116 t162 DISTRICT COSTS N/ADNIN COSTS 68*$$ 5 TOTAL SNARE OF PARCEL CHARGES: TO RESIDENTIAL USES is 1235 1251 1282 1312 1341 $156 $319 1405 1416 1416 1416 10 BUSINESS USES t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 10 t0 t0 t0 t0 10 ESTIMATED PARCEL CHARGES: PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT (DOOR) 127.27 1205.64 1120.81 195.02 118.65 114.31 185.06 $84.61 114.40 1115.12 185.12 185.12 PER MINES$/APARIOST ACRE 10.00 10.00 10.00 $0.00 10.00 10.00 $0.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 urrfunrfuaafurrrrfrurnrru■■frrrrraraaacararraaarrarrrrrafrrrrasaarrafasaaaamfrffarrffaffaaaaarrxar:arrxsx::esxaerxaxrzsxxaxr:rrx:r:r::s:r:xxx:r:xxxz:::xsarz:::sz::.zexxz::xsxz:::::x: ' APPENDIX B ' FISCAL MODEL, ALTERNATIVE N2 1 (49800 [JIVIT PLAN 1 1 1 oiaon": TAME A STAT SUN !1-Mow91 15:/1 PN SOLSA CHICA 1100)) STATISTICAL SUI8IARY DAVID TAUSSI�6 ASSOCIATES, INC. 1PRIMARY USE DATA --------------------- -- ----1PROJECI VALUATION/NARKf11NG DATA (IN1000)----------------- IDENDGRAPHIC DATA ------- DENSITY RES OUt/ OVERALL ABSORPTION (PERS/DU PLANNING PRIMARY PRIMARY (DUt/AC) BUS BLDG PA START ABSORPTION AVG BASE AVG AVG TOTAL TOTAL AVG SF SF/EMP RES POP/ PHASE AREA(PA) USE USE AC. (BUS F.A.R 5S FT ACRES QUARTER RATE PRICE PREMIUM PRICE SALES VALUE PER OU P�P FACT. EMP POP uuuauu a sutuau-------------------Ms •tsuususutuuttutu----------------------uuutuu---------------------------------------------------_------- EMT I A 1.0 IN 1 6.25 20.00 125 12.5 6 2t.1 238 39 5211 30,113 1,310 2.50 313 1 A"I.I 1N"t 1.25 20.00 I!i t 28.1 238 9 241 30,013 1,310 2.50 311 1 A"2.0 SFD 1 34.00 3.76 121 34.0 IS 0.4 145 {IS 160 27,340 3,750 3.10 317 1 A"3.1 SFD"1 12.S1 5.04 63 12.S 6 6.4 115 36 111 19,18S 3,750 3.10 195 1 A-1.0 IN 1 1.98 15.03 120 16.1 9 21.1 1236 231 28.560 1,370 2.50 300 1 A"1.1 TN-1 1.12 15.03 122 9 2t.1 231 238 29.036 1.370 2.50 305 1 A"5.0 TN"1 13.43 14.19 200 27.4 9 21.t 23t 238 41,500 1.310 2.50 500 I A S.1 TWO 13.11 14.19 201 9 2t.1 231 230 49,504 1,170 2.S0 $20 1 A 6.6 TN-$$ 13.1001 15.00 201 13.1 6 21.1 23A {3 2/1 49,096 1,110 2.50 $16 1 A-6.E 7N-7 13.30 12.41 166 13.) 11 15.O 170 5 370 61.110 1.140 2.50 415 1 A-1.6 FL-10 10.00 25.00 250 30.0 31 "1 215 51,833 1.010 1.90 415 1 A"9.1 FL-10 10.00 2S.00 2SO 13 2t..1 212 13, 215 $3,833 1,010 1.90 115 1 A"9.2 FL-10 10.00 25.00 250 22 21.6 212 3 216 53,833 1.010 1.10 415 I A-11.0 TNIFL 9 14.50 16.52 225 14.5 13 36.0 207 112 219 49,375 1,110 1.90 426 1 A-12.0 IN 1 - 11.60 12.S0 228 17.6 It 15.4 170 310 11,400 1,940 2.50 $50 1 1-1.1 FL"10 6.60 25.00 140 11.2 21 21.1 212 631.910 1,010 1.90 266 2 1"1.1 FL"11 S.60 25.00 140 !1 21.1 212 12,4 231 33,051 1.010 1.90 266 2 8-2.1 SFO 13 13.95 10.04 140 27.4 1 30.0 309 19 122 IS,010 1,460 2.60 350 1 1-1.1 Sf0"I3 I3.IS 10.01 13S 1 30.0 30f I1 )li 42,615 1.460 2.50 131 2"I 1N^ 9 11.60 2S.00 26S 10.6 20 36.0 207 ill 210 $7,655 1.110 1.90 504 1/"1.1 IN 1 12.10 1.1/ 105 12.9 16 21.1 231 231 24,990 1.170 2.50 263 �., 3 C"1.0 SFD 1 23.14 6.11 ISO I5.5 11 33.0 111 119 67,350 2,140 1.10 465 3 C"1.1 SFD-1 22.36 6.46 ITS 26 33.0 111 111 65,105 2.140 3.10 ISO 3 C"2.1 SFD"1 25.12 6.11 163 50.4 33 31.0 119 119 73,181 2,140 3.10 SOS 3 C"2.1 SFO-1 25.21 6.11 164 11 13.0 119 111 13,136 2,140 3.10 S01 3 C"3.1 SFD"3 16.11 6.41 IDS 32.5 22 10.1 534 S$31 56,070 2,130 3.10 326 3 C-3.1 SFO"3 16.33 6.49 106 31 10.1 534 1514 56,1101 2,730 3.10 129 3 C"1.0 SFD-2 H.?$ 6.32 125 39./ 22 12.0 618 16It 11.250 3,110 3.10 388 3 C"1.1 SFO"2 11.62 6.32 124 31 12.0 618 611 116,632 3,110 3.10 384 3 E"1.0 SFD"3 3.50 5.71 20 3.5 10 10.8 1534 534 10,680 2.130 3.10 62 ESS uutttss A 11.0 NEIGH CON 11.50 0.25 125.235 11.5 11,000 111.500 250 $01 NEIGH-CON 0.25 1,000 250 tsstuas ------------- -------- -------- --------- --------- -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -- RESIDENTIAL TOTALS 110.20 1,175 110.2 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL VALUATION: 11,629.041 RES POP: 12.051 BUSINESS TOTALS 11.5 125,235 11. - ---- ---- -- ---- -5 TOTAL BUSINESS VALUATION: III,SDt BUS POP: 501 ----- ----"--- --- - ---- - - ----- ------- -- ---- ----- -- ------- - ------ -- - --- ---- --- PROJECT TOTALS 451.1 I61.7 11.640,541 12.552 I1306 lKSA CHICA(1106)- FIR PROJECT DESCRIPTION O.IAUSSIG i ASSOCIATES. INC. CLOSINGS (OCCUPANCIES) BY FISCAL YEAR 1 2 7 1 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ABS OEM- FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY UNIT PRICE PER START S2IY CA- 1994 1995 1996 1997 1999 )999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 PHASE ►A TYPE 1911 If OUP QTR QTR (L,M,H) SUM 1195 1196 1991 1198 1991 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 ----------- -------- ----------------- ----- ------ -------- ----- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- RESIOEMTIAL 1 A 1.1 TH 1 241 125 21.1 6 HIGH 125 29 96 1 A-I.1 TH-1 241 125 21.0 1 HIGH 125 29 16 I A-!.1 SFD 1 760 121 0.4 15 LOW 126 3/ 31 31 21 I A-3.1 SFO'1 111 63 1.4 6 LOW 63 1 31 21 1 A-1.1 TH 1 231 120 21.1 9 MEDIUM 120 SI 62 1 A-1.1 IN-1 211 122 21.1 1 MEDIUM 122 U 61 1 A 5.1 TH-1 211 201 21.1 1 MEDIUM 200 SI I1S 27 1 A 6.1 TH-1 238 201 26.1 1 MEDIUM 201 s1 MIS 35 1 A-6.1 TH-1 241 201 21.0 6 MEDIUM 207 29 115 63 1 A'1.1 IN-1 11S 199 Is./ 11 MEDIUM Is$ 60 60 60 9 1 A-1.1 TH'1 310 166 15.4 1 MEOW 161 30 60 60 Il 1 A-1.0 Fl 11 21% 256 21.1 31 HIGH 2S1 115 MIS 20 I A-1.i FL-16 215 251 26.0 13 HIGH 250 51 IIS 77 I A-1.2 Fl 11 21S 260 21.6 22 HIGH 250 29 115 106 I A-11.0 TNJFL ! 211 225 36.0 13 MEDIUM 225 12 I/1 9 1 A-12.1 IN 1 _ 110 225 IS.1 16 Mf01UM 220 45 60 60 SS 2 1-1.0 FL-10 221 140 21.1 21 HIGH 140 81 SI 2 0-1.1 FL-11 236 140 21.1 21 HIGH 140 86 SI !1-2.1 SFD 13 322 140 30.0 1 MEDIUM 140 90 So !/-2.1 SFD-13 316 Its 30.1 1 MEDIUM US 90 IS !1�3.1 TH/FL 1 218 265 36.0 20 HIGH 265 108 111 13 !1-1.1 IN 1 231 IIS 28.1 16 LOW 185 16 19 3 C-1.1 SFD 1 111 ISO 33.0 11 LOW Isl 33 111 3 C'I.I SFO-1 111 IIS 13.0 26 IOW US 33 112 3 C"!.1 SFO'1 111 113 33.0 33 LOW 163 66 91 3 C-!.1 SFO-/ 111 164 33.0 11 LOW 164 66 98 3 C'3.0 SFD-3 S34 Ills 11./ 22 LOW los 11 13 13 1 3 C-3.1 SFD-3 $34 186 10.0 31 LOW 106 13 13 20 3 C-1.1 SFD-2 611 125 12.0 22 LOM 125 12 18 48 11 3 C-1.1 SFO-2 618 124 12.0 31 LOW 124 11 11 21 3 E-1.1 SFD'3 S31 20 10.1 10 LOW 20 20 ----- -------- -------- -------- --------- ----- ------ -------- ----- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- INCREMENTAL I.I1S 95 712 716 640 SSI 659 512 791 303 153 98 CUMULATIVE 4,11S 9S 116 1.662 2.302 2,151 3,512 4,02) 4,320 4,624 1,171 4,815 4.815 man i � i i i i i i r i mam ■ X t-RE813 19 Nov-fl 1 2 3 1 5 6 1 / 9 10 I1 I2 13 II 1 4.615 -UNIT PLAN FY FY FY FY FY fY FY FY FY FY FY FY fY FY FI 1294 1995 1996 1997 1991 1999 2600 2001 2002 2003 2001 200S 2006 2001 2001 INCRENENTALS: HIS 1126 1991 1991 1999 2000 2001 2002 2001 2004 2005 2006 2001 2001 200, ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -------- -- TOTAL UNITS Allis NO. III DENSITY >-10 3.111 Allis 0118 ASS DU- RES 9S 112 116 640 SSI 659 512 291 303 153 91 0 N/A AC ABS BUS - SEE ACC MIA MIA MIA MIA MIA MIA MIA MIA MIA N/A N/A N/A 11.629.041 AV{ AV - RES $27,619 1224.708 1219,763 1193,525 1194.591 1214,915 1191,589 1121.811 I121,092 112.305 114,002 ys0 111,501 AV AV -BUS 10 f0 10 {0 IO 16,500 15.000 10 10 10 10 {0 12,051 PERSONS POP - RES 242 1,911 1.891 1,183 1,348 1,1/2 1,202 713 002 /51 304 0 S11 PERSONS POP - ENP 0 0 0 0 0 283 218 0 0 0 0 0 111.2 AC OEV'0 AC-RES 6.5 55.7 51.3 55.9 52.8 51.1 52.2 32.9 33.8 21.9 IS.1 0.0 11.1 AC DEV'0 AC -BUS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.6 S.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 251.16 AC AC SYS- LO RES 1.67 21.60 13.61 24.63 32.82 28.26 38.15 28.31 29.20 21.12 15.10 0.00 MIA AC AC STS - BUS (MIA) MIA MIA MIA MIA N/A MIA MIA N/A MIA N/A N/A N/A 1417,116 RESIDENT INCOME RESIDENTS' INCOME II,5 111 169,798 $69.185 159.663 {5/,211 63,011 156,401 134.698 114,900 120.323 {13,091 j0 111 11S TAXABLE SALES BUS - TAXABLE SALES {1 f0 10 f0 f0 �10.611 11,161 11 10 10 IO 10 S,6S1.10 CALLS- RES POLICE CAMS - RES 109.46 1.000.29 1.050.89 779.75 813.35 710.77 510.11 298.87 304.83 149.54 94.21 0.00 11.60 CALLS - BUS POLICE CAMS - BUS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 /.00 50.59 18.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12,111,28 PR0.IENVEAR--> 1 2 3 1 S 6 7 1 9 10 II Itt {2,511, I) {2,651,0 11 I 13,2S1,f21 RES AV G IM 12l,15f {213,311 {516,161 {il1,132 1t,060,116 {1,J6l,20t II,6T0,7f1 11,t01,573 17,III,OIS 17,7e8,SIS 12,125,107 17,111.19t 191 12 121 112 BUS AV GROWN 10 {0 11 10 10 11,551 {IS,S16 115,912 $16.269 116,650 111,055 111,481 111,937 118.411 110.92 1.611 t-- INCREASE. YR 20/19 11S.911 12.911 I5.37% 31.36% 29.96% 22.31% 12.90% 12.13% 8.01% 5.911 2.98% ).091 3.19% 1.2 ASSUMPS: TAX BATH: 2.0% RES TURNOVER: 10.0% RES NUT: 1.01 BUS TURNOVER: S.01 BUS MY: 4.0% INCRE SIRE YR: 1993 1334.162 AVG MOUE VALUE AVG HOME VALUE 1292 1280 1211 $209 1102 1306 $316 1322 1127 1132 1114 1131 lilt Im 13, TABLE A-1 TABLE A-1 "'ESCALATION RAIESOa'S II/21/11 BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (1000) FIR skSMOMEasa WSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (4100) - FIR CASE STUDY REVENUES: PROPERTY TAXES DAVID 1AUSSIG i ASSOCIATES, INC. AND REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAXES ASSESSED VALUATION ASSUMPTIONS UNSECURED PROPERTY TAX ASSUMPTIONS OIL RESERVES PROPERTY TAX ASSUMPTIONS ------------------------------ ---- ----------------------------- ------------------------------------- PLEASE REFER TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION SECTION FOR RESIDENTIAL - AS t OF SECURED: 1.0% ESTIMATED OIL RESERVES 10.000.000 L ASSUMPTIONS DETERMINING CALCULATIONS OF PROJECT NON-RESIDENTIAL - AS t OF SECURED: 15.0% ESTIMATED PRODUCTION 116.000 ASSESSED VALUE. PRODUCTION DECLINE 0.00% REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX ASSUMPTIONS CURRENT ESTIMATED ASSESSED VALUE 114.20 PROPERTY TAX ASSUMPTIONS -------------------------------------- TAX RAIE 10 CITY (SEE APPORTIONMENT FAC ------------------------ RESIDENTIAL PROP TURN-OVER RATE 10.0% APPORTIONMENT FACTORS (FRACTION OF l.Ot PROP.TAX): BUS 6 CON PROP TURNOVER RATE 5.0% CITY OIL EXTRACTION TAX ASSUMPTIONS -CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL FUND: 0.1175 TRANFER TAX (t OF SALES DOLLARS 0.05St ------------------------------------ -PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM ALLOC. 1.0400 CITY TAX PER BARREL Of OIL 10.2081 (PER PRODUCING WELL )10 BBLt/QTR) BUILDOUT FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR; YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: 1 2 3 / 5 6 7 1 f 10 II 12 (10 X1000) TOTALS 1194-15 IIIS-16 1116-11 1111-91 1118-91 1991-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-12 ' 2001-04 2004-OS 2005-06 ----------------------- 1------ ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ASSESSED VALUE -IU9IDFNIIAI 11,i!l,111 S21,i!! 1252.401 1472.170 1665,616 1160.214 11,815,201 11,26f,1f1 S1,191,112 11.512:1304 11.511:011 11,629,011 $I,629,011 ASSESSED VALUE-BUSINESS 111,500 �D0 10 10 100 36,510 511,5;00 111,Si0O SII,Si00 511,5;00 111,5`00 511,500 CURRENT AV DEDUCTION 10 0 0 1 1 CUMULATIVE PROJECT VALUATION 11,640.541 127.699 1252,407 1412 110 1665 696 1160 294 11,061,708 11.281 t91 11,401 142 11,524.214 11,516,539 11,610,s11 11.640 $41 (t INCREASE OVER PRIOR YEAR) 111.26% 0.Olt 46.!!t ib.23t 2S.11t I{.I St {.51t 1.13% 4.14% 2.16% 6.00% -^---------------------------------------------- SECUREO PROPERTY TAX REVENUE CALCULATIONS: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL FUND 1! t111 fflll 11 112 11 S27 11 !10 1t 275 1? 111 11 101 17 111 1t 112 1? 912 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM ALLOC. Ill 1101 1119 {t65 {311 {13] {ill {561 {610 (639 {6S6 {656 --------------------------------------------- UNSECURED PROPERTY TAX REVENUE CALCULATIONS: RESIDENTIAL i HON-RESIDENTIAL (RRASES ASSUNPS): CITY PUBLICFEMKOTEEIRETIREEMMEENTESYSTEMFALLOC. 0 1 12 S12$3 1S3 ITS 116 I21 S6 130 11 I11 111 I11 ----------------------------------------------- fOTAI PROPERTY TAX REVENUES �SECUREO �UNSECURED) ff ff _ PUBLICFEMPLOYEE IR�ETIAENENACH i 9TSTEMRAL FALLOC. 111 5102 {191 11 I1{26f 111 11{111 542 I1{131 941 f2{S31 2{S61 1�{616 12{616 t2{663 1�{663 REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX REVENUES FROM: NEW RESIDENTIAL PROPERY SALES 1f1S 11l2!4 1121 1106 .1101 1111 110T 661 s61 10 {{11 so MEN NOR-RES RESALES 1n 1n 1t0 1f0 )0 1}�41 fig in 10 1�0 1SO 190 t0 MEN NOR-RES PROPERTY SALES NOR-RES PROPERTY RESALES f0 {G 10 10 id Iv .. TOTAL ANNUAL PROYEiii iiiASiE"n TAX.,: !I& 112S Ills 1112 1111 1169 1169 $137 $143 1123 1112 190 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- OIL RESERVE AD VALOREM (PROPERTY) TAXES\1,2 1401 1111 ITS$ 1143 $110 $111 1106 116 106 In io9 CITY OIL EXTRACTION TAX REVENUE ESTIMATES\1 1322 1142 $111 1120 $111 SID? 194 186 119 111 167 162 •a■aaaaa■saaaaa■aaa■aasaaaasaaaaaaaaaxasasaaaa■aaaaaasaaaasaaaacax::sasasaa....aaasas:axxxaa.......xaaaaxxaxxaaxaaxasaax:::x:xx:x:xxa:saa::xx:x:xxxaxaaxx:xcx:::::xx::::x::::::::: NOTES: 1. REVENUES FOR FY I111-IS INCLUDE INCOME FOR BOTH FY 1111-91 6 FY 1191-15. IT IS ASSUMED HERE THAI IF ANNEXATION OCCURS DURING FY 1992-93 THEN BY THE EMU Of FY 1994-15 (PROJECT YR 1) IN[ CITY WILL HAVE RECEIVED IIIkSk REVENUES IOR IWO TULI YEARS AT MINIMUMS. 2. CITY R�CEIP1 OF THIS REVENUE IS DEPENDENT ON CONDITIONS OF ANNEXATION. THEREFORE THIS REVENUE IS SHOWN HERE BUT NOT INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL PROJECT-GENERATED REVENUES ACCRUING TO THE CITY. OIL EXTRACTION AND AD VALOREM TAX CALCULATION: (All S'$ R 1000) FISCAL YEAR: 1992-93 1113-91 1994-IS 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1991-19 1999-00 2000-01 2001-07 2002-32 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 RESERVE BBLS BEG 18.000,000 9,124,004 1.318,010 7,516,614 6,114.509 6,266,941 S,611,511 5.151,120 4,661,141 4,220.161 3,106.$51 3,06,029 3.015.141 2,753,111 PRODUCTION ESTIMATE I16,000 105,920 111,116 612.131 6t1,560 511,355 511.161 418.614 119,S80 113,61J 310,S?1 350.082 322,016 296,310 RESERVE ASSESSED YAK END !{11f�S61 561 1l111 111 1{101S16.634 5/1 1 191,f02 6 111j1l1 141 5,601.91 180 192 S.19.420 113 2S0 I S66 3I0 661,141 1,220,167 159 916 1 151,0S3 3 116,6SO 029 3 143.611 941 2 139,105 611 2 114,897 POTENTIAL AD VALORNI {230 {210 {191 {114 {ISI {111 {I30 11le 606 196 $86 SUI 169 162 TAXES TO CITY CITY OIL EXTRACTION TAXES 1112 1168 SISI 1142 1111 1120 Sill 110? 194 186 Sig 173 167 167 mom m r M M r m s m r r ur r rn m m r d TABLE A-2 TABLE A-2 11/20/91 8DLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (4100) FIR BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (4100) - FIR CASE STUDY REVENUES: DAVID TAUSSI6 i ASSOCIATES, INC. SALES TAXES, UTILITY TAXES, FRANCHISE FEES RESIDENTIAL INDIRECT SALES TAX GENERATION ASSUMPTIONS DIRECT SALES TAX GENERATION ASSUMPTIONS UTILITY TAX/FRANCHISE FEE ASSUNP71ONS ------------^--- -- ------------------------------- ------------------------------------- -CAICIlAT10M NETH00 t1 'BASIC' SALES TAXES TO CITY (t OF SALES): 1.00% UTILITY UTIL TAX t FRANCH FEE 1\2 PROJECT RESIDENTS' PURCHASES )M/IN CITY (t): S1.0t PROJECT RETAILTAXABLE SALES PER $0 FT: --------- -------- -- --------------- RETAILUTING AXABLESITE EXPEN01TURESs(AS t OF INCOME): 25.0% BUSINESS (OFFICE. I&STRIAL) 1ISO 110 GASWATER S.01 1N%AI in lieu -CALCULATION METHOD 11 TELEPHONE 5.0% N/A AVERAGE ANNUAL SALES TAXES PER NOMOLD: 1143 \1 t SALES TO 11001-PROJECT RESIDENTS 50.0% ELECTRICITY 5.0% N/A CABLE S.01 3.0% BUILDOUT FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: 1 2 3 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 (1s X1000) TOTALS 1191-15 119S-16 1116-11 till-11 1991-91 1999-00 2(l00-01 2001-02 2002-32 2003-04 2006-05 2005-06 -----------—------------------------ ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ....... ------- ......- SALES TAX REVENUE CALCULATIONS: INDIRECT SALES TAX GENERATION -CALCULATION METHOD II (1 INCOME) ANNUAL RESIDENTIAL INCOME $,S01 171,291 1111,114 1201.146 1265,362 1328,379 1304.780 1419.479 1454,459 1111,112 1487.878 1487.878 TAXABLE PURCHASES M/IN CITY 11,063 19,111 111 136 125 193 133 1T0 141 041 111 091 152 135 156 101 159 311 160 915 $60 SOS CALCULATION INDIRECT 12ES TAX GENERATION PER OU) 111 1f1 {111 {259 {Ui 1110 1111 1521 {568 {S93 1610 1610 PTAIIE � 95 5 1{162 29 206 3SO2 1{516 1{616 1l114 1{ 1 I{6 IS I{ 1TOL INDIRECT SALES TAX GENERATION 114 112 216 112 1 { 661 68 91 61 f DIRECT SALES TAX GENERATION ANNUAL TOTALAL TAAXABLEECT 1BUSINESAX SESALES RATION �0 Joe 0 10 Joe 0 0 0 BLE RETAIL SALES to 0 110.153 618 111,785191 118 11 185 118,785110 116,105191 118.785!91 118.785!91 -------------------------------------------------- TOTAL SALES TAX REVENUES (INDIR(il)►DIR) 111 $91 1181 1259 1332 1464 1575 1616 1662 1687 $704 $704 UTILITY TAX/FRANCHISE FEE REVENUE CALCULATIONS: (SEE ASSUMPTIONS ABOVE AND IN TABLE A-ta) WATER eansueptlan per resident/aployes) i 11 30 11 SI 63 13 709 1 18 190 190 6A5 suers b1111 2 11 3/ Il 59 13 11 90 96 19 $lei Mi TELEPHONE average b1111:q I 11 21 38 li 61 72 11 11 65 186 186 ELECTRICITY average bllling 2 9f 16 SI 8] 11 116 1102 1109 1112 1114 1114 CABLE average b1111ng x Penetration rate 2 22 12 58 11 ee 1101 1108 1116 f119 1122 1122 TOTAL UTILITY TAX/FRANCHISE FEE REVENUES 110 190 1170 1234 1290 1366 1425 1456 1481 1503 1514 1514 ■s•aa...■.■a,.■a..aa.,a■..,■aaa...:aaa.,..a::a.a,.a:.,aa,.....a:,aaa..::::.....=aaa::a::,a::c:eaa a:a:ee.::::::::::a::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: NOTES: 1. SOURCE- HINDERLITER DELLANAS 6 ASSOCIATES; CITY SALES TAX CONSULTANT 2. PORTION OF FRANCHISE TEE MACH CONIRIBUTES REVENUE TO THE CITY GENERAL FUND 0 TABLE A-3 TABLE A-3 •"ESCALATION RATES"$ 11/21/11 BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (4100 FIR $"NONE"$ SOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (4100) - FIR PER CAPITA GENERAL FUND REVENUES AND DAVID TAUSSIG 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. ONGOING REVENUE SUMMARY CITY REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS/PER CAPITA MULTIPLIERS CITY REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS/PER CAPITA MULTIPLIERS ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- CITY POPULATION (1/1/91STATE DOF EST� 112,100 PLEASE REFER TO TABLES A-3e 6 A-3D FOR CITY 8;j_t (' PROJECT BOILDOUT RESIDENTIAL POPULATI 12 DST ANALYSIS AND REVENUE MULTIPLIER ASSUMPIIONS. AVG PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD }.11 PROJECT BUILDOUT BUSINESS ACRES 12 eunoour FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: PERCENT 1 2 3 1 5 6 T 1 9 10 11 12 OF TOTAL (it X1000) 1911-15 1195-16 IS96-11 1997-91 1918-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-32 2003-04 2001-05 2005-06 REVENUES ------------------------------------------ -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- RESIDENTIAL POPULATION 242 2.216 1.116 5,519 6,911 8,429 9.711 10,494 11,296 11,111 12.051 12,051 MISINES$DEVELOPED ACRES 0 0 0 0 0 7 17 12 12 12 12 12 GENERAL FINIO REVENUES (PER CAPITA/BUS AC SOURCES) PROPERTY (UTIL UNITARY) TAXES 1 13 25 31 I! SI St 63 61 11 1l 73 1.12% OTHER LOCAL TAXES 1 13 2S 31 12 51 65 10 11 11 19 19 1.22% FINES/FDRFEITURES/PENALTIES 2 IS 27 31 1I6 i51 66 11 76 19 lei 161 1.25% USE OF HONEY 6 PROPERTY S 11 111 105 130 160 131:15 1412 200 s1215 t1223 {1229 1229 1.62% RE113 Q MS FOR CURRROM ENTASERVICES ES s10 11 3 2f i151 211 192 1112 121 140 {ISO 115f 1160 {160 2.71 161 OTHER REVENUE I 16 11 15 12 {21 121 129 {72 {]3 171 �31 0.52% TRANSFER FROM OTHER FINDS 111 11 13 11 22 27 132 31 11 7A 119 39 0.601 TOTAL PER CAPITA/BUS AC SOURCES 123 1112 1195 1531 1616 111$ 19/1 11.019 11,016 11,119 11,161 11,161 11.91% n.n...u...a.uauauaa...afaiau sa.u..aa.:a.as:asau.........u......suan.... ....su.............:::sa sasac......... OTHER REVENUE SOURCES GAS TAX REVENUES 11 1I1 176 1101 1129 1156 silo 1195 s110 1218 1224 1224 3.44% TRANSPORTATION FUND (MEASURE N,SALES TAX) 11 Il0 111 121 13S 119 160 165 110 $72 114 111 1.111 (ESTIMATED BUT INCLUDED IN REVENUE TOTALS) FIRE-MEDICAL PROGRAM REVENUES 13 124 111 160 ill 191 1106 1114 1123 1121 1131 1131 2.02% a.fa...:sa....a.....ai....asa.a.s..i.a...atlastaaLasaesaaasasLia..=.saaL...aaaassats::asL:Las:sLLSL::as::a:LL::ss:scat:L:::a::::::::s:::L::::L:L:::::=: CITY REVENUE SUMMARY PROPERTY TAXES (GENERAL FUND+ 'PERS'): SECURED PROPERTY TAXES 160 IS49 11,021 11,111 11.811 12,353 12.787 13.052 11,3136 13,473 13,568 13,568 $1.90% UNSECURED PROPERTY TAXES 11 15 110 114 119 126 131 134 131 1]1 119 111 0.60t ""L P°:°E!'Y T!±!ES s61 sS55 {1 0]1 fl 162 11 190 11 311 i2 e1l 13 016 13 352 13 511 11 608 13.608 55.511 REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAXES TO iii5 }7+S "." }!!! }ILL }If9 }131 }143 }123 }112 190 1.38% OIL RESERVE AD VALORUN (PROPERTY) TAXES N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A KiA giA m;A 0.0nt nll cr1o►CI111N TAXES 1322 1112 1]1 s120 ff112 1t102 194 166 119 111 167 162 0.95t SHIES TAXES DIRECT • INDIRECT ii �'aa i�t� l332 1161 pis }61t }662 }681 {101 1101 IO.e31 UTILITY TAXES/FRANCHISE FEES 10 190 #I10 {231 290 `366 f12! 1��0 pia, �5:7 5!! S11 1.91f PER CAPITA GENERAL FUND REVENUES 23 1112 1395 1531 1666 1115 191/ 11.019 11,096 11,179 11,168 11,168 17.91% TOTAL GENERAL RMO REVENUES 1112 11.222 12.051 112,115 13,432 11,211 15,025 IS,102 IS,120 16.011 15,172 16,145 91.51t aa.fat.... a..fa....... ""..aaii..a.ii..i.tii.......ill�LaLiaiII.aLii.IIL.s.asti:II.Lt_L....aLL_L...at_i______IIt__.___i_L.__L.L___aS._i___i_:_i.._•__a_-- TOTAL GENERAL, GAS TAX, FIRE-NED FUND REVS: 1111 11,211 12.112 12.909 11,616 11,542 15.111 15,111 16,152 16.383 16,527 16.500 100.00% a..aa.a.■.aaaa........a....a..a.a..a.aasa.i..asaa..i...■a.a:.a...iai.LLLisaa.s.sa.a..8....Litac...............2.......... 'L.....::::L::.L:.. a TOTAL GENERAL US TAX, FIRE-NED FUND REVS: 111f 11.217 12.112 12.109 13.636 14,542 15.311 IS,711 16,152 16,101 16,521 16,500 100.00% ESCALATED AT THE FOLLOWING RATE: 0.0% ■■...a..is.a■a..aaaaa.sis.a.a..a..a...aaasa..i.....a....L..La.:IIa.aai.sai.La...a..taaaL.....LisL...a.at.saa:L.L:saas:taLc::a:Lco_LLLL:::c:_:--:_____i:_ Gomm mmmmmm am mmmmm d TABLE A-S TABLE A-S "'ESCALATION RAIES"' 11/20/91 BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (4100) FIR BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (4100) - FIR RECURRING COUNTY COSTS: DAVID TAUSSIS A ASSOCIATES, INC. GENERAL AND ROAD FUND COSTS CASE STUDY COST ASSUMPTIONS PER CAPITA/BUS ACRE COST FACTORS PER CAP PER AC ^------------ --------------------- ------ -------- ------- GENERAL BOYERNIIEIIT A AONINISTRAIION - NON-OEPARIMENTAL 136.25 jswu AS A PERCENTAGE ON DIRECT COSTS 1.97% - FIRE PROTECTION (ADMIN A CITY-WIDE SERVICES 19.72 1161.18 POLICE SERVICES - PUBLIC WORKS (AOMIN, ENG 6 CITY FACIL PLAINT 115.16 592.95 COST PER CALL 1299.01 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (PLANNING, BLDG SERVI ES) 17.11 FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES - COMMUNITY SERVICES 121.60 1121.SIII./11 PHASE 1 PARAMEDIC S1A 'SHARE' 1450.129 0 Ph 1 du threshold - LIBRARY SERVICES 116.41 10.00 PHASE PERM STA; INTERIM STAFF 11,000,000 2,500 Ph II du threshold -PHASE 11. PERM STA: FULL STAFF 1,339.716 4,500 Ph Ill du threshold PUBLIC WORKS -PLEASE SEE THE FOLLOMIND TABLE, TABLE A-6, FOR THESE COST FACTORS BUILODUT FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: PERCENT 1 2 3 / 5 6 7 / 9 10 11 12 OF TOTAL (1e •1006) 1194-IS ISIS-It 1196-91 1197-11 1991-99- - - - 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-32 2001-01 2001-05 2005-06 COSTS -------------------------------------------- ------------------ --------- --------- -------- -------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -------- --------- ------- (PLEASE SEE PROJECT OESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION FOR PROJECT POPULATION GROWTH) oawEMt la lu=213 GENERAL GOVERNMENT A ADMINISTRATION 146 f111 172 l213 29t 339 ]75 791 111 451 165 165 1.23% NON DEPARTMENTAL (UTILITIES, LEASING) 11 }61 11, SIGs 1210 1251 1700 1721 1311 1161 1310 1310 6.561 POLICE SERVICES 133 1132 616 ITS 11,063 11.290 11,163 11,553 11.61/ 11.619 11,711 11,117 30.41% (., FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES ADMINISTRATION A CITY WIDE SERVICES 12 122 10 151 f61 Ill 196 1104 ill? 1116 1119 1119 2.11% FIRE CONTROL i PARAMEDIC 1451 1151 1151 1151 I1, 00 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,340 11,140 11.340 11,340 23.13% PUBLIC WORKS ADMIN. ENO A CITY FACIL NAINT 9 119 1111 1200 1241 1102 1141 1116 1404 1420 $431 1431 1.64% LOCAL PARK MAINTENANCE • 0 10 11S 2S 12S /1 193 161 169 169 161 169 1.21% STREET LAET NDSCAPE NAINTEMIINCE • 2 1161 Ills 091 101 I211 1125 31 1111 1261 1 127, 1 1 211 2/2 {/2 1.991 STREET TIGHT ILIUM A MAINTENANCE • I 21 133 110 1�+ 111 170 111 11t 11S 1B 161 1.511 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (PLANNING A BLDG) 2 16 21 10 LIBRARYCOMMUNITY RVICCIESE3 1 16 f161 f192 1111 1131 1159 1214 11154 ? 134 115 1ISS 193 1364 191 1364 191 3.50% 8.88989gaalaaraaaaraaaasaruaaraaurrsaeaaasssas......arasasauasaria.aaaurrsaasissssaszaaaaa:aaaaat zaa:aiz:i:t ...ai:a:::izz:x:z:z::azaixza Sa:iz:::x:ae v-zz::zi:ia TOTAL GENERAL FUND. ROAD FUND ONGOING COSTS 1561 11,121 12.015 12,511 13,611 11,121 11,560 14,120 15,1?9 15.550 IS,616 15.646 100.00% aasrraaaaaasaatatarrrataasParrsaraasasssasati arse......asssas....zzsrrzsaeszzssass......s.....a...asst:s:szizsit:tPiz...... ::::zzsa::::::zixz:es:::: TOTAL GENERAL FUND ROAD FUND ONGOING COSTS 1564 11,127 12,015 12,591 11,611 14,121 11,560 11,120 15.421 15.560 15.646 I5,616 ESCALATED AT THE 1011OWINB RATE: 0.0% raPPrrPaatPr■PaaaairraastaPaPPN'taaiarataasaaaiPitaara'*A"6"PPaaaasaataila.......zaaaaaaatai:a:iaa....."a-.-.a...a .......... i__.... • PLEASE SEE ALSO FACILITIES NAIMTENANCE COSTS, TABLE A-6, FOR DETAIL TABLE A-1 TABLE A-6 BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (1100) - FIR RECURRING CITYECIFIC COSTS:PLAN (1100) FIR DAVID TAUSSIO 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. PUBLIC WORKS/OTHER FACILITIES MAINTENANCE GENERAL FUND, COST FACTORS OTHER FACILITES, COS1-FACTORS ------------------------------------ --------------------- ----------------- LOCAL PARK NAINTENANCE 14,164 /ac/yr PARKWAY LANDSCAPING 11,221 /ac/yr COMIRINITY PARK N/A/as/yr NEOIAN LANDSCAPING �II 221 /ac/yr STREET LIGHTS (ILLUN/MAINT) fill /light/yr ROAO FUND. -----------RAINTENANCE COST FACTORS ------------------------------------ STREET MAINTENANCE/REPLACEMENT 13,350 /Ian@ f1/yr BUILOOUT FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: 1 2 3 1 5 6 1 1 9 1c 11 12 (is M1000) 1991-IS 1995-11 1116-11 1191-91 119e-91 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-12 2001-04 2004-05 2005-06 ----------------------------------------------- ----------- ------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ------•---- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- GENERAL FUND. PARK FACILITIES NAINTENANCE LOCAL PARK MAINTENANCE l0 10 P5 12S 125 125 145 169 169 169 169 $69 COMNINIITY PARK NAINTENANCE N/A N/A N/A H/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A TOTAL GENERAL FUND PARK NAINTENANCE COSTS: 10 10 $is 125 125 125 145 169 169 169 169 169 ffaaaafaa...saa.alma)...a..aasffaa..au.aasaas.......os............... ::a a...mesas......aassaxasa:uaesaaax....aasa:a.araa:a ROAD FIND, RIGHT OF MAY RAINTENANCE is c CROSS OAP CONNECTOR 0 136 116 36 136 36 131 36 36 136 136 116 ARIERIALS 0 5 110 II 1111 22 121 29 32 113 $35 115 LOCAL STREETS 10 �5 11 112 S11 123 110 135 141 145 140 140 TOTAL ROAD FIND FACILITIES MAINTENANCE COSTS: 11 14S 152 161 111 111 113 1100 lice 1111 llls ills ■■seffffff.ffaf.rffafaf...as..a.f.f....saasas x.xssc.......csssxsxsx.scan:.::...s:xe.x...... xsex:xxx.xs..sassax.::xa.sa:s.xxxaxxc:::.::ss.::::xxx:xxx::s::as:s::::::x::x::::x::::::::::x:::::::: STREET LANDSCAPING 6 116Hi1NO MAINTENANCE PARKWAY LANDSCAPING 11 1101 1114 1125 11131 1s149 111161 1168 Ills 1110 $yy113 $is3 MEDLAR WtltxAiiiii+ 1 161 111 }16 H. 1tR 466 I12 119 93 {B1 199 STREET LIGHTS 11 fil 1» i:f .•- TOTAL STREET LANDSCAPING 6 LIGHTING COSTS 12 Wi i21: l?!? U66 S290 $111 1133 1319 1160 136e 1160 fsa.fsfffffasa.assmamas.aae�a�...a..a.aa.......s.aaa.sx.as.asaa.a.xaxxsaxxxx:a.xa.x..axsxx:ca.::a:a:x.ax:s::x::s:s:x::x:x::s::::::a: •� �r �w w a r �. r w �■s w o w �r• w r w r .�r r m mew no m m m m r m �s TABLE A-lb 11/20/91 IOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PUN (1100) FIR D.TAUSSIG 6 ASSOCIATES. INC. INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC FACILITIES IUINTENANCE QUANTITIES - PHASING FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: 1 2 3 1 5 6 1 / 9 10 II 12 (Is x1000) TOTALS 1194-15 1195-96 1196-11 1197-11 1911-99 1992-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-32 2003-04 2001-OS 2005-06 --------------------------------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ARTERIAL DEDICATION PHASING PERCENTAGE OF CROSS GAP CONNECTOR DEDICATED 100.01 STREET NILES DEDICATED TO CITY CROSS GAP CONNECTOR 0.00 2.53 2.53 2.53 2.53 1.53 1.53 2.53 2.53 2.53 2.51 2.53 ARTERIALS 0.05 0.41 0.11 1.21 1.11 2.01 2.41 2.11 2.91 3.13 3.24 1.24 LOCAL STREETS 0.05 0.72 1.10 1.11 2.66 3.45 4.52 S.30 6.10 6.60 7.10 7.10 TOTAL SIREEF NILES 1.09 3.73 4.52 5.60 1.11 9.07 9.54 10.56 11.60 12.31 12.06 12.06 LANE NILES DEDICATED TO CITY CROSS GA/CONNECTOR 0.00 10.62 10.62 10.62 10.12 10.62 10.62 10.62 10.62 10.62 10.62 10.62 ARTERIALS 0.16 1.51 2.15 4.13 5.34 6.66 7.97 1.12 1.49 10.00 10.34 10.31 LOCAL STREETS 0.09 1.11 2.19 3.SS 5.35 6.91 9.04 10.60 12.20 13.36 14.20 14.20 TOTAL LANE NILES 0.24 13.51 15.16 1/.30 21.31 24.11 27.63 29.91 32.32 33.91 ]S.16 35.11 STREET LIGHTS INTERVAL. FT CROSS GAP CONNECTOR 15 0 111 111 171 111 111 111 111 171 111 111 111 ARTERIALS 1S 3 31 13 11 111 141 116 112 209 220 221 221 LOCAL STREETS 100 2 31 SI 94 141 192 239 290 322 3S] 31S 315 TOTAL STREET LIGHTS 5 219 299 363 411 SO1 S93 650 709 151 131 111 TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATIONS N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PARKWAY RAINT ACRES CROSS GAP CONNECTOR 0.00 6.13 6.13 6.13 6.13 6.13 6.13 6.13 1.13 6.13 6.13 6.13 ARTERIALS 0.10 0.19 1.81 2.61 3.41 4.34 S.19 5.61 1.19 6.51 6.11 6.14 LOCAL STREETS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL PARKWAY MAINTENANCE ACRES 0.10 1.12 7.91 1.12 9.61 10.41 11.32 11.11 12.32 12.64 12.11 12.11 MEDIAN MAINT ACRES CROSS UP CONNECTOR 0.00 4.21 4.29 4.29 4.21 4.29 4.29 4.21 4.29 4.29 4.29 4.29 ARTERIALS 0.04 0.31 0.13 I.OS 1.16 1.10 2.03 2.22 2.42 2.55 2.64 2.64 LOCAL STREETS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL MEDIAN NAINIENANCE ACRES 0.04 4.60 5.02 5.34 S.6S 5.99 6.32 6.Si 1.11 6.11 6.93 6.91 LOCAL PARK MAINTENANCE ACRES AVG PARK SIZE: TOTAL PARK AC: Warner Pk Ovrlook Pk Nets Connector Pk 4.11 11 INCRE: 0.00 0.00 3.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 5.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 CUM: 0.00 0.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 S.00 9.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 11.00 14.00 COMMUNITY PARK MAINTENANCE ACRES AYG PARK SIIE: TOTAL PARK AC: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A TABLE A-1 TABLE A-7 11/21/91 BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (1100) FIR BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (4100) - FIR LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT OAY10 TAUSSIa 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. PARCEL CHARGE WINA110N 1 BUILDOUT FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: 1 2 3 1 5 6 7 1 9 10 11 12 (is x1010) 1194-95 1115-96 1996-91 1197-91 1991-19 1191-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-32 2001-04 2004-05 2005-06 --- ---- ------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- DEVELOPRENT ACREAGE SPLIT - RESIDENTIAL VERSUS BUSINESS ACRES RESIDENTIAL ACRES 6.5 66.2 124.5 180.4 233.2 214.1 336.5 359.4 403.2 /25.1 110.2 110.2 BUSINESS ACRES 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.5 11.6 11.5 11.5 II.S 11.5 11.5 DEVELOPMENT ACRES 6.5 66.2 124.5 180.4 213.2 290.1 311.0 380.9 414.1 136.E 01.1 451.7 FRACTION OF RES ACRES 1.00 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.10 0.11 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.17 0.91 RESIDENTIAL UNITS 95 076 1.662 7.302 2,853 31512 1,023 1,320 4,624 4,777 1,875 4,675 ------------------------------------------------ ESTIRATION OF LANDSCAPE 6 LIGHTING DISTRICT CHARGES: DISTRICT 361 DISTRICT 11 111 DISTRICT OSTM%AMINICOSTS COSTS aiii% 11 1225 1251 1218 305 334 364 113 402 411 1423 1423 TOTAL SNARE OF PARCEL CHARGES: TO RESIDENTIAL USES 3 1226 1251 1270 1305 1325 $152 1371 1311 1404 1413 1413 TO BUSINESS USES 30 11 11 SO SO 11 112 112 111 111 111 ill ESTIMATED PARCEL CHARGES: PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT (0001t) 121.19 1256.34 1150.90 1120.76 1101.01 192.91 $81.54 185.90 114.46 184.48 184.65 104.65 PER BUSINESS/APARTNElf ACRE 10.00 $0.00 $0.00 10.00 10.00 11.141.11 11,046.14 11,004.11 1968.61 1149.14 1931.43 1931.43 Issas atsiiiiii■iaaaiiiCii[its[t[a.......[:......:ia.......... csaa=att......aasa[ii::tL:ii sat LL[a:=a:=:=a=a:=::::t=:=:a=i=::==:::::::::i::::[ s r ow TABLE -9 TABLE A-9 , 11/20/11 BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (I800) FIR BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (4100) -FIR SUNNARY OF RECURRING FISCAL INPAACIS DAYID TAUSSIG 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. TO CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH: GENERAL FUND AND ROAD FUND •••u•• PROPERTY TAX INCREASE ASSUMPTIONS GENERAL HIND AND ROAD FUND REVENUE --------*"NOW" GENERAL INCREASE ASSUMPTION: 0.0% • NONE • GENERAL FUND AND ROAD FUND COST • INCREASE ASSUMPTION: 0.Ot • »u•a BUILDOUT FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: 1 2 3 1 S 6 1 1 9 10 11 12 13 (10 X1001) 1194-95 1115-96 1996-11 1197-91 1191-91 1191-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-12 2003-04 2004-05 2005-Oi 2006-0I CITY GENERAL FUND 6 ROAD FUND ss ss ss �INNGG costs 1661SOO "49 1,121 32,OIS 12,591 11,i19 1,121 1,560 11,120 f5,121 �5,560 t5,646 521 {5,616 I5,495 646 ANNUAL REVENUE/COST RATIO 0.10 0.90 1.04 1.12 1.00 1.10 1.16 1.11 1.13 1.15 1.16 1.15 1.15 ANNUAL ONGOING SURPLUS (DEFICIT) ( 115 110 111 315 11 120 $151 1191 1121 1021 1181 $154 1849 CUMULATIVE SURPLUS/(DE�CIT) (�116; ��256; (1169) 1116 1I63 513 11,331 12.225 12,911 13,111 14,652 15.505 16.354 /ttttttttititttttttttttitittittttitiiitiiittitit....stiiitiiittiiiiittiitiiif ii ii tIIiiititi..IIitiiitII--iiii-i.3.II----.-----.-3---------------------------- • INCLUDES ANY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH POTENTIAL LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING OISIRICT. APPENDIX C 1 FISCAL MODEL, ALTERNATIVE q3 (39500 UNIT PLAN) 1 i i 1 1 1 � ,; omen»s M an = w w M, am M w m m r taw Mae m m m TABLE A STAY.SUN I9-Nov=11 0 :02 Pit tom. HIM CHICA 13450AOUATISTICAL SUMARY DAVID TAUSSI i A55550oCC1ATES, INC. 1PRINARY USE DATA -------------------------1PROJECT VALUATION/NARKETING DATA (41000)----------------- IDENDGRAPHIC DATA ------- DENSITY RES OUs/ OVERALL ABSORPTION (PERS/W /LAMMIMB PRIMARY/BINARY ((OU{(AC) BUS BLOB PA START ABSORPTION AVG BASE AVG AVG TOTAL TOTAL AVG SF _(SF/ENP3 RES POP/ INASE AREA(PA) USE USE AC. (BUS .A.R SS fl ACRES SMARTER RATE PRICE PRENIUN PRICE SALES VALUE PER OU POP FACT. EMP POP _�tuaitau• �� •uau�tt_.�--------------�ut �Futtusu��uu ••�����- ----------------- --•uuau��-------------- ----- -------------- -------- --- ---- -- RESIDENTIAL \ 1 A 1.1 TH 1 12.5 6.25 126 12.5 6 21.0 1231 19 211 30,113 1,310: 2.50 313 2 A'1.1 IN-1 1.25 125 1 21.1 231 9 241 30.011 1,310 2.50 311 3 A-2.1 SFO 1 34.0 14.0 125 34.0 IS 0.4 115 116 161 95,105 3.150 3.10 HI / A-3./ 3FO-1 12.5 12.5 63 12.5 7 1.4 115 131 111 41.115 3.150 3.10 195 5 A'1.1 TH/FL 1 16.1 1.70 200 16.1 7 36.0 201 0 201 41,100 1.110 1.90 3/0 6 A-1.1 TN/FL'9 1.41 170 13 36.0 201 0 207 35,190 1.110 1.90 323 1 Al.$ it 11- 27.4 6.05 250 27.4 1 27.0 261 0 261 65,250 1,310 2.50 625 1 A-5.1 FL-12 1.85 251 16 30.0 334 0 334 13,500 1,390 2.50 625 /All TR/FL 1 6.15 250 1 36.0 207 0 207 $1,750 1.110 1.10 115 11 A'S.3 FL 10 6.6S ISO 16 21.1 212 0 212 53,000 1.010 1.90 47S I1 A'6.0 TH)FL 9 13.1 7.11 115 13.1 1 36.0 207 2 209 96,540 1.110 1.90 333 12 A'6.1 FL 11- 6.10 110 12 27.0 261 2 263 11,665 1,310, 2.50 425 13 A'1.0 TH-1 15.1 15.1 169 15.1 12 15.0 370 S 31S 10,130 1,940 2.50 113 1/ Al.$ FL-11 13.3 13.3 116 13.3 7 21.1 212 0 212 35,192 1.010 1.90 315 15 A'1.1 fl'I2 30.0 10.00 ISO 30.0 16 30.0 334 3 331 11,333 1,390 2.50 625 16 A-1.1 FL'12 11.00 250 2/ 30.0 134 3 331 /1,331 1,390 2.50 625 0.00 1/A 1.6 TH:1 11.5 111.5 �11 11.5 12 21.1 231 I20 231 114S.510 9271 10 .50 20.31 2.50 21 A 12.0 IN 1 11.6 17.1 111 11.1 16 15.0 370 0 310 0.0 IO 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000.00 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 o.o D 0 0o 0 0.00 0 eo e 0 0 0 o 01.00 0 0..0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 o.0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 O 0.0 0 0 0 100 00.0000.0 0 0 0 0 0.00 O 0.0 0 0 $0 0 0 0.00 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.00 0 1_, 0.0 D 0 1011 Io0 O 0.010 0 BUSINESS TEST ►A1 CON CON 1.00 0.25 0 {{1,000 TO 250 0 TESI'IA2 NEIGR CON 1.06 1.25 0 11,000 f0 250 0 - WMW ------------------ -------- --------- --------- -------- -------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -- RESIDENTIAL TOTALS 211.30 211.3 3.567 211.3 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL VALUATION: 11,068.632 RES POP: 0.304 BUSINESS TOTALS 0.0 0 0.0 TOTAL BUSINESS VALUATION: 10 BUS POP: 0 --• ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -- IROJECT-- - -------- --- iOTAIS 211.3----- -^--^-- ----•- -- ^ - -- ------ I1,06/,132 1,301 Ita! II/H 1%SA CHICA 3501) - FIR PROJECT DESCRIPTION D.TAUSSIG I ASWIATES. INC. CLOSINGS (OCCUPANCIES) BY FISCAL YEAR i 2 3 1 5 6 1 1 l 10 11 12 ABS DEN- FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY UNIT PRICE PER START SITY CK- 1991 1915 loll 11197 1991 1992 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 PHASE PA TYPE loll !o OUo Q1R QTR (L,M,H) SUN 1195 1196 1111 Ills 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 ----------- --------------- -------------- ------ -------- ----- ------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- RESIDENTIAL 1 A 1.0 1N 1 211 12S 21.1 1 LON 125 29 96 2 A'I.I TH-1 241 125 21.1 1 LON 125 16 39 3 A'2.1 SFD 1 111 125 0.4 1S HIGH 125 31 31 31 21 1 A'3.1 SFD'1 111 63 0.4 1 KE01011 13 31 21 S A1.1 TH/FL t 217 200 36.1 1 LON 200 111 56 1 A'/.1 THAI. 1 201 111 36.0 13 LON 110 12 to 1 A'S.0 FL 11' 261 251 21.0 1 LON 250 111 101 61 1 A-S.1 FL-12 334 2S1 30.0 16 LON 2S0 20 120 10 t A'5.2 TH)FL 1 201 251 36.0 1 LON 250 101 142 11 A-`S.3 FiiL 1L0- 22p12 22500 21`.p1 16 LOW� 250 16 11S 11 All FLJI�! !iA I�0 i1.0 11 LON 111 101 !1 19 13 A-1.0 IN-7 31S 119 IS.O 12 MEDIUM 119 IS 60 60 21 11 A-1.1 FL-10 212 166 26.1 7 KEOIUN 166 115 $I IS A'9.0 FL-12 337 250 30.0 16 MEDIUM 250 90 120 10 11 A'9.1 FL-12 337 250 30.0 21 MEDIUM 250 90 120 10 I1 A-0.2 FL-12 331 250 30.4 30 MEDIUM 250 30 120 100 II A-10.0 TN-1 265 105 21.1 19 MEOIUN 105 105 It A-I1.1 TH'1 231 11 21.0 12 MEDIUM 01 I1 20 A-12.1 TH-1 310 123 IS.O 16 HIGH 121 IS 60 11 ------------- -------- -------- --------- ----- ------ -------- ----- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- INCREKINIAL MIT 29 772 111 653 614 294 111 110 100 CUMULATIVE 3,S67 29 801 1,572 2.225 2.139 3.113 3.307 3,161 1.567 3,567 3.567 3.567 wo m me �, mom WIM X <-REGIS II-Nov-91 1 2 3 1 5 6 1 / 9 10 II I2 13 II IS II 3.561 -UNIT PLAN FY FY FY FY FY FT FY FY FY ' FY FY FY FY FY FY F1 1f91 1995 1996 1997 1221 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 200, INCRENENTALS: 1f95 1191 1921 1991 1199 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2001 2001 2009 201: --------- ---------- -------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -------- TOTAL UNITS 3,S61 NO.DUi N/ DENSITY >=10 1,602 3.567 DUS ASS DU - RES 29 172 711 153 614 294 114 160 100 0 O 0 N/A AC ABS BUS -SEE ACs N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 11.061,132 AV AV - RES 17,099 11f1,522 11f1,139 1203.0306 1203,022 1101.69) 169,012 153.973 131,133 0 s0 0 f0 AY AY - BUS 100 10 10 {0 10 10 10 10 10 SO 0 1,311 PE POP- RES 12 1,6 6 1.712 1.512 1,486 126 450 400 250 0 0 0 0 PERSONS POP - ENP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 211.3 AC DEV'D AC - RES 2.1 54.6 /6.6 31.9 51.4 11.4 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 AC DEV'D AC -BUS 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 111.30 AC AC STS- LO RES 2.81 31.61 33.13 17.49 14.40 4.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A AC AC SIS-BUS (N/A) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1330.52219 RESIDENT INCOME RESIDENTS' INCOME 12,2s15 161.101 163,6661 162.9551 161,3664 132,2660 120,1660 116,11s3 110,277 0 0 0 :.110.IS TAXABLE SALES PPOOLICEICA LSE RESS 27.69 103.150 12S.3S 691.OT 111.21 351.11 231.50 211.10 1'%.19 0.10 0.10 0.10 1.06 CALLS -80 POLICE CAMS - BUS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PROJECT YEAR--> 1 2 3 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 11 IS 1 12.126 174 RES AV GROMIH 11,i1f 1223,211 1110,101 1111,300 1992,251 11,15f,611 11,2t7,1)1 11,395,026 11,117,111 11,526,651 )1,572,595 11,621,611 11,613,126 11,121,911 11,111,3t6 )1,11f,01 00 BUS AV GkONIH 10 10 10 f0 10 10 10 10 1 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 1 INCREASED AV YR 12/11 2101.13% 106.33% $5.91% 31.111 16.11% 10.11% 8.66% 6•.361 2.191 3.01% ).121 ).211 3.30% 3.381 3.4 ASSINIPS: TAX GRIN: 2.0% RES TURNOVER: 10.0% RES MI: /.0% BUS TURNOVER: 5.0% BUS NRN1: 4.0% INCRE STRI YR: 1193 TABLE A-1 TABLE A-1 $$*MALAIION RAIfSs" 11/11/11 BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (]SOO) FIR $$$NONE $ IOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (3500) - FIR CASE STUDY REVENUES: PROPERIY TAXES DAVID TAUSSIG 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. AND REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAXES 1 ASSESSED VALUATION ASSUMPTIONS UNSECURED PROPERTY TAX ASSUMPTIONS OIL RESERVES PROPERTY TAX ASSUMPTIONS ------------------------------ ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------- PLEASE REFER TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION SECTION FOR RESIDENTIAL- AS i OF SECURED: 1.0% ESTIMATED OIL RESERVES 10,000.000 BARRELS ASSUMPTIONS DETERMINING CALCULATIONS OF PROJECT NON-RESIDENTIAL - AS t OF SECURED: 15.0% ESIIMAIEO PRODUCTION 816.000 BARRELS/YR ASSESSED VALUE. PRODUCTION DECLINE /.00% REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX ASSUMPTIONS CURRENT ESTIMATED ASSESSED VALUE 114.20/BARREL PROPERTY TAX ASSUMPTIONS -------------------------------------- TAX RATE TO CIIY (SEE APPORTIONMENT FACTORS) ------------------------ RESIDENTIAL PROP TURN-OVER RATE 10.0% APPORTIONMENT FACTORS (FRACTION OF 1.0% PROP.TAX): BUS 6 CON PROP TURN-OVER RATE 5.0% CITY OIL EXTRACTION TAX ASSUMPTIONS -CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL FUND: 0.1115 TRAMFER TAX (t OF SALES DOLLARS O.OSS% ------------------------------------ -PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM ALLOC. 0.0400 CITY TAX PER BARREL OF OIL 10.2011 /BARREL (PER PRODUCING WELL )10 BBLs/QTR) BUILDOUI FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR. YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: 1 2 3 1 s 6 1 1 9 10 11 12 13 (1s x1000) TOTALS 1114-1S Ills-16 1966-97 1117 9/ 1199-19 1919.00 2006-01 2001-02 2002-32' 2003-04 2004-05 2005.06 2006-01 -------------•----------- ------ ------- ------- ------- ---- -- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ----- ------ ------- -------- ASSESSED VALUE- RESIDENTIAL 11,861.132 11,099 111t,1f21 1391.360 1600,311 1103,1tt20 1112,1j11 1111,125 $1,035,090 11,068,81j2 11,068,832 11.060,112 11.061,112 11.061.1ss12 ASSESSCUARENIOAYAIDUETBSINES3 ;� � S0 Ile 0 10 10 10 10 SO t0 10 {0 f0 CUMULATIVE PROJECT VALUATION 11.061.032 17,019 1 HI 621 f311 360 f600,391 f103 I20 {912 113 3911 125 11,07S 091 f1.060 032 11,061 e32 11.060 $32 11.061 112 11,06e,172 (1 INCREASE OVER►R1011 YEAR) 2fli.12t 106.06t sl.lOt hillt li.111 i.51% �.S1 i.261 b.00t 6.00t 6.001 6.00% ----------•-------------------------------------- SECURED PROPERTY TAX REVENUE CALCULATIONS: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL FUND I13 13SI ssl11 11 111 11 426 11 611 II 112 II 13e 11 I!1 I1 191 fl 1!7 {1 1!1 11 191 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM ALLOC.-------- 13 111 SIS1 i210 i32t 4365 i312 1111 i12t i121 i121 1121 i121 ---------------------------------------- UNSECURED PROPERTY TAX REVENUE CALCULATIONS: RESIDENTIAL 6 MOM-RESIDENTIAL (SEE ASSUNPS): CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL FUND 0 11 s7 111 114 116 111 111 111 119 11! 119 119 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM ALLOC. 10 11 f2 12 13 11 II fl fl 11 11 11 fl ------------------------------------------- TOTAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUES (SECURED #UNSECURED) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL FUND 113 1356 {112 fl 116 11 111 11 635 {I 15! {1 es6 II 916 11 916 II 116 11 116 11 116 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM ALLOC. 13 {10 1161 �i13 �325 1361 �3% illl i432 il]2 �132 �132 i132 REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX REVENUES FROM: NEW RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY SALES 1 1105 1109 11112 f1#12 Ss60 {31 191 1S1 1so Iso 1199 Ito VFW NNON-RES IPAOPERIY SALES 0 10 Ii0 f10 1f0 130 !0 10 10 10 10 10 ;0 NON-RES PROPERTY RESALES TOTAL ANNUAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAXES 11 1106 1120 1131 1145 $lei fee 1e1 $15 IS9 159 W i13 OIL RESERVE AO VALOREM (PROPERTY) TAXES\1,2 1401 1111 Ilse i m W; S11L Ms L16 116 111 169 162 155 CITY OIL EXTRACTION TAX REVENUE ESTIMATES\1 1322 1142 1131 1120 fill 1102 111 116 179 111 161 162 I51 BanBaas...gas aaaaaasaaaa■auaaaauuaaa■utaa■aaaasoaasaoacaac.eauasaa:casasa..............ac:aa:a................ a:ce:ec::z:z::e:z uee:::::z::e::eaz:::a w::zz:cc::::z::..a NOTES: 1, REVENUES FOR FT 1111-95 INCLUDE INCOME FOR BOTH FY 1113-91 6 FY I111-1S. IT IS ASSUMED HERE (HAT IF ANNEXATION OCCURS DURING FY 11/2-93 THEN BY THE END OF FY 1994-95 (PROJECT YR 1) THE CITY WILL HAVE RECEIVED THESE REVENUES FOR 1WO FALL YEARS (AI MINIMUMS. 2, CITY RECEIPT OF THIS REVENUE IS DEPENDENT ON CONDITIONS OF ANNEXATION. THEREFORE THIS REVENUE IS SHOWN HERE BUT NOT INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL PROJECT-GENERAIED REVENUES ACCRUING TO THE CITY. OIL EXTRACTION AND AD VALOREM TAX CALCULATION: (All 1's x 1100) f SCAT YEAR: 1192-93 1113-11 1911-15 1995-96 1996-97 1197-91 1991-99 1919-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-32 2003-04 2004-05 2ODS-06 RESERVE BBLS BEG 10,000,000 l,I21,000 t,311,010 1,576,634 6.194.503 6,266,913 S,619,SB1 S,IS1,120 4,661.141 4.220,167 3,106,SS1 3.426.029 3,015,917 2,153,171 PRODUCTION ESTIMATE 116,000 105,926 141,116 612,131 621,510 $17,355 $31,161 466,674 441,510 413,613 110.524 350,082 322,076 296,110 RESERVE BBLS ENO 11111. 1 111.010 1 516.614 6.114.503 1,266,913 5,619,511 S,IS1,120 4.161,141 4,220,161 1,106,S51 1,425,029 3.015,941 2,753,811 2,151,S61 POTENTIAL AD VALORUN �129t2]1 {I11l210 ;1011111 f!1{114 111{Ise 110i147 I13i170 166iIll f591106 126 {51.116 {II Ie6 650 I13•SIB 179,163 $34,891 162 TAXES TO CITY CITY OIL EXTRACTION TAXES I112 1160 NISI 1142 $Ill 1120 $111 1102 $94 186 179 $13 161 167 mom ■ TABLE A-2 TABLE A-2 II 1!/!1 BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAIT (3500) FIR 10LSA t111CA SPECIFIC PLAN (3500) -FIR CASE STUDY REVENUES: DAVID TAUSSIG 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. SALES TAXES, UTILITY TAXES, FRANCHISE FEES RESIDENTIAL INDIRECT SALES TAX GENERATION ASSUMPTIONS DIRECT SALES TAX GENERATION ASSUMPTIONS UTILITY TAX/FRANCHISE FEE ASSUNPTIONS ------------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------------- -CAICULAfION METHOD Bt 'BASIC' SALES TAXES TO CITY (;OF SALES): 1.00% UTILITY UTIL TAX ; FRANCH FEE ;\2 PROJECT RESIDENTS' PURCHASES WIN CITY (;): 50.0; PROJECT TAXABLE SALES PER SQ F1: --------- ----------- --•----------•- 4EXCLUDING ONSITE PURCHASES break-even' RETAIL (NEIGHBORHOOD) 1150 MAZER S.O; 1S.0; in lieu 1AIL TAXABLE EXPENDITURES ,AS;OF INCOME): 2S.0; BUSINESS (OFFICE, INDUSTRIAL) 110 GAS 5.0% N/A -CALCULATION METHOD 11 TEtEPHONE 5.0% N/A AVERAGE ANNUAL SALES TAXES PER HOUSEHOLD: 1143 \1 ;SALES TO NON-PROJECT RESIDENTS 50.0% ELECTRICITY S.O; MIA CABLE 6.0% 3.0% BUIIDOUI FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: 1 2 3 1 S 6 1 1 9 10 11 12 (is x1600) TOTALS 1994-15 1915-16 1916-91 199T-91 1921-91 1991-00 2000.01 2001-02 2002-32 2001-04 2004-05 2005-06 ------------------------------------------------ ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ....... ------- ------- ------- ------- SALES TAX REVENUE CALCULATIONS: INDIRECT ES TAX GENER TON -CICIIAT NE HOD 11 N NCOME) ANNUAL RESIDENTIAL IWOK 12 215 $63,311 1127.017 1190,005 12S1.389 $213,849 1901.809 $320,252 1330,529 1330,529 1130,529 $330.629 TAXABLE TX ;21 11, 1 fIS {2331 131 fS 131 110 fllII3 f11 f11113 fll TAl INDIRECTU ES TAX 1 ft IS 12 ;31/ ;35S {310 1100 ' {113 4 It I -CALCULATION NEIROO 12 (SALES TAXES PER OU) PROJECT HOUSEHOLDS 29 101 1 $12 2 22S 2 179 3 I)1 3 307 3 16T 3 56T 3 $67 3 567 3 567 TOTAL INDIRECT SALES TAX GENERATION 11 111$ I225 I3le I106 I111 ItI1 I196 Is10 Isle isle I510 01RECT SALES TAX GENERATION (This Pro act alternative, Alternative 11. includes no sources of direct sales tax revenues.)ANNUAL TAWLE RETAIL SALES 1 ss ss Tso 0 so OTAALL DIREECTISALES TAX GENERATION f0 10 1100 0 10 to D 10 10 10 0 10 -------------------------------------------------- TOTAL SALES TAX REVENUES (INOIR(il)t'DIR) 13 179 list 1216 1314 135s 1310 1400 1413 1413 1413 1411 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UTILITY TAX/FRANCHISE FEE REVENUE CALCULATIONS: (SEE ASSIRIPTIONS ABOVE AND IN TABLE A-2s) MAZER eonsueption per rasldant/eeployee) 3 1S 31 tT 53 $6 S9 61 61 61 I'll GAS ever. •11131nqI1632 ti SI 6/ 61 11 13 1) 19 TELEPIIONf arer.8e 1 1np 0 13 26 31 I1 S2 SI 51 $9 59 59 59 ELECTRICITY .ror*billing 1 It 35 It 62 69 73 16 11 1/ 18 is CABLE average biIIfrog x penetration rate) 11, 12'0 3t S6 11 111 181 1111 189 89 189 1B9 ------------ ------------- TOTAL UTILITY TAX/FRANCHISE FEE REVENUES 13 S1. 1151 1223 1286 1316 1334 $ISO 1360 1360 1360 1360 al....■a..6aaaaa.......3.....a..............a.................... asie..........2.......a.a:a^aaa..z---Z: ...::.lai:::aa NOTES: t. SOURCE - HINDERLITER, DELIAMAS A ASSOCIATES; CITY SALES TAX CONSULTANT 2. PORTION OF FRANCHISE FEE WHICH CONTRIBUTES REVENUE TO THE CITY GENERAL FUND TABLE A-3 TABLE A-3 ♦"ISCALATION RATES"$ 11//If 11 BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (3500) FIR 861NONE♦01 IOISA C�ICA SPECIFIC PLAN (3500) - FIR PER CAPITA GENERAL FUND REVENUES AND DAVID TAUSSIG 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. SUMMARY OF GENERAL FUND AND REVENUES CITY REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS/PER CAPITA N ULTIPLIERS CITY REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS/PER CAPITA MULTIPLIERS ------------------------------•---------------- ----------------------------------------------- CITY POPULATION (1/1/10 STATE DOF EST)) 112,109 PLEASE REFER 10 TABLES A-3a 6 A-3E FOR CITY BUDGET PROJECT BUILOWT RESIDENTIAL POPULATE& 1 301 avq/hhold ANALYSIS AND REVENUE NULIIPLIER ASSUMPTIONS. 1 AVG PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD f.33 PROJECT BUILDOUT BUSINESS ACRES 1 BUILOOUT FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: PERCENT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 9 10 11 12 OF TOTAL (10 ■ DOD) 1914-15 I91S-16 1116-17 1191-91 Ills-99 1199-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-32 2001-04 I004-05 1001-06 REVENUES ------------------------------------------ ---------------- -------- ---•---- --- - - -- ---- ---- - - - -- - - - --- ----- - --•---•- -------- RESIDENT1Al POPULATION 12 1,13t 3,150 1,9f2 6,Ilt 1,201 1,651 t,OSI 1,701 1,]04 1,301 1,301 BUSINESS DEVELOPED ACRES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GEINERAL FUND REVENUES (PER CA/ITIAl/IUS AC SOURCESPROP ) s OTIRTY IOCALTIL TA1fElITARY) T ES 0 II fIl 1301111 116 1:22 53S 1SS 1Sss S 195 3.631 FINES/FORFEITURES/PENALTIES 0 112 {123 33 ff 13S1 ## Iss } ss REVENUE I=OTHER AGENCIES I 61 1135 1116 Is 91 1251 3213 391 5316 26 1326 1326 326 7.62%CHARGES FOR CURRENT SERVICES 1 23 146 66 ssIS 9S 101 11106 I10 110Ito OTHER REVENUE 0 S 10 11 11 20 121 322 E23 123 121 123 0.54% TRANSFER FIN OTHER FUNDS 0 6 11 16 21 23 14 26 21 21 21 27 0.62% TOTAL PER CAPITA/BUS AC SOURCES 1 11 1 011 1419 1 21 1611 $734 1712 1196 1196 1196 1196 11.10% ...oaaa.aaa.....o...Tat■Uatil..ai..UUaa.a a.a...6.......l...................a is AacaaaU 3a...... 4—......... a:.... 2.... "...:a::::::: OTHER REVENUE SOURCES r, OAS TAX REVENUES 11 112 164 111 1120 1131 1142 1149 IIS4 $154 1151 1154 3.60% TRANSPORTATION FUND (NEASURE N,SALES TAX) 10 11 111 125 13) 111 140 142 S13 143 141 143 1.011 (ESTIMATED BUT INCLUDED IN REVENUE TOTALS) FIRE-IEDICAL IROGRAN REVENUES 11 119 111 151 161 171 112 116 111 119 119 119 2.0/1 ai...U.0 ota..■a.r■ia Q.Rorr............ ............■iL asia..N..aiq...... "I.................... .:a::...sas::aaa:: CITY REVENUE SWIIARY PMIIIY TAXES (GENERAL FUND ♦ 'PfRS'): SECURED PROPERTY TAXES ITS 1432 1164 11.106 11,111 11,914 12.114 12,252 17.325 12,325 12,325 12.325 $4.31% UNSECURED PROPERTY TAXES 10 1 f 1) {{I1 120 121 121 123 123 121 123 0.511 TOTAL PROPERTY TAXES 111 fill 111 11 319 it 16S $2 001 52,121 $2.274 $7.341 12,341 12,311 12,141 54.15% REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAXES 14 t106 �120 1134 1145 1101 1151 124 ITS SS9 159 151 1.31% OIL RESERVt AV WALORiA •evM5"/e R!A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.011 OIL EXIRAC110111 TAXES 1322 1142 131 iii 1.. ;9: !!5 119 Ill 161 162 1.44% SALES TAXES DIRECT ♦ INDIRECT }3 }it 159 12,18,3 314 ]SS }3R0 100 1411 1137 4:i i.v5•1.....,.,r„ec cats 1 11 ... .•, •• t.. _ ] 10 ISl 2I3 tlf ]16 3]I 350 360 360360360 1.111 PER CAPITA GENERAL FUND REVENUES 'a! 34 112 196 191 196 726 11.60% 11 1161 37lI 1♦n ♦.a. .... TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES 1354 11,010 11.771 12.512 13.241 13,511 13.114 13,966 14.072 14.049 14,044 14,031 14.32% as ....son...sow..a.....aa...saw...aa.....a....ou.asaa..:.a..c.au......z.........aoa..z...a:a:.s:...a::....aacs::xr s:xa::::a:::c.:c:...cccr: TOTAL GENERAL, GAS TAX, FIRE-NED FUND REVS: 1356 11,061 11.112 12,651 13.431 13,111 14,001 14,202 14,115 14.212 14.211 14,261 100.00% .aa....a.n..................a....a....c...........................a.a......................::sac.....==.........r_xas:a.:sa::c:.:::.c::::::::::a- -- TOTAL GENERAL OAS TAX, FIRE-RED FUND REVS: 1356 11.061 11,612 12.151 13,431 13,111 $4,001 11,202 14.315 14,292 14,211 14,211 100.001 ESCALATED AT THE FOLIONING RATE: 1.0% .a.a.a000toaa......a...a...as.a.....s...a..■a...s.a............a...................a.........sac.aa.x...a.a....zc.a.a.es:c:::::::c:::::::: m t� TABLE A-5 I Aft f A 5 •"tSLAtAli1UY RAIFS'-' 03/20/12 801.9 CHICA SPECIfIC PLAN (3S00) FIR ...NIINt... SOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (3500) - FIR RECURRING COUNIY COSTS: DAVID IAUSSIG 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. GENERAL AND ROAD FUND COSTS CASE STUDY COST ASSUMPTIONS PER CAPITA/BUS AL'RL COST FACTORS PER CAP PER At ---------------------------- ------ ------------------•------ -------- ------- GENERAL GOVERNMENT 6 ADMINISTRATION NON-OFPANTIIENTAL 130.25 ISO1.66 - AS A PERCENTAGE ON DIRECT COSTS 8.11% FIRE PROTtCTION IAOMIU 6 CITY NIO: SER $3 12 061.18 POLICE SERVICES PUBLIC WORKS (ADMIN, ERG 6 CIfY fACIL 135.16 tt591.95 -COST PER CALL 1211.01 COMMUNI(Y OEVF.LOPM011 (PLANNING, BLDG I?.11 5I11,88 IN PROJECT COMMON11Y SERVICES 119.80 11?1 58 FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES STATION COST YEAk: LIBRARY SERVICES Sib 11 10 OG -ALL YEARS, TRCK COSTS (TYPE 1 STA) 11 412.202 <-SRVCE AREA SHARE 1 <" - PARTIAL ONSIIE STA COST (N/A 1841,121 (-3/1 CST TYPE 2 2 <" - ALL YEARS, FULL ONSITE TYPE 11,129,761 <-TYPE 2 (ALL 80 2 <'• PUBLIC WORKS - PLEASE SEE THE FOLLOWING TABLE, TABLE A-6, FOR THESE COST FACTORS 8UII Lunn FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAM: YEAR: YIA1c: YtAk: YEAR: PtRC1.NI 1 2 3 1 5 6 1 9 9 10 II 12 OE JOIAL (Is x1000) 1991-95 1915-96 1916-11 1911-98 1118-11 1199-00 2000-01 2001-0? 2002-J1 2003-01 ?001-OS ?OUS-06 1:011) ------------------------------•----------------- -- -- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---•----- ----- --- --•------ - ------- _ ..----- (PLEASE SEE PROJECT DESCRIPTIVE INFORMAIION FOR PROJECT POPULATION r,RONIN) GENERAL FUND COSTS CSI IUP CSI PCI I GENERAL GOVERNMENT 6 ADMINISTRATION 11 1165 1218 261 130e $322 1111 sbo Ihb Job 11sb 111b n .11 MOW DEPARTMENTAL (UTILITIES, (EASING) }}2 1!3 101 15I 1196 J218 12J? 1241 J2SI 1?',I 1?SI 12',I ) 80% POLICE SERVICES 18 I219 1195 101 918 11.02/ $1.091 11.149 $1.191 11.149 11,199 21,'11% FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES C'< ADNINISIRA110N 6 CITY WIDE SERVICES 11 Ill 134 1/9 $63 SID 111 118 Sol lei 1R1 $31 1,061 FIRE CONTROL 6 PARAMEDIC 10 123 11,315 11.380 $1,413 $1,/30 $1,/24 11,127 11,1 a 11•4)8 11•:31 11,111 11,4 is 11.111 PUBLIC WORKS ADMIN. ENG 6 CITY FACIL MAINI 13 162 1123 1118 1232 1258 $21/ 1?88 S."1) $297 1'91 J.91 6 36% LOCAL PARK MAINTENANCE • s0 10 $15 15 125 21 $SO 669 1b9 169 15% lb5 1 611 STREET MAINTENANCE • f1 1T5 I11 135 111 17 $/8 148 148 148 148 JIB 10% STREET LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE • 11 121 152 $11 197 1106 $109 1109 009 $109 1109 1I119 ?,5?1 STREET LIGHT IIIUN 6 MAINTENANCE • 1 I2 22 28 136 $38 S39 1J9 119 $19 SJ9 119 ;1 401 COP"ITY DEVELOPMENT (PLANNING 6 BLDG) {I 12 $25 35 1/b $)I $be 1�1 SS9 $y9 1�'i L�9 I Jbi COP"ITY SERVICES ? IS2 1103 1149 $193 1?IS 17?B 1140 1?11 1:41 1?4I I?A1 01 LIBRARY SERVICES SI 121 151 182 1106 1116 SI.b Ili- (IJb $11b I,Ill. 1110 1.1 1 —.... vase uaaazaa::zeszaam::eua:::::e x zc a:::::::c:::::::::::::::--- :xc::::::r:: "-•--`-- •-'--•'- :-_'____.._-...:.:.......... TOTAL GfNFRAL FUND, ROAD ;ONO ONGOING COSTS 111 12,009 12,6" S3,II1 51,689 11,915 11,089 11.141 14,1J1 14.I:9 1+.3:8 1t,):8 100 001 a•x:sazsass:zzaa:axsa sc::a:::::::e:a::::::ae::e::::x::::::zz::::::::::::::::::::::::::c::::::::::::•---------__._---__-----.-----_-------. ---..-..:_--•__•----__:.: TOfAI GENERAL FUND, ROAD FUND ONGOING COSTS 111 12,001 12,654 $),Ill $1,689 $3.915 1/.089 14,241 $b ill 14.321 14,118 $4.l?: ESCALATED AT THE FOLLOWING RATE: 0.01 saasa aaaasasaassa aaseazsaaaaa:sas:avaasea:z:a.a:.a:::.a.:s::a:x:az::::::e:::ac:::::x::c:::::::::c • PLEASE SEF ALSO FACILITIES MAINIENA14CE COSTS, IAULE A-6, FON UEIAIL FILE -8C FIR (3500) ' NORKSHEEI: CITY BUDGET ANALYSIS - 3. FIRE PAOTECTIOII SERVICES TABLE: A 5d CITY POP DOF I 1/fl 182,800 CITY REST ENTIA� ACR S (EST 11.023 PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES CITY NON-RESIDENTIAL ACRES JEST) 3,080 ------------------------------------ 1991/92 RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS EXPENDITURE BUDGET COST COST EXPENDITURE - DESCRIPTION IYPE \1 ESTIMATE PER CAPITA PER ACRE --------------------------------------------------- ------------ ----------- ------------ ----------- 10.00 00 1 FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES 10.00 10.00 ADMINISTRATION PER CAP 2 1402,458 12.06 134.20.00 1 FIRE PREVENTION PER CAP 2 1{889,033 10.66 3.60 163.04 CIVIL 10.50 RESERVEEFIREFIGHTERS HTEIICY SERVICES PER CAP 2PER CAP 2 1119,057 10.64 110.51 HAINAT RESPONSE UNIT \2 OFfSEI {0 10.00 10.00 HAINAT CONTROL \2 OFFSET 10 50.00 10.00 SEARCH 6 RESCUE PER CAP 2 11,)00 0.03 10.52 TELECOMMUNICATIONS PER CAP 2 1591,196 2.53 141.94 TOTAL 12,213,OS8 19.71 i161.18 FIRE CAP tlRt AC FIRE CONTROL AND PARAMEDICS - CASE STUDY ANALYSIS ANNUAL OPERATIONS COST FOR PROJECT FACILITIES TYPE 1 TYPE 2 SIAIION SIAIION COST IifN (IRCK,ENG,PARA VAN) (PARA.LNG) ------------------------------------ ---------------- ............ PERSONNEL 12 185,532 1911.348 ADMINISTRATION (STATION RELATED) 163.452 12.645 EQUIPMENT ((NAINT, REPLACE) 1142,256 63,225 SUPPLIES/OVERAIING i50,123 22,511 SUBTOTAL 12,541,961 11.129,161 STATION DEPRECIATION SIA11113C333 SfA2106M66S FOREGONE PROPERTY TAX REVENUES N/A N/A SUBTOTAL 1113,i33 $56,657 STATION 'FIRST IN' SERVICE AREA DATA ENG 6 PARAMED SERVICE TRUCK SINVIOt RESPONSE AREA AREA RLSPINSt AREA ARIA IOUs SIIARL tlKl•; :AIARL BOLSA CHICA 1.567 39.01 HOLLY SEACLIFF \3,1 5,111 56.St 5,111 S1.J% —co!REAS 415 1.5t 1,310 13.3 TOTAL 9.153 loo a% -------------------------------------- NOTES: I. TYPES Of PROJECT COSTS A. CASE STUDY EXPENSE (CASE STUDY): BASED ON A SPECIFIC SET OF FACTORS B. PER CAPITA TYPE 1 PER CAP I): BASED ON CITY RESIDENTIAL POPULAIION ONLY C. PER CAPITA TYPE 2 PER CAP 2): BASED ON A PRORATION BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND NON.RESIDENTIAL LAND USES (CUMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, 6 INSTITUTIONAL USES) 2. THE COSTS OF HAIMAT RESPONSE AND CONTROL FOR THIS PROJECT IS ASSUMED IU BE OFFSET BY EXISTING AND FUTURE PERMIIS (DRILLING, USE, 6 INSPECTION). FEES AND LICENSES REDO IREO FOR INL UIL PROWCIION FACILITIES ON THE PROJECI SITE. THE REVENUES CORRESPONDING TO THE 'HAIMAI' COSTS HAVE BEEN OMITTED FROM THE INCOME SIDE OF THIS ANALYSIS. Mow s M Nova m ,imwownw it �! TABLE A-i TABLE A-6 11/19/91 BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (3500) FIR BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (3500) - FIR RECURRING CITY COSTS: OAY10 TAUSSIB 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. PUBLIC WORKS/OTHER FACILITIES MAINTENANCE GENERAL FUND, COST FACTORS OTHER FACILITES, COST FACTORS ------------------------------- --------------------------------------- LOCAL PARK MAINTENANCE 11,li1 /ee/yr PARKWAY LANDSCAPING }11,221 /ee/yr COIBKMITY PARK N/A/ec/yr MEDIAN LANDSCAPING fII 221 /ee/yyr STREET L16HIS (ILLUM/MAINT) 4111 /Ilght/yr ROAD FUND, MAINTENANCE COST FACTORS ----------------------------------- STREET MAINTENANCE/REPLACENEIIT 13,350 /lane N/yr BUILDOUT FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: 1 2 3 1 S 6 1 1 9 10 11 11 (11 ■1000) 1911-IS I!!S-!6- 1l1i-91 1191-11 1111-11 Jill 2000_01 1001-02 2002-32 2001-01 2004-05 2005-01 --------------------------------------------- --------- - ---------- ---- --- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -- -------- ----------- ----------- GENERAL FUND, PARK FACILITIES MAINTENANCE LOCAL PARK MAINTENANCE 10 Ill 115 115 125 125 $50 169 169 169 169 169 COMRIMITY PARK MAINTENANCE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A TOTAL GENERAL FUND PARK MAINTENANCE COSTS: f0 10 Ills In 125 125 ISO $69 169 169 169 169 funfuttnottuuuutttfutuututauutaafutuaaaufaautaaaaufasaauutaaaa■.... ..taaaiaaisasa............aai:x=[—.......sa:=i:aa:vaa=xax u:aa siaax==:euea a=saa=a[i:ia::......:: ROAD FUND, RIGHT OF NAY MAINTENANCE CROSS ARRIERIAAS CpIKECTOR so so so to 10 so 10 10 to so I I 111 111 120 121 f22 112 122 21� !1� It� LOCAL STREETS TOTAL ROAD FUND FACILITIES MAINTENANCE COSTS: 11 IT$ 121 In ill 111 111 116 111 141 111 111 •�atsltfttauttstttttaatattatatftssaafsaaasffaaixtsaasa[Lffs[a.assasariacsaataxaaassaas.... SIAEET LANDSCAPING i 110N11N0 NAIMTENANCE PARKWAY LANDSCAPING 11 120 116 150 161 11 tf16 16 116 176 s116 16 MEDIAN LIGHTS/1NG 11 112 22 21 136 131 f39 139 39 39 139 1319 STREET L16Hi4 TOTAL STREET LANDSCAPING 6 LIGHTINO COSTS 12 141 114 191 1112 1111 1111 1111 $141 1141 1141 1141 ftttftffltlftllt tlf/t ltt....fastaattit.....age........a........Z............a taita.z.....actaiaaiaat[aax:......._c[[ixaac[ii:titiC=i:t.____c[at_.._.___.[:L._.aa_ci__S.c TABLE A-6! 11/11/91 BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (3500) FIR D.TAUSSIG 6 ASSOCIATES. INC. INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC FACILITIES MAINTENANCE QUANTITIES - PHASING FISCAL YEAR YEAR; YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: 1 2 3 1 S 6 7 1 9 10 11 12 (Is 0000) TOTALS 1914-25 1995-96 1196-97 1997-91 1911-99 1919-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-32 2003-04 2004-05 20OS-06 -------------------------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ARTERIAL DEDICATION PHASING PERCENTAGE OF CROSS OAP CONNECTOR DEDICATED N/A STREET PILES DEDICATED TO CITY CROSS GAP CONNECTOR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ARTERIALS 1.04 0.10 1.21 1.1/ 2.36 2.59 2.61 2.67 2.67 2.61 2.67 2.61 LOCAL STREETS 1.01 1.14 2.05 2.53 2.93 3.06 3.06 1.06 3.06 3.06 3.06 3.06 TOTAL STREET MILES 0.11 1.11 3.32 4.27 S.29 S.65 S.13 S.73 5.11 S.13 S.73 5.13 LANE MILES DEDICATED TO CITY CROSS GAP CONNECTOR 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ARTERIALS 0.11 2.12 3.14 S.21 7.14 7.12 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 6.01 1.01 LOCAL STREETS 0.16 2.21 4.10 5.07 S.16 6.12 6.12 6.12 6.12 5.12 1.12 6.12 TOTAL LANE MILES 0.26 4.61 7.95 10.31 11.00 13.95 14.11 14.11 14.19 14.19 14.19 14.19 STREET LIGHTS INTERVAL. FT CROSS 60 CONNECTOR 7S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ARTERIALS is 2 19 91 122 116 112 11/ 111 111 111 Its 111 LOCAL STREETS 100 6 60 101 134 ISS 162 162 162 162 162 162 162 TOTAL STREET LIGHTS 6 109 191 256 321 311 350 350 350 3SO 350 3S0 TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATIONS N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PARKWAY MAINT ACRES CROSS GAP CONNECTOR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ARTERIALS 0.01 1.41 2.56 3.19 4.15 5.20 5.36 5.36 5.36 5.36 S.36 5.36 LOCAL STREETS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL PARKWAY MAINTENANCE ACRES 0.07 1.41 2.56 1.49 4.75 S.20 S.36 5.16 S.36 S.36 S.36 S.35 NEOIAN MAINT ACRES CROSS GAP CONNECTOR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ARTERIALS 1.03 0.61 1.10 I.SO 2.05 2.24 2.31 2.11 2.31 2.11 2.31 2.31 LOCAL STREETS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ;6M 9=9 1.1.1 !!!tCE AL'p!S 0.01 0.61 1.10 I.SO 2.0S 2.24 2.11 2.31 2.11 2.31 2.11 2.11 LOCAL PARK MAINTENANCE ACRES A "AM S13E: MTAL PARK AC: Werner Pk Overlook Pk Mesa Connector Pk 4.67 16 INCRE: 1.06 Y.0 Mlw : :: 2 o^ a pp 5.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CUM: 0.00 0.00 3.00 3.00 5.00 6.00 10.00 14.00 14.00 14.Oi ii.00 COMMUNITY PARK NAINTEMARCE ACRES AVG PARK SIZE: TOTAL PARK AC: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A am W* o l mw mw � ww � am mo LmW ME 11� TABLE A-1 TABLE A-1 11/11/11 BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (3500) FIR BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (3501) - FIR LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISIRICI DAVID TAUSSIG 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. PARCEL CHARGE ESTIMAIION BUILDOUT FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: 1 2 3 t S 6 7 1 9 10 11 12 (1+ x1000) lift-Is Ills-16 1916-11 1917-90 1991-99 1991-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-92 2003-04 2004-05 20CS-06 -------------------------------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- DMLOPNENT ACREAGE SPLIT- RESIDENTIAL VERSUS BUSINESS ACRES RESIDENTIAL ACRES 2.1 si.l 104.0 141.9 193.3 211.7 211.3 218.3 211.1 211.3 211.3 216.3 BUSINESS ACRES 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DEVELOPNENT ACRES 2.1 51.4 104.0 141.9 113.3 211.7 218.1 210.3 211.1 211.3 211.1 211.3 FRACTION OF RES ACRES 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 RESIDENTIAL UNITS 29 101 1.572 2.225 2.639 3,133 3,301 3,467 3,567 3,561 3,567 3,S67 ----------------------------------------------- ESTIMATION OF LANDSCAPE 6 LIGHTING DISTRICT CHARGES: 11,406 DISTRICT ITS AMIN OF: iiiii 2 114,T IS 1111 152 11,4646 6 110 11,4108 11,410, 0 I10 170 11,7406 SI10 TOTAL SHARE OF PARCEL CHARGES: TO RESIDENTIAL USES 2 141 115 1114 1152 1166 1170 1170 $110 1170 1170 1170 TO BUSINESS USES 0 f0 s0 30 10 f0 10 t0 10 s0 10 s0 ESTINATEO PARCEL CHARGES: PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT (DOOR) 111.10 151.56 IS1.13 151.36 153.59 $52.11 151.47 149.10 141.72 141.72 147.72 141.72 PER BUSINESS/APARINENT ACRE 10.00 $0.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 ..................................................................................................::..:.::.=..:::..::..:._.::::::==.:r::::=_::::::::.::::_:::..:_::::.:_::__..::_:::::::::.::..: TABLE AA�-�9 TABLE A-9 80(5/CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (1500) - FIR SUMMMARYIl01ARECURNING FISCALSPECIFIC PLAN3500 IMPACTSN DAVID TAUSSIG & ASSOCIATES, INC. TO CITY OF HUNTINGION BEACH: GENERAL FUND AND ROAD FUND `S •••u•• PR(IPENTY TAX INCREASf ASSUMPTIOFS GENERAL FUND AND ROAD FUND REVENUE • ------------ -------- ----------- INCREASE ASSUMPTION: 0.0% • •"HONE"' GENERAL FUND AND ROAD FUND COST • INCREASE ASSUMPTION: 0.0% • BUILUOUT FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAH: YtAR: YEAR: YiAN: 1 2 3 1 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 (1f x1000) 1991-96 1995-96 1996-91 1991-90 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-12 2003-04 2004-0i 2005-06 2006 01 -------------------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------- .....,.. ------- ..----- CITY GENERAL FUND 1 ROAD FUND ONGOING REVENUES 1356 f1,081 1,812 fs2,658 3,431 f3,181 14,008 11,202 11,315 14,292 11,2P1 14,281 ;1,216 ONGOING COSTS • fl1 12,009 2,651 53:111 3,689 p,915 1I,O89 11,211 11,331 11,32v {1,128 {4,32d {1,328 ANNUAL REVENUE/COST RATIO 1.59 0.51 0.71 0.84 0.93 0.91 0.98 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 ANNUAL ONGOING SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) {309 (�911) (1783) (1112) Sf2S8) �11J1) �(;el) (;1!) ({I�) ^1{11) �I111) pow wol CUMULATIVE SURPLUS/(UEFICII) 1309 ( 639) (f1,121) (f1,931) (12,192) (1•,3.6) (1•,101) (12,151) (12,1e61 (1,,501) (1•,1111) ($")q 1) ...............I lit it....... i3:ii:Lt:3:3-....:L:..Li.:S3i:::::.:SLSSL::.:L • INCLUDES ANY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH POTENTIAL LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT. APPENDIX D FISCAL MODEL, CITY BUDGET ANLAYSIS ■ r I a� No An ■r go ,sue, M ma so N Iwo so :w mm Im FILE - 8C FIR 19 Nov-a1 WORKSHEET: CITY BUDGET ANALYSIS - PROJECT RELATED 60GENLRAL FUND" REVENUE SOURCES PRNT RNG: A 3A_1, A_3A 2 so—Nore ACiIYf LINKS NIIH ASSURPS REPRI THE PER CAP NUMBERS TABLE A-3e TABLE A-]a 11/19/11 BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN FIR BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN - FIR CITY BUDGET ANALYSIS - DAVID TAUSSIG 8 ASSOCIATES, INC. GENERAL FUND REVENUE SOURCES CITY POP (DOF I/l/91) 182,800 REVENUE MULTIPLIERS CTY RESIDENTIAL ACRES (ESi) 11,023 CITY NON-RESIDENTIAL ACRES (EST) 3.000 1191/12 RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS REVENUE BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE REVENUE SOURCE - DESCRIPTION TYPE \1 ESTIMATE PER CAPITA PER ACRE ------------------------------- ----------•- ------------ ------------ ------------ PROPERTY TAXES: SECURED PROPERTY TAXES CASE STUDY UNSECURED PROPERTY TAXES RESIDENTIAL CASE STUDY BUSINESS CASE SIUOY UTILITY UNITARY TAX\2 PER CAP 1 11.100.000 $6.02 TOTAL II,100,000 16.0? OTHER LOCAL TAXES SALES 8 USE TAX CASE STUDY FRANCHISE FEES&UTILITY TAXES ELECTRICITY CASE STUDY TELEPHONE CASE STUDY r GAS CASE STUDY WATER CASE STUDY CABLE CASE STUDY IN LIEU WATER UTILITY CASE STUDY ( TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX PER CAP 2 11.100.000 14.10 118.00 CIGARETTE TAX \3 PER CAP 1 1172,250 I0.94 BUSINESS LICENSE TAX BUS ACRE $1.275.000 BUS-LTC 1413 96 OIL WELL TAX CASE SIUOY LICENSES - OIL INSPECTION CASE STUDY LICENSES/PERMITS - MISCELLANEOUS PER CAP 1 180,280 10.44 (BICYCLE, BINGO, SWIMMING POOL iOWING, ALARM, MISC.) TOTAL 14,827,530 16,08 i491,96 FINES/FORFEITURES/PENALTIES COURT FINES \A PER CAP 2 1500,000 12.14 135.45 LIBRARY FINES& FEES PER CAP 1 1120.000 10.6b PARKING VIOLATIONS - DELINOUENT PER CAP 2 1260.000 11.11 $10.44 TRAFFIC FINES PER CAP 2 ff$00.000 I?.It i15•IS ALARM BILLING FINES PER CAP 2 1140.000 10.60 1913 TOTAL I1,S20,000 16,64 199.21 USE OF MONEY 8 PROPERTY RENiALS LAND PER CAP 2 1115,000 10.75 112.11 INTEREST INCOME - T.R.A.N. PER CAP 2 1400,000 11.71 1?8.3o PARKING LOTS PER CAP 2 11,32S,000 15.67 $93.95 INTEREST INCOME -GEN FUND PER CAP 2 {500,000 12.14 115,4" PARKING STRUCTURES PER CAP ? 1100.000 11.18 I'll 1 PARKING METERS - COMMERCIAL PER CAP 2 {{15.000 10 3? i5 32 PARKING METERS- RESIDENTIAL PER CAP 2 130.000 $0.13 11•13 PARKING METERS - P.C.H. PER CAP 2 400,000 $1.71 1?8,30 LATE CHARGES PER CAP 2 1200,000 10.86 114.10 REDEV AGENCY LOAN INTEREST PER CAP 2 $912,000 14.16 $68.11 TOTAL 11,377,000 118.11 1310.3b Table 3a, continued next page TABLE A-la, coe't (ABLE A-)a , 11/11/I1 BULSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN FIN BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN - FIR CITY BUDGET ANALYSIS - DAV10 1AUSSIG 6 ASSOCIATES. INC. GENERAL FUND REVENUE SOURCES CITY POP (DOE 1/1/91) 181,519 REVENUE MULIIPLIERS CIFY RESIDENTIAL ACRES (EST) 11.021 ------------------------------ CITY NON-RESIDENTIAL ACRES (EST) 3,080 1991/92 RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS REVENUE BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE REVENUE SOURCE - DESCRIPTION TYPE \1 ESTIMAIE PER CAPITA PER ACRE -------------------------------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ REVENUE FROM OTHER AGENCIES REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX CASE STUDY MOTOR VEHICLE IN LIEU PER CAP 1 16 BS7,768 131.52 STATE MANDATED COST REIMBURSEMENT PER CAP I ;100,000 SO.SS DIRECT LIBRARY LOANS PER CAP 1 150.000 10.27 STATE PUBLIC LIBRARY FUNDS PER CAP 1 $120.000 f0,6b CABLE SYSTEMS I.V. CASE STUDY (FRANCHISE FEE) REGIONAL NARCOTICS SUPPRESSION PER CAP 1 150,000 10.27 TOTAL 17,111.768 139.27 CHARGES FOR CURRENT SERVICES SPECIAL POLICE SERVICES PER CAP 2 1213.000 11.11 19.36 CHARGES TO WATER FUND PER CAP 2 11 100.000 14.10 118.00 JR LIFEGUARD PROGRAM PER CAP 1 1136.500 10.75 LIBRARY SERVICE PER CAP 1 $7,800 10.01 RECREATIONAL FEES PER CAP 1 11.100.000 16.02 PHOTOCOPYING PER CAP 1 545,000 10,25 BLOOD ALCOHOL REIMBURSEMENT PER CAP 1 50.000 10.21 TOTAL T2,112,)CO 111.20 191.3b OTHER REVENUE PER CAP 2 1615.165 52.15 115.75 t;•;� TOTAL 1645:165 12.1b 115,h TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS SPECIAL GAS TAX -SEE GAS TAX FUND TRANSFER -NARCOTICS FUND PER CAP 2 $668.500 12.94 148.02 TRANSFER - FIRE NED PROGRAM PER CAP 2 $50.000 10.26 11.2i TOTAL 1748,500 13.20 153.01 GRAND TOTALS $95.88 11,091.1b --------------------------------------- NOTES: 1. TYPES OF PROJECT REVERES A. CASE STUDY REVENUE (CASE STUDY): BASED ON A SPECIFIC SET OF FACTORS a PFIi CAPITA TYPE I (PER CAP 1): BASkU LIH CIIY RESIDENTIAL POPULAIION ONLY C. PER CAPITA TYPE 2 (PER CAP 71: tlA=uii it FRGRA,= X!S!nEM!!A AND NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES (COMMERCIAL, INVUSIRIAL, 6 INSTITUTIONAL USES) 0. PER BUSINESS ACRE (BUS ACRE): BASED ON A BUSINESS ACRE SHARE 2. THE UTILIIY UNIIAKT iiX iS uiSinioiii'v' TO C'i!kS eM !NE ?AS!S OF RELAIIVE SERVICE AREA. HOWEVER AN AREA-BASED SPREAD IS NOT FEASIBLE IN THIS ANALYSIS AND A PER CAPITA (RESIDENTIAL POP ONLY) FAIRLY APPROXIMATES THE AREA-BASLO SPREAD FOR THIS REVENUE SOURCE. 3. RECENT STATE ACTIONS HAVE REDUCED THIS ANTICIPATED REVENUE AMOUNT BY 41%OF PRELIMINARY BUDGET PROJECTIONS. (PRELIMINARY BUOGEI SHOWED 1325,000 FOR FY 1991/92.) 1. THE STATE HAS REOUCED THE ALLOCATION OF COURT FINES 10 CITIES BY 50%. THE CITY'S PRELIMINARY 10U06E1 ESTIMATE FOR FY 1991-92 WAS $1,000,000. am is low �� f� FILE -BC FIR 1111 02-Oec-91 NORKSHEEI.CI�T BUIET ANALYSIS- PROJECT RELATED "OTHER" REVENUE SOURCES PRNT RNG: A 38 TABLE A-3b TABLE A-lb 12 O2/91 BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (1111) FIR USI CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (10110 -FIR CITY BUDGET ANALYSIS - DAVID TAUS3IG A ASSOCIATES. INC. OTHER REVENUE SOURCES CITY POP 111800 CITY RESIOENTIA(IACRES (EST) 111.023 PER CAPITA REVENUES CITY NON-RESIDENTIAL ACRES (EST) 3,010 -------------------------------------- 1991/92 RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS REVENUE BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE REVENUE SOURCE - DESCRIPTION TYPE \1 ESTIMATE PER CAPITA PER ACRE ------------------------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ------------ GAS TAX FUND INTEREST INCOME PER CAP 1 1300,000 11.64 STATE TAX 2101 PER CAP 1 11 541,214 $8.41 STATE TAX 2106 PER CAP I 166,015 s1.19 STATE TAX 2105 (PROP 111) PER CAP 1 $111,922 11.26 TOTAL 11,392,211 111.56 MEASURE N. 1/2 CENT SALES TAX CASE STUDY \ ( 21%OF THE 1/2 CENT SALES TAX REVENUES FOR MEASURE 'N' ARE TO BE ALLOCATED FOR LOCAL STREET MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENTS. THE ALLOCATION FOWRNLA IS WEIGHTED BY POPULATION (50%). COUNTY WASTER PLAN FACILITIES WITHIN THE JURISDICTION (25%). AND THE RATIO OF TAXABLE SALES TO THE OVERALL COUNTY (25%). THIS ANALYSIS ASSUMES THAT THE CITY WILL RECEIVE ITS 'FAIR SHARE' - i.e. A FULL 21% OF THE MEASURE 'N' TAXES GENERATED WITHIN THE CITY WILL CONE BACK 10 THE CITY. FIRE MEDICAL PROGRAM PER CAP 2 12.501,500 110.70 1111.52 (MEMBERSHIP FEES, CHARGES FOR SERVICES) MOTES: 1. TYPES OF PROJECT REVENES A. CASE STUDY REVENUE (CASE STUDY): BASED ON A SPECIFIC SET OF FACTORS 8. PER CAPITA TYPE I (PER CAP 1 : BASED ON CITY RESIDENTIAL POPULATION ONLY C. PER CAPITA TYPE 2 PER CAP 2): BASED ON A PRORATION BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND NOW_RESIDENTIAL LAND USE (COMMERCIAL. INOUSIRIAL, 6 INSTITUTIONAL USES) TABLE A-2s , 12/02/11 ' BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (6111) - FIR DAVID TAUSSIG 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. NORXSHEET: UTILITY TAX AND FRANCHISE FEE ASSUMPTIONS ELECTRICAL USAGE UNIT BILLINGS RESIDENTIAL (PROJECT COMPOSITE) DUs 1439 PER YEAR SFO (SCE SERVICE AREA COMPOSITE) A,111 439.01 PER YEAR (So Cal fdlton, Hntng Bch Area Ngr.) AP1 (SCE SERVICE AREA COMPOSITE) 0 139.01 PER YEAR So Cal Edison, lining Bch Area Kgr.) BUSINESS (PROJECT COMPOSITE) N/A OFFICE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL RETAIL $1.16 PER SF PER YEAR (BASED ON 11.1 KMI/SF/YR x 1.091 PER KMI) ELETEL N/A CTRICAL UTILITY TAX PERCENTAGE 5.0% NOTE: USAGE DATA SOURCE - SO CAL EDISON GAS USAGE UNIT BILLINGS 1410.52 AVG RES BILLING, SO CAL GAS (EMPLOYED IN THIS ANALYSIS INSTEAD OF BELOW.) RESIDENTIAL (PROJECT COMPOSITE) OUs 1325 PER YEAR SFD 11-> 112093 1.260 1111 PER YEAR(66.65 THERMS PER SFO PER MONTH, 1.576 PER THERM) APT 3,621 211 PER YEAR(10.12 IHFRWS PER UNIT PER MONTH, 1.516 PER THERM) BUSINESS (PROJECT COMPOSITE) N/A OFFICE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL RETAIL SITE COVERAGE: 0.25 $0.20 PER SF PER YEAR (BASED ON .31/ THERMS/SF/YR x 1.576 PER THERN) AST GUTILITY TAX PERCENTAGE 5.01 NOTE: USAGE DATA SOURCE - SO CAL GAS CO t REFUSE COLLECTION UNIT BILLINGS RESIDENTIAL (PROJECT COMPOSITE) N/A PER YEAR PER (COMPOSITE) UNIT FOR TRASH COLLECTION SFO N/A LOW - NED DENSITY RESIO NIIAL APT M/A HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS (PROJECT COMPOSITE) N/A PER YEAR PER BUSINESS OFFICE TIGHT INDUSTRIAL RETAIL N/A PER YEAR PER BUSINESS HOTEL REFUSE COLLECTION UTILITY TAX PERCENTAGE N/A THE CITY DOES NOT LEVY A UTILITY TAX ON REFUSE COLLECTION CABLE UNIT BILLINGS AVERAGE CABLE SUBSCRIBER BILLING 1514 PER YEAR PER UNIT PROJECTED 1 SUBSCRIBERS (PENETRATION) 60.11% Aliiiuiva i .1.Irr PER P"jfrT 1INIT 1313 (AVG SUBSCRIBER BILLING x PENETRATION) CABLE FRANCHISE TAX PERCENTAGE 10 OEM FUND 1.0% CABLE UTILITY TAX PERCENTAGE 5.0% MO!E: 1pu.c OAl& SOURCE - PARAOOM CABLE JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY TELEPHONE SERVICE UNIT BILLINGS RESIDENTIAL (PROJECT COMPOSITE) 1329 PER YEAR PER (COMM IIE) SFD 1,260 1329 LOW - NED DENSITY RESIDENTIAL APT 3.124 1329 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AVG SF BUSINESS (PROJECT COMPOSITE) N/A N/A PER YEAR PER BUSINESS OFFICE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL RETAIL 2500 12.400 PER YEAR PER BUSINESS HOTEL M/A TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX PERCENTAGE 5.0% MOTE: BILLING DATA SOURCE OTA EXPERIENCE. DATA FROM PRIOR FIR's MATEO SERVICE BILLINGS RESIDENTIAL USAGE, DAILY 100 gallon/day/resident NON-RESIDENTIAL USAGE, DAILY SO gallon/day/employee RES USAGE, ANNUAL 41.00 100 cu it per res per yr NON-RES USAGE, ANNUAL 21.10 100 cu It ppeer m p per yr NATER/SENER RATES 10.iS cost per 100 eu tt water 6 sewer service ANNUAL BILLINGS PER RESIDENT 136.60 water billings per res per year ANNUAL BILLINGS PER EMPLOYEE 111.30 water billings per emp per year SEWER 6 HATER UTILITY TAX 1 6.0% IN-LIEU MAZER UTILITY 'FRAMCH FEE' IS.01 NnfF 11"r,F Mft nmorr . nTl Frrrolnirr nu, rnnu nn'nn FIR', �. •,� wow r FILE - BC FIR 19-Nuv-91 WORKSHEET: CITY BUDGET ANALYSIS - SUMMARY SHEET "GENERAL b ROAD FUND" Cos IS TABLE: A Se CITY POP (OOf 1/1/91) 102,800 CITY RESIDENTIAL ACRES (EST) 11.023 PER CAPITA COSTS CASE STUDY COSTS CITY NON-RESIDENTIAL ACRES (EST) 3.080 ------------ ------------------------------------ RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS CUSI ANT unit of measure EXPENDITURE Cos CO51 ---------- ------------------------- EXPENDITURE - DESCRIPTION TYPE \1 PER CAPITA PER ACRE COMMENT ----------------------> ------------------------------- ----------- ------------ ------------ ------------------------------------ I GENERAL GOVERNMENT 6 ADMINISTRATION CASE STUDY 0.97% per U&M S spent -RATIO Ot 6ENCRAL GOV'T COSTS 10 01HE4 CITY PROGRAM LUSTS NON-DEPARIMENTAL PER CAP/AC 00.25 SS01.66 2 POLICE SERVICES CASE STUDY 1?19.01 per service call 5.2S3 calls Ibuildow) -PROJECI SERVICE UtMA1lU (CAMS) BY IANOUSE x C011 PER CALL 3 FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 11 CITY-WIDE SERVICES PER CAP/AC 19.72 $161.18 FIRE CONTROL 6 PARAMEDIC CASE STUDY S6.11 projact 'fair share' ti PHASE I (7 151,092 paramed sta 'fair share' PHASE II (�): 1A1,886 full sta (loss truck ;taffinq) PHASE III (7)11,110,79S lull '.011011 'fair .lure' CUSI 10 SIAff ANU MAINIAlh 0t1SII1 EIRE. STATION t`+ A PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION PER CAP/AC 11.46 124.17 ENGINEERING PER CAP/AC 14.36 172.26 TRAFFIC MAINTENANCE PER CAP/AC 13,51 159.83 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE PER CAP/AC 119.98 1331.27 SEWER FACIL MAINTENANCE PER CAP/AC 13.67 $64.21 FLOOD CONTROL FACIL MAINTENANCE PER CAP/AC 12.48 S41.21 TOTAL PER CAP/AC 135.76 1592.95 STREET MAINTENANCE COSTS CASE STUDY $3,3SO per lane rile -COST PER LANE MILE x PROJECT LANE MILES : STRLEI MAIN[ COST LOCAL PARK MAINTENANCE COST CA'iE STUDY 14.964 per park acre Cwl PIN PARK At:kf x PITH I1 L 1 TANK ACRES = PARK MAINI L01! STREET LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CASE STUDY $14.221 per streetscane acre (SIREETSCAPE MAINTENANCE) -COST Pik SlkttlSCAPE ACRE x INtEl 1.016I11 x PARKWAY ANTI MEDIAN NI01111 = SIRILISCAQ CUSI S COMIIUNIIY DEVELOPMENT PER CAP/AC $7.11 1117.8E 6 COMMUNITY SERVICES PER CAP/AC 129.80 1A2f,58 1 LIBRARY SERVICES PER CAP/AC 116.41 TOTAL PER CAPITA 6 BUSINESS ACRE COSTS 1129.04 11,195.:S NOTES: 1. TYPE Of ANALYSIS 10 UEItRMIML CITY COST A. CASE STUDY - BASED Oft A CASE STUDY Of COST IIEIERMINANIi (SEE C0RkL3P1RlUIN0 SUPPORIING W1IRKSHEtI 10k UtTAIIS) B. PER CAP/AC . bAif:D ON A PRUNAIIUfl OF COS15 OVtK CIIY R6101.I11[At VtRiU., BUSINESS DEVELOPED ACRES. AND Illttl WITHIN k[FIUENIIAI BY POPIIIA11191 (SEE COR96PONDING 'iUPPORfIN6 WORKSHiETS fOR SUMMARY 01 PROGRAM U1'il INCIUOEDI FILE -K FIR l MORKSHEEV CITY BUDGET ANALYSIS - 1. GENERAL GOVERNMENT TABLE: (( A S//bCITY )) I 800 CITY REESSIOE,NIIAl1ACAES (EST) 111.023 PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES CITY WN-RESNENIIAL ACRES (EST) 3,080 ------------------------------------ EXPENDITURE 1991/12 RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS ANALYSIS BUDGET COST COST EXPENDITURE - DESCRIPTION METHOD\1 ESTIMATE PER-CAPIIA PER ACRE ------------------------------- ------------ ----------- --- ------ --- ----- $0.00 10.00 1 GENERAL GOVERNMENT 6 ADMINISTRATION CASE STUDY 10.00 10.00 (AS A PERCENTAGE Of ONGOING DIRECT COSTS) 10.00 $0.00 CITY COUNCIL 6 INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS PER CAP 2 1256.636 $1.10 118.?0 ADMINISTRATION PER CAP 2 11.211,432 15.18 185.90 CITY TREASURER PER CAP 2 1755,701 1T•?3 151.58 CITY ATTORNEY PER CAP 2 11.461.861 16.25 1101.66 CITY CLERK PER CAP 2 1389,309 $1.66 $27.60 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PER CAP 2 14,162,571 117.80 1295.15 ------------- ----------•-- TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT 6 ADMINISTRATION PER CAP 2 18,237,516 13S.22 1584.10 TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES LESS ABOVE 191.041.037 RATIO OF GEN GOV'T/ADMIN EXPENSE 10 OPERATIONAL COSTS: 0.09 f0 1.00 MOM DEPARTMENTAL 8.91% (RN: GENGOVI- CS) UTILITIES 5.56 GAS WATE(SEWER. DRAIRRIGATINAGETPUMPS, EIC.) PER CAP 2 12242 PER CAP 2 .000 10.96 115.88 ELECTRICITY SIREtf/IRAFFIC LIGHTTS, PER CAP 2 ss3,100,000 15.82 1262.36 CITY FACILITIES) \3 (`2,A66,263) (110.55) (1111.88) CIVIC CENTER LEASE PER CAP 2 2.600,000 111.12 1184,36 OTHER (CONTN.SYCS SELF INSURANCE) PER CAP 2 2,938,800 112.51 $208.38 TOTAL NOW DEPARTMENTAL 1,071,893 30.25 1501.66 N_DEPI CAP N OtPI AC NOTES: 1. TYPES OF PROJECT COSTS A. CASE STUDY EXPENSE (CASE STUDY): BASED ON A SPECIFIC SET OF FACTORS B. PER CAPITA TYPE 1 PER CAP 1 BASED ON CITY RESIOEHIIAL POPULATION ONLY 1;' PER LAPHA 4PE 2 t�iw CA9 :� :lSED" A PRARAIInN BEINELN RtSIUENIIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES (COMMERCIAL, IHOUSIRIAL, 6 INSTITUTIONAL OSt51 2. WATER (IRRIGATION, ETC) COSTS HAVE BtiN REOUCLO BY AN (SIIMAIE Of lilt C05i M M GAT`. !�E 5:? ACRES Of C!IY PARKLAND. THE PROJECT COST UE PARKLAND IRkIGAIIOH IS INCLUDED IN lilt PARK MAINTENANCE CASE SIOUY ctr;i ANALYSIS 3. DEDUCT IHE FOLLOWING AMOUNT FROM tLECIRICAL If CALCULATING STRICT LIGHTS SEPARATELY, AS A CASE SIOOY COST: PER CAP 2 $2,466,163 110.55 f111.88 - SOURCE Of STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE COSTS: MSI STUDY, 9/9) SILT CAP SILT AL O FILE -8C FIR MORNSNEkI: CITY BUDGET ANALYSIS - 2. POLICE SERVICES TABLE: A Se CITY POP (pOF 1/1/11) 182,800 CITY REST ENTIAL ACRES (EST) 11.023 PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES CITY NON-RESIDENTIAL ACRES (EST) 3.080 ----------------------------------- 1991/92 RfSIOENIIAL BUSINESS PROJECT PROJKI EXPENDITURE BUDGET COST COST POP: BUS AC: EXPENDITURE - DESCRIPTION TYPE \1 ESTIMATE PER CAPITA PER ACRE 11.961 0.0 ----------------------------------------------- ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ---------- ---------- 2 POLICE SERVICES 10.00 10.00 ALTERNATIVE POLICE SERVICE COST CALCULATION METHODOLOGIES: METHOD 11 ---------------> PER AES/BUS ACRE: PER CAP 2 131,096.651 $132.96 12,204.91 11,590,305 SO METHOD 12 ---------------) PER RfS1ofNT: PER CAP I 131,096,651 1170.11 $0.00 12,011,662 10 METHOD 13 ---------------> COST PER CALL METHOD (PREFERRED METHOD, EMPLOYED IN BUDGET: 131,091.651 THIS ANALYSIS.) PROJECTED CALLS: 104.000 COS] PER CALL 1299.01 (RN: POL CALL) PROJECT CALLS 5,253 RN: CAL(5) (BUILDOUI) PROJECT POLICE COST (BUILOWI) 11,570,691 (RN: POL-COST) CITY OENWRAPHICS INFO 6 POLICE CALLS ANALYSIS SOURCE: 1910 CENSUS DATA POLICE ADJUSTED TOTAL TOTAL OCCUP'0 HOUSEHOLD VACANCY PERSONS HHOLOS TOTAL HHOLOS AUJUSILU HOUSING TYPE UNITS UNITS POPULATION RATE PER HHOLO PER CALL CALLS PER CALL CALLS --------------------------- -------- -------- ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- -------- ---------- ---------- SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 34,531 33.539 102.990 2.89% 3.07 2.04 16.441 1.04 32.311 SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED 8,504 8,312 18,630 5.97% 2.23 1.44 5.814 0.13 11,128 TMO-10-FWR PLEXES 9,407 9.070 24,536 4.40% 2.71 1.44 5.299 0.13 1,11.3111 FIVE OR MORE UNITS 15,866 14,330 28.410 1.68% 1.99 1.83 1,831 0,9i 15,392 MOBILE HOMES 3,942 3.568 6.155 9,491 1.73 1.44 2.418 0,73 4.811 TOTALS 17,116 66,819 186,751 5.10% 2.62 J8,862 16,390 CITY RESIDENTIAL ACRES 11,023 CITY NUN RESIOLNIIAI. ACRES 3,080 ES1'U NUN RES 8111G SF 11000 51) OU,214 40,2e4 ES11MA1EO Null RES SITE COVE 30.00i AVG 1000 Sl/ PUIIQ CALL 2.86o 1.08 NON RESIOINIIAL POLICE CALLS 14.046 21.610 (ESTIMATED) TOTAL PREDICTED CALLS 52,908 104.000 ACTUAL CALLS 1991-92 104,000 107,000 ADJUSTMENT FALIOR 0,508129 i ----------------------------- NOTES: I. TYPES OF PROJECT COSTS A. CASE STUDY EXPENSE (CASE STUDY): BASFO ON A SPECIFIC SET Of FACTORS B. PER CAPITA TYPE 1 PER CAP 1 : BASED ON CITY RESIDENTIAL POPULATION ONLY C. PER CAPITA TYPE 2 PER CAP 2): BASED ON A PRORATION ULTNFIN RESID1:11T1AL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USE (COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, 6 1NS11IUIIUNAL USES) FILE - 8C FIR NORKSHEET: CITY BUDGET ANALYSIS - 3. FIRE PROTECTION SEkVICIS TABLE: A 5d CITY POP ((DDF 1/1/91 112.800 CIIY RESIU ENT IAL ACAS (EST) 11,023 PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES CITY NON-RESIOENTIAL ACRES (EST) 3,080 - --------------------------------- 1991/92 RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS EXPENDITURE BUDGET COST COST EXPENDITURE - DESCRIPTION TYPE \1 ESTIMATE PER CAPITA PER ACRE --------------------------------------------------- ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- 10.00 10.00 A FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES 110.00 10.00 ADMINISTRATION PER CAP 2 SIB2,468 { 0 2.0 1$0.00 FIRE PREVENTION PER CAP 2 889,033 f3.80 163.04 CIVIL DEFENSE/EMERGENCY SERVICES PER CAP 2 1153,70t 10.56 110.90 RESERVE FIREFIGHTERS PEk CAP 2 1t9,057 0.61 110.51 HAIMAT RESPONSE UNIT \2 OFFSET 10 10.00 10.00 HAENAT CONTROL \2 OffSEI 10 l0.00 SEARCH i RESCUE PER CAP 2 17,300 1101013 10.52 IEIECOXHUNICAIIONS PER CAP 2 1591,196 2.51 111.9/ TOTAL 12,213,050 9.12 1161.18 FIRE CAP fIRE AC FIRE CONTROL AND PARANEOICS - CASE STUDY ANALYSIS ANNUAL OPERATIONS COST FOR PROJECT FACILITIES TYPE 1 TYPE 2 PROJECT FAIR SHARE STATION STATION ----------------------- COST ITEM (TRCK,ENG,PARA VAN) (PARA.IRCK) TYPE I IYPt 2 ------------------------------------ ------------------ ------------ �:� { PERSONNEL 12.185.532 1712.615 11,212,010 1401,828 E?IPMENI (RAINY. REPLACE) 1142.256 59.202 100,111 113.113 SUPPLIES/DPERATING 150.123 26,190 128.593 S15,891 SUBTOTAL 12,314,511 1000.217 11,J40,195 1151.09? SIA 06M CS STATION DEPRECIATION -1113,333 156.661 163.887 $31,911 FOREGONE PROPERTY TAX REVENUES N/A N/A 10 10 SUBTOTAL 1113,333 156.667 163.387 WAIT STATION 'FIRST IN' SERVICE AREA DATA SERVICE RESIDENTIAL AREA UNITS SHARE SOLSA CHICA ! ?!! p 5e.4t RN:SIIARE% HOLLY SEACLIFF \3,4 3.180.0 43.6% OTHER AREAS 7 0.0% iOiAi 6.664.0 100.0% -------------------------------------- NOIES: 1. TYPES OF PROJECT COSTS A. CASE STUDY EXPENSE (CASE STUDY): BASED ON A SPECIFIC SET OF FACIOR5 8. PER CAPITA TYPE I (PER CAP 1t: BASED ON CITY RESIUENIIAL POPULATION ONLY C. PER CAPITA TYPE 2 (PEN CAP 2): BASED ON A PkOkAIlON 8EIHEEN RESIDENTIAL AN NON-RE SI DEN I JAL LAND USES (COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, & INSTITUTIONAL USES) 2. THE COSTS OF HA2MA1 RESPONSE AND CONTROL FOR THIS PkOJECI IS ASSUMED TO BE OFFSET BY EXISTING AND FUTURE PERMITS (DRILLING USE It INSPECTION), FEES AND LICENSES REWIRED FOR THE OIL PRODUCTION FACILITIES ON THE PROJECT SITE. THE REVENUES CORRESPONDING 10 THE 'HA2MAI' COSTS HAVE BEEN OMITTED fROF THE INCOME SIDE OF THIS ANALYSIS. 3. A MORE EOUIIABLE METHOD Of COST ALLOCATION FOR FIRF PROTECTION WOULD BE BASED ON RELATIVE DEVELOPED ACRES. SINCE [HIS DATA IS NOT CURRENTLY AVAILABLE 10 IHE CONSULIANI RELATIVE OUs ARE UIILJIfD INSItAO. A. SOURCE: HOLLY SEACLIFF OEVELUPMFNI AGREEMENT. EXHIBIT J aw m im m tm �J FILE - BC FIR WWKSHLETo CITY BUDGET ANALYSIS - A. PUBLIC WORKS TABLE:CITY POP (( A 5@ )) 81800 CITY RESIOEBNTIAl1ACRES (EST) 111,023 PER CAPITA EXPENDIIURES CITY NON-RESIDENTIAL ACRES (EST) 3.080 ------------ ------------------------ 1991/92 RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS EXPENDITURE BUDGET COST COSI EXPENDITURE - DESCRIPTION TYPE \1 ESTIMATE PER CAPITA PER ACRE (' - -- - --- ---- --- -- ---- -- - - -- - - - - - -- - ---------- --------- S PUBLIC WORKS (ME( PROG CUSP) ADMINISTRATION PER CAP 2 1340.895 11.Ib t21.11 TOTAL 010,895 11.46 21.11 AUMN VN CAP AUNN VN AL SUBDIVISION PER CAP 2 {{311,310 $1.59 126:/0 ENGINEERING DES/INSP PER CAP 2 1399.194 11.11 120.31 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING PER CAP 2 1241,641 11.06 111.56 TOTAL 11.019.149 11.36 $12.26 ING CAP LNG AC TRAFFIC MAINTENANCE PER CAP 2 100,029 {{1.11 {{28:16 ST SIGNAL/LIGHTIWG NAINT PER CAP 2 1113,192 51.90 131.41 TOTAL 1041,821 3.61 59.83 IRAf CAP IRAF AC MAINTENANCE ADMIN PER CAP 2 1486,631 12.08 f31:51 REFUSE COLLECTION OFFSETTING MAJOR EOUIP REPAIR PER CAP 2 112.000 10.05 $0.85 VANDALISM PER CAP 2 19.000 10.04 10 61 COMMUNICATIONS PER CAP 2 116,033 s0.20 $3.26 HA1-RAI CONTROL VEA fAV 2 1100,00o f0./1 $1.09 FLEE[ MGRI PER CAP 2 1560,3)8 2.40 1)9.1) PER CAP 2 19 EQUIP PAINT 80,861 1.19 b9,55 VEHICLE BODY SHOP PER CAP 2 11216,423 0.93 415.35 BLDG PAINT PER CAP 2 l611,836 12.11 115,94 CENTRAL WAREHOUSE PER CAP 2 1119,289 10.64 110.59 BUILDING MATERIALS PER CAP 2 1113.000 $0.48 $9.01 PAINT PAINT PER CAP 2 1101,000 {{1.13 120 65 ' ELECT PAINT PER CAP 2 l311,125 sl./l 21.10 CIVIC CIA PAINT PER CAP 2 1452.000 11.91 �32.05 CENTRAL LIRE PAINT PER CAP 2 157,239 10.24 11.06 PARRS TO BLDG PAINT PER CAP 2 jj5,In 10.02 10.36 BRANCH LIBES MAIM PER CAP 2 13,000 10.01 10.21 REC FAC PAINT PER CAP 2 131,500 10.13 12.23 FIRE STAT PAINT PER CAP 2 118,000 10.08 11.29 BEACH FAC NAINI PER CAP 2 {{14.500 10.06 11,0) CITY YD BLDG PAINT PER CAP 2 110.500 10.04 $0.14 WATER UTILITY BLDG MAIM Off SETTING SEWER STATION BLIP;MAIN1 PER CAP 2 !'I,000 0.03 10.50 GEN FAC PAINT Dfk CAP 2 13,500 10.01 111.15 IOIAL 11,611,8b9 119.48 {'III.11 MAINI_PN CAPNAINI PW AC SEWER LINE PAINT PER CAP 2 603552 SEWER LIFT STATION PAINT PER CAP 2 1101,968 {1.29 121.11 TOTAL 1905,52 3.81 61.21 SWR PW CAP SNR PW AC FLOOD CONTROL LIFT STA PAINT PER CAP 2 1581,143 2.48 111:21 TOTAL 1581,1/7 1?.A8 511.21 FLOOD CAP FLOOD AC GRAND TOTAL FOR PUBLIC WORKS 10,362,111 1)5.16 159?.95 (PER CAPITA COSTS) PW CAD PW AC STREET MAINIENANCE COSTS CASE STUDY STREET MAINTENANCE 11.519,190 CONCRETE KAINIENANCE �160,105 STREET SWEEPING /18,965 TOTAL 12,318,9?0 TOTAL CITY LANE RILES: 1.710 SDllk(:F': PIIIIIII: WIIRKS DIP41MINI STREET MAINTENANCE COSI PER LANE MILL: 11,h0 LOtlG IfkM REPAIR/ REPLACkMLWI CUSI (PER LANE MILE) 12,000 SOURCE: UPt►tI0 CITY flH;lllttk DIA El1Pt Rlilll:f N/ Vlllik Pkb)r,;.l' TOTAL STREET MAINTENANCE CO'il PER LANE MILt: 13,)50 INMI C; PARK LAMOSCAPING MAINTENANCE C01h: CA';E SIOUY LOCAL PARK MAINILNANCE CONIRACI COST 13,B51 `(RikC1: f11Y PARK MAIgIfNtsrf SI l LAMUSiCAVE MAINIENANCI I:UN1kALl t:U:il It�.717 e,dh+�: .: ��.. �GiSit:.:,•. TREE TRIMMING 11.bQ SOURCE: CITY PARK MAINIENANCE SIAri / IRRIGATION WATER 1492 SOURCE: CITY PARK MAINIENAIAL SIM I TOTAL SIREEISCAPE MAINTENANCE COST PER ACRE 114.221 oer acre STAC CS ----------------------------- NOIES: 1. TYPES OF PROJECT COSTS A. CASE STUDY EXPENSE (CASE STUDY): BASED ON A SPECIFIC SET OF FACTORS B. PER CAPITA TYPE 1 PER CAP I : BASED ON CITY RESIDENTIAL POPULATION ONLY C. PER CAPITA TYPE 2 PER CAP 2 : BASED Oil A PRORAIION BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIOENTIAL LAND USES (COMMERCIAL. INDUSTRIAL. 6 INSTITUTIONAL USES) lii1A FILE -BC FIR , WORXSHEkT:CITY BUDGET ANALYSIS - S. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TABLE: A 51 OAK CITY POP (DOF 1 1/91 I82,600 CIEY RESIOENTIA� ACR�S (EST) 11.023 PER CAPITA EXPENDITURE CITY NON-RE SIOENTIAI ACRES (EST) 3,090 ---------------------- 1991/92 PROGRAM NET RESIOLNI'L BUSINESS EXPENDITURE BUDGET REIMBURSE- PROGRAM COST COST EXPENDITURE - DESCRIPTION TYPE \1 ESTIMATE MENTS--- ----COST--PER- -- CAPITA DER-ACNE --------------------------------- ------------ ---------- -------- ---- -- ------ --- ----- S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION H -> PER CAP 2 1361.443 1155,000 SO 1356.443 11.57 8OLSA1NG CHICAVISION PER CAP 2 ER CAP 2 11}111,613 111,643 11,218 S10 0.00 10 U0 BUILOINO DIVISION PER CAD 2 ff1,512,095 ``1,521,611 117,151 0.01 $1.24 TOTAL DEN CAP 2 13,196,136 12,131,281 11,662,1/9 11.11 1111.88 COMOEV CAP CONOEV AC ------------------------ NOTES: 1. TYPES OF PROJECT COSTS A. CASE STUDY EXPENSE (CASE STUDY): BASED ON A SPECIFIC SET OF FACTORS B. PER CAPITA TYPE 1 (PER CAP 1j: BASED ON CITY RESI0EN11Al POPULATION UIILY C. PEN CAPITA TYPE 2 (PER CAP 2 BASED ON A PRORAIION BETWEEN RESIOkNTIAL :�:: r FILE -BC FIR MORKSHEETi CITY BUDGET ANALYSIS - 6. CUMMIINIIY SERVICES. 1. LIBRARY SERVICES IAILE: A_Sq CITY POP (DOF 1/1/91) 102.800 CITY RESIDENTIAL ACRES (EST 11,023 PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES CITY NON-RESIOENTIAL ACRES IFST) 3,080 ----------------------------------- 1991/92 RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS EXPENDITURE BUDGET COST COST EXPENDITURE - DESCRIPTION TYPE \1 ESTIMATE PER CAPITA PER ACRE ------------------------- --- ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- 10.00 $0.00 6 COMMUNITY SERVICES CASE STUDY 10.00 10.00 ADMINISTRATION PER CAP 2 {1170218 $1.91 $31.11 TOTAL 117.238 11.91 131.71 BEACH DIY SUPERVISION PER CAP 2 $160.409 10.1? 111.94 MARINE SAFETY PER CAP 2 11 429,332 16.11 1101.35 BEACH MAINTENANCE PER CAP 2 061,693 $3.26 04.01 PARKING FACILITY PER CAP 2 1737,331 3.15 1552.28 PIER (1112-91 BUDGET ANT) PER CAP 2 �?�,989 100-5015 19.09 PARKING METERS PER CAP 2 MECHANICAL MAINTENANCE PER CAP 2 204.097 10.81 $14.41 JUNIOR LIFEGUARD PER CAP 1 1166,936 50.91 $0.00 PARK SURVEILLANCE/NATURE CTR PER CAP 2 190.208 0.39 16.40 TOTAL 13,701,895 116.03 $250.65 REC, HUMAN SRVCS 6 PARK SUPERVSN PER CAP 2 ff594.395 12.54 142.15 COMMUNITY CENTERS PER CAP 2 1211,517 {1.16 119,26 CITY GYM 6 POOL PER CAP 1 11650349 0.90 10.00 TENNIS PER CAP 2 181,920 10.35 IS III ADULT SPORTS PER CAP 2 1220.311 0.94 115.63 YOUTH SPORTS PER CAP I 311,9D0 0.10 10.00 AOVENIURf PLAYGROUND PER CAP 1 $1,610 10.01 10.00 t' INSIRUCTIDNAL CLASSES PER CAP 1 1269,814 41.48 10.00 AOUATICS PEN CAP 1 118,500 10,10 $0.00 SPECIAL EVENTS/EXCURSIONS PER CAP 2 $21,100 {0.09 $1.52 DAY CAMPS PER CAP 1 121,900 10.12 $0.00 SENIORS' CENTER PER CAP 2 1118,050 {{0.63 110.50 OAKVIEM CENTER PER CAP 1 1136.029 10.76 $0.06 CLUBHOUSES PER CAP 2 129.921 10.13 $2.1? SENIORS' OUTREACH PER CAP 2 f339,688 1.45 $20.09 ARTS/CULTURAL AFFRS PER CAP 2 1133,168 10.57 19.11 EXHIBITS, PERFORM, SPEC EVNIS PER CAP 2 $89.831 10.3E 16.31 COMMUNITY BAND PER CAP ? 15,095 10.02 10.36 IOIAL 12.50.1100 111.11 f137.23 MUSEUM SERVICES Pik CAP i ; 1,:?C to nS 10.79 PUBLIC ART COLLECT. PER CAP ? 16.300 0.03 10.15 AR!cfq!R AWN PER CAP 2 10 0.00 SO,DU ANT CENTER PROGRAM rie CAP ? 1A 10.00 10.00 ANT CENTER BOOKSIORE PER CAP 2 10 10.00 10.00 ART CENTER MEMBERSHIP PER CAP 2 f0 10.00 10.06 TOTAL 117,124 10.01 11.?1 SISTER CITIES PROGRAM PER CAP 2 IO,SSS s0.05 10.75 TOTAL 110,55S 10.05 10.75 GRAND TOTAL 16,145,912 121.80 1121.�8 COMSEkV-CAP CONSERV-AC 1 LIBRARY SERVICES PER CAP 1 13.000,000 116.41 10.00 LIB.CAP LIB.AC ----------------------------- NOIES: 1. TYPES OF PROJECT COSTS A. CASE STUDY EXPENSE (CASE STUDY): BASED ON A SPECIFIC Sfl OF FACTORS 8. PER CAPIIA TYPE I (PER CAP 1i: BASED IVI CITY RISIUENIIAI P1lPU1A111R1 IINIY C. PER CAPITA 1YVE 2 (PER CAP 2 : tlASEU IW A PRD Al ON tlEINIIN RE5IUINI[AL AND NON-kESI01NIIAL LAND USES (COMMERCIAL, INOUSIRIAL, 6 INS11(01IONAI 11%S1 ' 3 ' APPENDIX E 1 ONE-TIME FISCAL IMPACTS, ALTERNATIVE Jll 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' arsm1»z TABLE E-1 ONE-TIME FISCAL IMPACTS BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' (Alternative #1 - 4,884 Units) ' CAPITAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEES (ESTIMATE/l) City Fees ' Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees ($750/du) $ 3,663,000 Library Fees ($0.15/sq. ft. Res. & Bus.) 1,098,900 ' Park and Recreation Fees ($2,440/du, avg.)/2 11,916,960 Sewer Fees ($150/du) 732,600 Water Fees ($60/du) 293,040 ' Drainage Fees ($0 - $9,000/ac) N/A Total City Facilities Impact Fees (Estimate) $17,704,500 ' Orange County Sanitation Districts #3 and #11 Sewer Fees ($2,350/du) $11,477,400 ' School Facilities Impact Fees Estimated School Fees, ($1.58/sq. ft., Res. - if required) 11,575,080 Grand Total Facilities Impact Fees $40,756,980 ONE TD4E DEVELOPMENT CONTROL FEE REVENUES (ESTIMATE) Planning Department - Plan Check Fees $ 516,000 Building Department - Plan Check, Permit, Inspection Fees 5,152,620 ' Plumbing, Mechanical, Electrical ($200/du, estimate) 976,800 Grading Plan Review, Permit, Inspection 60,000 Street Improvement Plan Checking 36,000 ' Engineering and Inspection Fee (8% of Const. Cost) 665,000 Final Tract Map Processing (City Only) 122,100 Total One-Time Development Control Revenues $ 7,528,520 GRAND TOTAL ONE-TEME IMPACT FEES $48,285,500 AVERAGE REVENUE PER DWELLING UNIT $ 9,886 NOTES: 1. This list shows application of current fees. The City may agree to alternative methods for ' mitigating impacts on particular facilities. 2. If park fees were to be paid in lieu of a parkland dedication agreement with the City. 3. Based on current City fees and estimates of relevant Project variables. ' SOURCE: City of Huntington Beach Fee Schedules 01/20/1992 ' APPENDIX F AGENCIES AND INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED 1 1 1 1 ' ersen»= r TABLE F-1 ' AGENCIES & INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED rAGENCY City of Huntington Beach Administration Ray Silver Administration Services Robert Franz ' Dan Villella Jim Lewis John Roulette _ Community Development Mike Adams Laura Phillips ' Wayne Carvalho Julie Osugi Community Services Ron Hagan ' Jim Engle Fire Department Michael Dolder ' Mark Miller Mark Bodenbender Public Works Jim Sankey ' Bruce Crosby Donn Strook Don Kiser ' Daryl Smith Linda Daily The Chambers Group John Westerfield (City EIR Consultant for Bolsa Chica Project) Tom Ryan County of Orange Auditor Controller's Office Neil Gruber ' Orange County Transportation Commission Joanne Curren Robin Leftwich State of California ' Department of Finance Dan Sheaya Board of Equalization Jeff Reynolds ' Controller Alan Setzer California League of Cities Jim Harrington The Koll Company Larry Brose (Project Manager) Greg Cizik ' 01/20/1992 1 TABLE F-1 ' PUBLIC AGENCY PROJECT CONSULTi�NT CONTACT (page 2) AGENCY Florian Martinez & Associates Peggy Schneble (Project Manager's Planning Firm) ' Southern California Edison :erry Dominguez Southern California Gas Co. Susan Saldana ' Paragon Cable ::coward Stevens (Consultant) ' Hinderliter, Dellamas & Associates :Bob Hinderliter 1 1 r r r r r r r r r 03/25/1992 I ' ' APPENDIX G 1 - FISCAL ANALYSES AND FISCAL MODELS - ALTERNATIVE k4 AND ALTERNATIVE N5 1 O7/]SI199S 1 a APPENDIX G FISCAL ANALYSES AND FISCAL MODELS - ALTERNATIVE #4 AND ALTERNATIVE #5 A. INTRODUCTION ' - Two additional Bolsa Chica Project alternatives have been evaluated at the City's request since the completion of the Draft Fiscal Impact Report ("FIR") in January, 1992. This Appendix summarizes the fiscal outcomes of these two alternatives - Alternative #4 and Alternative #5. Also, summarized are the variations in design features or revenue and cost factors causing differences in fiscal outcomes among the Alternatives. Complete computer model analyses have been performed for these alternatives. The relevant portions of the computer model analysis are included in this appendix. B. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES FIR Alternative #4 - 1,400 DU, Resort Development Alternative: This alternative consists of 1,400 high density dwelling units. Of the total DUs, 1,120 are located on the Bolsa Mesa and 280 on the Huntington Mesa. The average market value of these high density units is projected to be $322 thousand. Also included in this alternative are three hotels - two on the western portion of the Bolsa Mesa and one on the ' Huntington Mesa. The two Bolsa Mesa hotels are 200 rooms each. The Huntington Mesa hotel includes 100 guest rooms. This alternative shows no development in the lowlands and no "Cross Gap" connector roadway linking the Bolsa Mesa and the Huntington Mesa regions of the Project. Wetlands restoration is included in this alternative. (Please see the map included in this appendix) FIR Alternative #5 - 1,500 DU Alternative: This alternative includes 1,500 low to medium density single family detached dwelling units with an average unit value of $561 thousand. Development in this alternative is projected to occur only on the ' Bolsa Mesa. This scenario excludes development of the lowlands area and eliminates the "Cross Gap" connector roadway. An implementation plan for wetlands restoration is included in this alternative. (A map of the Alternative is included in this appendix.) ' C. SUMMARY OF FISCAL OUTCOMES Alternative #4, the 1,400 unit plan, with two 200-room hotels, and one 100-room hotel is projected to generate an annual fiscal surplus of$547 thousand at buildout in ' Project Year 10. Recurring costs are more than $2.91 million per year. Annual 03/24/1"2 i Bolsa-Chica FIR Page G.2 revenues are $3.46 million at buildout. The resulting revenue to cost ratio is 1.19 to one. The cumulative surplus at buildout is $317 thousand. Please refer to Table ' A-9, "Summary of Recurring Fiscal Impacts", for more: inf)rmation on the relative annual flows of Project-generated costs and revenues. As is the case with any J of the Project alternatives which do not include the "Cross ' Gap" connector roadway, this alternative is anticipated to exfoerience significant early project year cost impacts for fire protection. Without the "Cross Gap" connector road to keep fire response times from the station(s) south and east of the Project to within City policy guidelines, it will be necessary to locate and operate a fire station on the Project site from the initial years of Project occupancies. The fire department ' has indicated the need for operation of a Type 2 fire station (4 fire fighters, full-time) from the time of initial occupancies in order to provide adequate fire protection to the Project area. As can be seen on Table A-5 of the respective: computer analysis, fire ' protection costs for this alternative include $1.130 million per year for operation of the Type 2 station and a "fair share" cost for a fire truck (Equivalent Dwelling Unit ' ("EDU") share of total truck service area). This alternative's unique revenue source - revenues from transient occupancy (hotel) ' taxes ("TOTs") serve to offset a significant portion o:-' the cost of fire operations. Table 3, "Summary of General Fund Revenues", shows the progression of this revenue source in comparison with other Project-generated revenues. The TOTS, at , $1.162 million per year at buildout, are second only to property taxes as a recurring revenue source in this Alternative. Alternative#5, with 1,500 single family detached units, is projected to produce what is essentially a "break-even" recurring fiscal impact on the City at buildout and beyond. Yearly revenues of 52.99 million over costs of $2.95 result in a small annual surplus of$40 thousand and a revenue to costs ratio of 1.01 to one. As seen on the respective Table A-9, the cumulative fiscal impact is a deficit of$1.34 million at buildout. This deficit amount is a result of the early project year deficits caused by the high fire protection costs. As discussed above unde:r Alternative #4, the high ' level of fire protection costs are caused by the need for an onsite fire station for any Project Alternatives without the "Cross Gap" connector roadway. For this Alternative, the recurring fire protection cost impacts are partially offset by the high property tax revenues generated by the comparatively high average dwelling unit value of $561 thousand. 03/24/1"2 r rr r r � �r �r re rr r rr r �r r■� r rr rl rr rir n LINEAR ,- REGIONAL M W D4-- ;:: PARK I OPEN 6F*MOP��E/N� ' ,♦ BOLSA GAP MES HIGH -� aPrACE r MMSM HtM -. TON RESTORED A WETLANO ' HRH oENSM LINEAR _ REGIONAL STATE -------- PAM HOTEL ECOLOGICAL RESERVE ' PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY y TIDAL Cr1 INLET � x C� y ALTERNATIVE 10 1,400 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, 500 HOTEL ROOMS. NO CROSS —GAP CONNECTOR. AND IIESTORED WETLANDS RESIDENTIAL MWDj� PARK SSE GAP BOLSA y t:. MES RESTORED HUN WETLAND sA LNEAR O. _ REGIONAL STATE ---- PARK I� 0-0 PAll:irii G(#A.ST ?' k FiiGii'iAPA'iP TIDAL -- INLET � y V1 N ALTERNATIVE 17 (NIODIFIEW 1.500 UNRS WITHOUT CROSS -GAP CONNECTOR.WnM RESTORED WETLANDS. � r r � r r r r � r +�I �r r �■�t r r r r r 1 � APPENDIX G � f ALTERNATIVE k4 FISCAL MODEL 1 1 TABLE A ASSUNP PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS LOOKUP TABLE 03/23/12 10:00 AN BOLSA CHICA (1400 RESORT) - FIR PROJECT DESCRIPTION DAVID TAUSSIG L ASSOCIATES, INC. CONTRIBUTING 155119VIIONS ----------:-------------------� UNIT VALUATION RANGE UNIT HOME PRICE/ PROJECTED LAND USE DENSITY K011THLV WOOD) AVERAGE CORS1 HSHOLU INC HOUStHOLD PERSONS LAND USE TYPE ABBREV. (Ws/AC) ABSORPTION LOW RIO PI HIGH SO FT COST/SF RATIO INCONt (x1000) Pi.R Oli tttuatttt------------------tat•tttat------------ --------------_ ----------- --------------------------- RESIDENTIAL: ESTINAIE SFD 1 1.10 1115.0 3,150 N/A 3.80 1196.1 PER YEAR J,10 SFD_2 4.00 618.0 3,I40 N/A 3.d0 $162 6 PER YEAR 3.10 SFD_3 1.60 1534.0 2.130 N/A 3.80 11(O,i PER YEAR 1.10 Sf0 1 IT.00 1119.0 2,140 N/A 3.1b $113,6 PER YEAR ).10 SFD-S 7.00 1195.0 2,500 N/A 3,40 1115.6 PER YEAR 3.10 IH 1 5.00 $370.0 1.940 N/A 3.?S 1113.8 Pik YEAR 2.50 We 9.50 1231.0 1.310 N/A J,00 19.3 PER YEAR 2.,30 IH/FL 9 12.00 1201.0 1.110 N/A 3.0a 64.0 PER YEAR 1.90 FL 10 1.61 212.0 1.010 N/A 3.00 {10.1 Pik YEAR 1,90 FL81.0 PtR YEAR ?.SO FL_11 0.00 261.0 1,310 N/A 3,00 1_12 10.00 1334.0 1,190 N/A 1.15 1102.8 PER YEAk 2.SO HOTEL: RM WE: WCUP RAIt: NM Ri1:PI/YR: IAXAIILt:i/kM, tMP/kh. HOTEL 1 33.33 1162.2 6S0 IW OO 01.0► 423 ? ' 111,3 0,d1 HOTEL-2 33.33 162.2 6SO 195.00 61.Oi 123.2 111.E 0.81 HOTEL'3 33.33 162.2 69 19S.00 67 0'1 123.? $14 3 0.81 OPEN-1 (1,30000) (1,541060) BUSINESS SITE COVERAQ 14011I1: LAND USE kA110 VALUAIION (e1000) SkW) iMPIOYr1 t•.t...tlt•/•..••tttl/Htt•t.--------N.•.tt•-----------------------------------------a u...•�.....----------...... ....• COM CON 0.25 N/A 11,000.0 PER ACRE 11?5.00 /st ?SO (ir NEIGH COM 0.25 N/A $1,000.0 PER ACRE 1125.00 /51 ?'�0 RESIDENTIAL - POLICE CALLS PER DWELLING UNIT: 'ariq' •ad usted' DENSITY RANGE CALLS Ws COPY- IOPY- tt t�x' TO 'y') /W PER CALL OUT OUT lttt/tt---------------------------it•t•••40 - -- -------- 1.19 LOW 0.96 1.04 2.04 1.04 10.00 15.99 MEDIUM 1.31 0,1) 1.1111 0.13 16.00 6 ABOVE HIGH 1.08 0.93 1.83 0.91 RANGE MANE: CALLS DU BUSINESS - SWARE FEET PER POLICE CALL BUSINESS SO FT LAND USE TYPE PER CALL/ 'criq' 'ad'usted- --------------------------------------HOTEL CADS Clip Y �OPY- FACTOR: ABBREV. DESCRIPTION PER RN 0111 IWI O.S081.9 •ttn••tttt---------------------------•t'r•••.. ------.. ............ NEIGH CON NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL 1.396 2,115 1,196 1,395 CON CON COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL 1,396 2,315 1.396 1,39b IND- INDUSTRIAL 1.519 2.986 1.619 1,519 HOTEL 1 HOTEL 0.016 0.050 0.018 0.098 HOIEL-2 RESORT HOTEL 0.090 0.050 0.098 0.090 HOIEL-3 HOTEL 0.098 0.050 0.098 0.018 RANGE MAKE: Si CALL TABLE A STAY SUM 23-Nor=92 10:00 AN BOISA CHICA ((I100 Af50AI)) STATISTICAL SUMMARY OAYID IAUSSIG Ti ASSOCIATES, INC. JPRINARY USE DATA -----------------------------1PROJECT VALUATION/MARKETING DATA (1xI000)----------------- j DEMOGRAPHIC DATA ------- DENSITY RES OUs/ OVERALL ABSORPTION (PiR1/Uu) PLANNING PRIMARY PRIMARY (DUs/AC) BUS BLDG PA START ABSORPTION AVG BASE AVG AVG TOTAL TOTAL AVG sF WAP/RN) RES POP/ PHASE AREASPAj USE USE AC. (BUS F.A.R SQ fT ACRES OUARIER RATE PRICE PRtMIUK PRICE SALES VALUE PiR W POP FACI. ENP PUP .• ------------------- --------------------- ........ ..-----------•-•--------------------------------------------- RESIDENTIAL I A 3 fl 12 16.0 35.00 560 16.0 6 30.0 1331 t f339 118 181.290 1,39C ?.i0 I.t04 2 A•10 fl 12 16.8 35.00 560 16.0 18 10.0 13J1 ! 1119 3 D-1 fL•11 0.0 35.00 280 8.0 9 27.0 1261 1?61 117.080 1,110 2.)0 TOO RESORT 1 A 1,2 HOTEL 1 42.0 4.78 200 42.0 15 100.0 1162 116: 132,432 550 0.81 163 S A•1,5,6 HOTEL-2 50.0 4.00 200 50.0 21 100.0 I6? 1162 )?,432 E58 0.81 Ibi 6 0 2 HOTEL-] 21,0 4.11 100 24.0 29 100.0 1162 062 116,216 650 0.81 81 7-> BUSINESS TEST PAT CON coil 0.25 11,980 ;gin IEST•PA2 NEIGR CON 0.25 11,000 hO ----- ---------- -------- -------- --------- --------- -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -- RESIDENTIAL TOTALS 40.00 1,400 40.00 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL VALUATION: $533,211 HtS POP 1.S01i 35 AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL VALVATIDII: WI BUSINESS (HOTEL) TOTALS TOTAL BUSINESS VALUATION: Bits POP: ----- ---------- -------• -------- --------- --------- -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----•----- ---------- ----------- -------- - -- --- --- ------- .- .- PROJECT TOTALS TWO $00.0 116.0 1HI,D81 i9: r r � �■r .� rs �w � w � r w rw ■w � rN w w � d 10:01 07/23 BOLSA CHICA 1100 RESORT - FIR PROJECT DESCRIPTION O.TAUSSIG 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. CLOSINGS (OCCUPANCIES) BY FISCAL YEAR I ? 3 1 5 6 1 8 9 10 II 12 ABS DEN- FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY fY FY 1Y FY UNIT PRICE PER START SITY CK- 199/ 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1000 ,D01 2002 2001 2004 Inns PHASE PA TYPE 1191 1s OUs QIR QTR (L,N,H) SUN 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 ?00? 200) 2004 Ions 2006 ----- -------- -------- -------- --------- ----- ------ -------- ----- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- - ----- -------- RESIDENTIAL I A I FL 12 1338 560 30.0 6 HIGH 560 30 120 120 120 120 53 2 A-10 FL-12 331 560 30.0 11 HIGH 560 30 120 120 120 120 SO 3 D-1 FL-11 1261 280 21.0 9 HIGH 280 51 108 108 10 1 A 1,2 HOTEL 1 1162 200 100.0 IS LON 200 200 S A-1,5,1 HOTEL-2 2 100 101.1 21 LUN 110 ?DO 116 6 0 2 HOTEL-3 162 100 100.0 29 LDH 100 100 I ----- -------- -------- -------- --------- ----- ------ -------- ----- -------- -------- -------- --- ---- --- _.. INCREMENIAL 1,400 30 114 226 258 250 I10 1.0 1.0 SU CUNULAIIVE 1,100 30 204 432 690 9/0 1.110 1,?30 1,3SO 1,100 1,400 1,100 1,100 RANGE NAME: DU ABS' TOIL PA SITE VALUE VALUE PA USE ACkES /ACRE (x1000) CHCkSUM -------- --------- ----- ------ -------- ----- TEST PAI CON CON 11.000 ILSI-PA2 NEIIUI CON 11,000 ------- -------- -------- --------- ----- ------ -------- ----- ------ -------- -------- -------- ----- ....... .._ HOTEL ROOMS INCREMENTAL Soo .100 ?00 10( HOTEL ROOMS CUMULATIVE 500 ?00 400 ion )00 IOU )0 ,U0 :DO 500 X(-REGIS 23 Mar 92 1 2 3 1 5 6 7 6 9 10 II 12 13 I: 1,400 -UNIT PLAN FY FY FY FY FY FY fY FY fY FY fY rY fY FY rY fY 1991 lily till issi t998 t991 ltot loot ltol lot) 150% 'lots 1001) 10ol 2008 7009 INCRENENTALS: 1925 1996 1997 1991 1999 2000 2001 2002 ?003 2004 2005 2006 2001 116W 2009 2010 --------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------ --- ---------- ---------- --------- TOTAL UNITS 1.400 NO.OUS N/ DENSITY >zlo 1,400 1.400 OUS ABS OU - RES 30 114 228 250 250 110 120 120 SO 0 0 0 S00 AC ABS HOTEL ROOMS 0 0 0 200 200 0 100 0 U 0 0 0 145l,l11 AY{} AV - RES 110,111 154.656 168.75 18,970 83,8$2 $51,591 140,680 140.680 116,9iO 0 10 f0 181,011 AV8 AV - BUS $0 SO 10 �3?,132 132,132 10 116,216 10 10 10 IO 10 3,500 PE SONS POP - RES 15 1 5 510 645 625 1 5 306 300 125 0 6 6 406 PERSONS POP - ENP 0 0 0 163 163 0 81 0 0 0 0 0 40.0 AC OEV'D AC - RES 0.9 S.0 6.5 1.1 7.1 4.9 3.4 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 116.0 AC OEV'0 AC - BUS 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 50.0 0.0 21.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 1.0 116.00 AC AC STS - HOTEL 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.00 50.00 0.00 27.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00O 0,06 311,61, RN RECPTS ROOK RECPIS - HOTEL 10 10 f0 14,546 14,646 10 12,323 so TO IU 10 10 1131.162 RESIDENT INCOME RESIDENTS' INCOME 11,003 111.010 121,126 124.811 125,535 111.411 10,33? II?,)32 15,138 f0 IO 10 11.199 TAXABLE SALES BUS - TAXABLE SALES 10 10 f0 12,959 12,959 10 11,480 10 10 f0 TO $O 1,50S.11 CALLS - RES POLICE CALLS - RES 32.26 111.10 215.16 277.11 268.82 182.00 121.01 129.03 S3.16 0,00 0.00 0.00 41.14 CALLS- BUS POLICE CALLS - BUS 0.00 0.00 0.00 19.66 19.66 0.00 9.8) 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AVG OU VAL: 1323.007 PROJECT YEAR - > 1 2 3 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 1? 13 1/ 1t Ii �401,999 RES AV GROWTH 110.968 $72.690 11S1,138 1?S/,316 1366,445 1151,163 1511,215 4589,A3'1 1630,990 1618,961 5668,OSd 688,5'1l tI10,019 113),60i T75B,11T t18/,06 1S2,H2 BUS AV GROW IH SO 10 10 134,159 181,325 183,072 101,1?8 ;109,513 II2,182 111,90 !!1,1?" 110,961 12),?I9 121 b89 111 023 13i.11i 3.641<-- INCREASED AV YR 20/19 $62.75% 112.87% 64.)51 11.09% 23.12% 14.53% 13,d11 6'.981 2.83% ?.96t 3.01% ) 11% 3.26% 1 Jir, 3.:. ASSUMPS: TAX GRIM: 2.0% RES TURNOVER: 10.0% RES NRKT: 4.0% BUS IURNOVER: S.01 BUS NRK1: 4.0% INCRE SIRI YR: 1993 rr r� r rr rr rr �r rr �r r� rr rr r irr rrf �r r ■r +rr avid Taussig A Associates. Inc. DAIE: I1-Mar-92 1 2 3 A S 6 7 8 9 10 , II 12 ,i3 14 15 16 Comparative Estl"Ited Absorption FY FY fY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY fY FY FY fY FY fY Holly-Sescliff 6 Balsa Chica Projects 1993 1994 1995 1996 1991 1998 1999 2000 ?001 M? 2001 2004 200S ?006 ?007 .1008 1154 1995 1996 1191 1918 1999 2000 2001 2Jd? 200) 2001 ?uu) ?JJo 2001 ?00e .'dui ---------------------------------------------------FT FY FY fY fY FY FY FY FY iY iY fY 1T FY rY fY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Holly-Sescliff DWELLING UNITS: $20 1.260 2,020 2,63S 3,07S 3.610 1,24S 4,400 4,400 4.400 4.400 4,400 1,100 1,190 4.400 4.400 Balsa Chic& (Is00 RESORT pia DWELLING UNITS: 30 204 432 690 910 1,110 1,210 1,150 1,400 1.400 1,400 1,100 1,400 1,40fi 1,100 Engine 6 Puanedic Srvc Area DWELLING UNITS: Approvals Const 42 83 12S 166 208 249 291 332 111 115 41) I;S 415 115 Springdale Truck Srvc Area DWELLING UNITS: 100 200 325 450 514 699 721 149 714 198 823 818 84R 846 8tb 848 ---------- ---------- -------- - ---•------ -------- - ---------- ---------- ------- ., -. ... --- - - ------ .. -.-.--- -------•-- Total Onelling Units 520 1,490 2,590 3.600 4,464 5,1JS b,.1I 6,b18 6,8f1 b,iln b,941 1.1161 1,001 1,0b) 1,11111 1.Vb; BUSINESS OEVELOPNENT DEVELOPED ACRES Holly-Sescliff ACRES: 16.0 36.0 50.0 52.0 72.1 16.1 16 1 76.1 16 1 76.1 (6.1 16.1 16.1 76 1 16.1 16.1 Balsa Chic& (1500 RESORT pia ACRES: 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.0 92.0 92.0 116,0 lib 116,0 111) 0 116.6 110.0 Ilo J 116,6 11b.L Engine 6 Paramedic Srvc Area ACRES: Springdale Truck Srvc Area ACRES: Total Business Acres 16.0 38.0 50.0 62.0 114.1 168.1 168.1 192.1 192.1 192.1 192.1 112.1 192 1 192 1 19? 1 192.1 DEVELOPED BUILDING SQUIRE FEET Nolly-Sescliff Neighborhood Commercial SOUARE FEET 0 0 16.230 76.210 76,230 119,190 119.790 119,190 119.190 119,190 119,790 119,190 119,19u 119,190 119.190 119,19J Nixed Comearclel SQUARE FEET 0 0 0 $1,022 IS0,000 MAGI) IS0,000 150.000 IS6,000 150.000 ISC,000 1)0,000 I)O,0u0 150.000 I)0,u00 1)u.00( Industrial SQUARL FEEi 205,154 678.665 161,961 875,120 961,118 964.410 964.418 964.418 961,4111 i64.418 9111,118 964.418 i64,41d ibt.lie io:,lld ib1,118 ----•-•--- ---------- --------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------ Ill 111 711 111 'III 111 111 lit III •N100• Balsa Chica (1500 RESORT plan) Neighborhood Commercial SQUARE FEET 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 J J 0 J J Hotel Development SQUARE FEET 0 0 0 130,000 260,000 260,000 32S,000 7?S,000 3?S,0015 125.000 3?S,060 325,000 325,006 M.00L 3?),OOC 3?:.M ---------- -------•-- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -- ------- --- ---- ------ - Total Building Square Feet 0 0 0 130,000 260,000 260,000 325.000 325,000 325,000 325,000 325,000 325.000 325,000 325,000 J25,000 125,00C Equivalent O.U.s 1(sf). 1600 0 0 0 81 161 163 203 203 203 ?03 201 ?0J 103 ?01 ;03 20J Service Area Commercial Development Engine 6 Paramedic Srvc Area Total Building Square feet n/o n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/d n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a -1/4 n/a n'a 1/1 Equivalent O.U.s 1(sf): nits n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/1 n/a n/n n/a n/a nil n/.1 n:n All nits Springdalm Truck Srvc Area Total Building Square Feet 20,111 40.181 61,133 01,177 10?.M 122,66S I2?,665 12?,obs 12?,66S I22,66) I??,66) I?2,t,0 1?2.6bS 12?,bb) 1??,b65 1.1?,665 Equivalent O. .$ $(of): 1600 Il 26 J6 51 61 11 it 71 It It 11 13 11 11 11 II Combined Total Building Square feet 306.311 119.726 905.591 1,244.322 1,5S3,042 1,617,016 1,682,046 1,68?,046 1,68?.046 1,68?,J16 1.602,01b 1,682.046 1,68?,046 I,b82,04b 1,68?,016 :,682,016 Combined local Business Equivalent O.U.s 191 ISO S66 1'18 111 1.011 1,051 I,OSI I,USI 1,0)1 I,OSI 1,051 1.0)1 1,051 1,051 1,01 TOTAL DWELLING UNITS (ACTUAL # EQUIVALENT) Holly-Seacliff HS E OU 699 1,584 2.548 3,280 3,819 4,401 S,016 5,171 5,171 S.III 5,171 5,111 S,I'l1 1.111 ),III 5.171 Balsa Chico (1550 RESORT) 8C-E "OU 0 30 "1 513 853 1.103 1,313 1.433 I,S53 1,6C3 1,603 1,601 1,b03 1,60! 1.603 1,603 Engine 6 Paramedic Srvc Are, ENG_E _0U 0 0 42 63 125 166 208 249 2i1 32? 374 415 ITS 115 11; t15 - - - ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ••--•-- -- -- ...... ..... ..-- Total Engine 6 Paramedic T01_FNG_DU 699 1,114 2,193 1,876 4,796 5,610 6,S37 6,854 1,01S 1.101 1,I18 I'M 1.190 i.:9u 1,,90 1.190 Service Area EDUs Springdale Truck Srvc Area IRK_EQ_W 111 226 351 501 638 716 Sul 825 8S0 81S i00 925 91i 9?5 S?; 925 ---------- -------•-- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----•----- ---------- -•---- -- ....._.,_. ........ . ......, .. . Total Springdale Truck TOT_iRK_DU 811 1,940 3.156 1,371 5,414 6.446 1,138 1,619 1,86S "02 11,048 8,114 d,114 8,114 3.114 yilll Service Area FOOS TABLE A-1 TABLE A-1 "$ESCALATION RATES"' BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (I100 RESORT) FIR "'NONLO" IOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (1400 RESORT) - FIR CASE STUDY REVENUES: PROPERTY TAXES DAVID IAUSSIG 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. AND REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAXES ASSESSED VALUATION ASSUMPTIONS UNSECURED PROPERTY TAX ASSUMPTIONS OIL RESI'RVt5 PkOPfkTY-IAX-ASSIIAP1I(INS ------------------------------ ---------------------------------- --------------------- --- ----------- PLEASE REFER TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION SECTION FOR RESIDENTIAL - AS It OF SECURED: 1.0% ESIIMAIEO OIL RESERVES 10.000,000 HARRELS ASSUMPTIONS DETERMINING CALCULATIONS OF PROJECT 14011-RESIDENTIAL - AS t OF SECURED: 15.0% ESTINAIED PRODUCTION 876.000 SAkktLS/YR ASSESSED VALUE. PO)LXJCIION DECLINE 8.001 REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX ASSUMPTIONS CUkRENI ESIIMAIEU ASSESSED VALUE 114.20 /BAkRFI. PROPERTY TAX ASSUMPTIONS -------------------------------------- TAX RIIE 10 CITY (SEE APPORTIONMENI FACIUR5) ------------------------ RESIDENTIAL PROP TURN-OVER RATE 10.0% APPORTIONMENT FACTORS (FRACTION OF 1.0% PROP.TAX1: BUS 6 CON PROP TURNOVER RATE 6.01 CITY OIL FXTRICIION TAX ASSUNPIIINIS -CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL FUND: 0.1775 IRANFER TAX (11 OF SALES DOLLARS) 0.0551 -PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENI SYSTEM ALLOC. 0.0400 CITY TAX PQR BARNCL Of OIL $0.2081 /BIRRLL (Ptk PkODUCING WELL )10 BBLs/Qlk) BUILOOUT FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YtAk: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: 1 2 3 1 S 6 1 0 9 10 11 12 13 (1s X1060) TOTALS 1991-9S 199S-96 1996-11 1217-11 1193-99 1999-00 2000-01 ?001-02 2002-32 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 200b-01 ------------------------------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ' ------- ....... ------- ....---- ASSESSED VALUE - RESIDENTIAL 1452,210 110.141 161,191 1171,511 1212,461 1216.119 1353,900 1394,500 1435,260 $452.210 1452,210 1452.210 $452,210 IIS2,210 ASSESSED VALUE - BUSINESS 181,OB1 0 0 {0 132,432 164,865 $64,865 181,061 131,081 181,081 181.001 181,081 $81.081 $81,081 CURRENT AV DEDUCTION 16 10 10 }0 Il0 $0 $0 10 $0 10 IO {0 f0 {0 CUMULATIVE PROJECT VALUATION 1533,291 110.141 164,797 1113.547 1211,899 1361,164 1/18,16S 1475,661 $516.341 1513.191 1533,?91 1533,?91 15.13,291 1533,291 (t INCREASE OVER PRIOR YEAR) $38.91% 106.10% 83.39% 11.48% 15.94% 13.591 8.55% 1.281 G.001 0.001 0,001 0.001 - ----------------------------------------------- SECURED PROPERTY TAX REVENUE CALCULATIONS: i CITY OF INUNIINGIOM BEACH GENERAL fUMO !II 1115 1271 1175 1611 f113 {B?10t?�� ���� 911 (91) 1911 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM ALLOC. {1 126 153 I98 111 168 ( 1 1 ('v ------------------------------------------------- UNSECUREO PROPERTY TAX REVENUE CALCULATIONS: RESIDENTIAL 6 NON-RESIDENTIAL (SEE ASSUMPS): CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL FUND 10 ss1 2 $12 123 124 129 129 $30 130 t30 $30 !30 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM ALLOC. 10 i0 I 11 $5 IS lb 11 VI 1'1 11 S. 11 ------------------------------------------------- TOTAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUES (SECURED • UNSECURED) CITY OF HUNTINGION BEACH GENERAL FUND Ull 1116 1239 111 611 161 813 916 19'16 1976 •976 4976 {91b PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM ALLOC. II 12b $51 101 ISO 113 �19'1 20 {;26 1:20 J220 112U 1?20 —--------—------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------..................... REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX REVENUES FROM: NEW RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY SALES s6 I10 130 113 1s16 31 29 127 J9 !0 l0 10 t0 RESIDENTIAL RESALES 10 11 1 11 SI2 }16 19 52? 1 {.b 1.: 1?S {2) MEN WON-RES PROPERTY SALES IO 10 0 Ills lie s0 19 10 10 10 10 10 U rem_Rfs owwER!y RESA Es t0 t0 0 t0 11 12 12 12 12 12 1? /? 1 TOTAL ANNUAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAXES 16 01 141 169 111 150 I51 Nb 1 H 1?l {?I 1?I i21 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------•--------------------------.. .................... .............. ............. ... OIL RESERVE AD VALOREM (PROPEkTY) TAXES \1,2 1401 1114 I156 1141 Jim 111E 1iu6 jib ii; i'in iG. CITY OIL EXTRACTION TAX REVENUE ESTIMATES\1 $122 1142 lilt 1120 {111 1102 191 186 1'19 113 161 16? $51 •aaasaa.acas....esaaaaaexaaexsaeaasaaaaaaeaaseaexecs: NOTES: 1. REVENUES FOR FY 1991-9S INCLUDE INCOME FOR BOTH FY 1113-94 6 FY 1991-95. If IS ASSUKLO HERE IIIAI If ANNEX011011 U(;CURS DURING FY 1992-91 THEN BY IN[ END OF FY 1994-15 (PROJECT YR 1) THE CITY WILL HAVE RECEIVED THESE REVENUES tom IWO 1`111.1 YEARS ((AT NINIMUNJ. 2. CITY RECEIPI OF THIS REVENUE IS DEPENDENT ON CONDITIONS OF ANNEXATION. THEREFORE THIS REVENUE IS SHOWN HERE BUT NOT INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL PROJECT-GENERATED REVENUES ACCRUING IU [HE CITY. OIL EXTRACTION AND AO VALOREM TAX CALCULATION: (AI) I's X 1000) FISCAL YEAR: 1192-13 1993-91 1994-15 1995-16 1996-17 1997-98 1598-91 1919-00 '000.01 2001-02 ?002-32 2003 01 2004-05 2005-06 RESERVE 6VLS BEG 10,000,000 2,124.000 0.318,080 1,516,614 6,814,503 6,266,943 S,689,561 5.158.420 1,bb9,111 1,220,1b1 3.80b,5)1 3,426,U29 J,015,941 PRODUCTION ESTIMATE 676.000 805,920 141,116 682.131 627,510 S1'1,3SS 5J1,161 488,614 119,580 113,b1J 380,i21 150,082 J2?,016 2,Ib,M10 RESERVE BBLS ENO 9 121,000 6 318,080 1 516,634 5.894,503 5,266,141 5,669.501 5.156,420 4,661.141 1,220,161 3,806,5'): 3,1?b,0?9 3,035.911 %15),811 2,A5'1,ib1 POTENTIAL AO VALORUN ;1291210 i1181210 ;IO1 $1111I191 I91�111 1881158 1801143 192 I131130 166{116 {i911011 1�1 146 1td,141, 1il,lid t w tbi 1•+,{02 TAXES TO CITY CITY OIL EXTRACTION TAXES lie? $168 1154 1142 fill $120 Jill 1102 194 186 114 T11 161 lb? r� �• w ww ww w: +w ww ww. w� w� w wr a� ww w� �w w. +w TABLE A-2 IABLE A-2 03/21/92 8OLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (1400 RESORT) FIR BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (1400 RESORT) - FIR CASE STUDY REVENUES: DAVID IAUSSIG i ASSOCIATES, INC. SALES TAXES, UTILITY TAXES, FRANCHISE FEES RESIDENTIAL INDIRECT SALES TAX GENERATION ASSUMPTIONS DIRECT SALES TAX GENERATION ASSUMPTIONS UTILITY IAX/FRAN(711ISE FEE ASSUMPTIONS ------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- -CALCULATION METHOD 11 'BASIC' SALES TAXES TO CITY (1 OF SALES): 1.00% UTILITY Ulll IAX ► tkANCH Itl 1 12 PROJECT RESIDENTS' PURCHASES N/IN CITY (1): 50.0% RETAIL TAXABLE SALES: ....... --------••--•-- (EXCLUDING ONSITE PURCHASES) break-even' RETAIL (1NEIGHBORH000) IISO /sT/yr WATER 5.0% 15.01 in lieu RETAIL TAXABLE EXPENDIIURES AS 1 OF INCOME): 25.0% BUSIIESS (OFFICE, INDUSTRIAL) 110 /et/yr GAS 5 01 It/A -CALCULATION METHOD 11 HOTEL (PER ROOM) 113,232 /ra/yr IELEPIIONE 5.0% N/A AVERAGE ANNUAL SALES TAXES PER HOUSEHOLD: 1113 \1 1 SALES 10 NON-PROJECT RESIOFNIS 90,01 tLLCIRICITY 5 0% h/t CAIIL t 5.01 1.ut 6661RANSIEN1 OCCUPANCY (HOTEL) IAXfS"6 10,0% AU I l U1X11 FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YtAR: YtAR: YEAR: Yt.Ak: YLAR. 1 2 3 1 5 6 1 8 9 10 II (1e X1000) TOTALS 1991-9S 1195-96 1996.91 1991-98 1998.91 1999-00 2000-01 2001-0} ?On?-32 2001-01 2004-05 2005-0b SALES TAX REVENUE CALCULATIONS: INDIRECT SALES TAX GENERATION -CALCULATION ME1NO0 11 (1 INCOME) ANNUAL RESIDENTIAL INCOME 13 013 120,113 141,842 166,653 92.188 1109,658 11?1,991 113/,3?7 5179,162 1119,162 1179.30 1139,4b? fAXABLE TOTAL NDDIIRECTS WIN SALES TAXYGENERATION {311 12.514 125 15 152 IB $83 11�115 523 11!{'IOi 115{I52 f10110 111{III f11�11t 111{11t 111111A -CALCULATION METHOD 12 (SALES TAXES PLR DO) PROJECT HOUSEHOLDS 30 204 132 690 910 1.110 1,170 1,150 1,100 1,100 1 100 1 400 TOTAL INDIRECT SALES TAX GENERATION 11 129 162 199 flit $159 111b $193 1200 1.100 1.06 NO aE:, - ------------------------------------------------ DIRECT SALES TAX GENERATION ANNUAL TAXABLE RETAIL SALES 10 0 10 12,959 15,119 15.919 S1,J99 $1.149 17,399 11,799 11,399 11,399 ANNUAL TAXABLE BUSINESS SALES s0 0 0 10 10 $6 fb 1G SO SO f-i 16 TOTAL DIRECT SALES TAX GENERATION 90 0 1D 127 S53 151 $61 161 S61 16l S6'1 16.1 -------------------------------------------------- TOTAL SALES TAX REVENUES (INDIR(I1)AUIR) 11 125 152 1110 1169 1190 1219 $214 $241 1241 1241 I211 TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY (MOTEL) TAXES 10 10 10 1165 1929 19:19 11,16? $1,162 $1.16: 11,162 S1,16? $1,162 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UTILITY TAX/FRANCHISE FEE REVENUE CALCULATIONS: (SEE ASSUMPTIONS ABOVE AMO IN TABLE A-?a) NAI eonswpttan per resident/employee) SI 1 1 11l ?? 1?1 121 I?1 I?1 127 I?'1GAS erere a billin 16 1219 1 21 111 1i $it 17 114 11. TELEPHONE oven a billing0 1 1 SII 11 21 1?1 ?9 110 in J0 III) 9 9 ELECTRICITY enrage b111fni I 1 9 {?7 I! 11 IA3 Ab III 11 �A1 141 CABLE everege billing x penetration rate) iI 1S In 121 IJ2 36 141 144 Iv1 1A� 11ti 14.� -------------------------------------------------- TOTAL UTILITY TAX/FRANCHISE FEE REVENUES 13 121 111 187 1120 $146 1156 $179 1181 1181 1181 $m iiilii......iiiiiiiiii[Sf.ii.iit.t..i::ii......SSS.i..iiii i........i............i....-[i:::............... _..__.,. -..___.._..._..... .._....._..._....-._:....- NOTES: I. SOURCE - HINUERLIIER, DLLLAMAS L ASSOCIATES; CITY SAILS TAX CONSULTANT 2. PORTION OF FRANCHISE FEE WHILH CONIAIBUTtS kEVENUt 10 THE CITY 6ENENAL FUND C: TABLE A-2. 13/17/12 i BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (1500 RESORT) - FIR C DAVID TAUSSIG 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. i NORKSHEET: UTILITY TAX AND FRANCHISE FEE ASSUMPTIONS ELECTRICAL USAGE UNIT BILLINGS RESIDENTIAL (PROJECT COMPOSITE) OUs 1439 PER YEAR SFO SCE SERVICE AREA COMPOSITE) 1,900 439.08 PER YEAR So Cal Edison, lining Bch Area Mgr. APT SCE SERVICE AREA COMPOSITE) 0 /39.00 PER YEAR (So Cal Edison, Hntng Bch Area Ngr. BUSINESS (PROJECT COMPOSITE) N/A OFFICE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL RETAIL 11.16 PER SF PER YEAR (BASED ON 11.8 XWH/SF/YR x 1.098 PER XWII) HOTEL ROOM SIZE: 650 1611.00 PER ROOM PER YEAR ELECTRICAL UTILITY TAX PERCENTAGE 5.0% NOTE: USAGE DATA SOURCE - 50 CAL EDISON GAS USAGE UNIT BILLINGS 1410.52 AVG RES BILLING, SO CAL GAS (EMPLOYED IN THIS ANALYSIS INSTEAD OF BEIUW.) RESIDENTIAL (PROJECI COMPOSITE) pis 1326 PER YEAR SFD 1) > 112893 S00 1461 PER YEAN(66.6S THERMS PER SFD PER MONTH, 1.S76 PER THERM) APT 1,400 1217 DER YEAR(10.12 IHERAS PER UNIT PER MOH IN, 1.576 PER THERA) BUSINESS (PROJECT COMPOSITE) N/A OFFICE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL RETAIL SITE COVERAGE: 0.25 10.20 PER SF PER YEAR BASED ON 348 THERMS/SF/YR x 1.516 PER THERM) HOTEL ROOM SIZE: 6SO 121S.65 PER RN PER YEAR (BASED ON 4.6 cf/eo/sf 4 1.576 per there (100 cf)) GAS UTILITY TAX PERCENTAGE 6.0% NOTE: USAGE DATA SOURCE - SO CAL GAS CO REFUSE COLLECTION UNIT BILLINGS ( RESIDENTIAL (PROJECT COMPOSITE) MIA PER YEAR PER (COMPOSITE)) UNIT FOR TRASH COLLECTION SFO N/A LOW - NED DENSITY RESIDENTIAL APT N/A HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS (PROJECT COMPOSITE) H/A PER YEAR PER BUSINESS OFFICE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL RETAIL N/A PER YEAR PER BUSINESS HOTEL REFUSE COLLECTION UTILITY TAX PERCENTAGE N/A THE CITY DOES NOT LEVY A UTILITY TAX ON REFUSE COLLECTION CABLE UNIT BILLINGS AVERAGE CABLE SUBSCRIBER BILLING 1514 PER YEAR PER UNIT PROJECTED %SUBSCRIBERS (PENETRATION) 60.11% rvERASE m tt!mr PFR PVAIfr.l 111111 t313 IAVG SUBSCRIBER BILLING x PENETRATION) AVERAGE BILLING PER HOTEL ROOM PER YEAR 1251.14 E5IIMAlE (SO%OF RISIOENIIAI., 100% PtNETRAIION) CABLE FRANCHISE TAX PERCENTAGE TO GEN FUNU 3.0% CABLE UTILITY TAX PERCENTAGE 5.0% ,. NOTE: USAGE DATA SOURCE - PARAGON CABLE JOINT IhNiER5 AUIIIUXIIT TELEPHONE SERVICE UNIT BILLINGS �. RESIDENTIAL (PROJECT COMPOSITE) 1329 PER YEAR PER (COMPOSITE) SFD S00 1329 LOW - NED DENSITY RESIDENTIAL APT 1,100 1329 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AVG SF BUSINESS (PROJECT COMPOSITE) N/A N/A PER YEAR PER BUSINESS C OFFICE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL RETAIL 2500 12 400 PER YEAR PER BUSINESS r, HOTEL 121/ PER RN PER YEAR TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX PERCENTAGE 5.0% NOTE: BILLING DATA SOURCE - OTA EXPERIENCE, DATA FROM PRIOR FIR's HATER SERVICE BILLINGS C RESIDENTIAL USAGE, DAILY 100 gallon/day/resident NON-RESIDENTIAL USAGE, DAILY SO gallon/Jay/employee HOTEL USAGE SO ya non/day/room AES USAGE ANNUAL I8.80 I00 cu it per res per yr NON RES USAGE, ANNUAL 21.10 100 cu It per eep per yr HOTEL ROOM USAGE, ANNUAL 24.40 100 cu it per rooe per yr WATER/SEWER RATES 10.7S cost per 100 cu it water 6 sewer service ANNUAL BILLINGS PER RESIOENT {36.60 water billings per res per year ANNUAL BILLINGS PER EMPLOYEE 18.30 rater billings per emp per year ANNUAL BILLINGS PER ROOM 118.]0 water hillinns oar room ucr year M M M i r ■r �r r r �r r rr r� �r rr �r rrr r �r r w +r r d TABLE A-3 TABLE A-3 "'ESCALA11011 RAIES"' , 01/21/12 BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (1400 RESORT) FIR BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (1400 RESORT) - FIR PER CAPITA GENERAL FUND REVENUES AND DAVID TAUSSIG 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. SUMMARY OF GENERAL FUND AND REVENUES :y CITY REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS/PER CAPITA MULTIPLIERS CIIY REVENUE ASSIIMPIIONS/DER CAPIIA MULTIPLIERS ----------------------------------------------- ---- -----------------•-•--- ----•- --------- CITY POPULATION (1/1/91 STATE DOF EST) 102.800 PLEASE REFER 10 TABLES A-]a 6 A-3b fOR CITY BUDGET PROJECT BUILOOOT RESIDENTIAL POPULATION 3 500 avq/hhold ANALYSIS AND REVENUE MULTIPLIER ASSUMPTIONS, AVG PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD �.50 PROJECT BUILDOUT BUSINESS ACRES 116 Bit IL Doti 1 FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEW YEAR: YEAR: PER1,fNI 1 2 1 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 II 1? Of IOIAL (is xIOoO) 1914-95 1995-96 1996-97 1991-98 1118-99 1919-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-32 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 RtVENUES ------------------------------------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -----•-- -------- -------- -------- RESIDENTIAL POPULATION 15 SID 1,080 1,125 2.350 2,715 3,075 3.375 3,500 3.500 3,500 3.500 BUSINESS DEVELOPED ACRES 0 0 0 4? 92 92 116 116 116 116 116 116 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------•---------------------------•------ ....................................... GENERAL FUND REVENUES (PER CAPIIA/BUS AC SOURCES) PROPERTY (UTIL UNITARY) ]AXES JOG 3 6 10 11 17 fN 19 70 1{?I ?l 121 • 121 0.11% FINER FORFE TAXES l 7 128 6 25 28 S31 `35 f35 f3S 135 1.01% FINES/FORFEITURES/PENALTIES 0 1 USE Of MONEY 6 PROPERTY I {{10 70 15 13 80 99 10? 1102 $102 Ila? 2.941 REVENUE FROM OTHER AGENCIES 3 f10 I7 68 92 f{{109 f11{21 13133 f{137 1551 sS131 till full 1.99% CHARGOTHER fS FOR REVENULEURRENT SERVICES lot 11 si3 fie I2 116 t16 Ill 111 11i 12 . {IN 0 401 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS to 2 l TOTAL PER CAPITA/BUS AC SOURCES it s19 1104 1206 1319 1360 1411 $442 S4s4 1451 1151 1151 11.1b1 aaaata as sataa:asa:■x::saax:asaa::::as aca:::a::a:x::::s:::::::::::::::.:::::::::a:.ec:::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:::::::::::::::::::::::------:-•.-_-•-- OTHER REVENU SOURCES ol 1' GAS TAX REVENUES 11 19 120 132 111 151 157 163 1105 165 f6S 165 1,88% TRANSPORTATION FUND (MEASURE M,SAI(S TAX) 10 $3 15 112 116 f20 113 $25 f?� VS1?5 1?5 u.11� (ESIIMATEO BUT NOT INCLUDED IN REVENUE TOTALS) FIRE-MEDICAL PROGRAM REVENUES 11 15 112 126 141 145 154 157 ISO ISO $58 ISO 1.681 seta:ataaa:aaaa:aaxaxaa::::s.:axaaxa ------ CITY REVENUE SUMMARY PROPERTY TAXES (GENERAL FUND # 'PERS'): REV TOP PCI 10P SECURED PROPERTY TAXES 122 1111 1290 1533 1786 1911 $1.035 11.123 11.160 11,1b0 $1.160 11,160 31.01 UNSECURED PROPERTY TAXES 10 11 fJ 115 $28 119 135 136 $16 13b 136 1lb 1 051 TOTAL PROPERTY TAXES 122 $112 1293 1548 fell f910 11.010 $1,159 St.lib 11,lib II,19b $1.19b it 101 REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAXES 16 111 141 169 111 sso 15i 116 1J5 1:1 $21 $,1 6 lit OIL RESERVE AO VALORUM (PROPERTY) TAXES M/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/4 N/A to/A N/A OIL EXIRACTIUN TAXES 1322 1142 1131 f170 1929 111 1102 194 186 $14 I11 $61 Sb7 ? 111 SALES TAXES, DIRECT # INDIRECT 11 f?5 152 1110 169 Ilia 1?19 Via 1?11 171I 1241 Pit 6 991 TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY (HOTEL) TAXES f0 to f0 41 1979 11 1b? Ili 162 11,1b7 $1,167 11,Ib? 1),1b' JJ bit UTILITY TAXES/FRANCHISE FEES 3 121 144 111 ``1?8 I14b �Ib6 1'I8 $181 119i 1103 1181 5 J'1 PER CAPITA GENERAL FUND REVENUES 11 $49 $104 1209 i119 1160 $113 1442 1454 $454 14S4 1454 IJ,161 TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES $364 silo 1865 11,606 12,516 12.116 11,176 $3,108 f3,N l 11.136 1i,110 fi,i75 9b,161 •ataataasaacaaaca:taa:asaa:aac::ca axaaac::a:::::::::::::::.:::::::c..a:c:c,::::::::::::::::::::c:::::::::::::::::: _ ___:__:._ __ _ _.____:_:___:_.__-: TOTAL GEMfRAI, GAS TAX, FIRE Nf0 FUND KEYS: 1366 {125 1691 {1,661 17,631 12,811 13,286 S3,Itl 11,111 13,t59 f1,153 f3,11e too,001 aaaaaaaaaataaaaataaaa:taxaaaaaaaaa:asa saxc:axaxaxaaaaxa..... TOTAL GENERAL GAS TAX, FIRE-NEO FUND REVS: 1366 112S 1691 11.661 12.611 12,814 13.206 13,121 13.111 13.451 13,153 13,118 100.001 ESCALATED AT THE FOLLOWING RATE: 0.0% a■a..............aa::zca::aca:axa::a::ar TABLE A-S TABLE A-S •••ESCALAIIUH kAIES••• 03/23/92 BULSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (1400 RESORT) FIR •'•MOTIF•'• BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (1400 RESORT) - FIR RECURRING COUNTY COSTS: DAVID TAUSSIG 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. GENERAL AND ROAD FUND COSTS CASE STUDY COST ASSUMPTIONS PER CAPITA/BUS ACRE COST FACTORS PER CAP PER AC ---------------------------- ------•-------•----------------- -------- ------- GENERAL GOVERNMENT 6 ADMINISTRATION NUN-OEPARINiNIAI $30.25 1501.6b - AS A PERCENTAGE ON DIRECT COSTS 8.97% rIRE PROItCIION (ADMIN 6 CIIY•WIOf SER 19.12 1161.18 POLICE SERVICES PUBLIC WORKS IAOMIN, EN4.6 CITY FACIL 535.16 1s9?.9s -COST PER CALL 1299.01 LUMINIIY VEVEtOPMENT (PLANNING, BLIM; 11.11 017.118 IN PROJECT COMMUNITY SERVICES $29.80 1E21.58 FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES STATION COST YEAR: LIBRARY SERVICES 116.11 10.00 - ALL YEARS, TYPE 1 STA TRCN COSTS 11 412.202 (-SRVCE AREA SHARE I - PARTIAL ONSITE STA COST (N/A 1811,321 (-3/1 CST TYPE 2 2 <•' - ALL YEARS FULL ONSITE TYPE 11.129,161 (-TYPE 2 (All BC) 2 <•• PUBLIC NOR9 - PLEASE SEE THE FOLLOWING TABLE, TABLE A-i. FOR THESE COST FACTORS UUIIWUI FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YiAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: PERCEHI 1 2 3 1 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 OF IOIAI. (1s 111000) 1194-95 1995-16 1916-97 1997-18 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 200?-32 2003-04 2004-05 2005.06 C0515 ---------------------------------------------•---- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -------- (PLEASE SEE PROJECT DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION FOR PROJECT POPULATION GROWTH) GENERAL FUND COSTS CST TOP CST PCI I GENERAL GOVERNMENT 6 ADMINISTRATION 6 $1122 1113 1111 1202 1214 ?28 S21b 1{?10 ' 1210 $214 1,11 '8 ?a POIINON CfPSEAYICE$L (UTILITIES. TEASING) 1 0 166 1139 5228 I311 1369 /10 SI/9 Ilbs IJbs 164 Ill, 116s 15.911 {;. FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 6 CITY WIDE SERVICES SI SS 110 124 131 142 $49 1sl 153 03 153 153 1.811, FIRE CONTROL 6 PARAMEDIC 10 142 11,221 SI MS 11,351 $1.311 11,38? 11.113 $1.409 SI,113 11,411 11,405 11,ID9 48.50'. PUBLIC WORKS ADMIN. END 6 CITY FACIL NAINT 11 118 S39 161 181 5102 SIT] 512/ 1129 1119 1129 1129 4.42% LOCAL PARK MAINTENANCE 10 10 115 IS 11b S?5 S?5 125 1 i S?5 $25 1?s 0 sit STREET STREET LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE }S� 11 8 78 13 1 136 6 14943 lis 06 141 96 N 196 3.10A STREET LIGHT ILLUM 6 MAINTENANCE • SO t1 I II 128 29 35 36 136 130 136 1.13% COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (PLANNING 6 BLDG) 11 11 111 11 $28 111 136 138 S39 S19 S19 119 1.12L COMMUNITY SERVICES 2 115 132 69 Slog 1121 1141 $149 SIs3 1151 tl5] 1153 s ,I% LIBRARY SERVICES $1 18 S18 128 111 146 NO 1is 151 Sit Isl ti-1 1,911 ■■■s■■■■■■ctaaeaaat......■aa:......ax________:::ax_.__:::xa:::::a IOTA- GENERAL FUND. RUAO FUND ONGOING COSTS 161 $1,419 11,143 12,III 12,IS5 $2,602 12,1b9 S2.813 $.,915 S.',912 1?,910 12.41U IOU 09% ■■■■■■a■aa■■aaac aa::a■::a:ac___aa______________a:x::::::::::::::x::::::a •:::::::::::::::::::::::x::=cca................................ . TOTAL GENERAL FUND, ROAD FUND ONGOING COSTS 16I $1,111 11.143 12,111 S2,05 12.bO? 1?,Ib9 12.011 1:1.91s 11,111? 1?,v1O S?.'110 ESCALATED AT THE FOLLOWING RATE: 0.0% .■.a■■■■,.c■as oa:acc ........... --._ -------------------------••-----..,--------------......-•---... -.,.. -.......,..., _...:.:_:., a PLEASE SEE AL"a0 FACILITI(S AA:-4I11ANCE COSTS, TABLE A-.. FUR OL!AIL m m m m m r M WMAMMMMM mom m m � ■ TABLE A-6 TABLE A-6 01/23/12 BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (1400 RESORT) FIR BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (1400 RESORT) - FIR RECURRING CITY COSTS: DAVID IAUSSIG 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. PUBLIC WORKS/OTHER FACILITIES MAINTENANCE lei GENERAL FUND, COST FACTORS OTHER FACILITIES. COST FACTORS ------------------------------------ --- --------------- ------•------•----- LOCAL PARK MAINIENANCE 14,164 /4c/yr PARKWAY LANDSCAPING $14.221 /ac/yr COMMUNITY PARK N/A /ac/yr NEUTAN LANDSCAPING 114 221 /3c/y�r ROAD FUN-, MAINTENANCE COST FACTORS STRal LICHIS (ILLUM/M4IN!) }III /liq t/yr ------------------------------------ STREET RAINTENANCE/REPLACEMENT 13.350 /lane■I/yr Bill I LK411 FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR. YE411. Y14R, YtAR YtAx YtAt: 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 it I? (Fs X1000) 1194-15 1995-95 1196-91 1597-98 1998-19 1999-00 ?000-01 2001-01 ?002 12 7003-0: 2004-h 200)-Oo ------------------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- GENERAL FUND, PARK FACILITIES MAINTENANCE LOCAL PARK MAINTENANCE f0 10 115 115 ITS $25 125 s25 125 125 125 $25 COMMUNITY PARK MAINTENANCE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A TOTAL GENERAL FUND PARK MAINTENANCE COSTS: s0 10 I15 115 ITS $25 S15 1?5 1?S {:5 1?5 1?S ......iii........................33......3.i.ii.33.3..3...............i...--.-..............:::._..__._:_._.._._.._.._..._.__...._..__ .__...._.__....._._. ._......_..._...---.._.._..._...... ROAD FUND, RIGHT OF NAY MAINTENANCE t: f' AARTERIGAS CONNECTOR 0 �0 10 IB 10 0 10 to 18 fig 121 124 124 110 124 $1,,LOCAL STREETS TOTAL ROAD FUND FACILITIES MAINTENANCE COSTS: f0 11 12 $17 135 136 $44 14S I4tl $t: S.) StS :....a.....a..........Si..........3:3:3i.a:.e..c:eS::::SS:a3i::::.:::i:.SS3.33:3::3:Si......ii:3:33:::::33 STREET LANDSCAPING 6 LIGHTING MAINTENANCEPARKWA {y .15 148 {{s 1}3 61 MEDIAN YLANDSCAPINGG 100 0 11 1I 113 2 120 i3y 1J1 13A1 16 1161 1) i10 STREET LIGHTS , TOTAL STREET LANDSCAPING 6 LIGHTING COSTS 11 14 19 15? I101 1105 11?0 $111 1111 Ill., 110 s11? ..........................::.6:3=.3::3::.=::..:a:.a.::::3a3=::3:::::::3:::i.:::3:::3:::::.:::n::.::::::a:=:::'.:',.::�..':......•-- - -" .---...... _.., -- ---- ---------- - ...... TABLE A-1 TABLE A-9 63/23/12 BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (1400 RESORT) FIR 80LSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (1400 RESORT) - FIR SUMMARY OF RECURRING IISCAI IMPACTS DAVID TAUSSIG i ASSOCIATES, INC. TO CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH: �S GENERAL FUND ANU kOAO FUND •aaaaa: PROPERIY TAX INCREASE AS%AP11ONS GENERAL FUND AND ROAD FUND REVENUE ' -------- --- -------- ----------- INCREASE ASSUMPTION: 0.0% • $$.NONE .' GENERAL FUND AND ROAD FUND COST INCREASE ASSUMPTION: 0.0% •auaaa ' flll I l UINJ f FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YIAM: Y[AR: YEAR: YEAR: 1 2 3 1 s 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 (It x1000) 1991-95 Ills-96 1996-97 1991-98 1998-19 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-32 2001-04 2004-05 2005-06 2005-01 -------------------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------- ------- ------- ------- CITY GENERAL FUND A ROAD FUND ONGOING REVENUES 1f61 115119 11�1132,111 12,IS52,602 32,169 12,813 32,915 �2,91? t2,910 51,910 1?,910 ONGOING COSTS • ANNUAL REVENUE/COST RATIO 5.45 0.29 0.40 0.79 1.07 1.08 1.19 1.19 1.11 1.19 1.19 1.10 I.IA ANNUAL ONGOING SURPI.US/(DEFICIT) 219 (11 055� (�1,016� ((1111� 1115 121? ISIJ IS51 I)59 1:1'1 $:J; 1ti18 1,)1 CUMULATIVE SURPLUS/(OEF CIT) 1299 ({156 1,801 (11,211 (12,013) (11,861) (11,143) (I'189) (1?JO) 1J11 180 II,J99 I1,932 saasasara•arssaaarrasaaaaaaaaata ................. zsz • INCLUDES ANY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH POTENTIAL LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT. APPENDIX G ALYERNATIVE NS FISCAL MODEL i 1 1 i 1 i 1 1 1 11 m m m m mom m m m m m r ��[ABLE A ASSUMP PROJECI ASSOMPIILRIS LOUKUP IAIIII , BOLSA/(9)11CA 21 (:43 AN 1500) - FIR PROJECT DESCRIPTION DAVID TAUSSIS 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. ICONTRIBUTING ASSUMPTIONS ------------------------I UNIT VALUATION RANGE UNIT HOWL PRICE/ PROIECIEU LAND USE DENSITY MONTHLY (x1000) AVERAGE CONSI HSHOID INC HOUSEHOLD PEMINS LAND USE TYPE ABBREV. (OUs/AC) ABSORPTION LOW MID PI HIGH SQ FI CUSI/SF RAIIU INCONt (x1000) PtR UU 04406i9*$$$---------------- ------l.l.----------------------------.J.... $$---------__ -- -......r.. RESIDENTIAL: ESTIMATt SFD 1 1.11 5115.0 3.150 N/A 3.80 1196.1 PER YEAR 3.10 SFO-2 1.00 616.0 3,110 N/A 3.80 1162.6 Ptk YEAR 3,10 SFD-3 3.60 531.0 ?.130 N/A 3.80 11/0.5 Pik YEAR 3.10 SF0-1 11.00 �149.0 2,140 N/A 3.36 II33.6 PER YEAR 3.10 SFO 5 7.00 195.0 2.500 N/A 3.40 11/5.6 Pik YEAR 3.10 IN 1 1.11 370.0 1,940 N/A Mh $111.8 Ptk Ytkk 2,5G TWO 9.50 238.0 1,310 N/A 3,00 119.3 Pik YEAR 2.50 IHJFL 9 12.00 1207.0 1,110 N/A 3.00 161.0 PtR TEAR 1.90 FL 10 9.60 1212.0 1.010 N/A 1.11 11.1 PER YEAR 1.90 FL 11 9.00 1261.0 1,310 N/A 1.00 81.0 PER YEAR 2.50 FL-I2 10.00 $334.0 1,390 II/A 3.25 1102.8 PER YEAR 2.50 OPEN I OP(N-2 OPEN-3 OPfN:I BUSINESS SITE COVERAGE MAKE SO FT/ LAND USE RATIO VALUAI1011 (x1000) SAILS EMPIMI. .. •�.Ill.IN..N/11. .....U..-----'---4..44-6-----------------------------------..---.,.-...111111......,"----.1.......1 COW CON 0.25 N/A 11.000.0 PFR ACRE 112S,00 /it ?'0 NEIGH CUM 0.25 N/A $1.000.0 Pik Alm 1125.00 /::1 2SU RESIDENTIAL - POLICE CALLS PER DWELLING UNIT: 'orlq' 'adjusted' DENSITY RANGE CALLS OUs COPY- COPY- 'x' f0 'y') /DU PER CALL OUI OUT ssu......s--- --- --- -- - .u...... ------ ..... 1.99 LOW 0.96 I.01 2.0/ 1.04 10.00 15.99 MEDIUM 1.31 0.13 1.11 0.13 11.00 6 ABOVE HIGH 1.08 0.93 1.83 0.93 RANGE NAME: CALLS OU BUSINESS - SOUARE FEET PER POLICE CALL BUSINESS LAND USE TYPE 'orlq' *adjusted' - --•--- SO FI COPY- COPY- FACTOR: ABBREV. DESCRIPTION PER CALL UUI I111 0.5081119 •........ls---------------------------$1......6 --•----- ------------ NEIGH COW NEIGHBORHOOD CU MERCIAL 1,396 2,115 1,396 1,196 CON CON COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL 1,396 2.145 1.316 1.39e IND- INUUSIRIAL 1.519 ?,986 I'm 1.519 RANGE MANE: SF.CALL IABLE A SIAI SUN 16-Mar=12 01:43 AM BOLSA L'HICA (IS00) STATISTICAL SUMMARY DAVID TAUSSIO 6 ASSSOCIAIES, INC. 1PRIMARY USE DATA -----------------------------IFROJECT VALUATION/MARKETING DATA (10 000)----------------- (DEMOGRAPHIC OAFA ------- OEMSITY RES OUs/ OVERALL ABSORPTION IPtRS/UU) PLANNING PRIMARY PRIMARY (DUs/AC) BUS BLOG PA START ABSORPTION AVG BASE AVG AVG fOIAL IOIA1 AVG SF ISF/EMP) RES POP/ PHASE AREA,PA� USt USE AC. (BUS F.A.R SO FI ACRES OUARIER RATE PRICE PREMIUM PRICE SALES VALUE PEk OU POP tACf, tMV✓OV t0ttltttotN tt IDS... ----------------------tt14t4484*6----------------------------------------------------------- RESIDENTIAL 1 A 1.0 SFO 3 12.5 9.21 116 12.5 6 10.1 1531 18 $52 164.011 2.730 3.10 350 2 A-2.0 SFO-I 34.0 S.97 201 34.0 6 0.4 1115 10 155 1153.215 3,60 3.10 6A 3 A-3.0 SFD,I 12.5 5.04 63 12.5 1 6./ 11/5 136 "1 /9,185 3,150 3.10 195 1 A-1.0 SFO-2 16.1 6.21 100 16.1 9 12.0 1618 618 61,800 1.110 i.16 310 S A-6.0 SFD-1 27.4 7.10 200 21.4 9 33.0 119 119 89,80U ?,140 J.10 620 6 A-6.0 SFO-S 11.8 1.01 91 13.8 II 21.0 195 16 501 llo,b0 ?,500 3.10 JOi 1 A-1.0 SFD-1 IS.1 6.62 100 15.1 11 31.0 119 19 TSB 45,800 2,140 1.10 310 1 A-1.0 SFD:S 13.3 1.11 99 13.3 If 21.0 1415 ss11195 19,005 2,500 3.10 301 1/A 11.0 SFD-2 If.$ 5.59 18) 14.5 IS 12.0 DS 1510 126 1618 1150,056 3,//0 3.10 ?51 12 A-12.0 SFO,1 14.5 8.48 123 11.S II 33.0 1119 1119 155,??I 2.140 3.10 181 1 4: T-> BUSINESS .uttttt• TEST PAI CON COM 0.?S 11.000 ?SO jEii PA2 0tIto i.ui 6.25 ji,6ob ;S0 ----- ---------- -------- -------- --------- --------- -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- ---------- ------..-. RESIDENTIAL TOTALS 218.20 81.4 I,S00 218.2 f01AL RtSIOENIIAL VAIUAIIUN: 1841.918 RL'i POP: /.650 1 AVtkAI;E RtSIULNIIAL VALUAIION: 1561 BUSINESS TOTALS TOTAL BUSINESS VALUATION: BUS PUP: ----- ---------- -------- -------- --------- --------- -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- .......... .......... ----...... .......... .. PROJECT TOTALS 216.2 218.2 1841.918 e.E:6 �. often 0 01:11 03/li BOLSA CHICA IS00) - FIR PROJECT DESCRIPTION U.IAUSSIG i ASSOCIATES, INC. CLOSINGS (OCCUPANCIES) BY FISCAL YEAR 1 2 3 1 S o 1 8 9 10 11 17 ABS DEN- FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY fY fY fl UNIT PRICE PER START SITY CK- 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 PHASE PA TYPE 1991 Is OUs QIR QTR (L,N,H) SUN 1995 1996 1993 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2001 2004 2006 2006 ----- ---------------- -------- --------- ----- ------ -------- ----- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ----•--- ------- ---- ----- RESIDENTIAL I A 1.0 SFD 3 SS? 116 10.0 6 LOW 116 11 13 13 19 I 2 A-2.0 SFO-I TS$ 203 0.4 6 LOW 203 8 31 31 31 31 31 27 3 A'3.0 SfD-1 ss7111 63 8.4 1 LOW 63 31 29 1 A-1.0 SFD-2 1611 100 12.0 9 LOW 100 21 18 28 S A-S.0 SFD-1 119 200 33.0 9 LOW 200 66 132 2 i A-6.0 Sf0 S S01 91 21.0 11 LOW 91 81 13 1 A-1.0 SFO-1 ISI 100 13.0 II LOW 100 33 61 1 A-1.0 SFD-S 1495 99 21.0 11 LOW 99 12 57 I A-1.0 SFD 3 546 210 10.8 13 LOW 210 22 13 13 13 43 16 10 A-10.0 SFO-3 1560 100 10.8 19 low 108 13 13 22 II A-11.0 SFD-2 618 11 12.0 15 LOW 81 18 33 12 A-12.0 SFD:/ 1119 123 33.0 18 LOW 121 33 90 ------------- -------- -------- --------- ----- ------ -------- ----- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ---...;.- ------- - ...------ -•------ ---- _.- ........ -_-...... INCRENENIAL 1,500 19 200 125 329 300 1.0 91 lb CUNULAIIVE I,S00 19 220 61/ 973 1.213 1.391 1,184 1,500 1,500 000 I,)DD 1,500 X (-REGIS 16 Mrr 92 I 2 3 A e 1.500 -UN If PLAN FY FY EY FY FY FY FY rY IY r1 rY r1 ' 1'i rr rt rl 1991 1915 1996 1191 1198 1999 2000 2001 200? 12003 ?004 2005 200D ?001 2008 ?009 INCREMENTALS: 1995 1996 1991 1998 1999 2000 2001 11002 2003 2004 11005 ?006 2001 2008 2009 2010 --------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----•----- ---------- ---------- -----••-•- ---------- ---------- --------- TOTAL UNITS 1.500 NO.OIis N/ DENSITY )=10 0 1.500 DUS ABS OU - RES 19 200 425 129 300 120 91 16 0 o n 0 HA AC AtlS BUS - Stt ACs N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1141.91t AV1 AY - RES 112,305 1119,119 1230,131 1180,005 1162,11I 173,132 155,15/ 18,516 y0 f0 10 LO 10 AV AV -BUS f0 t0 10 10 t0 10 t0 t0 10 10 t0 t0 1,650 PERSONS POP - RES 60 621 1,317 1,019 930 312 283 AB 0 0 0 0 0 PERSONS POP - EPP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 211.2 AC OEV'O AC - RES 2.6 29.9 61.9 48.1 A1.8 11.6 13.5 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 AC OEV'0 AC - BUS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 211.20 AC AC SIS - LO RES 2.51 29.86 61.95 I8.10 41.17 11.60 13.51 1.23 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 N/A AC AC SIS - BUS IN/A) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 9/A 1221,636 RESIDENT INCOME RESIDENTS' INCONt 13,165 t31,968 163,A2 $49,218 111,421 118,129 $14,321 $2,192 t0 to 0 10 10 TAXABLE SALES BUS - TAXABLE SALES 10 10 f0 t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 10 10 t0 1,112.11 CALLS - RES POLICE CALLS - RES 11.46 192.69 408.46 315.96 288.16 115.38 87.80 15.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CALLS -BUS POLICE CALLS - BUS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PROJECT YEAR - > 1 2 3 1 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 h It 11.61A,631 RES AV GROWTH 113,309 $148,491 1421,013 $649,581 1870,114 1981,710 t1,089,441 11,130,85] 11,162,1/1 $1,197,011 t1,233,650 11,212,616 11,314,110 t1,351,911 11,404,iI] 11,153,15t 10 BUS AV GROMIN 10 10 10 10 {{0 10 10 10 t0 t0 t0 10 16 16 13 11 Lilt<-- INCREASED AV YR 12/11 1015.121 183.521 54.21% M R% t7.521 10.10% 1 00% 2 021 2 M 1.061 i.1et 1 ?61 1 341 1.41% i.lr ASSUMPS: TAX tikIN: 2.0% RE9 IURNOVER: 10.0% RES MkKT: 4.0% BUS IUkMOVER: 5.0% BUS MRKT: 6.0% INCRE STRI YR: 1991 I I � w4 M ,M ter► un m m m TABLE A-1 FABLE A-1 •"tSI:AlA11iYl kA1ES••' , 03/16/12 BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (1500) FIR •••H11Mc'•• BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (1500) - FIR CASE STUDY REVENUES: PROPERTY TAXES DAVID TAUSSIG 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. AND REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAXES ASSESSED VALUATION ASSUMPTIONS UNSECURED PROPERTY TAX-ASSUMPIIONS OIL RESERVES PROPERTY TAX ASSUMPTIONS ------------------------------ --------- -------- --- ----------- --- -------- -------- --- ----------- PLEASE REFER TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION SECTION FOR RESIDENTIAL - AS 1 OF SECURED: 1.0% ESIIMATED OIL RESERVES 10.000,000 BARRELS ASSUMPTIONS DETERMINING CALCULATIONS OF PROJECT NON-RESIOENTIAI - AS 1 OF SECURED: 15.0% ESTIMATED PRODUCTIUII 876.000 BAHRLLS/YR ASSESSED VALUE. PRODUCTION DECLINE 0.00% REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX ASSUMPTIONS CURRENT ESIIMATtO ASSESSED VALUE $14.20 /BARRFL PROPERTY TAX ASSUMPTIONS -------------------------------------- TAX RAZE 10 CITY (SEE APPORTIONME111 FACTORS) ------------------------ RESIDENTIAL PROP TURN-OVER RATE 10.0% APPORTIONMENT FACTORS (FRACTION OF 1.0% PROP.TAX): BUS 6 COM PROP TURN-OVER RAIE 5.0% CIIY OIL EXTRACTION TAX ASSUMPTIONS -CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL FUND: 0.1775 IRANFER TAX (1 OF SALES OULLARS 0,05Si ------ ----------------------------- -PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM ALLOC. 0.0400 C!TY FAX PER BARREL Of Olt 10 ?081 /BARREL (PER PRIIOUCING WtLt >10 WUI.i/O(RI BUILDOUI FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YtAR: YEAR, YEAR: YiAk: YLAR: YtAR: 1 2 3 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 (is x1000) TOTALS 1991-95 1295-96 1996-97 1997-98 1298-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-32 2003-04 2004-OS 20OS-Ob 2006-01 - ----------------------------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ....... ------ ASSESSED VALUE RESIDENTIAL 1841,918 $12,105 $132,224 1162,360 1512,36S 1104,5s16 $177,646 1e33,1{02 J811,91e 1811,918 1 1841.9{18 $041.918 1e11,918 1811.918 ASSESSED VALUE - BUSINESS 1 0 f0 100 =0 10 f0 10 fc �0 10 f0 �0 10 CURRENT AV DEDUCTION 10 0 f0 CUMULATIVE PROJECT VALUATION 1841,918 112.305 $132,224 1362.360 $542,365 1104,516 1777.548 1833,102 1811,918 1841,911 1041,918 1641,916 $941,91e 1841.118 (1 INCREASE OVER PRIOR YEAR) 911.511 174.05% 19.681 29.90% 10.18% 1.11% 1.021 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.001 0.00% - ----------------------------------------------- SECURED PROPERTY TAX REVENUE CALCULATIONS: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL WND 122 1235 1613 5963 11,251 11,380 11 119 11,195 11./95 11,195 !1 195 11,19S 0.195 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RfTTREMENT SYSTEM ALLOC. IS 153 115 217 1282 f)11 {))3 J))I !))I 1))I 0111 0 1i 1111 ------------------------------------------------- 1 b: UNSECURED PROPERTY TAX REVENUE CALCULATIONS: RESIDENTIAL 6 MOM-RESIDENTIAL (SEE ASSUMPS): CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL FUND 10 2 16 110 !13 114 !IS J15 115 $15 115 $is Its PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM ALLOC. 10 1 11 12 13 1) 13 11 13 11 11 1) 13 ------------------------------------------------- TOTAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUES (SECURED / UNSECURED) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL FUND 122 1237 1650 !1 263 11 394 11 191 11 510 11 SID $1,510 $1.510 11,510 11,510 1912 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM ALLOC. 15 153 $116 219 1285 {314 113Y {310 1146 1140 $140 1140 $140 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------—----------•------------- REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX REVENUES FROM: NEW RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY SALES 17 166 1127 199 189 S10 !31 fS !0 10 !0 to 10 RESIDENTIAL RESALES 10 {{I 117 $20 $30 !19 141 1/6 11b 110 11b Sib Sit NEW NON-RES PROPERTY SALES 10 10 SO SO !0 !0 10 y0 1U to III {U LU NON-RES PROPERFY RESALES 10 10 !0 0 10 10 10 10 1J 10 1f, !0 1a TOTAL ANNUAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAXES 11 167 1134 1119 $119 179 113 151 146 146 146 1/6 146 --------------------------------------------•---------•------------------------------------- ---.._. .......... ........ . .. ..... .......... ......... ............ OIL RESERVE AO VALOREM (PROPERTY) TAXES\I.? 1401 1174 Ilse 1111 1130 $116 slob 196 186 17R 169 lb? 1b', CITY OIL EXTRACTION TAX REVENUE ESTIMATES\1 1322 1142 Jill 1170 $111 $102 194 18b In J11 1b'1 lb? 1ST iiif�itfi3tL:IIlitfiii.t33i..L.1iL33i:C.ii..S.i---3•••_._...--Si3...i.3.3..._..._...L3-___..-.__......--L_..._..-...............::::':::...--•_....._ ...,_..:_..�__._._..-.........._... NOTES: 1. REVENUES FOR FY 1194-15 INCLUDE INCOME FOR BOTH FY 1993-91 6 FY 1914-b. 11 15 ASSUMED HERE IHAI If ANIIFXATI1IN III:I:UH`, WRING FY 1992-93 THEN BY IRE END OF FY 1991-9S (PROJECT YR 1) IRE CITY WILL HAVE kECEIVEO THESE REVENUES fUk IWO FULL. YEARS (AT MINIMUM{. 2. CITY RECEIPT OF THIS REVENUE IS DEPENDENT ON CONDITIONS Of ANNEXATION. THEREFORE THIS REVENUE IS SHOW HERE BUI N01 INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL PROJECT-GENERAIED REVENUES ACCRUING TO IRE CITY. OIL EXTRACTION AND AD VALOREM TAX CALCULATION: (All 1's x 1000) FISCAL YEAR: 1992-93 1993-91 1994-95 1995-96 1995-97 1997-98 1998.94 1999-00 2000-01 2001 02 '0021? 2033-04 200/-OS 200S 06 RESERVE BBLS 8E6 10,000,000 9,121,000 e,318,080 1,516,534 6,891,503 b,2bb,913 5,681.581 5,158,120 4,661,741 1,220,161 1.806,554 1.426.029 ),075,917 2,'lS).811 PRODUCTION ESTIMATE 816.000 005,920 741,446 602.131 621.560 $11.355 531.161 488.614 119,580 411.61) 100,524 350.002 1?2,016 196,110 RESERVE BBLS ENO 9 121,000 a 118,080 7 576,634 6.894,501 6,266,911 5,6119,581 S,158.420 1,6b9,111 1,110,1b1 3,s00,SS1 1,12b.0?4 1,015,911 2,151,871 2,1)1.Sbl POTENTIAL ASSESSED VAD VALOREM {1291?)10 {11e1210 {107{191see 191{I1/ 1eeIlse 902 JBO{lll 113$110 l66{I IB iS9{100 l�I ♦ia 110 19b {li,118 119,lbq ;31,;9I TAXES 10 CIIY CITY OIL EXTRACTION TAXES 1112 1168 IISI 1142 $111 1120 J111 1102 191 tlib 11'I 111 161 10? TABLE A-2 IABLE A-? 03/11/12 BOISA CIIICA SPECIFIC PLAN (1S00) ilk BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (IS00) - FIR CASE STUDY REVENUES: DAVID IAOSSIG fS ASSOCIATES, INC. SALES TAXES, UTILITY TAXES, FRANCHISE FELS RESIDENTIAL iiiMECI SALES iAX GENtRAIIUM ASSUMPTIONS DIRECT SALES TAX GENERATION ASSUMPTIONS UTILITY IAX/FRANCHISE EEE ASSIIMPIIONS -------------------------------------------- ----------•--------•---------- -CALCULATION METHOD 11 'BASIC' SALES TAXES TO CITY (t OF SALES): 1.00% UTILITY UIIL IAX % ERANCH ELE t \2 PROJECT RESIDENTS' PURCHASES W/IN CITY (t): 50.0% PROJECT TAXABLE SALES PER SO fT: ......•.. --•--••---- •--•----------- (EXCLUDING ONSITE EPURCHASES)) break-even' RETAIL (NEIGHBORHOOD) 1150 WAliR 5.0% IS.01 in lieu TAIL TAXABLE EXPENDITURES (AS t OF INCOME): 25.0% BUSINESS (OFFICE, INDUSTRIAL) $10 GAS 5.01 N/A -CALCULATION METHOD 11 1ELEPHONE 5.01. N/A AVERAGE ANNUAL SALES TAXES PER HOUSEHOLD: 1143 \1 t SALES TO NON-PROJECT RESIDENTS SO.01 ELECIKICIIY 5.0% N/% CAHIE 5.01 1,01 8911.011 FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YtAe: YEAN: YLAk: Yttk: 1 2 3 1 S 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 (is X1000) TOTALS 1194-95 1995-96 1996-91 1191-96 1998-99 1995-00 2000-01 2001-02 200? J? 2003-04 2001-05 2005-Ob SALES TAX REVENUE CALCULATIONS: INDIRECT SALES TAX GENERATION -CALCULATION METHOO 11 (t INCOME) ANNUAL RESIDENTIAL INCOME 11.165 $35.133 198,575 1147,113 1192.394 1211,123 1225,111 1??1,636 1217,636 1277,636 1227.636 $227,636 TAXABLE PURCHASES M IN CITY 1396 11,392 112 334 Ile 197 124 019 126,390 128 180 128,4S1 128 /54 128,15c 128,151 128,151 TOTAL INDIRECT SALES TAX GENERATION 11 111 1123 {18S 1240 1264 1292 1285 i285 5285 Ves 1285 -CALCULATION METHOD 12 (SALES TAXES PER OU) PROJECT HOUSEHOLDS 19 270 611 913 1.273 1,393 1,484 1,500 I S00 1,500 1.500 1,500 TOTAL INDIRECT SALES TAX GENERATION 13 ill $9? 1139 1182 1199 1?12 1:15 ills 1?P, S?IS i?h -- ----------------------------------------------- DIRECT SALES TAX GENERATION (This Pro ect alternattRETAILsive, Alternative 11, IncJOG ludes no sources of direct sales tax revenues.) AL TAAXABLE XABLE BUSINESSA NNUA LES SALES 10 10 SO to 110 so 10 to 0 10 0 to -------------------------------------------------- TOTAL10 SO 10 10 1 TOTAL DIRECT SALES TAX GENERATION 10 10 to 0 0 -------------------------------------------------- TOTAL SALES TAX REVENUES (INDIR(11)+DIR) 11 111 1123 Sias 1240 1264 1282 129S $265 1295 $285 1285 -----------------------------------------------------------------•------------------------------------------------•----------------------•----•-----•-----------•------------.....--•---•---•------ UTILITY TAX FRANCHISE FEE REVENUE CALCULATIONS: (SEE ASSUMPTIONS ABOVE AND IN TABLE A-?a) WATER conweptian par resident/employee) 100 S 1S 122 129 32 $34 31 sy34 S34 134 3/ GAS averpe billing D 5 13 ?0 26 29 Sig JI 131 S31 ill I)i TELEPHONE billt 0 / 11 1621 2J 12A 25 °S +Is 25 'SELECTRICITYj:v:;:g: r billing 0 5 11 21 28 11 11) 11 UJ �1i I11 I1i CABLE average billing x penetration rate) 5 16 21 132 135 111 SIN J8 138 S'10 139 -------------------------------------------------- TOTAL UTILITY TAX/FRANCHISE FEE REVENUES 12 121 169 1104 11136 t io tiss ti@n 1i5n T" 1;CG :..............................:::::::.....t:z:=::::r:::::::,::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::.::.::::::::: ::::_ NOTES: 1. SOURCE - HINUERLIIER, DELLAMAS 6 ASSOCIAILS; CIIY SALES TAX CONSULIANI 2. PORTION Of FRANCHISE FEE NHICH CONTRIBUIES REVENUE. 10 lilt CITY QKRAL FUND r a� r► �rr r� r�� st � �r � � � r� � � � rre +� rir TABLE A-3 I001t A 7 Alsliu9 ILI1:I"' OVIII/92 8OLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN MOO) FIN ..11UNE BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (1500) - FIR PER CAPITA GENERAL ONO REVENUES AtIO DAVID IAUSSIG 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. SUMMARY OF GENERAL FUND AND REVENUES CITY REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS/PER CAPITA MULTIPLIERS CITY REVENUE ASSUMPITONS/PER CAPITA MULIIPLIERS CITY POPULATION (1/l/91 STATE DOF ESi 182.800 PLEASE REFER TO IA8LtS A-3a 6 A-3b fOR CITY BUDGET PROJECT BUILDOUT RESIDENTIAL POPULATI1IN 1,650 avq/hhold ANALYSIS AND REVENUE MULTIPLIER ASSUMPTIONS. AVG PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD 3.10 PROJECT BUILDOUT BUSINESS ACRES 0 BUILUOUT FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YLAN: YEAR: YEAR: PFRCENI 1 2 3 1 5 6 1 8 9 111 IT 12 Of TuIAL (Is XIDOO) 1994-95 1195-16 1996-97 1197-98 1998-99 1919-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-3? 2003-04 2004-01 2005-06 RfVfNUtS ------------------------------------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- RESIDENTIAL POPULATION 60 681 1,998 3,016 3.916 1,318 4,602 1,650 4.650 1,650 4,650 1,650 BUSINESS DEVELOPED ACRES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GENERAL FUND REVENUES (PER CAPITA/BUS AC SOURCES) _ s { DINNEERRTY LOCAIL111AXESIIARY) (AXES 0 S t3 20 26 o 1 =21 29 38 {28 �e �38 19 138 0.951 FINES/FORFEITURES/PENALTIES 0 tS ssss ; 11 1371 { USE OF MONEY 6 PROPERTY 1 13 31 56 11 81 86 87 187 18T 8 18t 2.921 REVENUE FROM OTHER AGENCIES 2 127 70 1118 1#155 $170 14181 1{101 118E $183 1{183 1183 6.12% OTHER R FOR CURRENT SERVICES 10 12 16 518 {11 11 SIS it11 11 I'll {15 16S 0.501 OTHER REVENUE 11 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 0 2 TOTAL PER CAPITA/BUS AC SOURCES 6 165 1192 1269 1311 1/14 1111 11A6 1116 1116 141b 1146 14.911 saasa...............2...... OTHER REVENUE SOURCES ( GAS TAX REVENUES 11 111 $31 155 173 180 185 $96 186 185 job 166 TRANSPORTATION FUND I (NEASURE N,SALES TAX) 10 15 111 119 175 $28 130 $10 110 110 130 130 1.00% (ESTIMATED BUT NO INCLUDED IN REVENUE DIALS) FIRE-NEOICAL PROGRAM REVENUES 11 17 121 132 142 146 149 150 150 150 150 00 1,611 .sass..sass a a...as.a.-saaaa¢ass.:.ass-axz-a-¢s___.a C11Y REVENUE SUMMARY PROPERTY TAXES(GENERAL FUND # 'PERS'): REV TOP PCI TOP SECURED PROPERTY TAXES 127 1288 1781 11,110 11,512 11.61? 11,813 $1,831 11.811 11.611 11.811 11,831 61.31% UNSECURED PROPERTY TAXES 10 13 I/ 112 1TS SIT $10 $18 SIB 118 118 418 0.611 TOTAL PROPERTY TAXES 127 1290 {146 11 192 11 518 11,108 $1.631 11,850 11,850 11,850 11,850 11,AS0 61.93% REAL PROPERTY I RAN SFER TAXES 11 16.1 1131 {119 1119 $19 111 151 146 11b 11b lab 1 551 OIL RESERVE AD VALORUN (PROPERTY) TAXES N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A II/A N/A N/A UTILITYLES ATkXES/FRANCHISEINDIRECT OIL EXTRACTION TAXES 1322 1121 11629 104 12,410,136 1149 1158 $160 1160 1160 1160 11b0 5.f6% PER CAPITA GENERAL FUND REVENUES 6 65 1192 1289 1318 $414 1111 1116 111b 1116 111b 111b III."% TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES 1360 1532 $1,111 12.009 12.532 $2,116 12,079 1?,8'IT 1..865 12,859 12,053 $2,8/8 95.9?1 aaa..:.a..sazasasas ass.....:aassa.s.a..4...a ......:::::::::::::::s::zz:::::::::::::sac:::::::::::::::::::::::::z:::::::••--""'-•"-..._.. f01AL GENERAL, GAS TAX, FIRE-RED FUND REVS: 1369 1652 11,503 12,091 $2,647 12,812 $3,014 13,013 11,002 12,991 12.989 12,984 100.00% ass ............. ........... ......a¢aza saw ....ass:::::s::s:as::s:s:c...::.a:::.::z:....a:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: TOTAL GENERAL, GAS TAX, FIRE- ND REVS: $369 1652 11,503 12.097 12,611 $2.842 13,014 $3.013 13,002 12,995 12,989 .12,984 100,00E ESCALATED AT THE FOILONING RATE: 0.0% ssaas.asas.■as..a.a.saas.a...=a .........zsss.sa:a:s:a::zs::saaxasass.::::s::zs.s..xass:sssss::sssss::z:z::z:::::ssz:::::::::::::::::::::::::::s:::::: TABLE A-$ TABLE A-S "'ESCALAIION RATES"' 03/18/12 BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (15001 FIR BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (1500) - FIR RECURRING COUNTY COSTS: DAVID TAUSSIG 1 ASSOCIATES, INC. GENERAL AND ROAD FUND COSTS CASE STUDY COST ASSUMPTIONS PER CAPITA/81ES ACRE COST FACTORS PER CAP PER AC ---------------------------- ---•-------------------------•-- ........ ------- GENERAL GOVERNMENT 1 ADMINISTRATION NON-DEPARTMENTAL $30.25 1501.66 - AS A PERCENTAGE ON DIRECT COSTS 8.17% FIRE PROTECTION (ADMIN 6 CITY-WIDE SER 19.72 1161.16 POLICE SERVICES - PUBLIC WORKS (ADMIN. ENG 6 CITY TACIT 135.16 1592,Is -COST PER CALL 1219.01 COMMUNITY OEVELOPNLNI (PLANNING,, BLDG $7.11 1111.88 IN PROJECT COMTA:NIIY SERVICES 129.80 1421.58 FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES STATION COST YEAR: LIBRARY SFRVICFS $16.41 10 00 - ALL YEARS, TYPE I STA TRCK COSTS 11 11?,207 c-SRVCE AREA SHARE I <" -PARTIAL ONSIIE STA COST M/A) j811,321 <-3/1 CST TYPE 2 2 <•' - ALL YEARS, FULL ONSITE l�PE ! 11.129,161 (-TYPE 2 (All 8C) 2 <" PUBLIC WORKS - PLEASE SEE THE FOLLOWING TABLE, TABLE A•1, FOR THESE COST FACTORS BUIL04911 FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: PERCENT 1 2 3 / 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 UT TOTAL (Is x1000) 1911-95 1195-96 1196-91 1191-90 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-32 2003.04 2004-05 2005-06 COSTS -------------------------------------------------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -------- (PLEASE SEE PROJECT DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION FOR PROJECT POPULATION GROWTH) GENERAL FUND COSTS CST TOP CST PCI 1 GENERAL GOVERNMENT 1 ADMINISTRATION 1 $126 1170 $119 224 f1?H 242 $1I1 ?13 t1213 s$713 $213 'B.11t NON DEPARTMENTAL (UTILITIES, LEASING) 16 161 $21 185 1280 1366 1100 141,211 1131 141131 14131 1131 14)I 11,62141 % POLICE SERVICES i G. FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES AONINISIRATION 6 CITY NICE SERVICES 11 11 s19 129 138 142 145 145 115 145 145 fA5 1.53% FIRE CONTROL 1 PARAMEDIC s0 121 $1,228 11,312 $1,311 11,101 11,395 11,401 $1,101 11,399 $1.396 11,391 $1.394 41.33% PUBLIC WORKS LOOCCAL ►ARK MAINTEKG&CITY NANCEL NAINT 100 124 15 115 s12S 108 1125 141 -ISO 1150 1W 166 1155 166 1Si0 166 1$50 166 1M. 1,6 1 STREET MAINTENANCE • 1 111 29 11 51 62 167 161 $61 $61 $61 161 2.28t STREET LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE • {I 116 11 12 92 1101 1108 1109 $109 1109 $IDS 1109 3,701 STREET LIGHT ILLUM 6 MAINIENANCE • 1 8 21 31 141 s5? 156 156 156 56 '56 156 1.9C1 COPININITY DEVELOPMENT (PLANNING 6 BLDG) 0 15 II 21 128 131 133 s33 113 133 }33 113 1,1?1 COMMUNITY SERVICES 12 120 60 190 site $129 $131 1139 1139 f119 1139 $119 4.10% LIBRARY SERVICES sl 11 33 150 I65 $11 116 110 06 $IL 116 416 ■if■■tfi■ff■■■t3f if CiffiffiIIii.S.LT::i...i............................L....i..i...i..3.3...:3.......____..•___s=._..___.,--.,___._...._...._.....__.__._._.__...__._....... TOTAL GENERAL FUND, ROAD FUND ONGOING COSTS 141 11,s56 12,060 $2,121 $2.122 s?,857 12,911 11,958 I..9•)5 I2,951 121.950 I?.9*j0 100 Od1 ■ifL„fiif i■iIIi■■3ltiit3 if L..S...................LS..........................•-•':..3..L..LC.s.__. ----------------__________._.__............................ ..._...._._ IUTAL GENERAL FUND, ROAD FUND ONGOING COSTS 111 11,555 $2,060 12,123 12.722 12.853 s?.911 1?,958 1?.955 1?.951 1•'.950 1?.9i0 ESCALATED AT THE FOLLOWING RATE: 0.0% Uf■,ffL■fUi,ifi„St iit Li.::C3:::a::Li::Li:::::L•c.L-i•=•---L'Y:33::--'--'-S:L:SSi::i:3:3::::::3i::3:'-3.________ •-- .:.---.--._--- ...._. ---:-"-_--,-__,-•-•-- :LEASE SEE ALSO FACidl iES WAiniEff L LUSTS, IAUIE A-6. TOR UFIAII ea TABLE'A-6 TABLE A-6 03/11/92 BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (IS00) FIR BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (1500) - FIR RECURRING CITY COSTS: DAVID TAUSSIG 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. PUBLIC WORKS/OTHER FACILITIES MAINTENANCE GENERAL FUND, COST FACTORS OTHER FACILITES, CDS1 FACTORS ------------------------------- LOCAL PARK MAINTENANCE 14,964 /aC/yr PARKNAY LANDSCAPING 114,221 /ac/yr COMMUNITY PARK N/A/ac/yr MEDIAN LANUSCAPING 114 221 /ac/yr STREET LIGHTS (ILLUM/MAIN() }III /light/yr ROAD FUND, RAINIENANCE COST FACTORS ------------------------------------ STREET MAINTENANCE/REPLACENENT 13,350 /larro fit/yr Oil ILOOUI FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YtAm: YEAR: YEAR: 1 2 3 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 (1e XIOOO) 1991-95 1995-96 1916-91 1191-90 1998-99 1199-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-32 2001-04 2004-05 2005-06 ------------------------------ ------ -- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- - ------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- GENERAL FUND, PARK FACILITIES MAINTENANCE r LOCAL PARK MAINTENANCE 10 $is Its 125 $25 ISO $s0 150 $50 ISO 150 $so COMMUNITY PARK MAINTENANCE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A TOTAL GENERAL FUND PARK MAINTENANCE COSTS: f0 Its Its 125 175 150 $50 150 1S0 $so 150 150 a ffllf of tatfataaf tiff,,aaaiaaaalaaiaiaiiiia.33iai.iif.i.3....L....i..............i..Ga3..iia:f LIIii.ii lii..L..3i33...i................._.___._._...__._____.._..........._..__._..__._.______..__ ROAD FUND. RIGHT OF WAY MAINTENANCE CROSS GAP CONNECTOR 10 10 10 10 10 10 50 $0 SO f0 10 10 ARTERIALS 10 1 12 18 123 125 t'1 $21 121 $71 121 12*1 LOCAL STREETS FO 6 17 26 134 117 {a0 110 $40 140 140 140 i TOTAL ROAD FUND FACILITIES RAINTENANCE COSTS: It 110 129 111 SS? 162 167 161 $61 $67 167 $61 flfaiifa,aaaaaa,,a■a,ataafailaa...L3aiiataiaiL3LL LS-.LCiii.ti..S.i.3.II.:i..-....ai.3a.ii....i......i.L..-.Si..a...s.Li3..i.i.................................................................... SiRfEi LANDSCAPING 6 LIGHTING MAINTENANCE 11658 1 {1 PARKWAY STREET LIG05CAPllINi 10 Ii8 2/ 37 141 152 156 1tI6 156 J�e $s0 1)6 63 STREET L16HT5 TOTAL STREET LANDSCAPING i LIGHTING COSTS 12 125 hl lies 1140 $IS3 T161 116) 116i 1165 sibs 1165 faaffaaaffaaisas saasafaaiL3■a3ataaa:aaaasiL3iss......::ai::::Ssaas:::L3i: YULE A-9 TAKE A-9 03/11/12 MTLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (1500) FIR IUSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN (1500) - FIR SUNNARY Of RECURRING FISCAL INPACTS IAV10 IAUSSIG&ASSOCIATES, INC. TO CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH: GENERAL FUND AND ROAD FUND ••••••• PROPERTY TAX INCNLASE ASSUNP11141S GENERAL FUND AMO ROAD fUNO REVENUE • ----------•---------------•------ INCREASE ASSUMPTION: 0.0% ' '••NONE •' GENERAL FUND AND ROAD FUND COST • INCREASE ASSUMPTION: 0.0% • BII I L(IUU1 FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: Yi1R; 1 2 3 1 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 (Is x1000) 1994-15 1995-96 1116-17 1997-98 1998-91 1199 00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-32 2001_04 2001-05 2005-06 2006_01 -------------------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------- ------- ------ ------- CITY GENERAL FUND 6 ROAD FUND ONGOING REVENUES 1369 1652 ss1,503 s2,091 12,611 2,812 1,011 13,013 13,002 12,995 12,989 12,991 12,919 ONGOING COSTS • 141 i1,556 12,060 11,123 f2,111 2,853 �2.941 12,158 1?,155 1?.953 $2,950 12.150 12.950 ANNUAL REVENUE/COST RATIO 7.93 0.42 0.77 0.17 0.97 1.00 1.02 ).07 1.02 1.01 1.01 1.01 1,01 ANNUAL ONGOING SURPLUS/ DEFICIT) 1121 101 (1S51 1 11 ) $10 15S 116 11? 119 III 1?9 ) S (11(110 (I1550CUNULATIVE SURPLUS/(DEFICIT 123 (11,139) (1(,1 (11,480) (11.475) (11,119) (11,JJ7) (11.290) (11,?61) (11,23S) 9.....tt•tt•tt............•lilt..........•..ZIII-.=.z...... 3...........Z....iii...•33..i....3.............:::L:............._._...L......3.___._-._......_-. • INCLUDES ANY COSTS ASSOCIATED 1111H POTENTIAL LANDSCAPE AND LIGHIING UISIRICI.